Conversation with a Conservative

Beacon of Freedom

2020-02-10T22:05:00.001-07:00

While I was driving today, I was scanning the horizon up ahead of me. I noticed the Wasatch Mountains were a beautiful, cold gray on a February afternoon. The beautiful blue and gray colors of the majestic mountains were contrasted in one small spot by an American flag. A single beam of sun split the clouds and rested directly on the flag. It appeared to be ablaze as it was illuminated by the sun.

I rushed to stop and grab a picture of that flag in its full blazing glory, but the shaft of sunlight that illuminated it slipped beyond the flag just as I stopped my car.

I found that imagery, however fleeting, to be quite symbolic. The hope and promise that is the American dream should burn bright. The background that is the rest of the world’s nations is not necessarily dismal, but the hue that is the rest of the world - our neighbors, allies, and friends throughout the world - like the majestic Wasatch Mountains, is actually quite beautiful and magnificent in its own regard. But the standard of liberty that the United States has the honor of carrying should stand bright to all who can see it shine.

I also found significant symbolism in how rapidly that bright blaze faded away. We must always stand vigilant, safeguarding liberty and freedom. The guiding light that the American ideal provides has the potential to slip away more rapidly than we may realize.

I choose not to telegraph my own political viewpoints with this post as they would potentially diminish the meaning of the underlying message. What I truly wish to convey and wish all Americans would recognize is that we Americans have an individual responsibility to do what we can to protect and uphold those fragile ideals that enable the American dream for our own sake and for the sake of those around us. The significant responsibility of supporting and standing up for what it means to be an American rests squarely upon our shoulders.

Just as that flag burned bright before the mountains behind it, we as individuals and as a nation must stand bright as a beacon to the rest of the world of the opportunities and possibilities are available to those who embrace liberty, freedom, and place the magnificent rights that are bestowed upon us by our creator above all else.

F*** You, I like Guns - A Response

2018-02-18T20:04:00.002-07:00

There's an article circulating entitled, "F** you, I like guns"

Written by a self-identified "big liberal, kind of a socialist, really," it's no surprise that it's anti-gun. It's relatively well-written, but is filled with logical fallacies and advocates a so-called solution that will solve nothing. Rather than just post a response, I felt it more appropriate to put responses in-line.

So here goes:

----------

America, can we talk? Let’s just cut the shit for once and actually talk about what’s going on without blustering and pretending we’re actually doing a good job at adulting as a country right now. We’re not. We’re really screwing this whole society thing up, and we have to do better. (amen, sister!) We don’t have a choice. People are dying. At this rate, it’s not if your kids, or mine, are involved in a school shooting, it’s when. One of these happens every 60 hours on average in the US. (Wait, what? A school shooting in less than every three days? For real? You can't possibly be talking about that discredited “Everytown” claim that there have been 18 school shootings in 2018, could you? Digging through the numbers reveals that there were actually 5 incidents in 2018 that occurred during school hours and 4 that one would consider a “school shooting.” Four horrible, inexcusable monstrosities in which an individual brutally cut short the lives of their peers. Whether there are eighteen shootings or just one does not change the serious nature of this topic, nor the need to discuss appropriate action. But if we're going to discuss the issues, let's discuss the actual issue, not conflate them with fear-mongering and dishonest tactics.) If you think it can’t affect you, you’re wrong. Dead wrong. So let’s talk.

I’ll start. I’m an Army veteran. (Ditto, but that makes you an authority on what?) I like M-4’s, which are, for all practical purposes, an AR-15, just with a few extra features that people almost never use anyway. (Whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop the bus! Did you just try to gloss over the fact that an M4 has either a three-round burst or full-auto function (depending upon the specific model) and an AR-15 doesn't? Are you trying to capitalize on your audience's potential ignorance of the mechanics of firearms and try to get them to equate the two? Did you perhaps hope that your audience wouldn't realize that an AR-15 is actually the “demilitarized” variant of an M-4, rendering it no different than any semi-automatic firearm with extended magazine capability? I mean, seriously, didn't we just talk about dishonest tactics?) I’d say at least 70% of my formal weapons training is on that exact rifle, with the other 30% being split between various and sundry (redundant much?) machineguns and grenade launchers. (Grenade launchers were my fav. Love the M19) My experience is pretty representative of soldiers of my era. Most of us are really good with an M-4 (to be honest, I beg to differ, I'd say that most soldiers are actually pretty poor marksmen, but that doesn't really change the issue, so whatever), and most of us like it at least reasonably well, because it is an objectively good rifle. I was good with an M-4, really good. (good on you) I earned the Expert badge every time I went to the range, starting in Basic Training. This isn’t uncommon. (again, disagree, but whatever) I can name dozens of other soldiers/veterans I know personally who can say the exact same thing. This rifle is surprisingly easy to use, completely idiot-proof really, has next to no recoil, comes apart and cleans up like a dream, and is light to carry around (agreed). I’m probably more accurate with it than I would be with pretty much any other weapon in existence. I like this rifle a lot. I like marksmanship as a sport. (Me too. Preach!) When I was in the military, I enjoyed combining these two things as often as they’d let me. (Which is WAY less often than most civilians realize)

With all that said, enough is enough. My knee jerk reaction is to consider weapons like the AR-15 no big deal because it is my default setting. It’s where my training lies. It is my normal, because I learned how to fire a rifle IN THE ARMY. You know, while I may only have shot plastic targets on the ranges of Texas, Georgia, and Missouri, that’s not what those weapons were designed for, and those targets weren’t shaped like deer. They were shaped like people. (Wait, so certain shapes of target are only made for certain guns? I've been shooting steel circles with my LR-308 for years. I'VE BEEN DOING IT ALL WRONG!) Sometimes we even put little hats on them. You learn to take a gut shot, “center mass”, because it’s a bigger target than the head, (true) and also because if you maim the enemy soldier rather than killing him cleanly, more of his buddies will come out and get him, and you can shoot them, too. He’ll die of those injuries, but it’ll take him a while, giving you the chance to pick off as many of his compadres as you can. That’s how my Drill Sergeant explained it anyway. I’m sure there are many schools of thought on it. The fact is, though, when I went through my marksmanship training in the US Army, I was not learning how to be a competition shooter in the Olympics, or a good hunter. I was being taught how to kill people as efficiently as possible, and that was never a secret. (Well, yeah. If you're a soldier, one of your most basic skillsets must be to kill the enemy.)

As an avowed pacifist now, it turns my stomach to even type the above words, but can you refute them? I can’t. Every weapon that a US Army soldier uses has the express purpose of killing human beings. (The purpose of any weapon, whether in the hands of the US soldier or Mother Teresa, is to injure, defeat or destroy. That's what categorizes them as weapons. Our troops aren't over there on a field trip. They're sent there to kill the enemy) That is what they are made for. The choice rifle for years has been some variant of what civilians are sold as an AR-15. Whether it was an M-4 or an M-16 matters little. The function is the same, and so is the purpose. These are not deer rifles. They are not target rifles. They are people killing rifles. (Don't confuse the intent with the instrument. A rifle in the hand of a hunter is a hunting rifle; in the hands of a professional marksman, it's a glorified paper punch; in the hand of a soldier, then for his or her sake it had damn well better be a killing machine. Hell, a fork in the hand of a US soldier in combat ought be turned into a people-killing fork) Let’s stop pretending they’re not.

With this in mind, is anybody surprised that nearly every mass shooter in recent US history has used an AR-15 to commit their crime? (Finally, we get to the point) And why wouldn’t they? High capacity magazine (available for numerous weapons), ease of loading and unloading (same), almost no recoil (the 223 in general has low-recoil, but the buffer-spring does take away what little punch it had left, though a good muzzle brake can do the same for most any firearm), really accurate even without a scope (we can argue minutia of what makes a rifle accurate and which model is more accurate than which, but in reality a well-built AR-15 is not more accurate than most any other well-built rifle, and truly, is less accurate than many other firearms just as readily-available), but numerous scopes available for high precision (you can slap a scope on most any gun, sister.), great from a distance or up close, easy to carry (No easier than any other rifle and WAY harder to carry than a good pistol. I don't see anybody declaring their Bushmaster a “carry-piece.”), and readily available. (again, not any more “available” than most any other kind of legal firearm) You can buy one at Wal-Mart, or just about any sports store, and since they’re long guns, I don’t believe you have to be any more than 18 years old with a valid ID. (and pass a background check, of course. Don't gloss over those pesky facts again!) This rifle was made for the modern mass shooter, especially the young one. (Wow, way to jump to a conclusion) If he could custom design a weapon to suit his sinister purposes, he couldn’t do a better job than Armalite did with this one already. (Again, the AR-15 is functionally no different than any other modern semi-automatic rifle.)

This rifle is so deadly and so easy to use that no civilian should be able to get their hands on one. (Again, there is nothing inherent to the AR-15 that makes this rifle fundamentally more deadly than others. It is simply the most popular sporting rifle around currently. If an SKS, M1A1, or M14 were more popular today, then they'd be the topic of our discussion, not the AR-15.) We simply don’t need these things in society at large. (We need the AR-15 no more or less than we need any other firearm.) I always find it interesting that when I was in the Army, and part of my job was to be incredibly proficient with this exact weapon, I never carried one at any point in garrison other than at the range. Our rifles lived in the arms room, cleaned and oiled, ready for the next range day or deployment. We didn’t carry them around just because we liked them. (Besides a handful of activists who inconvenience themselves by lugging their AR-15's to assert their 2^nd amendment rights, nobody “carries around” their AR just 'cause. It's not exactly a fashion accessory.) We didn’t bluster on about barracks defense and our second amendment rights. (You must have simply hung out with a different crowd than what you label the “gun-nuts”. Military servicemen and women are simply a segment of the general population. There are both 2^nd amendment advocates and people who advocate for its alteration or even absolution in the military, just like in the society from which these servicemembers originate) We tucked our rifles away in the arms room until the next time we needed them, just as it had been done since the Army’s inception. (Soldiers have no choice but to “tuck away” their issued firearms at the armory. Regardless of this misdirect, that's precisely what a responsible firearm owner does anyway. He or she puts his or her firearm in its safe until he/she next needs it. Again, I fail to see you're point here) The military police protected us from threats in garrison. They had 9 mm Berettas to carry. They were the only soldiers who carry weapons in garrison. We trusted them to protect us, and they delivered. With notably rare exceptions, this system has worked well. (Except for those rare exceptions that eventually led to the DoD quietly allowing soldiers to carry their concealed firearms for personal protection in late 2016. Probably because they realized that having armed personnel who can respond to an incident can end a shooting spree much more quickly than an unarmed populace that has to wait for an MP to show up) There are fewer shootings on Army posts than in society in general, probably because soldiers are actively discouraged from walking around with rifles, despite being impeccably well trained with them. (First, there's a culture of camaraderie among soldiers that doesn't exist in larger society. There's a common purpose, a brotherhood, if you will. Doing harm to your brother is even more unthinkable than doing harm to a stranger. Second, the second amendment doesn't apply the to soldiers the way that it does to the general populace. Soldiers are required to register every firearms with garrison and are required to keep them in the armory if living in the barracks and in a locked safe if living elsewhere, with the exception of the concealed carry exception previously mentioned. They are subject to inspections at any time. Third, non-military are absolutely forbidden from entering post with a firearm, and all vehicles and personnel are subject to search at entry control points.) Perchance, we could have the largely untrained civilian population take a page from that book? (I pity the individual who would choose a world where police search your vehicle every time you enter town, require you to declare your possessions, and will come into your home at any time to ensure your compliance. But then again, you are a self-described socialist)

I understand that people want to be able to own guns. That’s ok. We just need to really think about how we’re managing this. Yes, we have to manage it, just as we manage car ownership. (We do manage gun ownership) People have to get a license to operate a car, and if you operate a car without a license, you’re going to get in trouble for that. (Cars have not been asserted as protected by the constitution by the supreme court) We manage all things in society that can pose a danger to other people by their misuse. (And that works so well) In addition to cars, we manage drugs (horribly), alcohol, exotic animals (there are certain zip codes where you can’t own Serval cats, for example) (Aside from the fact that exotic animals have an instinctual drive to escape captivity and, if predatory, to hunt and kill (last time I checked, my firearms aren't beating down my safe walls and striving to hunt prey while I'm away), exotic animal ownership is not a constitutional right), and fireworks, among other things. We restrict what types of businesses can operate in which zones of the city or county. We have a whole system of permitting for just about any activity a person wants to conduct (so lack of freedom in one area of life justifies it in another? Seems a bit Orwellian) since those activities could affect others, and we realize, as a society, that we need to try to minimize the risk to other people that comes from the chosen activities of those around them in which they have no say. Gun ownership is the one thing our country collectively refuses to manage, and the result is a lot of dead people. (Gun ownership IS managed, or at least management is attempted. Felons, abusers, mentally ill, and others are prohibited from firearm ownership. Persons must pass a background check to purchase a firearm legally. The Sutherland Springs shooter should NOT have passed his background check, but due to DoD not reporting his domestic abuse, did anyway. Before we decide on new gun restrictions, let's focus on more competently enforcing the laws that we already have.)

I can’t drive a Formula One car to work. (If you modify it to be street-legal you absolutely could. Lola did it with the T97. It's kind of like demilitarizing an M-4 into an AR-15) It would be really cool to be able to do that, and I could probably cut my commute time by a lot. Hey, I’m a good driver, a responsible Formula One owner. You shouldn’t be scared to be on the freeway next to me as I zip around you at 140 MPH, leaving your Mazda in a cloud of dust! (Did you really just compare someone's responsible use of an AR-15 to your irresponsible use of an automobile? Driving your car like a madman is not a realistic comparison to a sportsman taking his rifle to the range) Why are you scared? Cars don’t kill people. People kill people. (Exactly, like idiots who drive 140 on the freeway.) Doesn’t this sound like bullshit? It is bullshit, and everybody knows. Not one person I know would argue non-ironically that Formula One cars on the freeway are a good idea. (I actually think legal formula one cars on the freeway would be awesome to see; however, Formula One racing on an active freeway is reckless. Get the difference?) Yet, these same people will say it’s totally ok to own the firearm equivalent because, in the words of comedian Jim Jeffries, “fuck you, I like guns”. (Thanks for deciding what I would say. I don't generally curse, by the way. And who's Jim Jeffries anyway?)

