State of Fear

A review....by me.

Now, I have read 5 Chrichton books, and although this was not the worst it was not the best. The book develops slowly and is a hard read at first. The first chapter is not explained until about 2/3 through the book. But the story and the action pick up at the end and end with the classic "make you think" Crichton ending.

Now to the subject matter. I find quite interesting the things he points to and even goes to detail to reference the science behind him. "This is a work of fiction. Characters, corporations, institutions, and organizations in this novel are the product of the author's imagination, or, if real, are used fictitiously without any intent to describe their actual conduct. However, references to real people, institutions, and organizations that are documented in footnotes, are accurate. Footnotes are real."

The first of his footnotes deals with glaciers and more specifically Antartica:

Evans said, "Come on guys. Antartica ismelting."
"Actually, it's not," Sanjong said. "I cant give you the references if you like."
Kenner said, "While you were asleep, Sanjong and I were talking about how to clarify things for you, since you seem to be so ill-informed."
"Ill-informed?" Evans said, stiffening.
"I don't know what else one would call it," Kenner said. "Your heart may be in the right place, Peter, but you simply don't know what you're talking about."
"Hey," he said, controlling his anger. "Antartica is melting."
"You think repetition makes something true? The data show that one relatively small area called the Antartic Peninsula is melting and calving huge icebergs. That's what gets reported year after year. But the continent as a whole is getting colder and the ice is getting thicker."
"Antartica is getting colder?"
Sanjong had taken out a laptop and was hooking it up to a small portable bubble jet printer. He flipped open his laptop screen.
"What we decided," Kenner said, "is that we're going to give you references from now on. Because it's too boring to try and explain everything to you."
A shee of paper began to buss out of the printer. Sanjong passed it to Evans.

My notes here, if someone really wants I will provide the scientists names, but it is more typing than I wish to do tonight
"Antartic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response," Nature 415: 517-20
From 1986 to 2000 central Antartic valleys cooled .7C per decade with serious ecosystem damage from the cold
"Variability and trends in Antartic surface temperature from in situ and satelite infared measurements," Journal of Climate 13: 1674-96
Both satelite data and ground stations show slight cooling over the last 20 years
"Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antartica," Science 296: 476-80
Side-looking radar measurements show west Antartic ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/yr. Reversing the melting trend of the last 6,000 years

I will stop there. There are six more that point to general cooling and ice build up in the Antartic. This should be enough to make anyone stop and think. He spends the rest of that section going back and forth with Evans about the trends and like the same response I will get for posting it.

Very good book, very good read.

Bullshit!

Although I don't have Showtime, I have recently gotten to liking a new show of theirs. Bullshit. It stars Penn & Teller doing all sorts of topics and calling Bullshit where they see it. Probably my favorite episode was the Enviromental movement episode.

They interviewed a gentleman by the name of Bjorn Lomborg. He is the author of the book "The Skeptical Enviromentalist". His credentials are worth noting too. He is the founder of the Danish Chapter of Greenpeace. While there he realized that all that the enviromentalist movement is are a bunch of upper-middle income college kids who preach socialism, anti-corporation, anti-globalization rhetoric. Now the anti-globalization is quite funny because simply put, the cell phones, internet, cars, planes, and other devices they use are part of globalization.

Now, the aforementioned views they are voicing are not bad views, they have every right to feel the way they do. But to hide their agenda behind "Green Speak" is dishonest and downright wrong. It is a lie. They claim that forests are being cut down to make paper products and homes...A falsehood because like any other agricultural product, trees are grown in farms. Now, another great thing that should be noted is that these people are dishonest with themselves. A majority can do the typical "Corporations bad, environment good!". When you ask them for an example or some proof, they fall back to stupid arguements that amount to "Because I say so."

