This is the kind of article on the things going on downrange that I have been looking for.

Ralph Peters is a writer for the New York Post living in Kuwait with the troops he is writing about.

This article of his focuses on the troops of CFLCC (Pronounced "sea-flick", read the article, if you want to know what it stands for). These are the folks in the "rear" in Kuwait who provide all the support for the troops in Iraq.

Some of these same people ran the close quarters marksmanship training I went through before going into Iraq.

They are great.

Peters highlighted some of the things that they have done over the last 16 months. (Keep in these are not the only people in that theater of operations that have ran convoys, moved cargo and troops, washed vehicles, or served meals. They are just the ones who do it from Kuwait.)

His list includes:

* 590,000 troops moved in and out of Iraq.

* 100,000,000 (yes, 100 million) miles driven by nearly 50,000 convoys.

* 160,000 major pieces of equipment and 25,000,000 tons of cargo processed in and out of Kuwait.

* 140,000,000 (yes, million) meals served.

* 66,000 vehicles power-washed (Our troops have to make sure that no germs or contaminants are carried back to the United States — you bet that today's military operations are more complex than amateurs imagine).

* 20,000 allied troops from 27 countries also had CFLCC's support as they moved into Iraq to support Coalition operations.

This outfit, alone, has driven 50,000 convoys in the last 16 months, and they are by no means the only ones running convoys.

If you think every convoy gets hit by the insurgents and it shows up on CNN, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

Great things are happening, and have happened in Iraq. It's part of what leads Peters to lead off his article with this statement:

The scale of our military's effort to support our troops in Iraq is a great American success story. And it's ignored. Not only by critics, but even by those who keep faith with our struggle.

It turns out that I was wrong. At least in a couple of details in the last post.

The UAE firm is, at least partially, nationalized.

Secondly, the deal is only worth 6.8 billion dollars, not 8.

I've been following the news on the sale of six "ports" to a firm from the United Arab Emirates pretty closely. My wife told me that her mother was getting pretty upset about it. I explained to my wife the facts, as I understood them, minus the spin. She suggested that I put that in an email to her folks.

I thought I would share the email here. The text follows.

Hey,

It's Kev. Amy asked me to write you all about this several days ago. She said that Tanya, in particular, was upset about it. I've been following this pretty closely, mainly, through the Rush Limbaugh Show. We are members in his website. I am one of Rush's "Adopted Soldiers". We have a free membership to his website. Part of the membership is that you can read all of Rush's source material that he uses to prepare for each show. This is my favorite part of the site.

I'm not going to reference any of that material here. I can, if you like, at a later time.

Let me first explain why Rush has an "Adopt a Soldier" program for his site (this will come to bear later in what I have to write). Rush's program is 3 hours long. It is carried on the Armed Forces Network, through their satellite TV service, but only for the first hour. And, like everything else on AFN, they do not carry any commercials, other than their own.

Back to the port deal.

There are some key questions that have to be answered to understand what is going on.

1. What is being sold?
2. Who is selling?
3. Who is buying?
4. Who, actually, has worked on those ports?
5. Who will work at those ports in the future?
6. What is the role of the US government in all of this?
7. Who has been, is and will be in charge of port security?

1. What is being sold?

The concession that is being sold is the management of the cargo container terminal at 6 US ports. One of those ports is in the New York City/New Jersey area. A franchise is being sold, if you will.

2. Who is selling?

The six cargo container terminals in question are currently under the management of a private (not national) British firm that specializes in port management. This "franchise" is not being sold by the US government. I do not know the name of the firm.

3. Who is buying?

A private (not national) firm from the United Arab Emirates, based in the capital city of Dubai, is buying the "franchise". They are the 4th largest firm of this type in the world. The British firm selling it is not in the top 3. Furthermore, this UAE firm controls the originating container terminals for, at least, 20% of all cargo containers coming into the United States.

The top 3 firms refused to put in bids for this concession. Scuttlebutt has it that they refused to deal with the hassles involved with unionized labor in the US. (See the next 2 questions.)

