"A congressional commission on China stated in a report recently made public that Israel has become China's largest arms and weapons technology supplier after Russia. "
China is indeed a Dragon rising in the east. All the effort and money spent elsewhere by the US will eventually be proven as a mistake.
China has undertaken a massive modernization program. Within the decade the fruits of that effort will be apparent.
Thoughts, ponderings and ramblings on politics, culture, society, religion, science and such.
Rantings from the defenders of resonable free thought.
Disclaimer- Everything here is an opinion, theory or philosophy. This is a celebration of the 1st Amendment and our God given right to think and speak. Some opinions may be harsh.
6.29.2004
6.28.2004
A New Terror Threat- This holiday, watch out for those floating beer coolers
Right...what genius at Homeland Security thought this up?
Iranian woman 'gives birth to frog'
"Tests are being carried out on the frog
An Iranian newspaper has reported the controversial story of a woman who claims to have given birth to a frog. "
Just plain weird
An Iranian newspaper has reported the controversial story of a woman who claims to have given birth to a frog. "
Just plain weird
6.12.2004
AP Wire | 06/11/2004 | Limbaugh announces end of 10-year marriage
I am not going to attempt to pass judgment on the entire concept of divorce. I will simply state that marriage is a sacred institution and a solemn commitment. I believe that one ought not enter into it lightly nor leave the commitment just because things are hard.
There is no doubt that marriage can be hard. It takes men and women of real principle to see it through at times. A whole heck of a lot of people get divorced in this country. I am not saying that people ought not get divorced under any circumstance, just that maybe the high divorce rate is indicative of a failing of some core values of family and of keeping ones commitment. It is just so easy to treat marriage as a conditional arrangement that one can quit whenever they want.
Hopefully, I have not alienated every single person that has went through a divorce at this juncture. We all do what we think is right. My points are really focused on what society says is right. Our society has transformed to the point that the general attitude is that it si just better to get divorced than to try and work through problems and keep the commitments we have made. In one sense we have become a society of quitters.
Rush Limbaugh has as much as anyone else in the "New Conservative" movement served as a focal point and mouth piece for the cause. Thousands of very conservative Christians, small government believers, Constitutionalist and even libertarians have at times joined the ranks of the ditto heads. It seems that in the person of Limbaugh and the causes he championed we saw our very best hope to achieve our goals.
Limbaugh began as what we saw as an amplification of the principles espoused by Ronald Reagan. During the Clinton years we saw Limbaugh as a voice announcing the evil of the Clinton administration. It has only been since the installation of Bush II that many have began to see Limbaugh for what he really is.
What is he really? Is he really a man that stands on the principles of conservativism? Does he represent the goals of the Christian right? Is he at all a friend to those of libertarian beliefs? Does he really represent and advocate the principles of the Constitution as originally intended? Is he even a man of person principles and values that we ought to listen to?
The answer of course is NO to each of these. Limbaugh is firmly a member of the Party of Lincoln. He has stated several times recently his fondness for that man. He is not an advocate of smaller government. He really just wants to move pieces and parts of the government around. He does not support or defend Christian principles. he is certainly no friend to libertarians, even his economic beliefs are not as free market oriented as he attemtops to appear at times.
His political views are based much more on expedience than principle. This is his biggest flaw. It is the flaw of all men of Lincoln's and FDR's ilk. The idea that whatever is best to fix a short-term problem is acceptable without regard to long standing principles is a dangerous one.
Rush was forgiven by many for becoming addicted to drugs. After all it was just prescription drugs, right? Thousands still forgive him for his lack of real political principle-after all who else will stand up to the liberals?
The problem with listening to a man that bases his opinions on current expediency instead of solid principles is that invariably he will go far from the true path.
Rush is no friend to true conservatives or our movement. He has in fact confused and led astray thousands for far to long. It is time that we woke up and turned this guy off.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
There is no doubt that marriage can be hard. It takes men and women of real principle to see it through at times. A whole heck of a lot of people get divorced in this country. I am not saying that people ought not get divorced under any circumstance, just that maybe the high divorce rate is indicative of a failing of some core values of family and of keeping ones commitment. It is just so easy to treat marriage as a conditional arrangement that one can quit whenever they want.