I dont particularly like to talk to people who cannot answer a simple question about why. Kind of like talking to a PETA person. There is no reason in their head, just a bunch of hot air that we should harness for our powerplants. I have yet to find any environmentalist who can put together an arguement based on actual facts. Now before someone comes in and starts spouting off how bad the environment is, let us state some basic undisputable facts:

1. Every Environmental concern is showing a drastically slowed progress. Many though are actually better than they were one hundred years ago.

2. The Ozone hole has almost totaly sealed itself. We are now recognizing that it is a natural cycle.

3. We are currently in a Period of cooling. We are not at the hottest temperature that the Earth has seen by a long shot. We are also not anywhere near the lowest.

4. We have been in a long period of solar activity which inflicts warmer temperatures unto the Earth.

5. We have more trees in America than we did over 200 years ago.

6. Carbon Dioxide is needed for plant life to flourish. If plant life grows faster and stronger in high levels of Carbon Dioxide, then why the hell would extra CO2 warm the earth? Wouldn't the plants grab it back up and use it?

7. Recycling causes more pollution and costs more than a brand new product. Granted, it saves from needing to find more of a resource, but there is so much cost to it that we should use what we have first until someone can discover a much more cost effective way of fixing it.

8. There is one exception to rule 7. Aluminum. Pop cans and other aluminum products actually have a value because the cost of mining new metal to produce aluminum is more expensive.


Environmentalists are complete wacko's and like anyone, you should beware anything ANYONE says. Look for the underlying truth behind what they say. Hell, even I am skeptical of myself. There is no reason to believe anyone all the time.

Am I supposed to trust scientists more?

Thanks to the Emperor for this humorful post.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7550964/

Now who among us thinks that it is great that someone destroys anyone elses property for any reason? Is there ever a time where the "greater good" outweighs someone elses rights? Thankfully the courts said no to that...for now.

LOS ANGELES - An aspiring physicist was sentenced to more than eight years in prison on Monday and ordered to pay $3.5 million for his role in a spree of arson and vandalism that targeted gas-guzzling Hummers and other sports utility vehicles.

Rejecting pleas for clemency from William Cottrell, a 24-year-old doctoral candidate in physics at the California Institute of Technology, U.S. District Judge Gary Klausner added more time to the sentence after finding that Cottrell was trying to sway consumers with his anti-SUV message.

He got what was coming to him, too bad they couldnt put him away for longer.

NYT Credibility Problem

The New York Times has a reputation for making up stories on the spot. Continuing their tradition we get this out of the Boston Globe (which is owned by the NYT).

BOSTON - A Boston Globe freelance writer fabricated large chunks of a story published this week, the newspaper said Friday in the latest incident to embarrass the U.S. media.

The Globe, which is owned by The New York Times Co., said it stopped using writer Barbara Stewart because of a story that ran on Wednesday about a seasonal hunt for baby seals off Newfoundland -- a hunt, it turns out, that had not taken place.

The thing this story failed to mention is that this woman wrote for the NYT before she went "freelance" for the Globe.

The story datelined Halifax, Nova Scotia, described in graphic detail how the seal hunt began Tuesday, with water turning red as hunters on some 300 boats shot harp seal cubs "by the hundreds."

The problem, however, was that the hunt did not begin Tuesday; it was delayed by bad weather and was scheduled to start Friday, weather permitting, the Globe said in an editor's note.

Stewart could not immediately be reached for comment.

Yeah, I bet she couldn't. She wasn't there, she didn't even do the basic research to find out that the hunt was delayed, but on top of it all gave an eye-witness account to the "hundreds" of seals shot. Those poor imaginary seals.

The newspaper, which received a complaint from the Canadian government, said it should not have published the story and should have insisted on attribution for details because the writer was not reporting from the scene.

"Details included the number of hunters, a description of the scene, and the approximate age of the cubs. The author's failure to accurately report the status of the hunt and her fabrication of details at the scene are clear violations of the Globe's journalistic standards," it added.

I am almost shocked that the Canadian government compained about this rather than point out their quite anti-liberal practice up der. But at least they are pointing out the stupidity of liberals to quote their "bastion of truth" the New York Times. I enjoy the New York Times status sliding closer and closer to The Onion. I laugh that the left has slipped to lies and deceit. They no longer (if ever) engage in honest and intelligent debate.

This story made my night

Why Liberals Failed in the Last election

The liberals fail to understand why they lost the last election and this is a perfect example. Their resident liberal strikes again with absurdity that only a true liberal comprehend.

Dishonesty or ineptitude? Which word better describes the driving force behind President Bush’s recent nomination of Republican right wing extremist John R. Bolton for the post of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations? Such a decision manifests either an utter disregard for the international community and a desire to undermine the United Nations or a complete lack of understanding of how the United Nations works. We’ll come back to that question in a bit. In either case, once again, a minority of ill-informed Republican lemmings and columnists line up to support this most recent abomination.

Dishonesty quite describes the liberal view on Mr Boltons nomination. To suggest that we are disregarding the international community could be interprited as a good thing by most...Who comprises the body of the UN? Is it a majority of democratic nations who honor political freedoms of their citizens? Is it a body who stops massacres from occuring all over the globe? Is it a body that everyone takes seriously and when confronted with the "consequences" of their actions fears what actually would happen should they disobey the UN? Of course this author would insinuate that there is a minority of people who support Mr Bolton when a majority truly wish him in more than any other liberal recomendation

Some folks choose to waste time discussing inane details of the oil for food scandal, but such discussion is irrelevant, as it is not the function of an ambassador to serve in an executive or constabulary role whose job it is to clean up the U.N.

Ah yes, the scandel that stopped the progress of Iraq resolutions and proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the UN as a scandal ridden inept gathering of thugs and dictators.

Even the most cursory review of the United Nations’ charter will reveal the degree to which multilateralism is at the very core of United Nations’ being. Most information pertaining to the U.N. is couched in verbiage reflective of this fundamental nature.

Yes, so multilateral that we must have every single country in the world back our actions...including the country we are sanctioning!

Like our own U.S. Senate, the United Nations is dependent upon successful politicking among members for resolutions to be passed. However, unlike the Senate, a few powerful nations including the U.S. have veto power at the United Nations, so it can be extremely difficult for any country to forward an agenda with U.N. backing without seriously courting the international community. Given the fact the U.N. represents nations of widely differing cultures and opinions, it is crucial that an ambassador has the ability to understand and appreciate the values and concerns of his U.N. peers and their respective nations, to influence them, and to be influenced by them so that consensus can be achieved and action taken.

What....senators cannot stop an agenda? Then what is all this (quite partisan) whining I am hearing from the left about the gutting of the filibuster? If no senator has any ability to hold up legislation then why are you crying about changing the filibuster? But again the UN represents only a few cultures as most of the UN member nations are dictators who answer to....THEMSELVES!

If the Bush administration thinks the United Nations is useless or irrelevant and without purpose, then that is a debate worth having; the U.N. is certainly not without its shortcomings. But that is a wholly separate and distinct discussion from the nomination of John “Mr. Unilateral” Bolton as ambassador to one of the quintessential multilateral diplomatic institutions of the modern era. Rather than have a serious debate on the role of multilateralism vs. unilateralism and the role of the United Nations in preserving global peace, the Bush administration has opted to refrain from such honest and open debate and instead send in their human bunker buster to undermine the U.N. while at the same time ratcheting up their “multilateral” PR rhetoric. I strongly urge all to oppose Bolton’s nomination and to call on the Bush administration to engage in honest debate regarding the role of multilateralism and the United Nations in U.S. foreign affairs.

Hmmm, if it is not tuesday then it must be wednesday? Mr Bolton is being appointed for specifically that reason. He knows how to deal with this kind of coruption. Of course this author has never given a reason WHY John Bolton should not be nominated other than that he does not agree what America should do to defend ourselves.


http://www.pardonmyenglish.com/archives/2005/04/bolton_a_poor_c.html

Tax day has passed

In honor of tax day (which is also the birthday of the DFL, go figure) here are some quotes about government and taxes.