4. Who, actually, has worked on those ports?

The workers on the ground at each of these ports have been supplied by the United States' Longshoreman's Union, one of the member unions of the AFL-CIO.

5. Who will work at these ports in the future?

The same workers from the Longshoreman's Union.

6. What is the role of the US government in all of this?

The government is not buying or selling anything in all of this.

Because of the nature of the deal, and various Federal laws, an agency in the Federal government, I assume some part of the Commerce Department, has to sign off on the contract. Their role is to make sure that contract is in order, and that the cargo container terminal will continue to function normally.

7. Port security.

Thursday evening, I was in the kitchen, listening to Rush through the TV there on AFN. During one of the commercial breaks, they featured soundbites from General Pace.

General Pace is a 4-star Marine General, and he is the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The senior uniformed military official for the US.

He had been asked about this "port" sale, and port security.

I don't remember his exact verbage, but I do remember he sounded kind of confused. He wasn't confused about the issue or the fact that he was asked the question. It was more of the response that one would give to the question: "Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?"

His answer was that port security would continue to be handled by the people that had always handled it: the US Coast Guard.

Closing thoughts:
Thousands of cargo containers enter the US, daily. Only 5% of all cargo containers entering the US get checked for security purposes. The UAE firm controls the ports of origin for 20% of all cargo containers entering the US. If they really wanted to bomb us, whether with conventional bombs or WMD, wouldn't it make more sense to send in a bunch of containers from the ports of origin with bombs than spend 8 billion dollars to "buy" the ports?

What will this sale change?

Well, the sign outside of the main office at the cargo container terminals. The pictures on the wall of the big bosses, and the names on the checks, payroll and otherwise. Other than that, not much, if anything.

If the UAE is such a threat:

Why haven't we kept all cargo containers coming from the ports of origin that they control from entering the country? Why do airliners still fly from there to here? Why does the UAE airline still have permission to land at airports in the US?

Next to last, 2 of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE. At least, 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Have we stopped doing any and all business with the Saudis? Do we not still buy their oil? Do they not endow chairs in several US universities? Do we not still have a sizeable contingent of Americans living and working on Saudi soil? If we draw the "9/11 line" for the UAE, now, when will we start drawing it for the Saudis? Osama bin Laden, himself, is a Saudi citizen. His family is about as close as you can get to the Saudi equivalent of the Kennedy's.

Finally, Osama bin Laden, and al Quaeda, attacked the World Trade Center twice (the bombing in 1993 was them, too). Did they attempt to buy it, first? Either time? No. So, assuming that this UAE firm wants to bomb the ports in question, why spend 8 billion dollars for the privilege when you can do it now without paying this British firm for the privilege?

Kev

P.S.
Talk about strange bedfellows. You want to know who are two of the most vocal proponents of this deal, as of Thursday? Rush Limbaugh and former President Jimmy Carter. Not exactly two guys that I would have thought of as taking an ideological stand, together. (grin) You might need to check Revelations. This might be one of the signs of the Apocalypse.

My father-in-law said that he was going to circulate my email to some people. He asked if I wanted my name and email included. He was concerned that some respondents might be less than friendly. I told him that I didn't mind, and I could handle it.

I will tell you how I, initially, planned to respond to those who couldn't stay civil in their dialogue in a bit.

The answer I gave my father-in-law was that maybe he should attach this to the email:

Staff Sergeant (SSG) Kevin Robertson is a 16-year veteran of the United States Army.

His awards and decorations include: the Meritorious Unit Medal, the Joint Services Commendation Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Achievement Medal with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters, Good Conduct Medal with silver clasp, National Defense Service Medal with star, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Korean Defense Service Medal, the Noncommissioned Officer's Ribbon with numeral 2, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon with numeral 3, the Driver's Badge (wheeled), the Expert Marksmanship Badge (M-16), the Marksman Badge (grenade), and 2 Combat Service Stripes.

I forgot my 1st Infantry Division Combat patch.

His military training includes: the Basic Noncommissioned Officer's Course (Commandant's List (Honor Roll) graduate), the Primary Leadership course, the Basic course at the Armed Services School of Music, Basic Training, the NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) Officer and Noncommissioned course, the Army Equal Opportunity Leader's Course, and certification as an instructor in basic Hand to Hand combat.

I forgot the training I received in close-quarters marksmanship while I was in Kuwait.

SSG Robertson has served at every level of command available to him, to include: squad leader, platoon sergeant, acting First Sergeant, and acting Commander. He has held staff postions in S-2 (security and intelligence), S-3 (Operations and Training), S-4 (Logistics), and S-5 (Public\Civil Affairs). His overseas tours include: Panama, Korea and Germany. He served with the 1st Infantry Division during their deployment to Iraq during 2004-2005.

I forgot to include that my daily duties in Iraq included dealing with security issues around and direct supervision of 30-50 Iraqi nationals working at the MWR facility where I served as the Assistant Noncommissioned Officer in Charge.

His current duties with the 1st Infantry Division Band include serving as the units S-2 (Security and Intelligence) supervisor, where he oversees physical security, force protection, clearances and classified material, and safety for the unit.

What I originally told my father-in-law was that if someone got nasty, I would play the "war vet/support the troops" card, and send them this picture: (It is a thumbnail. Click on the picture to see it full size.)

As for the resume, there is an old southern saying: "It aint braggin', if you done it."

It's a big word.

The concept is one of the most basic to human understanding, however.

Eons ago, (the 1980's) I took the undergraduate class, Educational Psychology. It delved into developmental psychology. That would be the study of when we, as humans, begin to be able to compehend certain concepts.

For instance, when, as infants, we begin to understand that just because something or someone is no longer in our line of sight they can still exist.

Incongruity is one of those "simple-stupid" concepts that we can grasp at a very early age.

The TV show "Seasame Street" is one of the best practitioners of hitting pre-Kindegarten age kids exactly where they are, developmentally. They do not linger on a subject any longer than their audience's attention span, for instance. The show is annoying to watch, as an adult, among other reasons, because they never stick with a given story line within an episode to give any real substance. ... Yada, Yada, Yada ... the poor horse is dead, I will cease beating it.

One of the the things I, still, reference from that show, however, is "One of These Things ...". If you are my age or younger, or you have had children in that time frame, you know the song: "One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn't belong. ... etc."

Which brings me to a picture I saw in the news, today.

It's a picture of Muslim men burning a Danish flag in protest of the cartoons a Danish newspaper published 6 months before these protests started. Look at it closely for the thing that "just doesn't belong".



I'll give you a hint, if you missed it. I did, at first. Look along the right hand side of the photo.

See it, yet?

Okay, from the word "Go", the conservative Muslims have objected to the Western lifestyle and belief system(s). America is the most dominant, currently, of the Western Nations. So, when al Quaeda struck us on 9/11, they hit our military center, the Pentagon, a target that we may never know, some say the Capitol building, and ... What did they hit?

They did't hit our financial center. That would have been the Federal Reserve or the New York Stock Exchange.

They didn't hit the Statue of Liberty. That's a national symbol.

They hit the World Trade Center. Both towers. The two most visible buildings in the best known skyline in the western world, if not the whole world.

Symbols of a city. The city that is, more than any other, the center of the western world. The home of the UN, a western construct. The city that is closest in modern equivalent to ancient Rome. "If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere", or so the song says.

Have you caught it yet? Look at the picture, again.

What do you come to mind first when you think of New York City?

The World Trade Center?

The Stock Exchange?

The Jets?

The Knicks?

The (football) Giants?

The Mets?

The Yankees. The pinstripes. Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Reggie Jackson, Mariano Rivera, Joe Torre, etc. That distinctive superimposed "NY".

Look at the picture, again.

Is it just me, or should the caption read:
"Death to the infidel. Behead those who insult Islam. ... Go Yankees!"

"One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong!"

I realize that I keep coming back to this template for my blog. Not only do I like this set up for my site, it is the only one that I have found that consistently is able to handle all of the stuff that I throw at it.

There is a new "widget" added to the site.

If you scroll down far enough, to the bottom of the right sidebar, and buttons, then you will find a new little box.

