Update from the Heartland
No.259
20.11.06 – 26.11.06
To all,
Americans celebrated the Thanksgiving holiday. We did, as well. The cacophony of our family gathering once again brought refreshment, joy and the reward of basking in the radiated warmth of our children's progressing lives and the broadening circle of family and friends. We have much for which to be thankful, and we are. We hope all Americans rejoiced in the Thanksgiving holiday, and all our friends, world-wide, enjoyed the embrace of their children. May God bless you all.
Representative Charlie Rangel of New York continues his call for a general military draft. The detractors claim a military draft would weaken the most powerful military in world, and they are precisely correct. I am not a fan of the draft; I never have been. However, in wartime, the exigencies of ground combat, especially over long durations, as we are currently engaged, demand far greater numbers of combat troops. While Charlie Rangel’s motives may be social and largely erroneous in that context, they have merit in our present national security environment. As the new Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Conway, so clearly stated, we need a shorter war or a bigger Marine Corps, and he is precisely correct as well. Truth is, since we are engaged in a very long war, we need a significantly larger Marine Corps and an Army as well. That said, I must expose the erroneous mythology sprinkled throughout Charlie Rangel's rationale -- a disproportionate burden on the poor and uneducated citizens sustaining a volunteer armed services. He is wrong! Rangel has also made disgusting statements that we would not have gone into Iraq if we had a draft, and the children of the rich and powerful were in military service. Charlie's barely disguised remarks are not much better than John Kerry's disparagement of those engaged in combat in Irag in his "botched joke." The reality is we have only just begun what will be a very long War on Islamic Fascism, and we need at least three times the number of infantry divisions along with the associated support troops. We are a long way from the size of combat forces necessary to fight the Battle for Iraq and the larger War on Islamic Fascism.
Apparently, News Corporation’s Chairman Rupert Murdoch personally cancelled the O.J. Simpson book and interview deal, and labeled the project as “ill-conceived” – a serious understatement from my perspective. However, the best descriptor for this project came from the title of a Wall Street Journal editorial – “An illiterate double-murder’s killer book.” We can only hope we are so blessed to never hear from or about this erroneously acquitted murderer again.
Every citizen, every human being, is entitled to the hatred, bigotry, and social phobias they are taught by their parents as children, or they learn from twisted mentors and teachers. When the bigotry of individuals enters the public domain, civilized society has a responsibility, an obligation, to confront those who transgress. When individuals take on the mantle of leadership in their profession or in society in general, as in the cases of Mel Gibson, Ted Haggard, Michael Richards, and too many others, the transgressions are far more serious and explode into hypocrisy, and thus demand equally serious social disdain and ostracism. Society’s obligation must be making a public example of hypocritical leaders.
Just to make sure no one thinks I have forgotten, I continue my research and evaluation of the web blog format for this forum. I still have much to learn.
Residual comments from Update no.257:
"[Xxx], are you saying that if you voted in the Democratic primary you are precluded from voting for the Republican in the general election? That sounds very bizarre but if indeed that is the rule in Washington, I would agree with [Xxxxx] that it's unconstitutional.
"Constitutional law on elections is very confused as a general matter, because the Framers didn't have political parties or global corporations in mind when they wrote it. Major complications are of course
No.259
20.11.06 – 26.11.06
To all,
Americans celebrated the Thanksgiving holiday. We did, as well. The cacophony of our family gathering once again brought refreshment, joy and the reward of basking in the radiated warmth of our children's progressing lives and the broadening circle of family and friends. We have much for which to be thankful, and we are. We hope all Americans rejoiced in the Thanksgiving holiday, and all our friends, world-wide, enjoyed the embrace of their children. May God bless you all.
Representative Charlie Rangel of New York continues his call for a general military draft. The detractors claim a military draft would weaken the most powerful military in world, and they are precisely correct. I am not a fan of the draft; I never have been. However, in wartime, the exigencies of ground combat, especially over long durations, as we are currently engaged, demand far greater numbers of combat troops. While Charlie Rangel’s motives may be social and largely erroneous in that context, they have merit in our present national security environment. As the new Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Conway, so clearly stated, we need a shorter war or a bigger Marine Corps, and he is precisely correct as well. Truth is, since we are engaged in a very long war, we need a significantly larger Marine Corps and an Army as well. That said, I must expose the erroneous mythology sprinkled throughout Charlie Rangel's rationale -- a disproportionate burden on the poor and uneducated citizens sustaining a volunteer armed services. He is wrong! Rangel has also made disgusting statements that we would not have gone into Iraq if we had a draft, and the children of the rich and powerful were in military service. Charlie's barely disguised remarks are not much better than John Kerry's disparagement of those engaged in combat in Irag in his "botched joke." The reality is we have only just begun what will be a very long War on Islamic Fascism, and we need at least three times the number of infantry divisions along with the associated support troops. We are a long way from the size of combat forces necessary to fight the Battle for Iraq and the larger War on Islamic Fascism.
Apparently, News Corporation’s Chairman Rupert Murdoch personally cancelled the O.J. Simpson book and interview deal, and labeled the project as “ill-conceived” – a serious understatement from my perspective. However, the best descriptor for this project came from the title of a Wall Street Journal editorial – “An illiterate double-murder’s killer book.” We can only hope we are so blessed to never hear from or about this erroneously acquitted murderer again.