“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
--Benjamin Franklin

“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”
--Winston Churchill

“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”
--Vladimir Lenin

“A government which lays taxes on the people not required by urgent public necessity and sound public policy is not a protector of liberty, but an instrument of tyranny.”
--Calvin Coolidge

“The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that
the taxidermist leaves the skin.”
--Mark Twain

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
--Ronald Reagan

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.”
--Alexander Tyler (about the fall of the Athenian Republic)

“The taxpayer: That’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.”
--Ronald Reagan

“When a man spends his own money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about how much he spends and how he spends it. When a man spends his own money to buy something for someone else, he is still very careful about how much he spends, but somewhat less what he spends it on. When a man spends someone else’s money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about what he buys, but doesn’t care at all how much he spends. And when a man spends someone else’s money on someone else, he doesn’t care how much he spends or what he spends it on. And that’s government for you”
--Milton Friedman

http://jameshudnall.com/blog.php?/weblog/tax_day/

There are more but this is my personal favorites.

Not one dime

Ed over at Captains Quarters posted something I whole heartidly agree with:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004299.php

It's time to send a real message to the Republicans about their priorities and their lack of leadership. This fight has been brewing for months, and it should have already been resolved by now. If they can't hack it, then we will find -- and fund -- the leaders who can.

I think we can all agree that there needs to be some accountability here and we aren't getting it. Our labor is going to waste. We have put up with enough liberal BS and now is time exact on the liberals what they did to us. Passing our agenda quickly and effectively. Let no one know, today is the day of revenge, its' color is red, and it is you and me

The pictures I posted today are from the rally sponsored by the Taxpayers League of Minnesota. I was really enjoying most of it, but unfortunatly I do not have a very large stoarge for my digital camera as the cards and battery are very expensive (to me anyways) but these are the good shots. The woman holding the "Govt't Childcare" sign ws one of about 4-5 protestors that started on the main floor. Now at first I thought they were with us because their signs made sense to me. "Privitize everything" one of them read. I thought, hey, that sounds good! Then I saw "Billionaires for Pawlenty" written on the bottom. Now I will give "Billionaires for Bush" props for coming up with a smooth slogan. "Billionaires for Pawlenty" sounds terrible. Never mind that the richest people in America tend to vote for Democrats.

However let us work on this theory. A billionaire (especially one who has been a billionaire for some time) generally has worked a business from the ground up. These are not stupid people and by and large have worked hard for every penny. They may not have been to college but they are successful, no doubt about that. So if they are successful business men (and women), would they be voting for someone who is going to hurt our economy? Would they just say "Oh screw my business, I am going to vote for someone who will end up putting me out of business."? Of course, the liberals logic always follows, "If it isn't Tuesday, it MUST be Wendsday."

I took the afternoon off and I think I will go enjoy the nice weather. Cheers all!

Here is a photo from October 31st, when GWB visited the Target Center....Thought I would add that for my friends that I traveled to the taxpayer rally with. 

Michele Bachmann...I am thinking about moving 

Sheri Pierson Yecke 

One more of the Governor 

Another of our liberal "friends" showing off her welfare attire and stupidity all at once!

I think it is quite symbolic that her eyes are red

One more of Jason 

Jason Lewis makes his triumphant return to Minnesota....Too bad he isn't staying 

My Favorite Picture of the day 

Mark Kennedy makes a nice speach 

And Steve Sviggum 

Some of our "enlightened" friends 

The governor today 

The UN

The UN is, well was, a fairly good concept. Nations get together to discuss the happenings of the world and thus make the world a better place. I think the original premise was actually for a one world government. Which I dont suppose I would mind too much, except the rest of the world has a real ass backwards view of how governments should be run.