It is from The Weather Underground site. They have as good, if not better, information than the Weather Channel's site. Even better yet, they have great "widgets" that can be stuck in a website to access their services. Better, even, than the Weather Channel's.

With that said, some time this summer, I will leave Germany, and be stationed at Fort Lewis, Washinton. It is just southwest of Tacoma.

I will get, hopefully, to end my military career within a 2 hour's drive from where my little brother lives.

Since my brother went to England as an intern at Oxford, we have rarely lived within 2,000 miles of each other. Most of the time, we haven't even lived on the same continent.

It looks like, given the circumstances, I will have the opportunity to get to know my nephew, Brandon, my brother's son, who lives with his mother. Craig, my brother, has, recently, gained broader visitation rights with his son than he has ever had.

Craig has, recently, married. Other than digital pictures, and some Yahoo chats, I have never met my sister-in-law. She seems to be a wonderful girl, and a perfect match for my brother.

I look forward to my next, and, hopefully, my last military assignment. For the reasons, among others, that I have listed above.

This new "widget" is a mini-celebration of what I have said above.

Enjoy it.

Use it.

If you have been following my blog for a while, then you have no doubt noticed a fairly broad range of music passing through the "Listening" sidebar.

I went through a phase towards the end of my deployment in Iraq, and for a while after I came back where I listened to what I refer to as "comfort music".

It's music that either was the music that I listened to in high school, music by the artists I listened to then, or music of a similar character. Lot's of ZZ Top, Kansas, Styx, Yes, Steve Miller Band, etc.

One of my favorite bands from that time is Iron Maiden.



While I was downrange, I picked up a fairly recent album by Iron Maiden, "Dance of Death", copyright in 2003.

I had never heard any of it before. I just knew it was by one of my favorite metal bands.

Their primary songwriter is Steven Harris, their bassist. He is quite well read and culturally literate. His writing shows this.

He has written heavy metal adaptations of "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" by Edgar Allan Poe, "The Phantom of the Opera", the movie "Damien: Omen 2" ("The Number of the Beast"), and, my personal favorite, a 15 minute adaptation of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Rime of the Ancient Mariner".

Before I heard this album, Harris limited himself to literary or theatrical works.

There were two songs on this album I bought downrange that caught my ear, lyrically: "Montsegur" and "Paschendale". It turns out that Harris, of the three songwriters in the group, had a hand in writing both of them.

So, I did some online research.

Pachendale is about the Third Battle of Ypres in WWI. It is mainly told from the perspective of the Canadian troops who were on the wrong end of that battle.

Montsegur is about the final battle of the Albigensian Crusade in the 13th Century. A crusade by the Catholic Church against a splinter sect called the "Cathars". The crusade took place near the Provence area of France.

The Cathars, it turns out, are one of the crucial turning points in the medeival Grail legends that such things as the 3rd Gabriel Knight game, by Sierra Online, and The Da Vinci Code.

Legend has it that the wealth that the Knights Templar eventually acquired, making them the first Gentile "bankers" in Europe, was founded in the Cathar treasures.

I could go on ...

But, I won't.

All this from a little "head-banging" music.

Twelve bucks well spent.

Not going to say much about this. It's pretty standard Ann Coulter stuff, which means you either enjoy it, or you absolutely hate it, and her.

She does bring up a rather interesting point.

You know, I assume, about all the rioting that has gone on in every country with a large, or predominantly Muslim population. Everywhere from France and England to Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Iran has had major protests in the news. It seems like any country with a sizeable Muslim population is experiencing this.

Or is it?

What Islamic nation has not had protests over this issue in the news?

If you said Iraq, you are right.

It's a shame things are such mess there that the millions of Muslims there can't even protest this outrage ... that took place last September!

Or maybe they just don't see the point.

"The Butcher" over at "Sacred Cow Burgers" strikes again. His commentary, and parody photo about the latest bout Islamic lunacy is as inspired as ever.

See what I mean?

(It's a thumbnail. Click the picture to see it large enough to read the caption.)

I don't know how much I can say on this. I have not had the honor of living in our country since 2002.

I do know that we are at war. I have the medals and patch on my right shoulder, everyday, to prove it.

Not to mention the memories.

I remember:

jetliners slamming into the twin towers of the World's Trade Center;

smoldering holes in the ground where two of the tallest buildings in the world stood;

the final toll of almost 3,000 dead in New York;

the smoldering hole in the side of Pentagon where 193 uniformed and civilian employees of the Department of Defense died;

plus the passengers of that plane;

the story of those who heard about the previous three planes, and refused to be used in the same way. They said "Let's Roll!" ...and made it happen;

PFC Markus J. Johnson of Delta (Dawgs) Battery, 4th Battalion, 3rd Air Defense Artillery Regiment;

if you have been following this blog, the Tailor, his assistant, and his wife;

that since the inception of the Congressional Medal of Honor, only two military musicians have won it: one, a bugler from the Army during the Boxer Rebellion, whose name I don't remember; the other was a Marine bugler/trumpet player during WWII named Cole. The Navy named a destroyer after him. al Quaeda blew a large chunk of the side out of that ship, killing 17 sailors(mostly enlisted personnel, like me), in the process.

So, how much, of what you can remember, do you never want to experience again?

You have seen part of my list.

The writer of this article brings up some salient point.

Let me back up for a second.

This article was quoted at length today by Rush Limbaugh on his show. It was included in his daily "Stack of Stuff", the source material that he reads, daily, to prep for his show.

Back to the article, itself.

Mr. Sowell references what has been going on around us for 4+ years. He brings up some specifics, like the kidnapping of Jan Carroll, journalist with the Christian Science Monitor; Iran pushing towards nuclear weapons; the not-so-recent beheading of other kidnapped Westerners; riots, protests, death threats, and attacks on embassies, because of a series of cartoons, some of which the antagonists created.

He left out: riots in France, because the gendarme had the gall to attempt to arrest criminals of Islamic persuasion; bombings of mass transit systems in Spain and Britain; etc.

What consumes the news cycle, and the attention of our national leaders?

What has had our attention, recently?

Justice Alito's former membership in an alumni group that might have, once, allowed someone with a vaguely racist sentiment to voice an opinion in their magazine ... as opposed to Senator Ted Kennedy's continued membership in a Harvard group that continues to exclude women.

Court cases and news stories about government officials leaking classified information that required that the sources, and news agencies leak classified information.

"Domestice wiretapping" that is focused not on our citizens, but our enemies.

National figures shooting snide comments at each other while make remarks at a funeral.

Maybe, I am too close to the situation. Maybe, I have had too many friends and family serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe, I have known too many that have died there. Maybe, I have too many friends there in harm's way that could still die.

Then again, maybe, I remember Osama bin Laden declaring on the West, and then acting on it. Maybe, I remember that he or his proxies has acted on that in Spain, Britain, Bali and the US. Maybe, I sat and listened to Senator Patrick Leahy announce on an MSNBC broadcast, in an attempt to discredit the NSA intelligence program, that the NSA had intercepted, at least, 5,000 calls between al Quaeda operatives or confederates and persons within the United States, since the program's inception.

I could go on a diatribe, but I won't. I will just point out some salient points.

The 20 9/11 terrorists spent considerable time in the US before September 11th. We know, now, that they made multiple calls in the Middle East and Europe.

The question is: How many calls did they have to make to pull off 9/11?

Are you willing to gamble that it took more than a total of 5,000 calls, total?

My guess is that it took, significantly, fewer.

So, just how many 9/11's can you plan with 5,000 calls?

It was early March, 2001. I was sitting at my desk in my den in Lawton, OK reading the news on CNN's website. My wife was in the kitchen a few feet away. Today, I'm not sure which exact article I was reading, but I think it was this one. It might have been this one, or this one, though. I stopped, and told my wife, "We are going to be at war with these people within the next 18 months." She asked me why. I told her that I didn't have a specific reason that would start it, but they were insane enough that they were going to find a way to be at war with us.

Keep in mind that this was March of 2001, and the group I was talking about the Taliban in Afghanistan.

So, I read the article linked in the title of this article, after reading several articles about their President: the things he espouses, and the things he has been saying about the US, Israel, and the Holocaust, or rather that it never happened.