Every citizen, every human being, is entitled to the hatred, bigotry, and social phobias they are taught by their parents as children, or they learn from twisted mentors and teachers. When the bigotry of individuals enters the public domain, civilized society has a responsibility, an obligation, to confront those who transgress. When individuals take on the mantle of leadership in their profession or in society in general, as in the cases of Mel Gibson, Ted Haggard, Michael Richards, and too many others, the transgressions are far more serious and explode into hypocrisy, and thus demand equally serious social disdain and ostracism. Society’s obligation must be making a public example of hypocritical leaders.
Just to make sure no one thinks I have forgotten, I continue my research and evaluation of the web blog format for this forum. I still have much to learn.
Residual comments from Update no.257:
"[Xxx], are you saying that if you voted in the Democratic primary you are precluded from voting for the Republican in the general election? That sounds very bizarre but if indeed that is the rule in Washington, I would agree with [Xxxxx] that it's unconstitutional.
"Constitutional law on elections is very confused as a general matter, because the Framers didn't have political parties or global corporations in mind when they wrote it. Major complications are of course
(1) that people in involving themselves in political parties are engaged in exercising their First Amendment right of association, so the parties have constitutional rights about how they want to conduct candidate selection,
(2) how minority parties get onto the ballot varies from state to state and have an overall effect of preventing them from full participation in the national level,
(3) First Amendment problems with regulation of the extent of influence of money in the elections at all levels.
The Constitution is ill-equipped to deal with these problems. There is consensus in the two major parties on a broad range of issues that creates gridlock on matters that in fact need serious attention, and a healthier array of minority parties would to some extent alleviate that. I think most people, left or right, perceive that by the time it comes to the four-year choice between the Republican and Democratic candidates, they have been largely shut out from consideration of their concerns, but whether that means the selection of candidates to be on the national ballots is unconstitutional, is something else again.
"I'm sure [Xxxxx], as someone who has actually participated in running for office, has better insights on all this than I do."
. . . and this follow-up from a different contributor:
"I am no longer sure what I mean on this subject, due to all the e-mails back and forth on it. I just know that when I get my mail-in ballot each time I am only given Republican candidates to choose from because I registered as a Republican. I believe I am REQUIRED, when I register to vote, to choose a party affiliation. At present that is Republican, Democrat, or I can register as an independent. The ballot I then receive will reflect that choice.
"Now that may be legal in the Primary's, (I don't think so), but it surely cannot be in the Generals. I need to be able to vote for the candidate I feel best suited for the office---regardless of party!!
"[Xxxxx] ran for a judgeship. Here in WA, all judgeships are listed as non-partisan. No party listed. So I can vote for whoever I want."
Comments and contributions from Update no.258:
"I am guessing that being a former Marine you have some expertise with firearms. Having been there and seen the spacing between the hits on Kennedy. What is your opinion that both hits came from the same gun? If I remember correctly the motorcade would have taken less than 10 seconds to have traveled that distance."
My response:
Any marksman with experience using a bolt action, scoped rifle like Oswald’s Mauser at such a close range would have no problem squeezing off three or four rounds in the span of 4.56 seconds with deadly accuracy. I have seen considerable conjecture based on associated facts that does leave some questions unanswered, as is so often the case. While the Warren Commission Report was hardly an exhaustive examination of the assassination, subsequent high technology analysis of the available data tells me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the fatal shot came from Oswald’s rifle and the sixth floor corner window of the book depository. Seeing the space for myself adds to my conviction.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
"I'm sure [Xxxxx], as someone who has actually participated in running for office, has better insights on all this than I do."
. . . and this follow-up from a different contributor:
"I am no longer sure what I mean on this subject, due to all the e-mails back and forth on it. I just know that when I get my mail-in ballot each time I am only given Republican candidates to choose from because I registered as a Republican. I believe I am REQUIRED, when I register to vote, to choose a party affiliation. At present that is Republican, Democrat, or I can register as an independent. The ballot I then receive will reflect that choice.
"Now that may be legal in the Primary's, (I don't think so), but it surely cannot be in the Generals. I need to be able to vote for the candidate I feel best suited for the office---regardless of party!!
"[Xxxxx] ran for a judgeship. Here in WA, all judgeships are listed as non-partisan. No party listed. So I can vote for whoever I want."
Comments and contributions from Update no.258:
"I am guessing that being a former Marine you have some expertise with firearms. Having been there and seen the spacing between the hits on Kennedy. What is your opinion that both hits came from the same gun? If I remember correctly the motorcade would have taken less than 10 seconds to have traveled that distance."
My response:
Any marksman with experience using a bolt action, scoped rifle like Oswald’s Mauser at such a close range would have no problem squeezing off three or four rounds in the span of 4.56 seconds with deadly accuracy. I have seen considerable conjecture based on associated facts that does leave some questions unanswered, as is so often the case. While the Warren Commission Report was hardly an exhaustive examination of the assassination, subsequent high technology analysis of the available data tells me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the fatal shot came from Oswald’s rifle and the sixth floor corner window of the book depository. Seeing the space for myself adds to my conviction.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment