Monday, March 27, 2006
About that "Civil War" ...
Let's recount my personal history ...
I don't claim to be "gifted", but I'm no idiot, and I can see through most BS when I see it.
Then, I spent a year in Iraq.
It didn't diminish anything I said before, but it did give me a greater appreciation for what was going on there.
The "naysayers" have been predicting (do a search on ANY news site back to before the beginning of the war) a civil war. The simple fact of the matter is that it has not happened.
Listen/read to the news. Listen/read to EVERYTHING they say, and everything they don't say.
Finally, read, or re-read, if you followed the link to begin with, the article this is all about.
The Lieutenant Colonel(LTC) who wrote it, from Baghdad, in my experience, is right.
Then again, what do I know?
As of this date, this Iraq War has been going on since 2003, right? Three years.
I spent a year there.
One third of that time.
I don't claim to be "gifted", but I'm no idiot, and I can see through most BS when I see it.
Then, I spent a year in Iraq.
It didn't diminish anything I said before, but it did give me a greater appreciation for what was going on there.
The "naysayers" have been predicting (do a search on ANY news site back to before the beginning of the war) a civil war. The simple fact of the matter is that it has not happened.
Listen/read to the news. Listen/read to EVERYTHING they say, and everything they don't say.
Finally, read, or re-read, if you followed the link to begin with, the article this is all about.
The Lieutenant Colonel(LTC) who wrote it, from Baghdad, in my experience, is right.
Then again, what do I know?
As of this date, this Iraq War has been going on since 2003, right? Three years.
I spent a year there.
One third of that time.
College Dropouts
Okay, it's not a popular opinion, but I like the idea of the Electoral College. Similarly, I like having a Senate and a House of Representatives.
Long story short, if we did away with the Electoral College, and just went with a popular vote, basically, Presidential candidates would just have to win the East and West Coasts to win the White House. They could, almost completely, ignore everything in between, or outside of it, like Alaska and Hawaii.
Time for a short Civics lesson:
States elect Presidents, people don't, as a basic principle.
However, under the current system, a candidate could carry every state except California, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylavania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine (both coasts, mostly) and still win.
The flip side is that if a candidate carries those states, and wins one other ... no matter how small, and they are President.
Play around with this map, and see how the Electoral College works in the best interests of our country as a whole.
In a popular vote, however, the concerns of any State that has fewer than, let's say 10 electoral votes, becomes inconsequential.
In a popular vote, the concerns of the African-Americans becomes less than 10% of the popular vote, and, therefore, not noteworthy, at all.
Hispanics have a larger chunk, but not much. Enough to ignore, if you play to the right demographic.
On the other hand, if you add, let's say, Illinois to the list of states that our "loser" candidate won, then he is President, and he can completely blow off the entire Gulf Coast ... you know, the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Just don't count on those states to get re-elected.
That's the joy of the Electoral College. It empowers.
The Electoral College empowers:
a) minorities
b) small states with regional concerns
c) regions of the country that do not have enough population to sway a popular vote
d) the ideal the Founding Fathers envisioned for equality in our country
Popularly electing a President empowers:
a) New England, Florida/Texas, the Great Lakes region, and the West Coast.
Actually, if you want to get real racist about it, and elect a President by a white male majority (which still exists, in terms of a popular vote, in our country, then do away with the Electoral College, and go strictly by the Popular Vote.
So ...
If you like the Founding Father's idea, where minorities, regional concerns, spirituality and gender issues matter, then stand up for the Electoral College.
If not, then raise your right hand, kind of like the Nazis did, for the President elected solely by the WASP (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant) male.
Long story short, if we did away with the Electoral College, and just went with a popular vote, basically, Presidential candidates would just have to win the East and West Coasts to win the White House. They could, almost completely, ignore everything in between, or outside of it, like Alaska and Hawaii.
Time for a short Civics lesson:
States elect Presidents, people don't, as a basic principle.
However, under the current system, a candidate could carry every state except California, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylavania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine (both coasts, mostly) and still win.
The flip side is that if a candidate carries those states, and wins one other ... no matter how small, and they are President.
Play around with this map, and see how the Electoral College works in the best interests of our country as a whole.
In a popular vote, however, the concerns of any State that has fewer than, let's say 10 electoral votes, becomes inconsequential.
In a popular vote, the concerns of the African-Americans becomes less than 10% of the popular vote, and, therefore, not noteworthy, at all.
Hispanics have a larger chunk, but not much. Enough to ignore, if you play to the right demographic.
On the other hand, if you add, let's say, Illinois to the list of states that our "loser" candidate won, then he is President, and he can completely blow off the entire Gulf Coast ... you know, the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Just don't count on those states to get re-elected.
That's the joy of the Electoral College. It empowers.
The Electoral College empowers:
a) minorities
b) small states with regional concerns
c) regions of the country that do not have enough population to sway a popular vote
d) the ideal the Founding Fathers envisioned for equality in our country
Popularly electing a President empowers:
a) New England, Florida/Texas, the Great Lakes region, and the West Coast.
Actually, if you want to get real racist about it, and elect a President by a white male majority (which still exists, in terms of a popular vote, in our country, then do away with the Electoral College, and go strictly by the Popular Vote.
So ...
If you like the Founding Father's idea, where minorities, regional concerns, spirituality and gender issues matter, then stand up for the Electoral College.
If not, then raise your right hand, kind of like the Nazis did, for the President elected solely by the WASP (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant) male.
Finally!
This article talks about an issue that is near and dear to my heart.
ESPECIALLY, if you have read the article first, I need to explain.
There are 5 boys on the face of the planet that I consider nephews, thanks to various family ties. One is Brandon.
My younger brother fathered Brandon when he was an undergrad in Texas (1990). Craig, my brother, never married the mother. He took responsibility for the child, as much as she would let him. He paid for the pregnancy test, he has paid child support, even though the mother, up until recently, has denied him ALL of his court-granted custody rights, and has fought for over 14 years to have his name put on the birth certificate, as the father (the mother has blocked this, consistently, even though DNA tests exist that prove Craig is the father).
My brother, being much smarter than most of my family gave him credit at the time, wanted to be a father to Brandon, but realized that marrying the mother was probably the worst thing he could ever do to the child. In hindsight, my family agrees.
There is a ridiculous double standard here!
A "deadbeat dad" is, by definition, someone that was married to the mother and refuses to live up to his court-mandated responsibilities towards his children.
If Craig had been married to the mother even for a day, he would be a responsible divorced father.
As it is, my brother's child does not have my brother's name on his birth certificate. My brother pays child support, has fought and lost in court to have his name put on his son's birth certificate, multiple times, and has no visitation rights, in reality.
My brother has a home, a good paying, steady job, and a wife that dearly loves her stepson.
My nephew's mother lays dying, as I write this, in a hospital bed, and the only reason that my brother may get custody of his son, eventually, is that the step-father does not want him after the mother is gone. The fact that the stepfather can't seem to hold a job, and the mother doesn't/can't work doesn;t seem to matter.
So, how is this right?
I don't advocate making the mistakes my brother made. Craig has, though, done his best to act in a responsible manner regarding them, after the fact. Penalizing him because he didn't compound his error by marrying the wrong woman is reprehensible.
ESPECIALLY, if you have read the article first, I need to explain.
There are 5 boys on the face of the planet that I consider nephews, thanks to various family ties. One is Brandon.
My younger brother fathered Brandon when he was an undergrad in Texas (1990). Craig, my brother, never married the mother. He took responsibility for the child, as much as she would let him. He paid for the pregnancy test, he has paid child support, even though the mother, up until recently, has denied him ALL of his court-granted custody rights, and has fought for over 14 years to have his name put on the birth certificate, as the father (the mother has blocked this, consistently, even though DNA tests exist that prove Craig is the father).
My brother, being much smarter than most of my family gave him credit at the time, wanted to be a father to Brandon, but realized that marrying the mother was probably the worst thing he could ever do to the child. In hindsight, my family agrees.
There is a ridiculous double standard here!
A "deadbeat dad" is, by definition, someone that was married to the mother and refuses to live up to his court-mandated responsibilities towards his children.
If Craig had been married to the mother even for a day, he would be a responsible divorced father.
As it is, my brother's child does not have my brother's name on his birth certificate. My brother pays child support, has fought and lost in court to have his name put on his son's birth certificate, multiple times, and has no visitation rights, in reality.
My brother has a home, a good paying, steady job, and a wife that dearly loves her stepson.
My nephew's mother lays dying, as I write this, in a hospital bed, and the only reason that my brother may get custody of his son, eventually, is that the step-father does not want him after the mother is gone. The fact that the stepfather can't seem to hold a job, and the mother doesn't/can't work doesn;t seem to matter.
So, how is this right?
I don't advocate making the mistakes my brother made. Craig has, though, done his best to act in a responsible manner regarding them, after the fact. Penalizing him because he didn't compound his error by marrying the wrong woman is reprehensible.
Media Meltdown
I have quoted, verbatim, a piece by Arnold Ahlert of the New York Post, before.
He writes, in my experience, short, to the point, hard hitting articles that are worth the few seconds it takes to read them.
This one is no exception.
He leads this article off:
The unmasking of the "unbiased" media continues, courtesy of ABC News and The New York Times.
From there, things get interesting. Take a few seconds and read the article on the link above.
He writes, in my experience, short, to the point, hard hitting articles that are worth the few seconds it takes to read them.
This one is no exception.
He leads this article off:
The unmasking of the "unbiased" media continues, courtesy of ABC News and The New York Times.
From there, things get interesting. Take a few seconds and read the article on the link above.
I Said What?
Since, on this blog, we are having a "Fun with Stupid People" night, I figured we should have a little puzzle.
Let's make it a game!
We will call this one: "I Said What?" It's a variation on the old game show "What's My Line?"
I will give you a series of quotes, and you get to guess who the current, major political figure said it. The whole gamut of political figures is open.
Let's have some fun.
1. "[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."
2. "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."
3. "It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
4. "First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."
5. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
6. "The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."
7. "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."
8. (One of my personal favorites) "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn't vote for me."
9. "I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
10. "Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
11. "With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."
12. "Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."
13. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
14. "[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."
15. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
16. "Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
17. "It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."
18. "This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."
19. "There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
20. "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Answers:
1. Al Gore, December 16, 1998.
2. John Kerry, February 23, 1998.
3. Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002.
4. Joe Biden, August 4, 2002.
5. Al Gore, September 23, 2002.
6. John Edwards, February 6, 2003.
7. Joe Biden, August 4, 2002.
8. John Kerry, January 31, 2003.
9. Hillary Clinton, January 22, 2003.
10. John Edwards, January 7, 2003.
11. Russell Feingold, Ocober 9, 2002.
12. Nancy Pelosi, October 10, 2002.
13. Al Gore, September 23, 2002.
14. Joe Biden, August 4, 2002.
15. Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002.
16. John Kerry, January 23, 2003.
17. Chuck Schumer, October 10, 2002.
18. Joe Biden, August 4, 2002.
19. Jay Rockefeller, October 10, 2002.
20. Hillary Clinton, Ocober 10, 2002.
Given what you have read, you would think that all of these Democrats were the biggest supporters that the President had on the War in Iraq.
Let's make it a game!
We will call this one: "I Said What?" It's a variation on the old game show "What's My Line?"
I will give you a series of quotes, and you get to guess who the current, major political figure said it. The whole gamut of political figures is open.
Let's have some fun.
1. "[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."
2. "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."
3. "It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
4. "First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."
5. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
6. "The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."
7. "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."
8. (One of my personal favorites) "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn't vote for me."
9. "I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
10. "Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
11. "With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."
12. "Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."
13. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
14. "[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."
15. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
16. "Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
17. "It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."
18. "This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."
19. "There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
20. "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Answers:
1. Al Gore, December 16, 1998.
2. John Kerry, February 23, 1998.
3. Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002.
4. Joe Biden, August 4, 2002.
5. Al Gore, September 23, 2002.
6. John Edwards, February 6, 2003.
7. Joe Biden, August 4, 2002.
8. John Kerry, January 31, 2003.
9. Hillary Clinton, January 22, 2003.
10. John Edwards, January 7, 2003.
11. Russell Feingold, Ocober 9, 2002.
12. Nancy Pelosi, October 10, 2002.
13. Al Gore, September 23, 2002.
14. Joe Biden, August 4, 2002.
15. Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002.
16. John Kerry, January 23, 2003.
17. Chuck Schumer, October 10, 2002.
18. Joe Biden, August 4, 2002.
19. Jay Rockefeller, October 10, 2002.
20. Hillary Clinton, Ocober 10, 2002.
Given what you have read, you would think that all of these Democrats were the biggest supporters that the President had on the War in Iraq.
I Remember Everything!
I remember everything!