This guy is nuts. The way things are going he is going to have a nuclear weapon very shortly. That is, if he doesn't have one already. He believes that he can help bring on the Islamic version of the "Rapture", if he causes enough trouble.

Don't forget that these are the same people that held our embassy personnel hostage for more than a year. I do not exaggerate when I say that. The Isalmic Revolutionary Guard were the ones that were behind taking our people hostage. Their current President is a former member of this group.

This article was in Rush's stack of stuff that he reads to prep for his show for this last Thursday.

It seems that ... never mind ... the article is short. I'll paste it all here. Just so you know, it is an AP wire piece. I have obtained it from the online version of ABC News.

BOSTON Feb 2, 2006 — Backed by abortion rights groups, three Massachusetts women sued Wal-Mart on Wednesday, accusing the retail giant of violating a state regulation by failing to stock emergency contraception pills in its pharmacies.

The lawsuit, filed in state court, seeks to force the company to carry the morning-after pill in its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam Club stores in Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs argued that state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."

Wal-Mart carries the morning-after pill in Illinois only, where it is required under state law, said Dan Fogleman, a spokesman for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart.

Fogleman said the company "chooses not to carry many products for business reasons." He would not elaborate. But in a letter to a lawyer for the plaintiffs, a Wal-Mart attorney said the store chain does not regard the drug as "commonly prescribed."

CVS, the state's largest pharmacy chain, stocks the pill at all of its drugstores.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Where do you want to start on this?

Keep in mind that to sue someone, basically, means that the plaintiff feels that the defendant has violated either the rights of the plaintiff, or the defendant has failed to live up to the legal responsibilities the defendant has to the plaintiff.

Let's start with the basic capitalist viewpoint. Since when is it a customer's right under law, or a court's jurisdiction under law to dictate to the owner or proprietor of a business to carry a given product?

Let me elaborate on this point for a bit.

First, the size of the business really doesn't matter. It could be a chain the size of Wal-Mart, or your local bar with 4 bar stools, and two tables.

I could understand if, let's say, someone was suing a supposed "gas station" that had no type of motor vehicle fuel for sale. But that is not the case here.

Let me re-frame the question.

Let's use the local bar example I used above. There are the big three American beers: Budweiser, Miller, and Coors. The proprietor of this bar only carries one. Let's say Bud. He has made a choice that is going to exclude people that like the other two from patronizing his establishment. Thereby, limiting the business, and the profits that he will receive. There could be multiple reasons for his choice: the local Bud distributor offered him a better price if he didn't sell the other two; the proprietor is a big fan of the Rams (football) or Cardinals (baseball); the Bud distributor offered the same prices as the others, but gave him a cool set of lights to put over the pool tables if he didn't sell the others; the proprietor simply doesn't like Miller or Coors; among many others.

So, does this choice by the proprietor violate the rights of the guy (Coors only drinker) who lives next door to the bar? (Thereby giving him grounds to sue)

Next question:

Is Wal-Mart the only pharmacy in the entire state of Massachusetts?

It isn't. The article says so.

It's not even the largest pharmacy chain in the state. The article says so.

We haven't even discussed whether somewhere in the entire state of Massachusetts there might be a pharmacy or two (0r more) that are not part of a chain.

So, at this point, we will exagerate the example in the direction of the plaintiff.

Let's go back to a variation on our local bar example from before.

The proprietor is now in charge of Billy Bob's Texas, in Fort Worth, TX. (One of the largest bars in the state. So much so, that major country recording artists on big venue tours make sure they play at Billy Bob's. Guys like Willy Nelson. [I have a "Live at Billy Bob's" CD by Willie Nelson])

So, our proprietor is now in charge of the largest bar in the largest metroplex in one of the most populous states in the nation.

Still, there are 4 or 5 other bars within a reasonable walking distance, and several convenience stores that sell all of the big three beers.

Does the proprietor now have a legal responsibility to carry Miller and/or Coors along with his beloved Bud?

It may not be the best business choice, but has our proprietor met the criteria spelled out above to be sued?

