7/30/2004
Political Correctness and the Military
Why, even when we're fighting a war, do we allow many things in the military to be run by political correctness? Why? Maybe I'm just a knuckle-dragging spear chucker, but I really don't get it.
Case #1: HIV policy. Soldiers who contract HIV while in the Army cannot be kicked out because of it. This despite the fact that HIV positive troops cannot be deployed or stationed outside the United States. I'm sorry, but what good is a soldier that you can't send to war? And then, when they hang around, you end up with problems like this. And now we've got at least one more, maybe as many as five more soldiers who can't go to war. Just ducky.
Case #2: Co-ed basic training. The argument in favor of this is that men and women are together in all of the military, except ground combat branches and submarines, so they should train together from the beginning. The counterargument is that basic training is where you build soldiers. Discpline is a big part of that. And having male and female soldiers together, living in the same barracks (separate areas, but same building) detracts from discipline. Even DACOWITS (the Defense Advisory Committe on Women in the Services) has come out in favor of gender segregated basic training. But the nitwits at the Pentagon and in Congress are scared of the NOW crowd and won't do it. Only the Marines had the common sense and the balls to stand up and tell them to zark off. How long will it take the Army, navy, and Air Force to figure it out?
Permalink
|
A Spade is a Spade
Listening to the radio last night, and the host, Tammy Bruce, made what I think is an excellent point on how the PC Thought Police are influencing even what we call the war we're involved in.
Think about it. We call it the "War on Terrorism." But terrorism is a tactic, not an entity of any sort. We're really not at war with terrorism in general. The IRA is a terrorist organization, but are we worrying about them? Not really. Calling this war the "War on Terrorism" is akin to FDR going to Congress on December 8, 1941 and asking them to declare war on surprise attacks.
Political correctness keeps us from calling this war what it is: A war against radical Islam. That's right CAIR, I said war against radical Islam. Maybe if people like you would spend less time worrying about Americans saying mean thing about Islam and more time worrying about the murderous mad mullahs calling for death to America, we wouldn't have to have this war. But until I hear you condemning the hatemongers of the Middle East as much as you do increased scrutiny of Arabs on American airplanes, you all can just go fuck yourselves.
Permalink
|
7/29/2004
The role of government
An excellent post on the role of government and personal responsibility. Via Smallest Minority.
"The belief that it is the duty of government to lift people out of holes they have dug for themselves, holes that they insist on digging for themselves, and that it is proper to pull downward on those who build upward in order to do this lifting, is utterly foreign to my view of how the world ought to work."
Permalink
|
7/27/2004
More Libertarian than Conservative...
...but not all the way there.
Brain from RadioBS.net asked why I identify myself as Heartless Libertarian, when I admit to be somewhere in between the conservatives and the libertarians. I do so because on most issues, I find my positions to be closer to the Libertarian Party than anyone else, primarily the GOP. I'll go through some of the major issue areas here:
1. Crime-criminals should pay for the damage they do, whether it be to persons or property, and sentences should be what they say (i.e. 10 years = 10 years). Actually, if you ask Joe Sixpack, that's probably what he'd say, as well, but somehow the ruling elites (of both parties) get other ideas in their heads. Point-libertarian.
2. Drugs-Everyone knows that drugs are bad for you. Then again, so are tobacco, alcohol, driving fast, and listening to loud music-all things can (mostly) enjoy legally. The majority of the damage to society caused by drugs is caused by crime related to their prohibition. I think that if people want to poison themselves with drugs, that's their problem. Just don't try sticking me with the bill for the mess they make of their lives. Libertarian again.
3. Environment-the best way to protect the environment is to make it privately owned. Most people, and even the super evil corporations, at least try to take good care of things they own. Sell off all the BLM and NFS land. If the greenie weenies want to buy it all and run around naked in the trees, let them. If Weyerhauser wants to buy it and cut down all the trees, let them. But I'll bet that in 50 years, Weyerhauser's forest will be in better shape than Earth First!'s. Libertarian
4. Free speech-no more hate speech laws. No corralling protestors into "free speech zones." No keeping moonbat hippies a quarter mile from the President. Let people say what they want. If it's slanderous or libelous, there's laws to deal with that. I'll be generous and call this a draw.