Yes, yes, I hear you now. We have a second amendment to the constitution, which must be held sacrosanct over all other amendments. (It's not sacrosanct over all others, though it's fair to say it helps to serve as an insurance policy that protects the others. Your right to free speech, like this drivel, is just as important as my right to a firearm.) Dude. No. The constitution was made to be a malleable document. (Only to be changed through constitutional amendment, not the whims of opinion. Your interpretation, thankfully, does not decide its meaning. Only the supreme court is granted that power, and they've spoken on this topic.) It’s intentionally vague. We can enact gun control without infringing on the right to bear arms. (I beg to differ. Any restriction on a right is an infringement by its very nature. ) You can have your deer rifle. You can have your shotgun that you love to shoot clay pigeons with. You can have your target pistol. Get a license. Get a training course. Recertify at a predetermined interval. (And by that line of logic, we should be required take civics tests before being allowed to vote. After all, an uninformed voting base is way more dangerous to America's welfare than a guy with a gun. But we wouldn't do that because such a restriction is also an infringement on the right to vote) You do not need a military grade rifle. You don’t. There’s no excuse. (Again with the equivocating the AR-15 to the M-4. They're almost the same, except for that pesky rapid fire part you so conveniently omitted)

“But we’re supposed to protect against tyranny! I need the same weapons the military would come at me with!” Dude. You know where I can get an Apache helicopter and a Paladin?! Hook a girl up! Seriously, though, do you really think you’d be able to hold off the government with an individual level weapon? Because you wouldn’t. One grenade, and you’re toast. Don’t have these illusions of standing up to the government, and needing military style rifles for that purpose. You’re not going to stand up to the government with this thing. They’d take you out in about half a second. (For all of our military might, the Vietcong, Somali warlords, and the Taliban have put up quite the fight. While your correct that a direct face-off between dudes with AR-15s and a bunch of tanks and fighter jets would be suicidal, that's not the point. The point is that military suppression of the citizens of an armed populace would require immensely more bloodshed than an unarmed one. It's certainly a deterrent.)

Let’s be honest. You just want a cool toy, and for the vast majority of people, that’s all an AR-15 is. (Right, and right) It’s something fun to take to the range and put some really wicked holes in a piece of paper. Good for you. I know how enjoyable that is. I’m sure for a certain percentage of people, they might not kill anyone driving a Formula One car down the freeway, or owning a Cheetah as a pet, or setting off professional grade fireworks without a permit. Some people are good with this stuff, and some people are lucky, but those cases don’t negate the overall rule. Military style rifles have been the choice du jour in the incidents that have made our country the mass shootings capitol of the world. Formula One cars aren’t good for commuting. Cheetahs are bitey. Professional grade fireworks will probably take your hand off. All but one of these are common sense to the average American. Let’s fix that. Be honest, you don’t need that AR-15. (Not the point; it's my right to own one) Nobody does. Society needs them gone, no matter how good you may be with yours. Kids are dying, and it’s time to stop fucking around.

-------

Your initial prognosis is correct: society is broken.

It's almost cliché, but even I, a guy in his mid 30's, can remember a day when guns were in racks in the back of trucks in the school parking lot. I kept a rifle in my truck so I could go shoot with buddies after school or maybe catch a few jackrabbits on my way home. Yet neither I nor my friends would ever have dreamed of harming another person with the gun in the back of the truck. Now, there are fewer than ever firearms on school property, but mass shootings are on the rise.

The gun is not the problem. We all know it, but we seem to refuse to admit it. Somehow, we've lost respect for one another. Somehow, value for human life has become less than it ought to be. For some reason, we now glorify killing in our media, but are conveniently insulated from the actual realities of death.

We need to try to fix our society, not run around banning the implements borne by the manifestations of society's ills. Yes, the AR-15's popularity has made it the implement of a mass shooter today, but banning it won't stop evil men from committing evil acts. The next most popular firearm will take its place, then the next, and so on. If firearms are banned, then pressure-cooker bombs, vehicle attacks, and knife attacks will persist or increase.

Society seems determined to refuse to believe that evil exists within it. Instead, we delude ourselves into believing that it's not our fault, but that of an inanimate object.

Vets Before Refugees - Not for This Vet

2017-02-05T08:29:00.002-07:00

It's been nearly 5 years since I posted anything. I honestly would have thought that Trump was the topic that would have brought my opinions to the page, but it turns out there's something else that pushed past (though I'm pretty confident something on The Donald will end up making its way to a post).Over the past few weeks, I've noticed a trend that is increasingly gaining traction: the "Vets before refugees" movement. And as a veteran, as a conservative, and, frankly, as an American, it pisses me off.

As a veteran I get that a portion of us have seen, experienced, or done some legitimately damaging shit. Some of us have sacrificed life, others have sacrificed limb, and a still others have sacrificed conscience in their countries service, leaving scars both visible and invisible. I'm not stranger to the frustration that comes from having an anxiety attack over events that occurred in years past or fearing that you might hurt yourself or someone you love because of some mental or emotional scars that you're struggling to come to terms with. And these veterans have every claim to our nation's compassion and assistance while they heal.
But I didn't enlist to fight for a country that has lost its humanity!

I am in no way calling for America to open its borders and allow all who call themselves refugees to enter. First, the need to properly vet refugees for immigration is real. America's vetting process (even before the advent of Trump's so-called "extreme vetting") is pretty thorough, and there are absolutely times when the priority of our nation's security may prohibit it from allowing the immigration of persons who fails the process or simply cannot be properly vetted. Second, America's capacity to house these individuals and to facilitate their integration into society must also be brought to consideration.

Immigration aside, there are ways to provide aid to those who need it. The US both privately and publicly provides valuable humanitarian assistance and aid to refugee camps across the world. And yes, of course such assistance comes at a cost that must be assessed and budgeted appropriately. And if the need outweighs the financial ability of our nations government and people to assist (and it will), at least we as citizens and a nation can say that we tried. But the notion that America has a binary choice between helping its veterans in need and lending assistance to refugees, our world's most desperate segment of population, is an outright lie.

I'd wager that the a large portion of those who keep posting and sharing the Vets Before Refugees nonsense have done little to nothing to actually, tangibly assist either party. To you, I say, "Stop using me as a scapegoat for your lack of charity." Quit using your bumper-sticker patriotism as a pathetic alibi. On what planet does someone claiming to be an American or even a human being for that matter, feel that the plight of a refugee is one to ignore?

And to my brothers and sisters in arms, on what planet does a veteran feel this way? Veterans, the segment of our population that are frequently put on a pedestal for an inclination to Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, and Honor (among other things), are absolutely the last people who should pound their chest and shout, "Me first!" They should be doing the exact opposite, shouting "Help him" instead. I for one, enlisted not only with the patriotic intention to serve my country, but with the desire to serve those who needed our help most.

Well here they are! Let's not ignore them.

Happy Memorial Day

2012-05-27T03:55:00.000-06:00

Happy Memorial Day.

Please take some time to do something in remembrance of our Nation's fallen.

Closet Anti-Capitalists

2012-01-10T23:42:00.000-07:00

Is it just me, or have some of our GOP candidates let their closet anti-capitalist out? Specifically, I'm referring to attacks on Mitt Romney in regards to recent statements, claims that a CEO or manager would be a poor president, and his record as a venture capitalist at Bain Capital.

Romney the Terminator

Some of the candidates have taken some of Mitt's comments out of context when speaking about health care companies. This seems like a lame attack done in poor taste.

What Romney actually said was:

“I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.”

What the other candidates claimed Romney said was: “I like being able to fire people.”

When I first heard the comment, I was reminded of a chick flick that I watched once that starred a guy who's job was to fire people. He was a real-life terminator. Rick Perry's witty, albeit petty attempt to create a ringtone out of the phrase deserves points for merit, but Huntsman telling people that the guy who headed a firm that owns a huge chunk of his daddy's company is unelectable for the comments falls short. Incidentally, could the reason that Huntsman Sr hasn't written kiddo's campaign a giant check be the fact that he's a business partner with a firm closely associated with an opponent?

As you can see, they took less than a sentence out of an entire paragraph spoken specifically about a relationship with an unsatisfactory service provider out of context and applied it in general principle to paint the man as the evil job-cutting equivalent of It's a Wonderful Life's Mr. Potter.

Obviously, the other candidates were hoping to take the image of Romney as a Wall Street fat cat that OWS has painted for him and run with it. If they can make him seem out of touch or ruthless, then they feel they might be able to detract some votes from him.

Unfortunately, I feel that this particular attack is petty and poorly formulated. I'm not surprised that Romney's words were taken out of context. These are politicians that we're working with. They all do it, all the time. Romney did it, too in an attack ad on President Obama. The issue that I take with the comments is not so much that they're out of context, but that they're fruitless. They don't do any real damage. In fact, they might help Romney.

First, a guy who “likes to fire people” in the private sector really isn't a threat to me in public office. The president doesn't own my company. It's not like he'll call on America's job creators and tell them to stop. At worst, he'll fire his own staff repeatedly, which will in the grand scheme of things have little effect on someone detached from the President's Palace.

Second, even if we take the “like to fire people” comments and run with them further, I think that many people would celebrate the possibility that Romney would fire regulators at the EPA or stay-at-home IRS code-writers.

Additionally, someone could take him saying, “I like to be able to fire people” as a union busting comment. After all, it's harder to fire a union worker than a non-union one. I don't think many conservatives would balk at that.

At the weakest, this argument implies that Romney would be a cost-cutter. He'd trim the fat. Doesn't break my heart.

A Manager Doesn't Belong in the White House

At last Saturday night's GOP primary debate in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum defended remarks he made, claiming that a “manager” would make a poor president. He claims that what America needs is a leader, not a manager. A weak argument, if you ask me. In most cases, the words leader and manager can be used interchangeably. Isn't a good leader a good manager? Isn't a good manager a good leader?

At the debate, Romney seized on the weakness of the argument and promptly threw the comments back in Santorum's face by saying he's out of touch with the leadership qualities that a guy who “managed” the 2002 Olympics back to success must possess and painted Santorum as a government guy who has no idea what the private sector really needs.

Mitt the Job-Cutter

I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around a group of supposed "free-market conservatives" who attack a venture-capital firm. After all, isn't venture-capitalism the charged, bold, high-risk / high-reward essence of the American capitalist idea?

Of course a company that focuses on leveraged buyouts, takeovers, and start-ups will see bankruptcies, restructurings and downsizing over the course of their operations. They invest in at-risk companies - the companies that typical banks and financiers won't touch. Of course guy who ran a company that has invested in over 250 businesses, many of which were considered risky or failing, will have to fire people. Of course some businesses will file for bankruptcy, and of course some pay-cuts will probably occur.

I had a close experience with a buy-out recently. I sell building products. Two of my closest competitors recently received investments from venture-capital firms. One company ended up filing for bankruptcy, but after some restructuring, they came out solvent after shedding losing divisions of their company. The other business eventually failed entirely.

Without the assistance of their financiers, neither company would have had a shot at regaining success. Unfortunately, one company failed outright. That doesn't mean that the idea of venture-capitalism is a failure, but that its risky. It is possible, albeit difficult to turn a troubled asset around.

Romney should get ahead of this topic and tout it as a claim to fame. He helped found the company that directed startup, purchase, restructuring, and profitability of companies like Staples, Dominos, Burger King, Huntsman Corporation, Toys'R'us, and more. He should use this record to help his campaign image as a reformer, organizer, the savior of distressed organizations. The guy who has what it takes to fix Washington's financial problems.

The Real Issues

Romney's record as a venture-capitalist is not his issue. His inconsistent political record is. He's a flip-flopper, he's shaky on abortion, he's shaky on gay marriage, he instituted what was used as a basis for Obama-care. He's got as much baggage as any of the candidates, but his opponents seem to focus on his free-market loving, venture-capitalist record, which makes them seem anti-capitalist. And last time I checked, republicans, especially conservative republicans aren't anti-capitalist.

The Bachmann Doctrine

2011-11-21T20:33:00.001-07:00

This post isn't about Bachmann specifically (though it sounds kind of catchy). It's really about the foreign policy of all of our current potential White House residents.

I watched the recent CBS News / National Journal GOP Presidential Primary debate with a bit of anticipation. It was the first debate that focused on foreign policy, and I was excited to see what would the candidates would have to say about their views.

I had prepared and submitted my questions to CBS News before the debate, hoping (as this was supposed to be an interactive debate), that I might see my questions asked. Alas, apparently water-boarding and should we still be in Afghanistan were the only questions that the moderators felt important to ask.

I joke, to an extent, because there were some great foreign policy questions asked, but the debate questions felt a bit too broad and unspecific for my taste. I really wanted to get to the nitty-gritty, so to speak, about where Romney or Paul or Bachmann stood on real issues.

---

My questions were as follows:

1. Evidence suggests that Russia is assisting Iran in its development of a non-civilian nuclear program. Would you, as Commander in Chief, implement any sort of economic sanctions against Russia in response to this practice?

I really wanted to know if our presidential hopefuls had the guts to call out a giant like Russia on a national venue. It's one thing to say that Lybia or Syria is doing wrong, but to call out a country like Russia for questionable conduct requires real cajones (or ovaries). Not only did I want to see if they would call out a powerhouse like Russia, but what route would they take to deal with the problem, e.g. sanctions, negotiations, embargoes, etc.

2. In his campaign, then candidate Barack Obama promised to close the detention centers at Guantanamo Bay. As president and Commander in Chief, what would your policy regarding Guantanamo Bay and the detainees held there be? The existence of GTMO seemed to be a silent issue.

Every time the topic comes up, water-boarding or sleep deprivation seem to take over the discussion. But people seem to have already taken sides on the "enhanced interrogation techniques" issue and the standard GOP response seems to be "I'm okay with it as long as the guy is bad and the situation is serious." Not the best response in my opinion, but getting a different one from a republican seems to be nearly impossible. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about water-boarding; I really want to know what our next president (if he/she comes from that pool) intends to do with GTMO itself. Will it be kept open or will it be closed? If it is to be closed, what will we do with the detainees there? Will they ever be tried? If so, will they be tried in civilian courts or military tribunals?