(Back to the article)

Wal-Mart is not even the biggest pharmacy chain in the state.

Remember?

CVS, the state's largest pharmacy chain, stocks the pill at all of its drugstores.

My final point, and I think this one is a doozy!

Let me quote, again:

"The plaintiffs argued that state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."

Just how "commonly" is the Morning After pill prescribed (and it is a prescription drug)?

Let's explore this point for a moment.

Let's say that roughly half (anywhere from 40-60%) of the state of Massachusetts is male.

Do you really think that they are going to have the Morning After pill prescribed to them?

Next, how many of the rest, the women, are, actually, having sex? How many of that 40-60% are, let's say (rather broadly) under the age of 12, and not having sex, barring incest? How many of those who are having sex under the age of, let's say, 18 (consensual or otherwise) would actually obtain a prescription of the Morning After Pill?

So, in any meaningful fashion, we are left with the women over 18 that are having sex. How many of those are past menopause, and, therefore, not in need of the Morning After pill?

So, once again, let's use the broadest sense, how many women between the ages of, let's say, 18 and 50 are having sex where they are not protected by some type of contraceptive device to include birth control pills?

So, the Morning After pill will only, feasibly, be prescribed to a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of roughly half of the population.

To wrap up:

If you want to indict a business that calls itself, in part, a pharmacy that doesn't sell any type of pain reliever such as: Tylenol (acetomeniphen), aspirin, or Motrin (ibuprofen); or antacids, or antibiotics, cold/allergy remedies; (among other such things) then I can see suing them for not having commonly prescribed medicines.

But this?

This is just the example of a petulant customer dictating the business practices of one business when they have the choice of several different similar estblishments to frequent.

So, we are back, basically, to our original question:

The plaintiffs (consumer) have multiple, potential sources for a product that they want/need/think they need to buy.

Of course, barring that the source is not violating any Truth-in-Advertising law. Is it reasonable to sue one of those sources for choosing not to sell that product for whatever reason?

John McIntyre, one of the founders of the site "RealClearPolitics", has written a rather insightful article about what is wrong with the Democratic Party.

It's worth a read, in general.

It has, on the other hand, a prime example of the one of the things that just really make me mad about some of the political/governmental discussions in our country.

Close to the beginning of the article, McIntyre states (the bold portion is my addition):

I'm not saying Senate Democrats should have beaten Alito; they were always going to be a considerable underdog in the confirmation fight just based on the simple 55-45 math and the 200 year precedent that Presidents pick the nominee.

IT IS NOT A 200 YEAR PRECEDENT!

You have understand the nature of Federal Law.

There is a definite precedence on which laws have more power than others. It is:

1. The Constitution and it's Amendments
2. Normal legislation by Congress
3. Judicial Precedence
4. Regulation enacted by the Executive branch

I will attempt to explain each briefly.

The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It establishes our government and the basic rights that our Founders and subsequent governments have found essential. It can only be altered by Amendment. Amending the Constitution requires one of two specific procedures. The last time that an Amendment was ratified, or put into effect, was in 1992.

Normal legislation by Congress is the procedure related in the old School House Rock segment entitled "I'm Just a Bill". This legislation, the work of the House of Representatives and the Senate, cannot override the Constitution, and can only be rescinded (once voted for and signed into law by the President) by act of Congress or Judicial Review. Basically, Judicial Review means that a case comes before a Federal judge that questions whether a law violates the Constitution, and the judge finds that to be the case. Therefore, the judge has the power to strike down the law.

Judicial precedence is law that is made by judges interpreting the written law based on previous court actions in regards to the same law. It was through judicial review that the reading of the "Miranda" rights to a person being arrested became the law of the land. Miranda was the last name of the plaintiff in the case that created the "law".

Executive branch regulations are the procedural rules that a Federal government department creates to enforce or "execute" the laws enacted by Congress. For instance, Congress legislated the Interstate Highway system into existence. It is Executive Branch regulation that standardizes the signs (color, shape, height) on those roads.

At this point, it becomes handy to ask: how did our current government come into existence?