5. Gun rights-repeal the 1934 NFA, the 1986 full auto ban, and 1989 import ban, and the AWB. The RKBA means the right to own the tools necessary to militarily resist a tyrannical government. Libertarian
6. Welfare-end it. Completely. Now. This includes AFDC, unemployment insurance, worker's comp, the whole nine yards. This nation did just fine for 150 years without a social safety net.
7. Social Security/Medicare-End it. Completely. Now. Take a one time charge to pay back to every American what they paid in, adjusted into current dollars. Then let people invest for their own retirement, and save for their own medical needs. Libertarian
8. Taxes-repeal the 16th Amendment. Replace the income tax with an excise/sales tax (yes, the Constitution allows that). Simple to administer, and doesn't require Americans to prove their innocence of tax avoidance charges every April 15th. Libertarian.
9. Immigration-we need to control immigration. Beef up the Border Patrol as much as necessary to stop the border jumpers, and give whatever they call the former INS the resources to hunt down folks who overstay or otherwise violoate the conditions of their visas. Once we get rid of the welfare state, we can eliminate the need for people to prove they have a job waiting before they can enter on a resident visa, but people still need to be screened for security reasons. This is best done at U.S. consulates and embassies, before said people set foot here. Conservative on this one.
10. Foreign policy/War Against Islamo-fascism-the number one goal of our foreign policy should be promoting and maintaining our national security. To this end, we should promote free trade with friendly nations, promote democracy, the rule of law, and individual rights where they don't exist. And we should agressively seek, locate, and destroy those who have attacked us, and those who plan to do us harm, by all means necessary. Conservative.
By my count, on the issues listed, that's 7-2-1 for the libertarianism.
Now that I've made my stump speech, who's voting for me? (not that I can run for Pres until 2012, but what the heck.)
Permalink
|
AWB Round Up
Say Uncle! has posted an excellent round up of some recent articles on the AWB.
Permalink
|
7/26/2004
Libertarian Foreign Policy & the GWOT
Matt over at TriggerFinger has an excellent post on restoring sanity to the Libertarian Party's foreign policy positions. The LP has, in the foreign policy, it's own brand of moonbattery that is every bit as out to lunch as that of the extreme Left, and Matt correctly calls them on it.
Matt is far more educated in Libertarian theory and Libertarianism than I am (despite the name, I'm probably somewhere in the no-man's land between conservatism and libertarianism), but I think that he, and the LP in general, are largely missing the boat with regard to the whole war against the Islamist terrorists. And that point is this: we didn't start this war. They did. Whatever you think of our activities around the world, the truth remains that they attacked us first.
The stated goal of Al-Qaeda is the establishment (or re-establishment, in their eyes) of the pan-Islamic Caliphate, extending from Malaysia in the east to Morocco in the west. In 1998, they issued a fatwa stating that "to kill Americans and their allies, civilians and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able."
This war isn't going to go away, even if we pulled every American soldier, and every other American, back to the U.S. We can't negotiate with the Islamist terrorists. Our worldviews and interests are fundamentally incompatible. The only way to end the war is with our destruction, or theirs.
Personally, I'm in favor of killing them so we can survive. It'd be nice if the LP could catch on to that.
Permalink
|
Ranting Time...
Saw this article on FoxNews.com on an attempt by two Los Angelinos to force LA County to bill the sponsors of immigrants who use the public health system, as required by law.
The first part of the article discusses efforts (or attempted efforts) by the Border Patrol and whatever they're calling the former INS these days at what is called "interior enforcement," basically, tracking down and arresting illegal immigrants who have moved beyond the border region. The Border Patrol staged several raids in Southern California, and at least one in San Francisco. These raids drew howls of protest from the Usual Suspects, including Rep Joe Baca, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and Mexican President Vincente Fox.
Now, can someone please tell me why any agency of the U.S. government, with the possible exception of the State Department, should give a flying fuck about the opinion of the president of Meixco? The Border Patrol works for me, the American taxpayer, not Vincente Fox. Personally, I say that we take every citizen of his country who is deported for illegally entering this country and drop them off in front of his presidential mansion. His country is a craphole, and his primary solution seems to be exporting his citizens.
At a Chicago rally for Mexicans living in the United States — now about 10 percent of his nation’s entire population — Fox promised that his government would not permit violations of the human and labor rights of Mexicans living in the United States. "We will stand beside every Mexican woman and man in this country,” Fox told the crowd. “We will defend them against the raids being carried out in the state of California."