I remember everything little thing, as if it happened yesterday
I was barely seventeen, and I once killed a boy with a fender guitar
I don’t remember if it was a telecaster or a stratocaster
But I do remember that it had a heart of chrome, and a voice like a horny angel
I don’t remember if it was a telecaster or a stratocaster
But I do remember that it wasn’t at all easy
--"Wasted Youth" from Bat Out of Hell II: Back Into Hell written by Jim Steinman
This is part of one of my favorite introductions to a rock song ever. Sometimes I pull out the CD just to listen to "Wasted Youth."
There is another point to all of this.
The fact that I remember. Apparently, much more than most of my age and older.
This is why the mania over the lat few years about "global warming" does not really get to me that much.
The thumbnail below is a scan of a Newsweek article. Peter Gwynne is the author. He was, apparently, a bureau writer at the time. That is the only credit he is given. (AP, UP, Reuters, I don't know.) The date is April 28, 1975.
Today, the cry is "The Earth is warming! The Earth is Warming!". When I was kid, it was "The Earth is cooling! The Earth is cooling!".
In both cases: floods, monsoons, hurricanes, tornadoes, snowstorms, droughts, ... every climatic catastrophe you can think of has been blamed on these things ... during the time of their individual panics.
If you can't read the image well, post a comment, leaving your email address. All comments go to my email box, and I have a copy of the pdf file the image was based on.
I remember everything little thing, as if it happened yesterday
I was barely seventeen, and I once killed a boy with a fender guitar
I don’t remember if it was a telecaster or a stratocaster
But I do remember that it had a heart of chrome, and a voice like a horny angel
I don’t remember if it was a telecaster or a stratocaster
But I do remember that it wasn’t at all easy
--"Wasted Youth" from Bat Out of Hell II: Back Into Hell written by Jim Steinman
This is part of one of my favorite introductions to a rock song ever. Sometimes I pull out the CD just to listen to "Wasted Youth."
There is another point to all of this.
The fact that I remember. Apparently, much more than most of my age and older.
This is why the mania over the lat few years about "global warming" does not really get to me that much.
The thumbnail below is a scan of a Newsweek article. Peter Gwynne is the author. He was, apparently, a bureau writer at the time. That is the only credit he is given. (AP, UP, Reuters, I don't know.) The date is April 28, 1975.
Today, the cry is "The Earth is warming! The Earth is Warming!". When I was kid, it was "The Earth is cooling! The Earth is cooling!".
In both cases: floods, monsoons, hurricanes, tornadoes, snowstorms, droughts, ... every climatic catastrophe you can think of has been blamed on these things ... during the time of their individual panics.
If you can't read the image well, post a comment, leaving your email address. All comments go to my email box, and I have a copy of the pdf file the image was based on.
Improved Port Safety? - baltimoresun.com
This short and to the point little AP piece is a testament to your Congress.
What a few people can accomplish when impending elections with the control of both houses of the legislature up fro grabs.
Boy, do I feel safe!
But, then again, I am in Germany.
What a few people can accomplish when impending elections with the control of both houses of the legislature up fro grabs.
Boy, do I feel safe!
But, then again, I am in Germany.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Kasper
It's a German word. It means "clown". The "a" is pronounced like "aw", as in saw, the "s" is pronounced like "sh", as in show, and the "per" sounds an awful lot like the english word "pair".
Talk about some clowns!
The subject of this post is the dog on the far right.
A good friend of ours, a German, doesn't use our pup's name when she talks to him. She calls him "Kasper". Isa, our friend, is the pup's third favorite person in the world, next to me and my wife.
The name fits.
Here is a picture of the pup taken within the last couple of days.
The 8 and 1/2 month old pup is the dog on the left. The red dog on the right is over 10 years old. Tas, the old fart, is a miniature dachshund, or dackel, as they say in Bavaria. Gimli, our pup, is a standard sized dog of the same breed. (Different coat type) Gimli, or Kasper, as his "Tanta (Aunt) Isa" calls him, has about 10 more months of growing before he is completely an adult.
Here is another picture, it features me, Gimli/Kasper, and our other old fart, Radar (Radar and Tas are 1/2 of one litter, the only two males from that litter):
Gimli, my "Kasper", has been in training.
Let me recap for a second.
I'm 40. I received my first dackel as a 5th birthday present. I've had dackels almost continuously since then. I know the breed. I have researched the breed. I love the breed.
Gimli is the youngest dog in his class, at obedience training. He does the worst of the bunch. Without a doubt.
That's okay.
He is not supposed to do well at conventional obedience training.
His breed, consistently, does poorly at it.