Now, I am not 100% against the UN, however without some serious reform, they cannot be held as a bastion of international peace. The UN is more a political organization than an actual meeting place for the world. Nations are able to ignore resolutions without punishment. Some nations get away with ignoring the rules...I cant blame them there, they have a lot of stupid rules. But the problem with most governments has very quickly moved into the UN. Corruption at the highest levels, bickering between nation states, GLOBAL socialism, endless false threats.

Lets start with the last of those first. Now I do not watch TV much at all. The only TV shows that I watch I usually download and watch. Otherwise I pretty much keep clear of the TV. But my girlfriend loves to watch TV as she truly despises my computer. But she did get to a show I thought I should at least see once, Desperate Housewives. Now from what I hear it is a pretty, well, lets just say that it is as close to pornography on public airwaves as one could get. The episode she tuned in on (part way through) featured one of the mothers dropping her kids off at another mothers house to watch them while she was away. Something about cookies ensued, I don't remember the whole thing, but what I do remember is the woman watching them said "No more cookies, or else" The kid shrugged it off and she was livid about his reaction. She said he would get a spanking if he didn't do what she told him. Of course he said "Mommy says that too, but she never does it." Hmmm. Of course there is a crashing sound and she walks in to see the cookie jar broken on the floor, grabs the child and spanks him. The other mother found out and is quite justified in her anger. Later in the show the one (there are 3 children) who broke the cookie jar took his brothers toothbrush and threw it in the toilet. She told him to "Brush his teeth or else" of course the kid took his toothbrush right over to the toilet and dangled it there. The mother who was distraught at realizing her children figured out she was making empty threats and are calling her bluff is caught bluffing. Then she gets an idea "If you don't brush your teeth I am going to take you over to Mrs. Smith's (not her real name but I cant remember) house and you know what she does with naughty children." To which the child turned pale and got to the sink to brush his teeth.

Is this how the UN is viewed throughout the world? I would be very comfortable saying unequivicolly yes. How many resolutions were passed about the congo massacres? Iraq? Israel? China? Haiti? Somalia? How many did the UN follow through on? In most places where the UN fails the US has to go in and clean up.

Global Socialism. Where to start. Well, I will focus on one particular issue and build around it. The World Courts. A court which is above our own nations judiciary, beyond the president, beyond any one's control. A court which could use laws that we don't agree on to try our citizens, our soldiers. If the world court were in place today, I have no doubt in my mind that the EU would be pushing for trials for all US military members. Now all this of course is based on "International Law." Which is funny in and of itself because it simply is a court to the whim of the prosecuting country. Now take that and expand it. The UN has made it its' mission to feed everyone in the world. Of course the US pays the majority of the UN budget thus we are feeding the world. Now top it with programs designed with a socialist base and countries are becoming dependant on hand outs to live.

Now the corruption and bickering go hand in hand. By its' very own nature, the UN is the home of numerous dictators and thugs. Militant power usurpers who just happened to amass an army of people to kill the last king. They are corrupt to any greasing of the palm. Evidence of this was the "Oil for Food" program that blew up after we uncovered documents of Kojo (Kofi's son) being involved in this corruption. Files mysteriously were ordered shredded right before the investigation was granted. Kofi won't even talk about it. Now in America you a innocent until proven guilty but Kofi is not an American and the amount of circumstantial evidence goes against him.

Is the UN useless? No. Is it useless in its' current form? Yes

Why I dont care

Now, in my circles at least, when we lose we more often than not take it in the chin and realize defeat. Very few times do we go galavanting around talking about "stolen" elections, appointed positions, how stupid the other side is...We simply bow out gracefully and realize we lost. We go back to our corner to and figure out how to win next time. The other side seems to cry louder ever single year.