Ten percent of Mexico's population lives in the U.S.. Doesn't that tell Senor Fox that his country is doing something very, very wrong, economically? Protect the labor rights of Meixcans in this country? If they're here legally, fine, I've got no problem with that. But given that seven million of them are here in violation of our laws-those people have no 'labor rights' in this country. The only right they have is the right to be kicked out, back to the 'don't drink the water' shithole that Mr. Fox presides over. And "defend against the raids?" Did it ever occur to him that these people are felons? That's right, illegally entering this country is a felony. So why is he so worried about defending his felonious countrymen?
For that matter, why is Rep Baca so worried about protecting these felonious non-citizens, when large numbers of southern Californians supported the sweeps? Non-citizens can't vote; neither can criminals. Or do these people somehow manage to do that in violation of the law as well? And stop claiming some touchy-feely 'higher motives' Congressman-politics is about getting elected, period.
Baca, a member of the Hispanic caucus, said in a press release, "I am doing everything I can to make sure that sweeps like the ones last week do not happen again. I will not stop until this situation has been resolved."
During a June 25 meeting with Department of Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson (search), Baca and other members of the Hispanic caucus accused the Border Patrol agents of racial profiling.
Congressman Baca, the best way to stop the sweeps is to get all the illegal aliens to go back to where they came from. Can I get you on record as saying you support that? The Federales won't give these people any trouble once they're safely back in Mexico.
And Mr Hutchinson is apparently confused as to who his boss is. Let me give you a hint, Asa-Congressman Baca is one member of the House, one of 435. You work for Tom Ridge, who runs Homeland Security, and for me, the American taxpayer. You do not work for a bunch of illegal aliens or for anyone who tries to represent them. Next time Rep Baca and his friends want to try to push you around, tell them to go talk to Secretary Ridge, or to the President, or, hell, they can even come down here to South Cakalaky and talk to me. And then go order some more sweeps, in Rep. Baca's district.
The American people have nothing against immigrants. All of our ancestors were immigrants (even the so-called Native Americans-they just got here a little earlier). But we want immigrants to do it the legal way. Play by the rules, that's all we ask. When will the nitwits in DC realize that?
Permalink
|
Real American Heroes
From today's Tacoma News Tribune.
An interesting aspect of sending the National Guard to war that I hadn't considered. In the regular Army, the remaining Vietnam vets are all general officers or high level sergeants major, with 30+ years of service. I never even thought about the Vietnam vets still soldiering on in the National Guard.
BALAD, Iraq - They were barely older than boys when they saw their first combat 35 years ago in the jungles of southeast Asia.
Today they are grizzled veterans. Their hair is gray. Some of them are watching their children go off to fight their first war.
And these men - some called "Grandpa" by buddies half their age - find themselves in Iraq, under fire again.
These older soldiers bring valuable military and civilian experience to the brigade, said Command Sgt. Maj. Robert Barr. "They've seen everything," said Barr, the highest-ranking enlisted soldier in the brigade.
Perhaps more importantly, he said, they bring a sense of sacrifice and fortitude to their work that is sometimes lacking in younger soldiers.
"You've got 18- to 25-year-olds here that are a part of the 'me' generation," Barr said. "These older guys
have made, in some cases, a 35-year commitment to their country. They bring the younger guys back to the perspective that this is about something more than the individual. They provide stability and a bridge between generations of the Army."
...
They could have bailed on the military long ago, having done their duty. But they continue to serve, they said, because they believe they still have things to contribute.
Serving in the regular Army, I've often joked about the age of some of the Guardsmen I've seen. I'll definitely have to stop that. Guys with CIBs and combat patches from units that don't exist anymore who are going back into combat deserve a hell of a lot of respect.
The sense of duty these old soldiers are displaying is incredible. They didn't carp and whine when they got activation orders and got sent to Iraq. They packed their bags, picked up their rifles, and got down to business. From what the article said, they're doing a bang up job of keeping up the morale of their younger comrades.
Among the Army Values that we now teach our new recriuts are Loyalty, Duty, and Selfless Service. These guys didn't have to be taught, but they've got them in spades.
Permalink
|
|
|