In 1776, after the Revolutionary War had already started, the Colonies came to the conclusion that they needed some kind of central government. They created a Congress under what was called "The Articles of Confederation". They never worked very well, and after the war, the Founding Fathers, basically, decided that they had to find a better way to govern this new country.

So, what did they do?

They got together and wrote the Constitution. The Constitution, without Amendments, basically, lays out the framework of our current government. With the original Constitution, the framers included the Bill of Rights, or the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, that lay out what the framers considered to be the most fundamental rights of our citizens and our individual states.

To make a long story short, too late, the question becomes: how did we get our first Supreme Court (and thereby, our current one)?

The second paragraph of Article 2(Article 2 lines out the duties of the President. Duties, not privileges or perogatives. It is the President's job description, if you will), Section 2 of the Constitution reads:

He (The President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

President Bush, by appointing, not nominating, Justice Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court of the United States was not acting on some vague "precedence", as John McIntyre, would have you believe. President Bush didn't just do something because that is the way George Washington did it.

Sidenote: That is a valid reason to do things. No President before FDR served more than two terms. There was no law or Constitutional amendment or regulation, against it, until FDR. George Washington, the Father of our Country, only served two terms, and no President before FDR wanted to violate George Washington's precedent.

Appointing those judges to those positions are an explicit part of the what the Constitution specifically mandates that the President is supposed to do.

This is not something we do the way we do it just because that is the way it has always been done. It's not some mindless thing or force of habit.

The President was doing his job.

If there was any abuse in the confirmation of Justice Alito, it was on the part of the Senate. I have very strong doubts that the Framers of the Constitution envisioned Senator Ted Kennedy making Mrs. Alito cry because he was calling her husband a racist, or Senator Joe Biden going on for 25 minutes "questioning" Justice Alito without ever allowing him to answer, or even, really, asking a question.

The author of the linked article is Tim Roemer. According to the credits at the end of the article:

Tim Roemer is a Former Congressman from Indiana, a Former Member of the 9/11 Commission and a Past Candidate for Chairman of the DNC.

In the article, Roemer makes this reference:

Research conducted by the Alan Guttmacher Institute shows that half of pregnancies in this country are unplanned and half of those end in abortion.

In real numbers, there are three million unwanted pregnancies in the US per year, and approximately 1.3 million abortions a year.

Don't these numbers make you ill?

They should, especially, given, what the President said in the State of the Union.

If you remember correctly, the President said:

There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades, and the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years in a row.

1.3 million abortions in the last year is "fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades"?

So, at minimum, there have been, approximately, 39 million abortions over the last 30 years.

I, personally, find those numbers completely unacceptable. I am not an advocate of completely outlawing abortion, but this is not right. I believe that there is a better way to deal with unwanted pregnancies. Which, at the rate that Roemer quotes, would mean that in the US over the last 30 years, there have been, at least, 90 million unwanted pregnancies.

Let's keep our eye on the ball here.

We could talk about unwed mothers, welfare mothers, teen agers having unprotected sex, victims of rape and incest, but those, among other things, are not the issue at hand. Unwanted pregnancies are.

Roemer talks about "grants for age appropriate pregnancy prevention education", and goes on to say:

We must be capable of openly discussing appropriate sex education programs, promoting abstinence for teens, and generously funding contraception and counseling. Second, it provides support for pregnant women in ways that encourage them to continue their pregnancies such as day care, pregnancy counseling on campuses, permanent adoption tax credits, better availability for referral information, shelters for women and children in crisis pregnancies, support for safe haven laws and better medical insurance for mothers and children through their first year of life.

These are things that address in a substantial fashion the root causes of abortions, and unwanted pregnancies.

Unwanted pregnancies, and people that shouldn't have sex with each other having sex are simple facts of existence. Not just now, but throughout history, even in the Bible. Some type of misguided belief that this is a modern phenomenon, or there is a way to "Just Say No" out of this, is, simply, unrealistic.

I do believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. However, I do not believe that abortion is all cases should be illegal. We can discuss, if you want, my thinking in that regard more fully at a different time.

But, this is a serious problem. The Democratic Party is proposing some serious things to address it in a realistic way.

Read the article and think about it.