I wasn't politically inclined in the early 90's. I got my start into politics around 95. Mostly national and local national (senate and house). I was well into politics when Bob Dole ran in 96. I remember staying up on election night to watch the returns. I wasn't quite formed in my opinions other than I didn't like Clinton. I found out soon after that I had reason to dislike him.

My perception changed starting shortly after that and i began to critically look at politics. I identified several things that were important to me. First of which was truth. I am a skeptic. Though I may believe that there are things, I want proof before I put faith in them. For example. I believe that there is life on other planets. Mathmatically it should be possible. But until I see an alien or some conclusive proof I would say there is no life on other planets even though I believe differently. Truth is no perceptive. The world cannot be black if it is white. It is wrong to say that it is gray if it is black. This is the first principle that I clung to. I was in public school at that point. There were numerous things that I looked at and thought "How the hell does this work?" For instance, I intentionally didn't do my homework because I could just do it in bulk once a month. Now, I didnt study for tests either because I could simply retake them as many times as I wanted to so I could get the score I wanted. The teachers got really made at me for milking their system but did nothing to stop it. They would not say no. They would not tell me that what I was doing was wrong. Because what I was doing was "right" to me. It was right to me but wrong to the teachers, this made 2 totally opposite truths to the same thing. This I could not accept.

The second principle I formed was that government should not play a larger part in a persons life than the person themselves. This came out of numerous things....Stupid warning labels, people who killed themselves in stupid stunts, stupid regulations....It was solidified by things like the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit, the tobacco lawsuits, fast food lawsuits, ad nausem. People are generally self sufficent and there is no reason for government to walk into someones house and tell them what they can and cannot do. Now there is a limit to this. Extreme things (murder, highly dangerous explosives, drugs, suicide, and alike) should be stopped. This is where I part with libertarians. I see no positives to illegal drugs and no benefits to society from them. Now, there is a line between illict drugs and smokers. Smoking is not a mentally alerting drug, it is a chemical altering drug but nothing that is going to make you crash a car. Now people push me even further to call alcohol a mentally alerting drug, but there is a BENEFIT to alcohol. Red wine has been shown to be good for your heart. Alcohol also has medicinal purposes. Certain alcohols will reduce certain risk factors for some diseases. As far as I am aware cocaine has never been good for anything in the body.

The third principal is fiscal responsibility. This is much broader than just government fiscal responsibility and thats how I felt at first. Jesse Ventura although he was a good governor from a fiscal standpoint and I learned some good lessons from him. This was one of them. I was a reckless youth and was fiscally irresponsible as most youths are and a few years ago I caught myself and firmly planted myself in reality. There is a point in which one has to stop and realize that they cannot live beyond their means. Now, I am very well aware (having been there myself) that people need help. There is however a limit to what should be done. The most government help I have ever used is 2 weeks. Out of 7 working years that's pretty damn good. That was 2 weeks of unemployment from a very sudden and dissapointing job loss. Other than that I have stayed out of public assistance. The reasons are 2 fold. First, I don't want the temptation of having work free money dangling in front of me tempting me to just take that and live as a welfare junkie. Second, I don't want a hand out. I understand that everyone needs a hand, but a hand out is not the way to build it. I needed a hand up. I fell flat on my ass and someone extended their hand to pull me to my feet and I was fine again. They didn't just cater to my needs and say "You stay there flat on your ass while I take care of you." I cannot see a point in which government subsidies should go on longer than a few months. I personally know I have responsibilites and I am not going to let them get in the way. If you are a rocket scientist and lose your job and cant find a job as a rocket scientist then you find another job. It may be a temporary job change until you find a rocket scientist job again but at least you are working and making a living.

So the question rounds back up. How does this change winners and losers? I think these 3 beliefs support the actions surrounding ones self. Liberals tend to think that there are 2 truths to every answer. They tend to believe that no one should be allowed to self destruct and that the state should be everyones personal nanny. So it comes as little surprise to me that when they lose they throw a hissy fit claiming unfairness because "their truth" is right when it is quite wrong.