Hopefully, I have not alienated every single person that has went through a divorce at this juncture. We all do what we think is right. My points are really focused on what society says is right. Our society has transformed to the point that the general attitude is that it si just better to get divorced than to try and work through problems and keep the commitments we have made. In one sense we have become a society of quitters.
Rush Limbaugh has as much as anyone else in the "New Conservative" movement served as a focal point and mouth piece for the cause. Thousands of very conservative Christians, small government believers, Constitutionalist and even libertarians have at times joined the ranks of the ditto heads. It seems that in the person of Limbaugh and the causes he championed we saw our very best hope to achieve our goals.
Limbaugh began as what we saw as an amplification of the principles espoused by Ronald Reagan. During the Clinton years we saw Limbaugh as a voice announcing the evil of the Clinton administration. It has only been since the installation of Bush II that many have began to see Limbaugh for what he really is.
What is he really? Is he really a man that stands on the principles of conservativism? Does he represent the goals of the Christian right? Is he at all a friend to those of libertarian beliefs? Does he really represent and advocate the principles of the Constitution as originally intended? Is he even a man of person principles and values that we ought to listen to?
The answer of course is NO to each of these. Limbaugh is firmly a member of the Party of Lincoln. He has stated several times recently his fondness for that man. He is not an advocate of smaller government. He really just wants to move pieces and parts of the government around. He does not support or defend Christian principles. he is certainly no friend to libertarians, even his economic beliefs are not as free market oriented as he attemtops to appear at times.
His political views are based much more on expedience than principle. This is his biggest flaw. It is the flaw of all men of Lincoln's and FDR's ilk. The idea that whatever is best to fix a short-term problem is acceptable without regard to long standing principles is a dangerous one.
Rush was forgiven by many for becoming addicted to drugs. After all it was just prescription drugs, right? Thousands still forgive him for his lack of real political principle-after all who else will stand up to the liberals?
The problem with listening to a man that bases his opinions on current expediency instead of solid principles is that invariably he will go far from the true path.
Rush is no friend to true conservatives or our movement. He has in fact confused and led astray thousands for far to long. It is time that we woke up and turned this guy off.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
6.06.2004
Reagan's Legacy
Ronald Reagan died today and the number of words that will be written about this occurrence on the Internet and in print will undoubtedly number in the millions. I feel compelled to say a few words because the presidency of Reagan had a significant impact on me and my political outlook.
I was a teenager during the 1980’s, I graduated high school in 1986 and college in 1990. All of my fond reckless memories are from this era. This is also the time that I became politically aware. During the hostage crises of 1979 I first became interested in things political. I had known more or less from early boyhood that being a soldier was something I wanted to do. The events surrounding the Iranian hostage crisis served to thrust me into the Reaganite camp rather firmly.
In 1979 I asked my mother if I could miss school to attend a speech Reagan was giving locally during the campaign. After the speech I deftly positioned myself right beside the exit door and was able to shake the man’s hand. After his election I wrote him a letter to thank him and I received a letter back with and automated but authentic looking Reagan signature at the bottom.
Reagan’s early talk of national defense and being strong before the world appealed to my awakening sense of what the world ought to be. I found myself enthralled by Reagan’s speeches and his words.
When he spoke of the Evil Empire and the need to stand on a wall and defend against it I was ready. I was only seventeen for a month, the minimum age that the Army would accept a person, and a junior in high school but still I joined up. I completed basic training the summer between junior and senior years and served in the National Guard all through high school and college. I was predisposed and maybe even destined to serve anyway but my early entry is due in large part to Reagan.
Yhose that write Reagan’s legacy will say many things. One of the truest of the things that will be said is that he was a coalition builder. Reagan brought in to the Republican Party a myriad of disenchanted groups. The Christian Right saw Reagan as the best hope to restore to America a moral base. States’ Rights and small government types heard within the words of Reagan a return to the right kind of government. Ordinary American without deep ideological beliefs say Reagan as the man to move us away from something.
To be sure there was something to worthy of the desire to move on. The 1970’s were in essence a very low point for America. Americans of all sorts looked to Reagan to move America forward.
As we examine the legacy of Regan we must ask what did we move away from or more aptly stated what did we move toward? Were the hopes and dreams of the Reagan Republicans realized?
Another foundation in the legacy of Reagan will undoubtedly be the he looked the bear in the eye and forced the Soviet Empire to crumble. This is something so stuck in the realm of legend that it is hardly worth disputing. D-N-I.net has an interesting set of statistics that demonstrate that although the first two years of Reagan’s presidency contained massive defense spending increases the following six years did not. They also show that the Soviet system was in trouble long before the 1980 increase here and that inevitably the system was destined to collapse.
Reagan’s legacy includes the concept that he was and always was a conservative. Reagan has missed most of the neo-con backlash because this idea has taken root and is not easily removed. It must be remembered that Reagan voted for FDR each time he ran. He supported liberal and quasi-socialist candidates as late as 1950. In many respect Reagan might be considered the first Neo-con.
Instead of the various groups getting the things they wanted from the Party of Reagan they have been slowly “waking” up over the last fifteen or so years to realize that the Party of Reagan is not the party of Jefferson. It is in fact the Party of Lincoln. It is a party that does not wish to do away with the socialism of FDR, they just want to change it a little. It is not a party of small and limited government. It is not a party of Christian values. Ronald Reagan rebuilt and redefined the Republican Party on the hopes and dreams of millions of people that wanted something different. Instead of Reagan moving us in the direction that these new Reaganites really anted to go we left the 1980’s set on a straight path toward Empire.
I shall not speak ill of the dead, especially a man that was once such a large hero of mine. Reagan will no doubt go down in the pantheon of “heroes” beside Lincoln, FDR and other sorts that have made America what it is. I will mourn his loss but I will not celebrate his legacy.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
I was a teenager during the 1980’s, I graduated high school in 1986 and college in 1990. All of my fond reckless memories are from this era. This is also the time that I became politically aware. During the hostage crises of 1979 I first became interested in things political. I had known more or less from early boyhood that being a soldier was something I wanted to do. The events surrounding the Iranian hostage crisis served to thrust me into the Reaganite camp rather firmly.
In 1979 I asked my mother if I could miss school to attend a speech Reagan was giving locally during the campaign. After the speech I deftly positioned myself right beside the exit door and was able to shake the man’s hand. After his election I wrote him a letter to thank him and I received a letter back with and automated but authentic looking Reagan signature at the bottom.
Reagan’s early talk of national defense and being strong before the world appealed to my awakening sense of what the world ought to be. I found myself enthralled by Reagan’s speeches and his words.
When he spoke of the Evil Empire and the need to stand on a wall and defend against it I was ready. I was only seventeen for a month, the minimum age that the Army would accept a person, and a junior in high school but still I joined up. I completed basic training the summer between junior and senior years and served in the National Guard all through high school and college. I was predisposed and maybe even destined to serve anyway but my early entry is due in large part to Reagan.
Yhose that write Reagan’s legacy will say many things. One of the truest of the things that will be said is that he was a coalition builder. Reagan brought in to the Republican Party a myriad of disenchanted groups. The Christian Right saw Reagan as the best hope to restore to America a moral base. States’ Rights and small government types heard within the words of Reagan a return to the right kind of government. Ordinary American without deep ideological beliefs say Reagan as the man to move us away from something.
To be sure there was something to worthy of the desire to move on. The 1970’s were in essence a very low point for America. Americans of all sorts looked to Reagan to move America forward.
As we examine the legacy of Regan we must ask what did we move away from or more aptly stated what did we move toward? Were the hopes and dreams of the Reagan Republicans realized?
Another foundation in the legacy of Reagan will undoubtedly be the he looked the bear in the eye and forced the Soviet Empire to crumble. This is something so stuck in the realm of legend that it is hardly worth disputing. D-N-I.net has an interesting set of statistics that demonstrate that although the first two years of Reagan’s presidency contained massive defense spending increases the following six years did not. They also show that the Soviet system was in trouble long before the 1980 increase here and that inevitably the system was destined to collapse.
Reagan’s legacy includes the concept that he was and always was a conservative. Reagan has missed most of the neo-con backlash because this idea has taken root and is not easily removed. It must be remembered that Reagan voted for FDR each time he ran. He supported liberal and quasi-socialist candidates as late as 1950. In many respect Reagan might be considered the first Neo-con.
Instead of the various groups getting the things they wanted from the Party of Reagan they have been slowly “waking” up over the last fifteen or so years to realize that the Party of Reagan is not the party of Jefferson. It is in fact the Party of Lincoln. It is a party that does not wish to do away with the socialism of FDR, they just want to change it a little. It is not a party of small and limited government. It is not a party of Christian values. Ronald Reagan rebuilt and redefined the Republican Party on the hopes and dreams of millions of people that wanted something different. Instead of Reagan moving us in the direction that these new Reaganites really anted to go we left the 1980’s set on a straight path toward Empire.