3. As seen in Oakland and in other areas of our country, the Occupy Wall Street movement has turned somewhat violent, has shut down business in some areas, and is now contemplating direct action against banks and other financial institutions. At what point do you see civil unrest as a domestic threat to our national security and what sort of action would you take to resolve such a threat?

Civil unrest and domestic threats must be dealt with. It threatens public safety, damages property, and demands the full attention of an already heavily burdened police force. When peaceful protests turn into riots, they must be stopped. I really want to know where our GOP contenders perceive the line between protest and riot to be and what they are prepared to do to handle such.

4.Admiral Mike Mullen has said that our national debt is the greatest threat to the United States' national security. If this is true, then to get our debt under control, serious spending cuts must be made. In an effort to reduce the security threat our deficit poses, would you, as Commander in Chief, implement cuts in the defense budget at all, and if so, where?

When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff views the debt as our biggest security threat, then I honestly believe that it should be addressed, even if some cuts happen in his department. Additionally, I wanted to test our candidates to see if they viewed defense as a sacred cow. Would they cut defense anywhere? The current defense budget is just shy of a trillion dollar program. You can't tell me that there is no room for savings there.

5. United States' controversial involvement in Libya and long presence in Iraq and Afghanistan raise the issue of whether involvement in these theaters is necessary. As Commander in Chief, how will you balance decisive and aggressive protection of our national security interests with the responsible use of military force?

While I honestly feel that military action in Afghanistan was justified, and that there are good arguments for our entry in Iraq as well, I feel that America's forces are deployed too often and for too long. After serving in Afghanistan I got a first-hand taste of what a war with no clear objective is like.

I personally believe that if our commander in chief cannot clearly articulate what our mission is in a theater of operations and if he cannot clearly show how our current presence in a theater is supporting that mission, then our troops have no business being there. Such is the case with Afghanistan in my opinion. The clearest explanation of the mission there is to root out Al Qaeda. As Al Qaeda is now primarily in Pakistan and the Arabian Peninsula, what are we doing in Afghanistan? If our mission is to build up the Afghan government, then why do we have so many combat troops there? If it's to train the Afghan forces, then why are our forces still so segregated?

It is both irresponsible to endanger the lives of so many good men and women without a clearly stated objective, and to keep them in danger a day after the objective has been achieved.

6. The Transportation Security Agency has an $8.1 billion budget, yet still seems to take a reactionary stance when it comes to terror. Someone puts a bomb in a shoe, so we take off shoes; someone tries to blow up their a bomb in their underwear, so we have either be patted down or undergo a full-body scan; etc. As Commander in Chief, how would you change the strategy of our airport and port security from reactionary to proactive and forward acting?

With a multi-billion dollar budget, you would think that the TSA would be able to find a way to keep our airports secure without feeling up 5 year olds kids and 95 year old grandmas.

7. Constructing a fence that covers our nations nearly 2,000 mile long southern border would likely take years and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Is a fence the best use of our taxpayers' dollars when combating illegal immigration? If not, what is?

I don't think a complete ocean to ocean fence is the solution to America's illegal immigration problem. While there are many areas that should be fenced that currently are not, I feel that the root causes of illegal immigration need to be addressed more than a fence needs to be constructed. For example, we need stricter enforcement of current immigration law combined with an overhaul of our current immigration policy. Combining a policy that makes it easier to come here the right way and harder to stay here the if you came the wrong way while making crossing the southern border more difficult is the logical solution in my opinion.

8. In his farewell address, George Washington argued that the United States should avoid permanent alliance with foreign nations. Is the United States' alliance with Israel permanent? Hypothetically, do you ever see yourself as Commander in Chief withdrawing support for Israel, and under what circumstance?

That ought to get some people riled up. But I ask the people who bristle to this question: Wouldn't you want to know at what point a presidential hopeful would withdraw support for a key ally like Israel?

I believe that no alliance should be viewed as permanent; however, that doesn't mean that an alliance can't last forever. In other words, as long as supporting Israel serves America's security interests, then an alliance makes sense. But never should any country be led to believe that America's backing is something to be taken for granted.

9. Congressman Paul, do you ever see a situation that justifies military action against a foreign threat?

I really want to know at what point Ron Paul would ask for congressional approval to declare war or take military action against a foreign threat.

---

There are probably a billion other questions worth asking, but these were mine. And, unfortunately, none where directly addressed in the last foreign policy debate. Maybe next time.

OWS: Tea Party's Crazy Cousin?

2011-11-02T01:17:00.000-06:00

What exactly is the occupy Wall Street movement? Is it disenfranchisement with the wealthy? Wall Street? Student loans? Unemployment? The current economic conditions?

I believe that the OWS movement parallels the tea party movement in this regard. In the early days of the tea party movement, there was no clear-cut agenda. Was it frustration with taxes? Bailouts? Social policies? Government in general?

While the specific goals and objectives of the tea party movement varied from place to place and from individual to individual there was a resonating tone of dissatisfaction with an increasingly growing and increasingly intrusive government. Similarly, there is a broader, more generic message coming from the OWS movement that also seems to echo dissatisfaction with the government.

But that's basically where the similarities end.

To me, OWS is the liberal response to the Tea Party, a movement that starts in the same place then heads in the opposite direction. It's as if liberal organizers like Adbusters are trying to say to Karl Rove and Dick Armey, "See, we can create a peaceful grass-roots protest, too." Except OWS protests actually turn violent.

I considered delving into speculation over whether the OWS movement is timed to help Obama politically or if it's secretly funded by spooky dude George Soros, but I'll leave that to Glenn Beck.

While the tea party wants, generally, less government, the OWS movement seems to want more. While the tea party movement favors lower taxes, the OWS movement seems to favor a higher tax rate, at least for the rich. Basically, it's the polar opposite of its tricorn hat-wearing cousin. Both movements purport to be grass-root and spontaneous, both were spawned by dissatisfaction with the current social, economic, and political climate, and both lack clear-cut objectives and leadership; however, while one thinks government is a large part of the problem, the other seems to think that government is the solution.

While OWS lacks clear cut, uniform objectives, there are some recurring themes in the movement:

1 - Wall Street seems to be above the law and in some cases, seems to run the government.

2 - Capitalism is a broken system and corporations are evil.

3 - There is too much income inequality. The rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.

4 - Education costs too much

Wall Street is above the law and in some cases seems to run the government

I agree. The bailouts, the solyndra scandal, our current tax system, GE, and a slew of other gaffs, screw-ups and phony regulations reveal a government that gets in bed with big business and starts picking favorites. Banks and businesses that are failing just keep getting more cash from government coffers (BoA, Citi, GM), politicians dabble in venture capitalism with taxpayer money (Solyndra), and tax-codes are re-written and manipulated to reward friends of those in power (GE). All this is funded by taxpayer money - money that could have been used to pay down our deficit, build roads and bridges and for other…ahem…shovel ready jobs, and otherwise improve the quality of life of our nation's inhabitants.

Unfortunately, the OWS solution is irresponsible. OWS would have us empower the Wall Street-controlled government to implement tighter financial regulations and oversee a greater portion of economic activity in our country. In other words, OWS wants to give a corrupt government more government power, because they think that will make things better.

If a parent sees a child who is terrorizing others with a stick, he takes it away from the child. OWS is trying to give the kid a hammer instead of a stick. So long as the government is "run" by Wall Street, anything the government does will be designed and manipulated by Wall Street. New financial regulation from a Wall Street Lobbyist-controlled government will regulate everybody but the ones who really need the regulation, because the kids with the sticks will be the ones writing the rules.

The only way for the situation to improve is for us, the electorate, to take the hammer away. We must demand that politicians get out of bed with bankers and to fire the ones who won't.

Capitalism is a broken system and corporations are evil

Seriously? That old chestnut again? Capitalism is not evil or broken - it has generated more wealth and prosperity and improved the quality of life for more people than any other system. If you doubt that, move to Afghanistan where it's near impossible to find toilet paper and running water, then blog about your discomfort on the iPad or iPhone most Afghans have never heard of on the internet that is barely accessible there. Too many have been so spoiled by our exorbitant living standards that they take them for granted and assume that they just are and have nothing to do with our economic system.

Capitalism works because it allows anybody to create a good or a service that is of value to others and to make a living off it. The more valuable that good or service is, the more demand there is for it, and the better a living that can be made off of it. This is not evil - it's common sense. Yes, there will be winners and losers, but at least in a capitalist system, the deck is not stacked. It always works better when the consumer, not central planners decide what's valuable and what's not.

Just about every dart we see thrown at "capitalism" should actually be thrown at "crony capitalism."

Bailouts - not capitalism.
Government backed loans for solar cell producers that sell product for less than it costs to make - definitely not capitalism. Corporations that gross billions in profit but pay nothing in taxes because they "know people" - crony capitalism.
Mortgage companies that give loans to anybody and everybody because the government told them to, then liquidate that risk by bundling them into "mortgage backed securities" - you guessed it, not capitalism.
Corporations aren't evil either, just misunderstood. Corporations are simply legal representations of individuals or groups. Instead of "Steve", it's "Steve's Hot and Tasty Coffee." Not scary unless you spill it on yourself.

If a corporation is evil, it's only evil because its principals are. And in a capitalist system, nobody is forcing you to support the evil corporations. You can always buy your coffee at Starbucks instead.

There is too much income inequality.

The rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.

I agree - kind of. There is income inequality in our nation. Some people are rich, some are poor, and most aren't rich or poor.

Frankly, I don't care that Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg is richer than me. The only thing that upsets me is that I didn't think of Facebook before the Winklevoss twins did. Who names their kid Winklevoss or a Zuckerberg anyway?

If anything, I applaud the vast sums of money that Gates accrued. Why? Well for one, if he can do it, then maybe I can, too. Secondly, he didn't steal it, he earned it.

Income inequality would only be an issue if the rich got richer at the expense of the poor - that is, if the rich got richer while the poor got poorer. While it is true that America's rich are accruing wealth at a faster rate then its poor, America's poor are also getting richer. American poor enjoy cell phones, microwaves, indoor plumbing, cable TV, government subsidized housing, healthcare, transportation and food, and many other luxuries. In fact, America's poor are among the richest in the world. Just think, would you rather be poor in America or Zimbabwe?

Education costs too much

Education doesn't cost too much - college does.

Okay, that was a smart-alek answer. It's undeniable that education costs are rising. I personally think that education is one of the next bubbles. We're all encouraged to go to college so we can get a good job. And many people have been convinced that student loans are the only way to pay for school. As demand for an education increases, the prices will, too. Eventually costs will equalize, or the bubble will burst as more and more students fail to repay their loans. Until then, those who want higher education will pay higher costs for it.

As with any expense, the cost has to be weighed against the benefits and the risk. Benefits - better jobs with better paychecks (hopefully). The risk - not finding a good-paying job. Getting a student loan only compounds that risk. What happens when you're unemployed with $34,000 in student loans (the average student debt of a current college graduate)? Student loans are virtually impossible to expunge, so they will almost definitely follow you for life, even after a bankruptcy.

OWS would have student loans forgiven. I would have students who make smarter financial choices.

I believe that a student should focus on a career path that will give him the best chances of financial success as well as personal gratification and only borrow as much as he can confidently pay back even if he never finds a good job. Then find other means to pay for the remainder of education costs (work, scholarships, grants, etc).

To the OWS protester who borrowed $90,000 for an education in anthropology and history I ask, "Are you stupid? What possessed you to think that would land you a job that would enable you to pay that kind of money back?"

--
Recently, there has been speculation that the OWS crowd is more conservative than it thinks it is. I disagree. While OWS shares some of the same concerns as the tea party, the tea party presses for increased personal responsibility while OWS tries to run from it.

Remembering 9/11 - The Day That Changed Us All

2011-09-11T10:19:00.008-06:00

September 11, 2001 is a fateful day that is etched into the memories of all those who were witness to the day’s events. It's a day that has changed a nation and changed all of its citizens forever. Yet even as I write this, I am reminded of news reports that I have heard that mention schools that either refuse to or have failed to introduce lessons on 9/11 and its significance to our nation as part of their curriculum. While the event can be painfully difficult to recount, it is crucial to help our nation’s youth understand the events. Just as recounting Pearl Harbor, the Holocaust, the evils of communism and fascism, and other atrocities that have occurred in our nation’s and our world’s history is important, so is recounting the terrors of 9/11.

As I had stated in an earlier post regarding this tragic event:

The day we forget is the day we dishonor all the heroes who gave their lives to save so many on that fateful day. The moment we forget is the moment we dishonor all the men and women who have forsaken loved ones to toil in sweat and blood in a land they don't know to defend our liberties from a terrible foe. When we forget, we forget who we are. And we forget what monsters man can become.

We must remember it because it changed us, and in many ways redefined us.

The changes, adverse and positive, that our nation underwent over such a short period were dramatic. In come cases, they were short-lived. I have heard reports of there being no crimes reported in Manhattan for nearly 72 hrs after the event. Church attendance nationwide increased, but has since sunk back to pre-9/11 levels. Military recruitment saw a sharp, but temporary boost.

Other effects of the atrocities of that day 10 years ago still affect us and will continue to affect us for years to come. Our nation, to this day, is involved in several wars and military actions overseas in which we would not be involved if not for 9/11. Our nation’s airports, ports, military bases, government installations, and other locations have instituted and continue to practice security measures that would have been considered unnecessary before the attacks. An entire agency (DHS) was created in response to the attacks. Our nation’s citizens are more security conscious than ever, too. The “shoe-bomber” and the “times square bomber” were both stopped or reported by regular citizens as a result of a heightened sense of security.

These events have also scarred us. Not long ago, I heard a news reporter mention that he mistook thunder he heard while waiting for a flight at an airport as a bomb blast. Many people in DC initially believed the earthquake the area recently experienced to be some sort of a terrorist attack. As a result of my tour in Afghanistan, which would not have occurred but for 9/11, I still cringe at the sight of debris on the side of road while driving. Thousands of other servicemen who have fought in what are beginning to be known as “wars of injury” have other issues with which they must cope as an indirect result of these attacks.

While many of the effects of the terrorist attacks 10 years ago are negative, I still believe that the long-lasting effects are more positive than not. People seem to fly flags more often. Pride in our nations and its military is stronger than before. Even in dissent against military action, rarely is ill spoken of the troops that are involved in said engagements. While evil men thought they would destroy our spirits that day, the actually brought us closer together, made us stronger.

As a few excerpts from an Associated Press article written by Tamara Lush read:

“On a day when buildings fell, heroes rose." – George W. Bush

“On a grand scale, Sept. 11 provided us with a heroism of humanity. It showed that many people are capable of profound qualities of heroism and self-sacrifice. It is really the content of the human spirit.” – Al Mascherino, Roman Catholic Priest

While 9/11 may have showed us the horrific lows to which man may descend, it also showed us the strength of human character and the goodness and strength that is within all of us.

We're all Terrorists Now

2011-08-02T22:50:00.009-06:00

So the latest smear campaign against the tea party is to contort its effort to reign in government spending and get our deficit under control as economic terrorism. I'm so happy to see that now that Gabrielle Giffords can walk and is casting votes in Washington, we are all free to up the violent rhetoric ante. On a side note, since Gabby voted for the debt increase, does that make her one of the Economic Terrorists? I'm sure she'd appreciate that label.

Frankly, when Van Jones and the Communist Party USA call the tea party terrorists, anybody who stands behind genuine deficit reduction should wear it as a badge of honor. Call us what you want, but we know that you're just mad that we're raining on your spending parade.

Name-calling aside, let's review why the debate over this particular debt ceiling increase was so intense. First, this is the biggest debt ceiling increase in American history (taking the place of the previous biggest increase in history, which was also instituted under President Obama). Why so big? One reason: it gives President Obama a free ride beyond 2012, eliminating one more reason for his opponents to interrupt his campaign speeches to debate Washington's spending addiction. Additionally, and more importantly, several credit rating agencies had threatened to downgrade America's AAA bond rating if the debt deal wasn't done in a manner that addressed America's spending and deficit sufficiently over the long term. These are bond rating agencies, mind you, not Tea Party Terrorist Sleeper Cells. So, call the Tea Party what you want, but they were simply trying to be the grown ups in the room and do something that gave our country a realistic shot at preserving the AAA rating. The first bill that those homegrown terrorists produced was the "Cut, Cap, and Balance" bill. It actually met S&P's and Moody's criteria for preservation of the AAA rating because it reduced spending by more than the $4 trillion benchmark that was required while passing a debt limit increase. In fact, it's the only bill that purported to do so.

Now that the revised Boehner plan passed, Moody's was gracious enough to confirm our AAA rating, but still assigned a negative outlook on America's fiscal future. Fitch's and S&P have yet to confirm our rating, but instead say that they are uncertain if we've done enough to address the problem. Translation: We've averted the immediate crisis and successfully kicked the can down the road.

Many in the tea party are upset with this bill, and understandably so. They want drastic reductions in spending, budget cuts, deficit reduction, a flat tax, energy independence, a return of the gold standard, and a complete change in the way Washington works, and they want it NOW! Unfortunately (or fortunately) that's not how Washington works. They have to realize that we're turning a boat, nay, a corporate-owned, jet-carrying yacht around here. Progress will be slow.

However, according to Krauthammer, one of the great conservative thinkers, the Tea Party should chalk this up as a victory. Why? Because he is thinking in terms of battles over the course of a war (pardon the violent rhetoric, I wouldn't want to be confused for a christian militant) instead of winning the war outright in one great, epic battle in which Gandalf the Gray comes to save the Hobbits from certain doom (or is it Aslan?). If conservatives play their cards right, they will continue to win small battle after battle until perhaps we've won a sizable victory.

Anders Behring Breivik - Christian Jihadist?

2011-07-26T23:21:00.008-06:00

A bomb goes off in Oslo, then a madman in a police uniform shoots up a youth camp. Shortly after the attack, a Jihadist organization that may or may not exist claimed responsibility for the act of terror. Then, a 180 degree turn occurs: Breivik, the "jihadist", isn't a Muslim, but a Christian! The news spreads like wildfire.

So, is Breivik a Christian? Clinton said it best, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Breivik claims he's a Christian. His Facebook page said he is (before it was taken down). So I guess we could call him a self-described Christian. But does calling oneself something make it so? I could call myself a millionaire, but I don't think it would make my bank account any fatter. But Christianity isn't really objective, like dollars in a bank account. It's subjective, it's a belief, interpreted differently by every person who claims to be a Christian.

Do Christians think Breivik is Christian? The answer seems to be a somewhat wobbly "not really". Time after time after time opinion writers, scholars, and talking heads and denounce the act and define it as un-Christian, but many of the attempts to define Breivik himself as not a Christian seem almost petty. Why?

What he did in Norway last week was anything but Christian, and it certainly wasn't "Christ-like", and in the end, Breivik's level of Christianity is something that will be settled between himself and Christ.

While there are days when my Christianity is not as manifest as others, and times when I don't act very Christian at all, that doesn't make me "not" a Christian. Judas Iscariot was a Christian, too. Christianity is a belief structure, a theology, a religious inclination, not a guarantee of Christ-like action.

So I'll say what so many seem to be hesitant to say:

Breivik is a nut, a loon, a maniac, a killer, a despicable person, scum of the earth, disturbed, hateful, and....a Christian.

50% Surtax on Former Government Employees Say What!?

2011-07-07T15:01:00.012-06:00

The other day I came across a suggestion that was posted on Pajamas Media's Instapundit blog by a Glenn Reynolds.

The author jokingly suggested that perhaps a good way for Obama to raise revenue would be to place a 50% surtax on the first 5 years of income of former government employees above what they made at their position within the government. For example, if an employee leaves a government job that pays $50,000 for a job that pays $75,000 in the private sector, then he should pay $12,500 in excise tax (half of the $25,000 difference between his government job and his private sector job) for the next 5 years. While I must reaffirm that the author said this jokingly, I assume that his suggestion was posted with the intent that it would "scare" people out of going to work for the government.

While it is obvious that there is quite a bit of fat that can be trimmed from the government's payroll, I take strong issue with that suggestion. This guy seems to imply in his post that working for the federal government should be penalized. If you read between the lines, it seems like he thinks it is a bad thing or that it is offensive for somebody to work for the federal government.

I'm not exactly a lobbyist for federal workers. For example, in a recent post I said:

While I actually have a hard time believing that government employees deserve a better retirement than everybody else, I can understand the argument. Firemen rescue, policemen protect, sanitation workers sanitize..., etc. I understand that our lives would not to be the same if public employees didn't show up to work. Then again, our lives might change just as drastically if all the nation's Walmart employees decided to stay home for a week or two.

But arguing that public employees are not any more crucial to society than private ones is not the same thing as degrading them by implying that their existence should somehow be penalized.

Ben Stein, one of my favorite commentators, stated once:

There is a basic assumption among many of us conservatives that bothers me. Basically, the assumption is that if a person is a government employee, then he or she is lazy and shiftless, a parasite just eating up tax dollars without doing anything...To put it mildly, this is unfair and not even in the ballpark of what's true...I am sure there are many government employees who waste money but so are there wasteful private sector people. Let's take our conservative noses out of the air and stop sneering at the people who serve us in the civil service. We would be awfully sad if they were gone, even the ones in the Department of Motor Vehicles.

While we were arguing from different directions. Our point is the same, I believe. Employees in both private and public sectors serve vital roles in our society. Without them, our lives would undoubtedly be more difficult and both groups should be treated well.

I do still believe, however, that since the private sector basically funds the public one. Everybody's best interest is served in increasing effiiciency and lowering costs within the public sector - as long as effectiveness is not lost.

So in rebuttal to the condescending suggestion of Reynolds, I suggest the following:

A 50% deduction on the taxable income on the first 5 years of income of former government employees above what they made at their position within the government. This deduction would be applicable to up to 50% of that employee's actual salary in his former government position. For example, if an employee leaves a government job that pays $50,000 for a job that pays $75,000 in the private sector, then he should pay income tax on $62,500 of his income ($12,500 less, or half of the $25,000 difference between his government job and his private sector job) for the next 5 years, but is not eligible for a tax deduction of more than $25,000 (half of his original $50,000 paycheck). Of course, in order to qualify, they would have to be hired before today's date and leave their position in the government after today's date.

I contend that this solution would have a more positive impact on our economic situation. We all know that it is tax revenue that pays for the government worker's salary, so incentivising a departure from the public to private sector would in the end save the taxpayers money and in fact increase revenue to the government. There is also no stigma against public employees created by this kind of a policy. It's in effect a way of saying, "Thanks for your service to your country, now let me give you a head start on your venture into the private sector."

What say you?

How Sacred is Your Cow?

2011-06-27T22:48:00.006-06:00

The other day I caught a snippet of Frank Luntz' focus group on the Fox News program Hannity. Luntz's workshops are of great interest to me. It's a chance to escape the noise of the media and focus on what concerns real live Americans. In this focus group, Rand Paul was invited as a guest. He spoke regarding deficits, spending, the military, among other things.

While watching the video, you probably noticed that Rand Paul's 2010 advertisement polled extremely well, and he continued to poll well in the focus group.

I had to ask myself, "Why does this guy poll so well?"

He's not exactly a centrist. He opposes same sex marriage, opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest, wants to eliminate the federal reserve, wants to get rid of the Department of Education, and opposes all forms of gun control. He's about as right wing as they come.

I understand why he would poll well among strong conservatives, but why among people who are more centrist or left-leaning? I know the focus group was on Faux News, as some call it, but Frank Luntz's focus group's are designed to have a good spread of Republicans, Democrats and Independents. How could the democrats find him as appealing as the republicans do?

Now, I had to remember that the guy wasn't speaking about gay marriage or gun control, but about the economy and our military, and he polled especially well when speaking on the economy. So I decided to analyze that particular point (I'll open the can of worms that is the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lybia later). Apparently, Rand Paul's position regarding the budget appeals to a lot of Americans - Democrat and Republican.

So what is it that is so appealing about Rand Paul's economic view? I believe it is the fact that he appears to be without Sacred Cows. Rand rejects the proposition that there is any government program that is so great or so important that there is no way on earth that we can possibly afford to cut, modify, or eliminate it. He strikes the note that we all know in our guts - If we're to take serious steps toward deficit reduction and a balanced budget, then ALL spending must be put on the table.

While a conservative politician might think that a strong national defense is more important to our nation than food stamps, if he is to sound credible to the American people who are dead serious about deficit reduction and a balanced budget, he must be willing to put even his "pet programs" on the chopping block. Until he is willing to do that, he won't be seen as genuinely determined to get spending under control.

Today conservative radio host Mark Levin linked to an article in the Washington Post entitled: GOP Compromise on Debt: Cut Military Spending? When posting the link, Levin says: GOP debt reduction plan. Unilateral disarmament?

I have no problem with Levin saying that. He's a commentator. But if a politician had equated cutting wasteful military spending (it does exist, just ask anybody who has spent some time in the military) to unilateral disarmament, he might score points with some conservatives, but he would also succeed in alienating himself from the millions of Americans who know that wasteful spending can be found even in the defense budget.

As most warm-blooded creatures with a pulse know, we are entering campaign season. The politicians who are vying at the chance to become the leader of the free world can take a cue from little old Rand Paul. They might want to look at their fiscal policy and ask themselves, "Just how sacred are my cows?" If they find that they are unwilling to even have a conversation regarding cuts in spending in a specific program, whether it's social security, medicare, or defense spending, then they may have just uncovered a serious stumbling block to their campaign.

Soak the Rich (in blood)

2011-04-11T18:20:00.003-06:00

See what would happen if we took Michael Moore's advice and took every penny that belongs to the Uber-Rich and ran with it.

Class warfare debunked.

H/T Nate.

Passing the Budget Buck

2011-04-06T22:51:00.008-06:00

Passing the buck just may not work anymore.

Only 2 days remain for the guys on the hill to reach a compromise that will bridge the $28 Billion gap between the democrat's $33 Billion cutting budget proposal and the republican's $61 Billion cutting budget proposal before the looming government "shutdown" occurs. Even as a shutdown looms, I can't help but feel that many in our capital that seem to be gearing up to use it for political gain.

Howard Dean was quoted recently as saying that he would be "quietly rooting" for a shutdown, because "[he knows] who's going to get blamed." Chuck Schumer let slip that he'd been "instructed" by his caucus to label Boehner and the GOP as "extreme" for proposing $61 Billion in cuts from a bloated $3.8 Trillion budget that has a $1.4 Trillion shortfall. Scott Brown called the cuts "irresponsible".

Extreme? Irresponsible? Let's talk about that for a second.

Isn't a $1.4 Trillion deficit irresponsible? Isn't it irresponsible for the democrats to fail to present a 2011 budget at all when they controlled the house, senate and white house? Isn't it a bit extreme for those same democrats to turn around and take pot shots at the republican-led congress that is spearheading the effort to salvage what should have been their budget in the first place? Isn't it extremely irresponsible to prefer to use a shutdown as political fodder instead of confronting your failure to perform your basic duty as my public representative in the first place?

But the old-school political class is counting on our poor memory. They are hoping that they can peg the blame for a shutdown on the more conservative republicans. They'll say, "The Republicans didn't compromise with us, and failed to pass a budget. They forced the government to shut down." Obama would undoubtedly campaign on that lie. What they don't realize is that the American public's memory is improving. We know who's budget this is. And we know who's trying to salvage it. They also don't realize that the American public is increasingly aware of the severity of the mess that our debt problem has created. Their nefarious plan to manipulate this potential crisis might just backfire.

A recent Rasmussen poll shows that 57% of Americans would prefer a shutdown to increased spending. Only 36% think averting a shutdown is more important than reducing spending. Another poll shows that while 37% of people would blame republicans for a shutdown, a total of 42% would blame democrats and President Obama.

The old-schoolers don't seem to realize just how serious Americans are about debt reduction. The fact that Paul Ryan is willing to take the debate from talks of tens of billions of dollars on this budget to talks of TRILLIONS of dollars with next year's budget is testament to that.

The heart of the matter is, the political landscape has changed. More Americans are serious about reducing the deficit than ever. And those who fail to recognize that fact may just suffer the political consequences.

Crappy Regulations

2011-03-24T21:12:00.007-06:00

A couple days ago I read an article by John Stossel in which he referred the reader to a rant that Rand Paul, well, ranted, at the Energy Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary.

What exactly is a deputy assistant secretary anyway? Couldn't a deputy be defined as an assistant to one in authority? And isn't secretary another way of saying "office assistant"? Does that make a deputy assistant secretary an assistant assistant assistant?

Anyway, Rand Paul tore into the Assistant Assistant Assistant of the Energy Department because he feels that in its effort to protect the environment it restricts consumers' choices. He complained that he now had a toilet that he had to flush repeatedly because it doesn't work right. His old toilets worked, but the new ones don't. Now, I too laughed to myself and silently suggested to Rand that if he eat less meat, drink fruit juice, and try to regulate his bowel movements instead of holding it in until the last minute he would find that his toilet works better. But Rand is really on to something. His somewhat comical rant shed light on the unintended consequences of the elitist "ruling class".

Now before you call me anti-intellectual or think that I'm opposed to smart people in the government, let's get something straight. "Elitism", in my intended use of the word here, is the notion that a specific group or class of people is somehow superior to the general population and therefore should make the decisions for everybody else. I'm not exactly in favor of failed "hookt on fonix" students running our country. But then again, maybe that's why congressmen won't read the bills that are presented to them.

Back to my point. Rand is upset really because he is a full-blooded libertarian. And, as a libertarian, he feels that he should have absolute freedom of choice. He feels it is his right as a human being to be free to do whatever he wants as long as his actions do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. While I might not be as strong a libertarian as Rand is, I also have quite the libertarian streak. Honestly, where does the executive branch of our government get the right to tell us how many gallons of water are in our toilets, what kind of lights to use, how much water comes out of our shower heads, what kind of washing machines we buy, or how much corn is in our gas?

Now, I honestly believe that the EPA, Energy Department, and other regulatory bodies mean well when they regulate the world to death, but just because they mean well doesn't mean that all ends well. I already mentioned earlier that in their attempt to save mother earth, these regulatory bodies restrict our choices and, consequently, our freedoms - one unintended consequence that irks many (myself included) - but are there other unintended consequences as well?

I would have forgotten about the Rand Paul potty rant if not for something I found in my hotel room tonight.

That's right, Rand Paul sneaked a sign into my hotel room just so I'd blog about poop disposal machines. Crap!

The saddest part of all of this is that the toilet really required one of those "courtesy flushes" when I said goodbye to yesterday's pizza. (I really do say goodbye sometimes)

And that got me to to thinking. As the sign alludes, my low consumption toilet was created to save the environment. Yet I wonder how flushing my 1.6 gallon toilet twice, instead of flushing my 3.5 gallon toilet once really does anything to save the environment. Was saving a cup and a half of water when I use the toilet really worth the time, effort, and money involved in the making of and compliance to this regulation?

Are there other counter-productive, albeit well-intended regulations out there?

In a previous blog entry, I went into great detail about how in its effort to "clean up coal", the EPA suspended one of the most effective CO2 reduction and waste recycling programs in existence (the Coal Combustion Products Partnership). Is this not another example of the unintended consequences that come with over-regulation?

And don't forget ethanol:

I imagine that there's quite an exhaustive list of counter-productive government programs and regulations. It's probably a lot longer than the list of productive ones.

Rude Awakening

2011-02-27T00:15:00.024-07:00

I've decided to share another chapter of my so-called "memoirs". These events are more personal to me than most of the deployment. This, honestly, is the first time I've ever shared them with anybody since coming home.

Once again, as some things are sensitive in nature, and as some people would not like to have their identities revealed, I've changed the names of all locations and people.

Rude Awakening

I don’t believe that war changes people. It magnifies them.

----------------------

There’s a reason that the unofficial motto of the armed forces is hurry up and wait. I’d been sitting at this airbase waiting for a chopper to take me and my gear to FOB K for hours – days actually.

I was moving because my team had been ordered to relocate to FOB K. K was in a somewhat more hostile area than where we were currently based. Don’t get me wrong, it’s no Bakara Market or Korengal Valley, but it was definitely less conducive to source operations than where we’d been stationed. It’s where our source Muhammed Wasir was spotted by the Taliban talking to another HumInt team, where he was tracked down, and where he was brutally murdered by some Taliban thugs. Despite our relaying Muhammed Wasir’s death and explaining to the powers that be that we would have enormous difficulty running operations in the region, we were told to go.

So we went.

I’d already spent a few weeks there with Jake and Pat. Pat hated it there, but he always had a bad attitude. Jake and I were trying to make a more positive experience out of it. We’d gone out on missions every day, had established contact with the police chief, district governor, NDS, and other local officials, and were trying to feel out the best way to gather some intel on insurgent activities in the area. Headway was limited, but we were making some progress. The battalion S-2 (the people directly in charge of us), apparently, was relatively pleased with what we were giving them, because they called down and asked us to make the move permanent.

My team was still back at FOB K. I’d asked them to stay there while I returned to our previous FOB to get our gear. Getting back, getting the gear, and making my way to the region’s main airbase had been easy enough. But for whatever reason, getting from the airbase back to K was proving difficult. Finally, at about 16:00 I was informed that a chopper would be there to make the run that night. I would be able to leave the airbase at about 03:00 the next morning. Lovely. I left the bulk of my stuff at the “airport” and went back to the transient tent to get some shuteye.

At 02:00 I woke up with a start. It was one of those creepy moments when you wake up a couple seconds before your alarm goes off. Just as I looked at my watch it started making noise at me. I grabbed my gear and walked over to the staging area at the side of the runway.

Just as I got there I saw two Chinooks touch down. I was late. I ran up to the shack, grabbed what of my gear I could and got in line along side one of the birds. The person in front of me in line was a starry-eyed private. You could tell by his clean gear and the completely lost look on his face that he’d just arrived in country. I told him to watch my gear while I ran back and got the rest. He kind of stared at me instead of answering. I was traveling heavy and didn’t have time to deal with him, so I ran back and got the last pieces of my gear: a great big wooden crate that weighed about 200 lbs and a couple of duffels. Once I got all the gear to the line by the chopper I had the same private help me load it up. He obliged me as I was in civilian clothes and he probably didn’t have the guts to say no.

There are distinct advantages to being in country as a HumInt guy that wears civilian clothes and grows a beard. Half the soldiers think you’re in Special Forces and stay out of your way, and about a quarter don’t know what to think and stay out of your way. The unfortunate part about being a HumInt guy that wears civilian clothes and grows a beard is that about a quarter of the soldiers around you think you ARE a Special Forces guy and want to ask you about all the guys you’ve killed. Lucky for me, this guy was from the former group. Rather than bombard me with questions, he simply helped get my gear on the chopper.

While we were getting ready to take off, I noticed two Kiowa helicopters that were staging nearby. “What’s that about?” I hollered at the crew chief over the roar of the engines. “Tell you in a second!” He shouted, tapping his headset to tell me he was listening to a radio transmission. After a minute, he got up and shouted at the group in the bird, “Listen up! There’s been a change of plans!”

“There’s been an attack on the police station near FOB K. Instead of hitting the FOBs in the order we have scheduled, we’re going to FOB K first. We’re flying straight into FOB K, dropping you, and getting out. No load or passenger pickup. We might be going in hot, so I want all of you who are going to K to get off this bird the second it touches down. Am I clear?!”

“Hooah!” came the replies.

At first glance, you’d think that Chinooks are great, slow, lumbering beasts. In reality, they are quite the opposite. They are among the fastest helicopter in use by the US military. Their twin turboshaft engines give them more power than most helicopters. It easily could outrun our Kiowa escorts - and nearly did. When we took off, my stomach hit the floor. I’d punched up fast before, but that was REAL fast. We rocketed off to the southwest.

On ordinary supply runs, it takes about 45 minutes to an hour to get from base to base. This time it took all of 20 minutes. We were running nearly full bore. I had a great view of the trip as I was sitting at the back of the bird and could look right out the open hatch. Nighttime in Afghanistan is not the same as night in America. With virtually no electricity and a very sparse population, it truly is dark at night – almost oppressively so. As we circled the FOB before landing, I could see the glow of a large fire to the south of the base. I couldn’t tell what it was at that distance, but it seemed to be in the vicinity of the police station.

As the chopper came down to land I felt adrenaline start to surge. I had a lot of gear and knew that in the coming confusion I wasn’t going to get any help. I put on a duffel and grabbed my crate. I’d landed at the LZ at FOB K a few times and knew that I’d have to run about 75 yards with all that gear, run back, grab my other two duffels and get out of the way before the choppers finished dumping the soldiers so they could take off. As soon as I felt the impact from landing I bolted. The adrenaline helped. I was up and off the ramp and running before anybody else on the chopper was standing. I got to the edge of the LZ and saw Zi, my interpreter, there. “Watch this stuff!” I shouted, then ran back to the bird.

When I got back, I saw that everybody was still sitting down. The crew chief just looked at me and shrugged in frustration. The soldiers on this bird had just arrived in country. They were all a bunch of lower ranking kids who’d never been in a position without somebody to tell them what to do. I wasn’t in charge, but somebody had to do something. “FOB K! Off the bird and over there!” I shouted at the top of my lungs, pointing to the edge of the LZ. That did it. They all sprang to life as if my words had spontaneously animated them. I stood off to one side behind one of the engines, letting its exhaust warm me as the new soldiers poured off the bird. When the last soldier got off I ran up the ramp, grabbed my remaining bags, and ran back. I wasn’t 50 feet away when the bird took off, sandblasting me with sand and gravel.

When I got back to my gear, Jake was there with Zi. They’d managed to commandeer a small 4-wheeler and had loaded my crate and duffel onto it. I shook Jakes hand, dropped another duffel on the now overloaded 4-wheeler, and ran up the hill to our hut. As Zi drove off, I asked Jake what was going on at the police station. “Captain Shank and Sergeant Smith and the ANA (Afghan National Army) are down there right now! The ANP (Afghan National Police) are pinned down in the station. It looks like they were hit by a carbomb at the gate and are taking fire.” That explained the fire I saw as we came in. “Sergeant Kim’s platoon just left the FOB to go assist.”

Captain Shank was the leader of a whopping two man team. He and Sergeant Smith were the embedded training team in charge of training the Afghan National Army that was located at FOB K. The ANA had its own leadership structure, including an Afghan Captain and First Sergeant that were stationed with the ANA troops at FOB K, but as the ANA had only worked with the US military since 2002, they needed some training.

I dropped my bag off then ran up to the TOC (Tactical Operations Center, Hollywood calls it a command center). The room was crowded with all the FOB’s main players. Most people were watching a monitor that had a live feed from a UAV on it. A commo guy was on a radio with the UAV pilot and SFC Johns was on another radio with the Kiowa pilots and the guys on the ground. He was trying to use the UAV feed to help the guys at the station locate and kill any insurgents still in the fight. We spent the next 50 minutes or so watching the screen, scanning the area trying to pick up signs of guys. For the first 10 minutes or so, we didn’t see any movement. The insurgents had dug in deep and were sitting tight. I think they assumed that if they sat long enough, we’d give up looking. Wrong. These guys were going to pay for attacking the police station.

1st platoon arrived at the scene. When they got there, the ANA had already pushed the opposing force back into a valley near the police station. SFC Johns radioed the platoon leader, Sergeant Kim, and instructed him to have his and Captain Shank’s guys spread out and sweep the valley to flush out any guys who were bedded down.

The valley from where the attack originated was about three kilometers long and maybe 600 meters wide. It was really more of a canyon, but we called it a valley because the locals used it as farmland. There was a road that followed the north lip of the canyon. Sergeant Kim had his trucks turn on their lights and follow the road. He had Captain Shank and his ANA soldiers walk the canyon floor and flush out the bad guys. The plan was for the ANA to stay in line, but a few meters behind the trucks up on the canyon rim. This way if anybody popped up, the trucks, the ANA, and the Kiowas could engage them. Shank and the ANA set up quickly. The ANA, albeit a less organized force than the US forces, moved with absolute purpose. They had a good line set up moments after their arrival. Shank set up in the middle of the canyon and positioned each of his two interpreters half-way between himself and either of the canyon walls. He then put Sergeant Smith with one of the interpreters. They could relay his commands to all of the troops. I got the feeling they’d practiced something like this before. Once they were set up, Shank gave word and the group started moving.

It wasn’t a minute later that one of the buildings in the canyon erupted with gunfire. The ANA all hit the dirt and returned fire. With the muzzle flashes coming from the building and the occasional tracer rounds going into it, it took mere seconds for the trucks and the helicopters above to locate the insurgents. It was strange to see the firefight occur from a birds-eye view on our monitor. It was like watching a muted youtube video then hearing the muffled sounds of what was occurring just a mile away a second later. A Kiowa unleashed a rocket on the building and followed it with a blast from its .50 caliber gun. Nothing came from the building afterward. Captain Shank got a status report from all his guys. Nobody was hurt.

The soldiers pushed forward down the canyon toward the east. When the ANA and Captain Shank got to the building, they were amazed by what they found, or didn’t find. Save some still-hot brass, the building was empty. There wasn’t a soul inside. Shank radioed back that there was quite a bit of fresh blood in the building, but that there was nobody inside. An ANA soldier found a blood trail that went out the south side of the building and then turned further east.

They pushed forward for another 15 or 20 minutes. The canyon gradually narrowed and deepened around them. As they approached the narrowest part of the canyon the Kiowa pilot radioed down that he was unable to support them in that area. The canyon was too narrow and too densely forested for him to get a good shot from above the canyon, and the soldiers were getting too close to a village for him to feel comfortable to fire down the canyon. Sergeant Kim radioed in that the trucks were in a similar position. A small road came off the rim down into the canyon not far from where the ANA were staged. Kim ordered the last truck in his group to go down the road and provide what support it could from the canyon floor. Once the truck made its way down to the bottom of the canyon and got in the best position it could, the ANA advanced again.

Almost immediately, an RPG came out the brush and flew past the line of soldiers on the canyon floor and airbursted behind them. The ANA returned fire. Captain Shank ordered his guys to provide covering fire while he, Smith, and a couple of ANA flanked the guys in the brush. Shank’s group circled around to the side of the insurgents’ position. He ordered the main body to cease fire and rushed in with his two men. As they approached, they took fire. Shank and his guys hit the ground to return fire. Then the ground erupted near Shank’s little group.