Why you dont need to fear the draft

One thing that has become a recent thorn in my side is people who absolutely down to their core, believe that a draft is coming. I hear things from "We are using the reserves now, they are running out of soldiers" to "Bush is Hitler Spawn". Several things come to mind to smack these people upside the head and I will cover those first. There was a book I was reading through at the book store the other day and I'll be damned if I can remember the title but the essence of the book was that there are several types of conflicts. There is the A army, an army whose sole purpose would be similar to the British Red Coats during the revolutionary war. They were clearly the superior army in technology, numbers, supplies, arms and support. Most people (and rightfully so) said that the revolutionaries could not win this war. Which if we had fought the same way as the British they were right. But we had a C army. A C army is more loosely organized than an A army, an although lacking in the aforementioned supports they traditionally can take out any A army while still maintaining a loose order because of the inflexibility of the A army. The A army is focused on a larger scale conflict where C is focused more on a battle by battle scenario and has large felxibility to change. Now I went right from A to C and left out B. For a very good reason. A B army is more in line of what we have right now. It is well suited to go into situations of C armies (think the terrorists in Iraq) or an A army (think Iraq during the Gulf War) but still is at a disadvantage to each if it does not have superior supports. Now his theory contends that America is attempting something not done before with the military. The reservists and navy are assembling as a B force, while the non-reserve units (many of which are not currently deployed) as assembling with the Air Force as our A army. This is in response to China and Iran building up an A army while we are occupied in Afghanistan and Iraq. There was, of course, a much clearer explanation of all this but the general idea is there.

Now having said all that, also note that we are no where near fully deployed of troops and we are still preparing more Iraqi troops every day. The idea that we will ever withdraw all troops from Iraq is like saying the national budget will ever shrink. Democrat or Republican the budget always expands and it is a true shame. Over 50 years later we are still in Germany. Over 30 years we are still in Korea. Almost 15 in Kuwait.....The list is near endless.

However the idea of a draft, aside form the fact that it would be met with a near revolt, is the fact that it would kill our economy. Assuming a draft took place they would draft everyone of age up to 25 to get a good amount (if they truly were in that dire of straights). Now being 22 and a career started in a specialized position for my employer, a 2+ year tour of duty from a draft would cripple his store. I am the only store based sales person there, he would have to hire another person to take my place and note that it was temporary to hire work. Temporary if I came back, to hire if I came back draped in a flag. Now he would have to hold my job while I was gone. Imagine how many 18-25 year olds there are out there and how many would have to have their jobs held. There are more jobs than there is people out there right now and this would only make the situation even worse.

Now skip ahead a few years. Veterans are returning, 18 year olds are now 20 after 2 years of active duty. They go back to their previous spots. Most have a bank of cash from enlistment pay and they go to college. Effectively we have just turned the entire professional world into a 2 year shortage of qualified people. Especially with baby boomers retiring in larger numbers than people are entering fields, all the sudden we have 2 years of no gain in employee's while at the same time still losing the same, if not more due to death, retirement, career switches...All the sudden we might not find ourselves with doctors, dentists, lawyers (I know what you are thinking, but we still really need them, even the ambulance chasers). Most small businesses are started by the young crowd in that age.

Economically the US could not survive the collapse of this large segment of the populace just "dissapearing". I don't expect most liberals to understand this, as many lack a basic understanding of how business works. Or at least they dont lead on like they do.

If anything, the only president I could ever see imposing a draft, would be a democrat who does not understand the economics behind it.

Back

Well my motherboard was fried, thus a new one and a little more RAM and I am back up to somewhat normal operation. Now to find all the stuff I lost....

Absence

Yes I have been absent the last week or so. My main computer went down and I am on a slow, lethargic back up. I am going to make a couple posts later, but jebus it is hard to work on this thing.

Another Great Picture from Kuwait....

My Friend in Iraq...well this is Kuwait but she's in Iraq now