The breed was not made to wait on humans.
A normal hunting dog(Pointer, Setter, Labrador, Basset Hound, etc.) goes and does what his hunter tells him to do, after his hunter has told him to do it, come back, and wait for the next command.
Retrieve that duck.
Flush out the birds.
Whatever.
On the other hand ...
A dachshund, or dackel, was bred to follow, without the hunter's direction, a badger/wolverine(pound for pound, one of the most ferocious creatures known on the planet) into it's den/hole; figure out how to kill it, on it's own; kill it, without being killed; and drag it back out to the hunter.
They are independent thinking, problem solving animals.
With that said, of all the breeds that I have had close contact with over the course of my life (Chihuahua, Poodle, English Setter, Irish Setter, English Sheepdog, Beagle, Basset Hound, Labrador Retriever, Doberman Pinscher, Rottweiler, Pit Bull, Schnauzer, Alaskan Malamute, Dalmatian, and American Free-Range Mutt, ... to name the key breeds), no breed creates a bond with a person quite the way a dachshund does.
They don't "obey".
They learn, think, and anticipate.
This is Gimli helping "Mom" (Amy, my wife) fold clothes.
She was using the ironing board as a work surface.
He was trying to help, and get in the warm laundry from the dryer.
I was going to go on about my pup. However, it is getting late here, and I am fading. Most of my family looks like the last photo from a a few days ago.
Good night.
Talk about some clowns!
The subject of this post is the dog on the far right.
A good friend of ours, a German, doesn't use our pup's name when she talks to him. She calls him "Kasper". Isa, our friend, is the pup's third favorite person in the world, next to me and my wife.
The name fits.
Here is a picture of the pup taken within the last couple of days.
The 8 and 1/2 month old pup is the dog on the left. The red dog on the right is over 10 years old. Tas, the old fart, is a miniature dachshund, or dackel, as they say in Bavaria. Gimli, our pup, is a standard sized dog of the same breed. (Different coat type) Gimli, or Kasper, as his "Tanta (Aunt) Isa" calls him, has about 10 more months of growing before he is completely an adult.
Here is another picture, it features me, Gimli/Kasper, and our other old fart, Radar (Radar and Tas are 1/2 of one litter, the only two males from that litter):
Gimli, my "Kasper", has been in training.
Let me recap for a second.
I'm 40. I received my first dackel as a 5th birthday present. I've had dackels almost continuously since then. I know the breed. I have researched the breed. I love the breed.
Gimli is the youngest dog in his class, at obedience training. He does the worst of the bunch. Without a doubt.
That's okay.
He is not supposed to do well at conventional obedience training.
His breed, consistently, does poorly at it.
The breed was not made to wait on humans.
A normal hunting dog(Pointer, Setter, Labrador, Basset Hound, etc.) goes and does what his hunter tells him to do, after his hunter has told him to do it, come back, and wait for the next command.
Retrieve that duck.
Flush out the birds.
Whatever.
On the other hand ...
A dachshund, or dackel, was bred to follow, without the hunter's direction, a badger/wolverine(pound for pound, one of the most ferocious creatures known on the planet) into it's den/hole; figure out how to kill it, on it's own; kill it, without being killed; and drag it back out to the hunter.
They are independent thinking, problem solving animals.
With that said, of all the breeds that I have had close contact with over the course of my life (Chihuahua, Poodle, English Setter, Irish Setter, English Sheepdog, Beagle, Basset Hound, Labrador Retriever, Doberman Pinscher, Rottweiler, Pit Bull, Schnauzer, Alaskan Malamute, Dalmatian, and American Free-Range Mutt, ... to name the key breeds), no breed creates a bond with a person quite the way a dachshund does.
They don't "obey".
They learn, think, and anticipate.
This is Gimli helping "Mom" (Amy, my wife) fold clothes.
She was using the ironing board as a work surface.
He was trying to help, and get in the warm laundry from the dryer.
I was going to go on about my pup. However, it is getting late here, and I am fading. Most of my family looks like the last photo from a a few days ago.
Good night.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Lighter Note
Things have been kind of heavy lately. Thought I would insert some lighter notes.
Proof Darwin was wrong.
Proof Darwin was wrong.
It's Good to be the King.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Holy Elephant Ears, Batman!
I don't comprehend. If you haven't read my post "Political 'Heuvos'" yet, you should.
I don't get it.