I shall not speak ill of the dead, especially a man that was once such a large hero of mine. Reagan will no doubt go down in the pantheon of “heroes” beside Lincoln, FDR and other sorts that have made America what it is. I will mourn his loss but I will not celebrate his legacy.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
6.04.2004
Gay Exodus?
It seems that the issues of what is acceptable to the people of a state as moral and good might finally be settled. In this article gays and lesbians upset with Virginia's stance an homosexual unions are considering leaving the state for more friendly regions.
Of course you might also be familiar with a proposal among Christians to pack up and move by the thousands to South Carolina.
Imagine a nation in which local people set the rules for government at the state level. No federal judiciary interpreting rights for millions of people. Instead people could decide to live in areas friendly to their outlook. That would be freedom. It is impossible to assume that a Nation as large as the United States can possibly meet the needs of each citizen. Our values and principles are too diverse. It is possible to allow states to determine what is allowed and not allowed within their borders. This was the original intent during the creation of the Constitution.
If the Federal government was willing to accept the valid Constitutional principle of States' Rights and act inside the very limited delegated powers of the Constitution secession or division of the union would not even be a topic that required discussion.
If Californians want to ban "smoking" and "tobacco" from their language let them. If some other state wants to publicly fund abortions let them. If on the other hand a state wished to allow people to smoke or prohibit abortions within its borders because that is the belief of the people then let that state be. If you do not like the laws of the state in which you live get them changed or move. It is simply not the place of the Federal government to tell and mandate to each state how these issues are to be addressed.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
Of course you might also be familiar with a proposal among Christians to pack up and move by the thousands to South Carolina.
Imagine a nation in which local people set the rules for government at the state level. No federal judiciary interpreting rights for millions of people. Instead people could decide to live in areas friendly to their outlook. That would be freedom. It is impossible to assume that a Nation as large as the United States can possibly meet the needs of each citizen. Our values and principles are too diverse. It is possible to allow states to determine what is allowed and not allowed within their borders. This was the original intent during the creation of the Constitution.
If the Federal government was willing to accept the valid Constitutional principle of States' Rights and act inside the very limited delegated powers of the Constitution secession or division of the union would not even be a topic that required discussion.
If Californians want to ban "smoking" and "tobacco" from their language let them. If some other state wants to publicly fund abortions let them. If on the other hand a state wished to allow people to smoke or prohibit abortions within its borders because that is the belief of the people then let that state be. If you do not like the laws of the state in which you live get them changed or move. It is simply not the place of the Federal government to tell and mandate to each state how these issues are to be addressed.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
6.03.2004
New Blog
I am posting most of my thoughts on secession on this site.
Yankee Wars
Interesting must read by Clyde Wilson. Mr. Wilson hits the target with his assesment of the amoral, bureaucratized, politicized, technocratic military force. What we ought to be is not at all what we are.
"I quoted the warnings of Richard Weaver and Alesandr Solzhenitsyn on the descent into brutality that beckoned. The points made then seem to me a little prophetic and still valid. I would add that the American military has always swung back and forth between two modes or spirits. The Washington/Lee mode and the Grant/Sherman mode. The first emphasizes skill, enterprise, and courage in achieving objectives with an economy of force and strives to keep warfare as honorable as possible. The second relies on marshalling overwhelming materiel to crush a weak opponent, heedless of the cost in life and taxes, and rewards its commanders appropriately. The Grant/Sherman mode is self-righteous and recognizes no ends except boastful triumph. Our bureaucratized, politicized, technocratic armed forces have been in the amoral Grant/Sherman mode for a long time now. What kind of a regime sends women into harm's way and makes them into prison guards? Surely one not worth the allegiance of a civilized person." Read More
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
"I quoted the warnings of Richard Weaver and Alesandr Solzhenitsyn on the descent into brutality that beckoned. The points made then seem to me a little prophetic and still valid. I would add that the American military has always swung back and forth between two modes or spirits. The Washington/Lee mode and the Grant/Sherman mode. The first emphasizes skill, enterprise, and courage in achieving objectives with an economy of force and strives to keep warfare as honorable as possible. The second relies on marshalling overwhelming materiel to crush a weak opponent, heedless of the cost in life and taxes, and rewards its commanders appropriately. The Grant/Sherman mode is self-righteous and recognizes no ends except boastful triumph. Our bureaucratized, politicized, technocratic armed forces have been in the amoral Grant/Sherman mode for a long time now. What kind of a regime sends women into harm's way and makes them into prison guards? Surely one not worth the allegiance of a civilized person." Read More
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
6.02.2004
Draft the Volunteers
Draft...errr Stoploss. The inevitability of more and more of this was something that was known by those that "Know" i.e. get it. The former Chief of Staff of the Army warned truthfully of the number of troops that would be required to prosecute this little foray into Iraq. Of course he was sent packing for that bit of honesty. Nobody wanted to talk about increasing the end strength of the Army in the early days of the war; back when it would have made an impact. The recent addition of 30,000 troops to the total will not make a difference for some time.
The draft has been discussed but anyone that really knows understands that this is unworkable. It is a bad plan not because draftee armies are inferior or because a draft violates all that a free society ought to stand for. A draft would not work because the military is not equipped to accept thousands of people that do not want to e there. Basic training today is soft and the tools that commanders have available to deal with troublesome troopers are few. In the old days misfits could be shipped off to corrections companies or stern punishment could be imposed at the unit level. In today's military misfits are simply chaptered (booted) out. Not exactly the thing to do with draftees that do not want to be there in the first place. And forget the notion that the military might be allowed to return to the "tougher days" of discipline. In our politically correct world THAT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
Venomous Kate does a good job of compiling many of the relevant facts around this dilemma of too few troops. I was stunned at the proposal in the DoD to close down the NTC and send the 11th ACR into action. In the short term that will obviously produce more troops. Without a continual process of training the quality of the force will deteriorate. Short term fixes create long term problems.
Anyway, just imagine yourself as that guy that has given 20 plus years of your life to service. You may or may not have already served a tour in the theater of operations. You have planned for, prepared for and looked forward to your retirement. A retirement that you earned. Now you are told "sorry, you have been drafted errr stop lossed". A draft is wrong but the idea of forcing people that have already volunteered to serve past their term is just as wrong.
If the politicians were incapable of standing up at the beginning of the war and facing the hard truths and asking for more troops then maybe a free republic ought not have the right to force people against their will to do their bidding.
The draft has been discussed but anyone that really knows understands that this is unworkable. It is a bad plan not because draftee armies are inferior or because a draft violates all that a free society ought to stand for. A draft would not work because the military is not equipped to accept thousands of people that do not want to e there. Basic training today is soft and the tools that commanders have available to deal with troublesome troopers are few. In the old days misfits could be shipped off to corrections companies or stern punishment could be imposed at the unit level. In today's military misfits are simply chaptered (booted) out. Not exactly the thing to do with draftees that do not want to be there in the first place. And forget the notion that the military might be allowed to return to the "tougher days" of discipline. In our politically correct world THAT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
Venomous Kate does a good job of compiling many of the relevant facts around this dilemma of too few troops. I was stunned at the proposal in the DoD to close down the NTC and send the 11th ACR into action. In the short term that will obviously produce more troops. Without a continual process of training the quality of the force will deteriorate. Short term fixes create long term problems.
Anyway, just imagine yourself as that guy that has given 20 plus years of your life to service. You may or may not have already served a tour in the theater of operations. You have planned for, prepared for and looked forward to your retirement. A retirement that you earned. Now you are told "sorry, you have been drafted errr stop lossed". A draft is wrong but the idea of forcing people that have already volunteered to serve past their term is just as wrong.
If the politicians were incapable of standing up at the beginning of the war and facing the hard truths and asking for more troops then maybe a free republic ought not have the right to force people against their will to do their bidding.
Did they die in vain?
This piece by Stoney sums up many of the things that I thought over this past long weekend in a way that I had neither the time, energy nor creativity to express. His points regarding what blogging might really accomplish are on the mark. Are we a people that might truly be awakened by mere words? Can the pen have the influence over a slothful people the way a little book called Common Sense had on our forefathers? I doubt it. I doubt there is much short of the Almighty that can possibly bring us back from the precipice we now toy about. Still I shall remain confident that maybe a precious few will head the call and wake up form this Orwellian nightmare. Right on Stoney!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)