One of the insurgents had managed to throw a grenade in close proximity to Captain Shank and Sergeant Smith. While the grenade didn’t kill either of them, it blasted them with shrapnel. The two ANA who were with Shank were unhurt. They reacted quickly and rushed the fighting position without the direction of either Shank or Smith. They simply ran in, guns blazing, like something from a Rambo movie. Amazingly it worked. They riddled the two insurgents that were dug in over the berm with bullets. It was overkill, but there was no stopping them.

I don’t believe that war changes people. It magnifies them. Eventually, the big talker is forced to put up or shut up, or there comes a time when the quiet guy in the corner has to show what he’s really made of. With most people, you can predict the outcome, but with others, you’ll be surprised. The next few minutes were excruciating and infuriating to endure. But in that time, I saw absolute courage manifest from the most unlikely of people.

When Captain Shank went down, chaos ensued. Luckily, the two ANA soldiers that were with him managed to take out the insurgents who were close to them. But the fight wasn’t over. Gun shots were coming from further down the valley somewhere. The ANA soldiers didn’t have night vision, nor could they pick out from where the bullets were coming. They scattered and took cover, but nobody returned fire. The ANA didn’t have much ammunition, so they were hesitant to shoot unless they knew exactly what they were shooting at. Neither the trucks at the canyon rim nor the Kiowas above were in a good enough vantage point to see down into the canyon to identify where the shots were coming from.

Shank’s panicked voice came in over the radio. We could barely understand him. He said between gasps and moans that he’d been injured and that he was bleeding a lot from his legs and head. He also said that Smith was alive but not responding. He asked for a medevac and for someone to direct his ANA. There was a medic in the truck behind the ANA in the canyon, so Sergeant Kim ordered them to get as close to Shank as possible and for the medic to go assist them. The truck moved a few meters then stopped. The truck commander radioed in that the ground was too soft for the truck and that they were sinking into the mud.

Shank and Smith would have to be carried about a hundred meters back to the truck.

This whole time, the group in the canyon was being peppered with rounds from the unidentified shooter. Sergeant Kim radioed to the truck in the canyon that the have some team members get out and go get Shank and Smith on foot and bring them back to the truck for medevac. On the monitor I watched the back hatch of the MRAP open up. Two soldiers jumped out. The soldiers put the truck between themselves and the direction from where the shots were originating, knelt down in the mud, and froze. Even with the grainy picture on my monitor I could see what was happening. One soldier was pointing down the canyon and the other was shaking his head. Our medic was either too scared or too confused to function. “DO SOMETHING!” I shouted out loud.

As if I had spoken to him instead, an unlikely hero jumped into action. One of Captain Shank’s interpreters, Massoud, stood up in the middle of the field, exposing himself to fire, and shouted to the ANA soldiers around him. He, apparently, ordered them to continue advancing. Once the ANA were moving, he ran ahead of the group to where Shank was lying. I watched in amazement as this thin framed, undernourished Afghan ran across a field, undoubtedly attracting fire from the still unseen shooter, to Captain Shank. Then this man who couldn’t have weighed much more than 100 pounds picked up the 220 pound Smith as well as all his gear, and, stumbling, carried the near 300 pound load to the truck where our medic still sat frozen. Massoud then set Smith down, opened the back of the truck, picked Smith back up, and put him in the truck. He then turned to the medic, and ordered him to help his friend.

Massoud then turned around and ran the hundred meters right back to where Shank was still lying. He again picked up nearly 300 pounds and stumbled back to the truck. After getting the two men to the truck he took Shank’s radio. The small man ran back to the ANA then radioed in his broken English, “I with ANA commander now. What do we do?” Sergeant Kim answered, “You go get that bastard who’s shooting at you!” he ordered.

Massoud, an unarmed civilian interpreter, not an official member of either Afghan or American forces, joined the ANA as they advanced further down the canyon. They identified that the shots were coming from a building within the village and returned fire on the building. Massoud assisted the group marvelously. He served as translator for the ANA commander, relaying the American’s radio transmissions to the ANA commander and translating the ANA commander’s words for the Americans.

When the ANA got to the shooter’s building, he was nowhere to be found. The ANA commander asked if he should keep looking for the guy, but SFC Johns ordered the group return to base instead.

Shank and Smith were evacuated to Baghram. They both survived, but never returned to FOB K. They were redeployed to Germany to recover from their injuries. I hope to see them again. They are men of the highest caliber.

Massoud continued to interpret for Shank and Smith’s replacement. Jake, Pat and I petitioned that Massoud be transferred to our team. Our request was denied. As a gift for his bravery, we bought a beautiful Makarov pistol and holster from the local police chief, smuggled them onto base, and gave them to Massoud. We told him that if he was going to go running into a firefight again he ought to at least be armed when he did it. Even though he was never officially assigned to us, we brought him with us wherever and whenever we could. They way we saw it, we’d be better off knowing that there was a guy like Massoud around.

Exception to the Rule

2011-01-31T21:33:00.003-07:00

The chaos occurring currently in Egypt and the Near-East reminds me of how grateful I am to live in this United States of America. I cannot comprehend how difficult it must be to live in a land where one despot is traded for another. It's disconcerting when of all the parties vying for the power seat, the Muslim Brotherhood, with its ties to Hamas and other Jihadist organizations is seen as what would possibly be the closest thing to a "democracy".

While I'm definitely still young, I have been to quite a few countries over the years (Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Qatar, Russia to name a few). While people do experience varying level of personal freedom is some of these countries, they all pale in comparison to the freedom experienced here. Americans truly are blessed to live where we do.

I sometimes wonder why it is that America's fate has turned out so differently from that of other countries. Is it the American dream? Is it democracy? Is it capitalism? There are many elements in this grand equation, but I think there is one overriding factor:

A well-known Russian author named Mikhail Bulgakov explained the American phenomenon, though unintentionally and indirectly, in his book Heart of a Dog. The book is actually a satire of communist Russia. In the story, a dog undergoes an operation that leads to its development of human-like characteristics. It eventually becomes so humanoid that it is even able to obtain registration (a national ID) and a name. Eventually, though, the man-dog turns back into a dog. The surgeon remarks that this occurred because the subject, despite its humanoid appearance, always had the heart of a dog.

Social change cannot be forced. The shedding of one social structure or government and the donning of another doesn't simply happen overnight and is always in danger of reverting to its original state. The transformation from despotism to a free society is obviously even more difficult. Those in power of course are unwilling to sacrifice it without a fight.

This, I believe, is why nation-building is so ineffective. Sure, an outside force can come into an area and create some semblance of a new government and social structure, but once that outside support is gone, the house of cards will likely come crashing down. There are some exceptions to the rule. America is no doubt the shining example of this.

So why did freedom take hold here? Simple. America as we know it is not the result of an exclusive transformation from one society to another. It was founded on principles of freedom and liberty. As Thomas Paine eluded in common sense, America is the closest instance in known history where a natural society was able to take place. The founders of America were fleeing despotism and dictatorships in search of religious and economic freedom. While there was in fact considerable resistance among the early Americans to fight for the revolution for freedom, the social obstacles were overcome because the residents of this new world were largely those who rejected despotism on principle and had freedom and liberty in their hearts.

In the simplest of terms, America is a fluke. An exception to the rule always in danger of succumbing to nature and reverting to the norm a statist society with a more oppressive government and less personal freedom. We have, as Franklin said, a republic, if we can keep it.

Blame Game

2011-01-10T20:55:00.010-07:00

"We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She's been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why [Gabrielle Giffords] might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona..." - Paul Krugman

"It's not the right,but the left that glorifies criminal behavior and violent imagery." - Rush Limbaugh

"Because I think it's the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business..." - Sheriff Clarence Dupnik

"You could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen..." - Paul Krugman

"The left is coming and will hit us hard on this. We need to push back harder with the simple truth. The shooter was a liberal lunatic." - Judson Phillips

Is it just me, or did we have a list of people and organizations responsible for the tragic shooting in Tucson before we even had a list of names of Jared Laughner's victims? The left says the right is responsible, the right says it's the left's fault. I can't help but wonder if any of these people have based their accusation in fact. Are we to assume that a list of pundits and public speakers are responsible for Laughner's actions?

Wouldn't it be safer to say that the people responsible for what Laughner did are the people who he lists as influential? After some digging, one will find that Laughner had published a list of favorite books on his YouTube channel. On the list - Wizard of Oz, Fahrenheit 451, The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, and The Republic. So, if we follow the facts, then, the real offenders here are not talk radio, but L. Frank Baum, Ray Bradbury, Karl Marx, Hitler, and Plato, right?

Obviously, it's absurd to assume that Plato is responsible for this tragedy. Equally as absurd as it is to assume that Sarah Palin is responsible.

So who is really responsible? JARED LAUGHNER of course!!! Not Sarah Palin, not Rush Limbaugh, not Plato.

It amazes me how so many media-ites and pundits jump at the chance to politicize a tragedy like this. This should be a time of national solidarity as we band together to condemn this atrocity instead of a time to point fingers. It shouldn't be used as an opportunity to blame each other or a map of the US with "cross-hairs" on it, or the voice on the radio. Finger-pointing only further intensifies an already electric situation. I am so happy to see that at least President Obama has taken the high road and asked us all to come together and pray for the victims of this tragedy instead of pointing fingers. I hope that more high profile figures can follow suit.

Is there an underlying theme to all of this that only a few will notice? The fact that many people seem to point to a gamut of causes for this tragedy instead of squarely blaming the actual perpetrator (at least in my eyes) poses a question. We all know who pulled the trigger, but why are so many eager to search for the "man behind the curtain" that made him do it? I know the primary reason for the blame game is that many view this as a chance to advance a political cause, but could it be possible that the search for a puppeteer also indicates a growing lack of emphasis on personal responsibility?

Chapter One

2011-01-09T00:12:00.010-07:00

I'll continue to share bits of my "memoirs" here. I won't share everything before I'm done, but some entries will slip onto my blog.

I hope you enjoy it.

Paradise Lost

Things were great. Life was great. Everything was great. Heck, being in Tampa had made me so agreeable that I was close to thinking that babysitting this bunch of ex-Soviet prima donnas was great. Almost. A shattering glass snapped me out of my Zen-trance. Rustam was throwing a drunken temper tantrum. Apparently his waitress wasn’t being “friendly” enough. He was certainly a pig when he was drunk.

I was stationed in Tampa for the whole month of August. It was my National Guard annual training (AT) for 2007. And I must admit it was about the best AT anybody could ask for. My friends in the artillery or engineers often told me about the weeks they’d spend carting around some base just wasting time. Well, I certainly had a story for them when I got back.

Here I sat, at Hooters, with a bunch of diplomats from former soviet states like Kyrgizstan and Kazakhstan. It might have been odd, but it was interesting, and I was enjoying myself, generally. I’d take an AT of chauffeuring around a bunch of spoiled officers and politicians over sleeping in a tent with a bunch of guys who haven’t showered for two weeks any day, and I even like to camp.

After explaining to Rustam that Hooters was not a strip club and that the nice waitress didn’t understand Russian and would not take her clothes off for him, I convinced my inebriated group to allow me to escort them back to their hotel. This was really a selfish effort on my part as my shift was about to end. Once I got the guys back to the hotel, Sergeant Saunders would take over.

Over the last few weeks I had fallen into a daily routine. I got up at 6 am, had breakfast by 7, attended briefings from 8 until 4 pm with a break for lunch, then took the group out to dinner somewhere at 5 pm. Once dinner was over I’d rush the guys back to the hotel and swap keys with Saunders, who had elected to take the night shift. I gave him the van key in exchange for the keys to our rented Chevrolet Cobalt. Once I had the keys, I was free. Like every other evening, I was off to the beach.

The beach time helped me relax away the stress caused by pulling Rustam off of random women. I’d swim for an hour or so then lie on the beach until the sun went down. Nothing melts the stress away like watching a Gulf sunset. Once I was chillaxed, I’d head back to the hotel. Like I said, life was great. The taxpayers treated me well.

I almost felt guilty about this cushy assignment. Almost. You see, I’d gone on two terrible ATs the previous year. The first was to

Korea

where I nearly froze to death while playing war games and running fake sources as practice for gathering intel on the enemy. My second AT the last year was in Tampa as well. Only last year I worked my tail off. I rigged A/V equipment, babysat diplomats 24/7 and transcribed the previous days briefing notes from Russian into English and English into Russian for half the night. Each day I tried not to nod off while I ran the power point presentations and served as backup translator when the full time State Department translator decided he needed a break. I didn’t get to see Tampa last year. Instead I was in a daze for two weeks then flew home.

Apparently, the bigwigs at last year’s conference liked me. The officer in charge was impressed enough that he awarded me the Joint Service Achievement Medal at the end of the conference. This year, when my unit got the call to send a guy down again, I found out that he had personally requested that I return. I was hesitant to agree to that kind of torture again, but was informed that the conference was much more organized this year. I would not have to translate nor transcribe, nor would I work for 24 hours a day – just 12. This assignment would last a month, I would have a rental car, and would be off on Sundays. Once I realized that I might actually see Tampa this time, I agreed.

Boy, was I glad I had.

Today was Friday, which meant that this week's delegates would fly home tomorrow after going to Busch Gardens. Did I mention that I went to Busch Gardens every weekend? Since the theme park didn’t open until 10, I could get up a bit later than usual tomorrow, which to me meant that I could stay up later tonight. I decided to see a movie.

When I got to the movie theater, I discovered that the only movie playing in the next 20 minutes was Hot Rod. I’d seen the previews and thought it would be a funny, albeit stupid film. When I paid for the $14 ticket, I thought that perhaps this movie thing was a bad idea. It was. Hot Rod was terrible. I’m no movie critic, but you don’t have to be one to hate that flick. I knew I should have just stayed at the beach. About a half hour in, right after Hot Rod had crashed his Moped for the umpteenth time and right before I was about to walk out on my $14 movie, my phone rang. I’d forgotten to silence it. I slipped out of the theater and answered.

“Hello?”

“Specialist Hansen?” I hated being called Specialist. I was only a few months away from being eligible for Sergeant. Couldn’t they just call me that now?

“Yes, sir?” I had a pretty good idea who was calling.

“This is Captain Hanes.” I was beginning to really hate this movie.

I’ve just got word that the other MI battalion is deploying to Afghanistan next year. They need three Human Intelligence Collectors from our unit to go with.”

Yup, this movie officially sucked.

“There are only five of you HumInt guys in my unit and, frankly, I’m not confident in three of them.” He never told me who the three were. “Can you go?”

I never thought that my commanding officer would ask me nicely to go to Afghanistan.

He was really just pretending to ask nicely, though. You see, he was told that he needed volunteers. This was my chance to volunteer by saying yes to a kind request instead of being volun”told” to go.

“Absolutely, sir, I’ll do it. Do you know any specific dates for training and actual deployment yet?” I realized that my voice was a bit shaky.

“No dates and no details yet, just that it’ll be next year. I’ll keep you posted. Out.” Captain Hanes treated telephones like they were radios.

By now I had forgotten about the movie. Instead my mind was flooded with questions as I wandered out of the theater. Where, exactly, would I be going? What would I be doing? Who were the other two guys going with me? Would Sergeant Herman go? I couldn’t stand that creep.

CRAP! What’s my wife going to think? I just volunteered to go to Afghanistan for a year without asking her first.

In my defense, I’d been married for less than a year. I really hadn’t completely settled into the “gotta ask my wife” routine, yet. I decided that I’d better wait until I got back to the hotel and settled down before I called and told her.

When I got back, Saunders was in the lobby. He looked preoccupied. “You going, too?” I asked. He just nodded his reply. At least Saunders was going. He was a stud – nothing like Herman. We sat and talked for the next couple hours. Turns out that Saunders got the call first.

I think Saunders had picked Captain Hanes’ brain until he decided to tell me and whoever the next guy was that he had no details. Saunders got out of Hanes that we would be split up into teams and assigned to different forward operating bases (FOBs). He said that we would actually be running sources and gathering intel. We’d be doing our jobs. It turns out that my time in Korea would turn out to be of some use, after all.

After googling Afghanistan a hundred times, pouring over maps of the region, and picking each other’s brains, we decided to call it a night. I went up to my room and picked up the phone. I had no idea what to say to Nikki. In retrospect, I think I was actually having an anxiety attack. I couldn’t see straight, I couldn’t think straight, I was shaking, I felt cold, and I kept standing up then sitting back down. I put down the phone and decided to call her when I had calmed down. Then I sat and let my mind race until I drifted off to sleep.

I wasn’t in as jovial a mood that Saturday at Busch Gardens. One of the delegates actually asked me what was wrong. I told him that I just hadn’t gotten enough sleep. A half truth. I was still trying to find out how to tell Nikki. I resolved to tell her after the delegates had left for home and I had some free time. Procrastinator.

That afternoon, after seeing off the delegates, I finally called her. Oddly enough, I don’t remember the conversation. I know I told her. I know she wasn’t happy about the news but tried to be understanding and supportive all the same. All I really remember is feeling much better after we had talked. God bless good wives.

I had one more week to go. The Uzbeks were coming to town next week. Once they were gone, it was clean up then home. But that was next week. Right now, I was feeling a bit stressed out. I really wanted to go to the beach.

Pension Tension

2011-01-06T23:24:00.009-07:00

As the 112th congress began its session this week, several historic events occurred:

Right of the bat, history was made when Nancy Pelosi, America's first Old Navy mannequin to serve as Speaker of the House became the first such house minority leader when she handed over the gavel to John Beohner. Boehner made history as well, being the first Oompa Loompa to serve as Speaker of the House. But congress was just getting started.

In an historic display, congress proved to the american people once and for all that (1) it can come to a bi-partisan resolution and (2) congressmen really can read, when it resolved to read the constitution out loud in its entirety. Let's not forget that many congressmen present had to remove the warning labels off their copies of the constitution in order to read them.

The house got to business when a young house member from Utah, Rep Jason Chaffetz, presented a resolution that congress will not bail out states' unfunded pension liabilities. Chaffetz believes that states should be responsible for their own employees' pension plans and should not come looking for a handout when the tap runs dry. A congressman calling for fiscal responsibility, another first.

Anyway, the pension crisis really is a problem. Nationally, the states are harboring over $1,000,000,000,000 in unfunded pension accounts right now. That means that the states have to come up with a million dollars a million times in order to meet the obligations they have promised their future retirees. That's a lot of money, and Jason Chaffetz doesn't want to foot the bill. How selfish.

Chaffetz feels that his state of Utah, named by the pew research center one of the nation's best managed states in 2005 and 2008, should not be punished for its success by having its taxpayers forced into bailing out states that have proven to be fiscally retarded. Like I said, selfish.

I'm amazed at how readily our politicians promise things that they simply can't deliver. Logistics seem to be an afterthought when they're legislating. If they were thinking about logistics, Pittsburgh might have foreseen the hundreds of millions of dollars it may short its retirees. So, here's my logistical solution.

States and municipalities need to quit offering extravagant pension plans and put the employee back in the driver's seat. I was a federal employee for some time, so, though I have bailed out of that runaway train into the private sector, I do have a bit of experience in that arena. Offering to continue to pay an employee a large percentage of his salary for the rest of his life after he gives you 15 or 20 of years of service is absurd. By doing so, you create your own little (or big) ponzi scheme. Eventually, more people are on the government's retirement dole than are paying into the pension system and the system collapses.

While I actually have a hard time believing that government employees deserve a better retirement than everybody else, I can understand the argument. Firemen rescue, policemen protect, sanitation workers sanitize (unless they're from New York), etc. I understand that our lives would not to be the same if public employees didn't show up to work. Then again, our lives might change just as drastically if all the nation's Walmart employees decided to stay home for a week or two.

The solution that would benefit all, as I alluded earlier, is to put the employee in the driver's seat. Rather than offering an elaborate retirement package, governments should offer a great "company match" to its employees 401k accounts. A "company match" of 5% is nearly unheard of in todays corporate climate. I would propose a government match closer to 10% just to be nice. Frankly, I would kill for such a deal. For example, an entry level police officer in Utah can expect to make about $34,500 / year in base salary initially and over twice that if he works for 20+ years. If he puts 10% of his salary into his 401k, that would magically become 20% / month. If he invested that 20% / month at a reasonable 8% rate of return he could expect to have around $500,000 at the end of his 20 years. Considering that the average retirement savings of a new retiree is under $70,000, I'd say he would be in a considerably better position that the average Joe. And since we all know that all police officers die at age 59, that $500,000 would let him retire like a king.

I know it sounds harsh. But reality is harsh. And, the fact is, by promising pension plans that they simply cannot deliver, many municipalities have put themselves into a position in which, unless they get a bailout, they may not be able to give their retirees anything at all. I'd much rather be realistic and have something to eat when I retire than rely on a near bankrupt pension plan for my late-life income. Just sayin'.

All that requires one thing, though. Responsibility. Something, as I said earlier, that our country might just be finding for the first time in its recent history.

Sneak Peek

2011-01-05T23:07:00.011-07:00

I've been pondering a way to record my experiences in Afghanistan. I'm terrible at keeping a journal. I've tried at least a dozen times and never made it for more than a few days or maybe weeks before stopping. But I feel that I have to write this down before I forget. While it's a chapter of my life that is personal and dear to my heart, for some reason I don't feel I should keep to myself.

I think it's the writing style that makes it hard for me to keep a journal. I don't like to record events, and I hate writing letters so the dear diary crap won't work for me. I do, however, like to write stories or articles. So I decided to write down my experience as if it were a book. Each significant event will have its own chapter. I'll try to keep them chronological, but it has been over 2 years, so I might not do that well. Maybe I'll publish it when I'm done. And then again, maybe not. Maybe I'll show it to a publisher and be told that nobody is dumb enough to publish that crap. We'll see.

All the same, I just finished writing down my first entry. I thought I'd share it. Think of it as a teaser or a movie preview.

I changed people's names, as some might not want to be written about.

Introduction

The way things are

The sun beat down on the dirt streets as Walid stood behind his old rusty gate, staring straight ahead blankly. He wasn’t looking at anything in particular, really just trying to settle his nerves. He took a few deep breaths to collect himself, straightened his grey vest and pakol, then pushed the gate open. As he walked out into the street his gate slammed shut behind him. Walid couldn’t help but jump at the noise. He put on some cheap sunglasses and pressed on until he reached the taxi that was waiting for him.

Walid gave the driver a few Afghani and softly told him where he wanted to go. The driver looked back at him questioningly at first, but after Walid firmly nodded and pointed south, he put the corolla into gear and turned into the busy market street. In the back seat, Walid tried to relax, but couldn’t help but fidget and look around suspiciously, as if he was being watched.

Walid really was being watched. Five miles away a few soldiers and I sat in a control room looking at a monitor. We were watching live video feed taken by a surveillance balloon that was floating hundreds of feet in the air over the Afghan desert. Walid’s departure signaled the beginning of a complex operation that was the result of several weeks of planning and preparation.

Walid, as nice as he tried to seem, was really the scum of the earth. He was a low-life pawn in an insurgent cell that had made a habit of blowing up cars and setting roadside bombs in the southern part of the province. Walid was the second cousin of Abdul Hamsa, the leader of this cell, but seemed to resent his cousin. Walid had been giving my team information on the cell’s activities for some time now, but hadn’t really managed to give us anything of real value. It was unclear whether Walid felt guilty about selling his family out for a sum that wasn’t more than a few dollars or if he thought that stringing out the Americans for a bit longer might fetch him some more money. It was probably both. Either way, we had told Walid that he had better give us something of consequence or we were cutting the ties.

This was something of consequence.

Walid had informed us that Abdul Hamsa was planning an elaborate attack on the route-clearing patrol that came through his area once or twice a week. The group had tried some explosives out, but the route-clearing equipment the soldiers had was built to withstand what Abul Hamsa’s group had thrown at them. So Abdul Hamsa had decided to go big. He had called a meeting for today to discuss the plan. And we made sure that Walid invited himself. He was to identify Abdul Hamsa and then stay at the meeting and report the plans to us.

We had told Walid that we would be watching from a nearby mountainside, but we all knew that Walid knew we were going to use the balloon to watch the meeting. Afghans may be poor and uneducated, but not dumb.

My little team sat in our control room and watched Walid work his way south on what in America would be considered a lousy farm road. In Afghanistan, though, this was a highway. The driver dodged goats, jingle trucks, and crowds of people as it worked is way south to a little complex on the north side of the next village. Walid stopped the car and spoke to the driver, sending him on his way. The driver, as if he know what was going on (and he may have), took off to the north hastily.

A small group of men welcomed Walid as he entered the compound. They all bowed slightly and muttered greetings to each other for a few moments. As Walid approached one man he removed his pakol then shook his hand.

“That’s the signal. That’s him!” exclaimed Jake, a member of my team.

“It looks like it,” I said.

Captain Hoffer, the lead in this operation, told his radioman to call the Kiowa team and let them know that the operation was a go. There was some excited radio chatter as the coordinates and description of the meeting site were relayed and confirmed then confirmed again.

“Do you think they have any idea of what is about to happen?” asked Sam.

“No way,” Jake replied defiantly. “Riley told him he had to stay at the meeting so he could report back to us on how it went. The douchebag doesn’t have a clue. Hey, out of curiosity, how much did you say you’d pay him for this anyway, Riley?”

“I gave him twenty bucks and told him that if all went well and if he had some good info for us, I’d give him fifty when we met next,” I replied.

“Douchebag doesn’t have a clue.”

We sat in anticipation and stared at our little screen as the meeting began. Abdul Hamsa sat directly across from Walid. They and a couple of other guys who were sitting in the circle were staring at another man who seemed to be explaining something to the group. The man was wearing a long, black turban that nearly touched the ground. He seemed upset and was shouting at the rest of the group.

“Riley, I think that’s Abdul Hamsa, not the other guy,” commented Sam.

“I think you’re right. Captain Hoffer, do you see this?”

“I do, but it really doesn’t matter does it? He’s there all the same.”

“Scumbag didn’t even give us his cousin!” Jake shouted. “He thinks he can string us along some more while we chase the wrong guy. I told you he was a douchebag!”

“I know,” I replied. “Like Hoffer said, it really doesn’t matter anyway.”

Jake shook his head as if he was surprised. We both knew better, though. This kind of crap happened all the time.

The next minute felt like an eternity. The men on the screen continued talking to each other and the new Abdul Hamsa continued to occasionally shout at the other men. Suddenly, one of the men stood up. He pointed to the east and shouted something. The rest of the group bolted up and ran to different sides of the compound.

“It’s on!” whispered Captain Hoffer.

Kiowas are amazing machines. They are unbelievably fast helicopters capable of flying very low at high speeds. Funny thing is, when they fly low in a canyon, they’re really hard to hear unless you’re in the canyon as well. And the guns they’re equipped with can reach out and touch a guy from over a mile away as if they were right in front of you. If you’re not in their canyon but do manage to hear them, you’re too close.

I sat back and let the radioman and Hoffer take it from here. There was a continual stream of surprisingly calm commands given as the Kiowa team made short work of the group in the compound. Captain Hoffer and his guys were good at their job. One guy got off an RPG round, but at that range, the grenade air-bursted far short of the helicopters. I don’t know if he saw the grenade go off, though. It looked like one of the kiowas got him first. Both Abdul Hamsas were taken out on the east side of the compound. Another of the insurgents managed to run almost a hundred feet away to the north before he was shot. Walid dove for cover into a side building.

Captain Hoffer looked at me for a moment. It was if he meant to ask if he should pursue Walid. “He’s no good to me now,” I said to him. One of the kiowa pilots responded as if I had spoken directly to him instead of Hoffer. He used his hellfires on the building in which Walid was cowering. Then he showered it with .50 caliber bullets for good measure. All in all, the business end of the operation lasted less than a minute.

A strange silence came over the control room as we looked at the rubble. I imagined Walid in there, covered in blood and debris. He might have been the biggest scumbag on the earth, but I still knew him. I was glad that I didn’t actually see him die. It felt less personal that way.

Jake clapped me on the back. “Well done, bro!” he shouted. “We cleaned shop this time. That many less IEDs for us to hit when we’re out on patrol.”

“Absolutely,” I replied, mustering a smile. Inside I wanted to puke.

“All right,” said Hoffer. “Be back here in ten so we can go over everything that just happened.”

After the guys went outside for a minute Captain Hoffer leaned over to me. “I hate it too. But it’s our job. You can’t get emotionally involved in this stuff. He might have been selling out his cousin this morning, but he would have killed you in a heartbeat if it paid better. It’s the way things are.”

I nodded in agreement.

When I first heard that I was going to Afghanistan, I thought that my deployment would have several days like this. My team and I would spend weeks developing sources, gathering intel and planning operations; setting things up so that when the time came, we could do our part to take out some bad guys. I don’t know if Hollywood had implanted that into my head, or if I had heard too many over-embellished stories from the guys who had just gotten back from the sandbox.

Regardless of how I came to that fantasy, it really didn’t happen the way I had imagined. Days like that never happened at all. In fact, what really happened was nothing like the events I just described.

What you are about to read is what really happened.

WWJD?

2010-12-21T21:29:00.014-07:00

A few days ago, while discussing the merits of extending unemployment benefits with Hardball host Chris Matthews, congressman Jim McDermott may have gotten a little carried away. He just had to invoke little baby Jesus while attempting to justify giving the unemployed 99 weeks worth of benefits.

His statement upset opinion program host Bill O'Reilly, who went on to say in his column that while "Every fair-minded person should support government safety nets for people who need assistance through no fault of their own...guys like McDermott don’t make distinctions like that." O'Reilly argues that not making such a distinction creates a nanny-state that is hard on the economy and ultimately self-destructive. He goes on to say, "being a Christian, I know that while Jesus promoted charity at the highest level, he was not self-destructive."

A good argument? Yes. And he obviously struck a nerve as the left-wing side of the media is up in arms about it. Even funny-man turned anchorman Stephen Colbert got a bit upset.

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Jesus Is a Liberal Democrat

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>

March to Keep Fear Alive

So what's the big deal here? Congressman McDermott was absolutely right in inferring that a true Christian, especially in this time of "baby Jesus in the cradle and all this stuff", would happily help the less fortunate. Colbert is absolutely right in his assertion that Christ would have us help anybody, without first judging them to find out if they "deserve" your help. And Bill O'Reilly is correct in his claim that excessive government income-intervention can lead to a self-destruction economic death spiral.

What I find so interesting in all of this is that O'Reilly and Colbert both miss the real point. All their arguments seem to be based upon the assumption that the federal government is the entity that should be taking care of the less fortunate. In O'Reilly's defense, he did say that Christ helped those who help themselves, but he still assumes that the government is what should provide that help.

Conservatives know that government is the worst entity to provide such "help". Government is not a charity. Government is the entity that society creates in order to protect itself from foreign threats, provide some infrastructure, and to create order to protect us from the crazies out there, period. Large, centralized government is inefficient, wasteful, corruptible, and slow. President Obama proved this point perfectly when he claimed that he would take the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse out of Medicare and put it into Obama-care (as if an even larger medical entitlement program would have less waste than it's smaller cousin). The entity that does charity work the best is...wait for it...CHARITY.

Additionally, having moneys forcefully taxed then given to others is not charitable, let alone Christ-like, it's social justice, or in other words, income redistribution. Somebody once told me that if a guy on the street demanded that you give him your money it'd be robbery, but if that same thug petitioned Washington to pass a law requiring your money, it'd just be called a tax. Don't get me wrong, taxes are necessary to fund the government, but when the government takes your money and gives it to somebody else, it's not really government anymore. It's government committing highway robbery in order to pose as a charity. As Maggie Thatcher would say, that would only work until the government runs out of your money.

Back to Jim McDermott. He, as do many liberals, infers that the Christian thing to do would be to pay your taxes happily because some of your taxed income might help the needy and that it is just as Christ-like to support the government's extending, and extending, and extending of so-called "benefits". While Christ did say to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, I don't think he'd say your soul is better off in regards to its salvation just because some of Caesar's money may go to help the poor. Why? Because that money is taken from you at the threat of going to prison. You must give that money away. If you don't believe me, just try to be a bit less charitable to the IRS for a year or two.

Really, what's so charitable about being forced to give up part of your income? True charitable giving is about taking money that you have no real obligation to give to anybody and willfully giving it to those who need it more than you. That, not paying your taxes, is Christ-like.

It's evident to conservatives that charitable giving is given freely from the heart, not taken at the threat of imprisonment, and that we should all give to the needy willingly, without pretense or judgment. However, it's also evident to conservatives that the government can't afford to finance the day to day lives of millions of Americans and expect to remain financially solvent for long. So how do we help the poor while maintaining a financially viable country? Simple. Do all we can to make government as lean as possible and leave the charitable giving to those who do it best....charities.

Deficit Busters!!

2010-12-18T21:17:00.016-07:00

At 9:53 pm Mountain Standard Time on 18 Dec 2010, the US deficit was at $13,872,370,279,521 or 94% of GDP, the highest ratio of debt to GDP since shortly after WWII. In other words, the United States almost owes dollar for dollar as much as the entire country produces in a year. That's insane. So insane, in fact, that the president of the Council on Foreign Relations has stated that the debt is a national security threat. If it helps to bring such an enormous number to perspective, realize that each and every citizen of the united states would have to fork over $44,614 or each TAXPAYER would have to shell out $125,559 to wipe it clean.

Now, that number is not quite as horrific as it sounds. The debt held by the public, which excludes debt owned by government accounts (debt the government owes itself), is "only" at approximately $9,000,000,000,000, or about 63% of GDP.

So why is the deficit such a big deal? Benjamin Graham wrote in The Intelligent Investor (a great book by the way) that he feels it is unwise to invest in a company that has a debt load of over 50%. In other words, if a company has $5 million in assets, but owes $3.15 million to its creditors, Benjamin Graham would likely turn his nose up to it. China, the United State's largest "investor", has made grumblings to this effect. It's possible that they're beginning to feel that the US is "over-leveraged" and may not be a good investment. Not a good thing.

Some argue that the US shouldn't worry about it's current deficit as it only has to pay the interest payment to its debt holders. The current T-bond yield is about 3%, so in essence, these guys claim that as long as the US can afford to pay $416 billion (and growing) each year in interest on its loans, we can continue to get loans. That's akin to somebody saying it's fine to keep racking up their credit card debt because they can afford the minimum payment. That's all well and good until your creditor changes the rate (something China has threatened to do), or until you don't make as much money as you expected for some reason.

Regardless of what degree of threat you think our deficit poses to our national solvency, it is a problem that needs to be addressed. Earlier this year, President Obama had a budget deficit reduction committee created with the sole purpose of finding ways to reduce our country's soaring deficit. They brainstormed and think-tanked their socks off and came up with a handful of solutions.

The primary fixes are as follows:

1. Collapse today’s five income tax rates (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%) into three brackets (12%, 22% and 28%).

2. Eliminate itemized deductions

3. Tax capital gains at ordinary income rates

4. Eliminate and simplify a bunch of tax credits (mortgage, charitable giving, etc)

5. Gradually eliminate the exclusion for health coverage premiums

6. Change the corporate tax bracket to 28%

7. Increase the federal gas tax by 15 cents a gallon.

8. Raise the age at which Americans can get Social Security benefits to 69 by 2075.

9. Require the president to propose annual limits on war spending.

10. Gradually reduce the government’s civilian work force by 10 percent

11. Freeze pay for federal workers and members of Congress for three years

12. Eliminate all congressional earmarks

13. Change Medicare physician payment formula to reward quality instead of quantity

14. Cut congressional and White House budgets by 15%

There was a lot of fuss about the commission's results immediately after the report was released, but, as is always so apparent, our politicians are more worried about being re-elected that actually solving a budget crisis, so instead of addressing said crisis by instituting some of the commission's suggestions, they again extended unemployment benefits. Speaking of budgets, let's remember that our government doesn't even have one right now. Another political move by the democrats as that causes the republicans to spearhead the effort and be the bad guy who cuts spending, thereby enabling democrats to return to congress on campaigns that shout, "Republicans want grandma to eat catfood!" All at the expense of our national solvency.

Sorry, got sidetracked.

Anyway, as I was saying, I'm sorely disappointed in a government that, when it gets reminded of it's infrugality (somebody tell Webster I just made up a word!), instead of looking itself in the mirror and admitting it's a spending addict, it runs off and spends some more.

So, in my own passive aggressive form of protest, I propose my own deficit cutting measures:

1. Flat tax. 22% tax on everybody. If you're on welfare, you get 22% of your welfare check taken back by Uncle Sam. I'm serious. Right now nearly half of Americans (including me thanks to a myriad of deductions) pay ZERO federal income tax. That's sick. Everybody needs some skin in the game. That way, next time we decide to give people in Atlanta a heat bill subsidy to fight a 50 degree cold front, we might think twice.

2. Eliminate nearly all tax deductions and definitely all credits. The IRS should never owe you money come April. I want to say no deductions at all, but I am tempted to believe that we can allow charitable contributions to be tax deductible (thanks a lot Dad).

3. Eliminate the capital gains tax. That's a tax on money that's already been taxed. I'll refer you to Nate here.

4. Set the corporate tax rate at 22%. A flat tax is a flat tax.

5. Change the social security eligibility age to 70 by 2020. In 2012 its 66; in 2014 it's 67 and so on. Frankly, I think we should phase it out entirely or at least return it to what it was initially (assistance to the elderly needy and widows).

6. Reduce the federal workforce by 15%. That's just over a 5% reduction of the size the federal workforce was in 2009.

7. Freeze pay for all federal workers and congress for 5 years then allow the maximum of an inflation matching increase each year thereafter.

8. Eliminate all earmarks. That should have been done ages ago.

9. Cut the federal budget by 15%. Not impossible.

10. Repeal the health care bill. The bill is bringing with it immense federal spending that will only further inflate the deficit. Once the bill is repealed, we can start over with real health care reform. The last bill only changed how we paid for health care and who paid for it rather than actually making health care more affordable.

I'm sure there are many additional things we can do to balance the budget and reduce the deficit.

While both my suggestions and those of the actual committee could be seen as "drastic", real action is necessary. I have serious doubts that anything genuine will be done. As we've already seen, it's more likely that we'll only see some token efforts and the can will keep getting kicked down the road. So, hopefully, we can get somebody who has real power to get this ball rolling. Somebody tell John Boehner, "YES WE CAN get the deficit under control."

Individual Mandate Say What!!!

2010-12-13T17:30:00.039-07:00

Today Virginia Federal Judge Henry Hudson deemed the individual mandate of the health care law known as "Obama-care" to be unconstitutional. While other Federal Judges have ruled in favor of the mandate, a ruling in opposition to the mandate is likely to take the case to the supreme court.

While I don't pretend to be a constitutional attorney, I agree with the judge's conclusion that the mandate is unconstitutional. While congress does have the authority to regulate commerce, as the judge said, it does not have the authority to force you to create it. This judge basically said today that when a person purchases a good or service, that congress can regulate it, i.e, tax it, control the size and scope of the purchase, regulate how the transaction occurs, et cetera; but congress does NOT have the authority to create that purchase (force you to initiate it).

Spot on.

Constitutionality aside, there are some serious problems with the mandate. Simply legislating human behavior won't change that behavior.

Supporters of the bill say that forcing people to purchase health care is "ok" because it is (1) for their own good and (2) reduces the financial impact of the uninsured on the general tax base. If these guidelines justify the forcing of individuals to purchase health care, then why not anything else if it does the same?

For example.......

Purchasing life insurance could satisfy the above criteria. If everybody bought life insurance, then the number of single parents on taxpayer funded welfare would likely be lower and it's obviously good for the individuals who are separated from loved ones prematurely. So why not force everybody to buy life insurance?

Criminals break into homes and assault and kill people all too often. Pursuing, trying, convicting, and incarcerating these individuals is done at massive taxpayer expense. Homeowners would clearly be better off if they were able to defend themselves, so why not require everybody to purchase a firearm and ammunition? Additionally, as a tool is no good to the untrained, we should also force everybody to go to a personal protection firearm school as well. Imagine the taxpayer dollars, not to mention the taxpayers, that would be saved.

Taxpayers spend billions of dollars subsidizing public transportation. It would be much cheaper if we simply built a bunch of private toll roads and required everybody to purchase a car and to drive the tollroads. When the roads get jammed, we'll just widen existing roads and build new ones. Sounds great.

Many people retire poor. It's a shame that some people are forced to eat catfood in their latter years. Wouldn't it be great if we forced everybody to buy into a government controlled retirement fund? That way people would be able to retire knowing that at least they can eat. Oh, wait, that's social security....[retro turntable screeching] ...REMIX!!!!..... Times have changed and inflation has gone up so far that social security alone is clearly not enough to retire. Perhaps we should force everybody to purchase a privately owned retirement account as well so they can once again retire with confidence.

Finally, food stamps, WIC, and other food subsidies cost the taxpayer billions. If these people would just buy their own d@mn food things would be much better for everybody, right? So why don't we just pass legislation forcing people to buy 3 meals a day worth of food?

These examples are ridiculous, I know. However, I chose them for a reason. Many of the rebuttals that show how ludicrous those ideas are also show the insanity of the health care law.

Requiring people to buy life insurance won't solve poverty caused by providers passing away. Some people won't buy adequate coverage.

Requiring people to purchase a firearm goes against the morals of many. For example, a neighbor of mine would rather die than lift a finger in self defense. Many people have religious or personal objections to the requirement.

If everybody drove to work we'd have to build more roads. Expensive. In the meantime, the roads we do have would get worn out and would be incredibly crowded. Crowding and quality would become an issue.

Simply requiring people to buy food won't solve the problem. Some people can't afford it.

Social security was intended, initially, to provide for those who could not afford their own retirement. Widows, the poor, etc. Unfortunately, the program was expanded, and expanded, and expanded. Now it's barely viable. But making people buy another retirement account won't solve people retiring poor. Once again, some simply can't afford it. Additionally, some will just do the minimum then rely on the existing failsafe for their livelihood anyway.

So why is the health care mandate a bad idea? A few reasons: Some won't buy enough coverage anyway, many object to it, crowding and quality of care can become an issue, some people simply can't afford it, and...oh yeah...some people can't afford it, and, as a result, will instead do the bare minimum then rely on existing failsafes (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP) for their livelihood anyway.

Monkey Wants More Highway Money!!

2010-12-09T20:28:00.009-07:00

I thought this little vid was too good not to pass on. It demonstrates quite well how our representatives blatantly divert funds to pay for pet projects.

While I'm all for watching monkeys on crack, I'm not completely convinced that it should be done on the taxpayers dime.