Why isn't some Republican member of Congress standing on the floor of their respective House with a print out of this article and shouting down any and all Democratic adversaries of the President's NSA eavesdropping program?
Byron York, of the National Review, uses FISA court proceedings to shoot holes in every argument against the NSA program that exists!
Some interesting things in this article:
The FISA court, in it's entirety, has only met once in it's 28 year history. It met in 2002 to review the legality and the FISA court's jurisdiction in regards to the NSA program that is, now, such a political issue.
That meeting, in secret, as all FISA proceedings are supposed to be, was, basically, Congress taking the President to Court.
Our government has three branches, and three branches, only: the legislative (Congress), the executive (Presidential, and his Cabinet agencies), and the judicial (the Courts, in this case FISA, with the Supreme Court at the top of the ladder).
So, let me restate:
Congress took the President to the FISA Court to see if the FISA court had jurisdiction.
Quick sidenote:
This article made me laugh.
Let me tell you why.
Re-read that part about the court proceedings.
Congress (the government) took the President (the government) to Court (the government) is, basically, what I said ... and Mr. York writes.
So, what is Mr. York's conclusion from what happened?
(this is a straight "copy and paste".)
it was a slam-dunk win for the government.
I feel, almost, like a Pentecostal preacher ... can I have a "Duh"?
The government took the government to the government for a decision about the government, and Mr. York says that it was a "slam-dunk win for the government"?
You think, Einstein?
Your conclusion, genius, tells me nothing. Better yet, by itself, it says nothing.
Luckily, as I pointed out earlier, Mr. York has done some wonderful research into some real obscure stuff that blows any credible argument against the NSA surveillance program out of the water.
In fact, it takes every argument against the NSA surveillance program and turns it back on itself.
Remember when Senator Arlen Specter asked the Attorney General, earlier this year, to bring recommendations to Congress from the FISA court to make the NSA program legal, and that Congress would consider it? (I remember blogging that.)
In this court brief, the FISA court, itself, said that current law in 2002 needed no addition or subtraction to make the NSA program legal.
Not only that, but it was put before the Supreme Court, and they refused to review the case.
Keep in mind, that the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land, the only experts on what is truly Constitutional (and therefore, legal), refused to spend their time on this, they were satisfied with the FISA court's (a lower court) ruling, one way or another.
I don't get it.
Why isn't some Republican member of Congress standing on the floor of their respective House with a print out of this article and shouting down any and all Democratic adversaries of the President's NSA eavesdropping program?
Byron York, of the National Review, uses FISA court proceedings to shoot holes in every argument against the NSA program that exists!
Some interesting things in this article:
The FISA court, in it's entirety, has only met once in it's 28 year history. It met in 2002 to review the legality and the FISA court's jurisdiction in regards to the NSA program that is, now, such a political issue.
That meeting, in secret, as all FISA proceedings are supposed to be, was, basically, Congress taking the President to Court.
Our government has three branches, and three branches, only: the legislative (Congress), the executive (Presidential, and his Cabinet agencies), and the judicial (the Courts, in this case FISA, with the Supreme Court at the top of the ladder).
So, let me restate:
Congress took the President to the FISA Court to see if the FISA court had jurisdiction.
Quick sidenote:
This article made me laugh.
Let me tell you why.
Re-read that part about the court proceedings.
Congress (the government) took the President (the government) to Court (the government) is, basically, what I said ... and Mr. York writes.
So, what is Mr. York's conclusion from what happened?
(this is a straight "copy and paste".)
it was a slam-dunk win for the government.
I feel, almost, like a Pentecostal preacher ... can I have a "Duh"?
The government took the government to the government for a decision about the government, and Mr. York says that it was a "slam-dunk win for the government"?
You think, Einstein?
Your conclusion, genius, tells me nothing. Better yet, by itself, it says nothing.
Luckily, as I pointed out earlier, Mr. York has done some wonderful research into some real obscure stuff that blows any credible argument against the NSA surveillance program out of the water.
In fact, it takes every argument against the NSA surveillance program and turns it back on itself.
Remember when Senator Arlen Specter asked the Attorney General, earlier this year, to bring recommendations to Congress from the FISA court to make the NSA program legal, and that Congress would consider it? (I remember blogging that.)
In this court brief, the FISA court, itself, said that current law in 2002 needed no addition or subtraction to make the NSA program legal.
Not only that, but it was put before the Supreme Court, and they refused to review the case.
Keep in mind, that the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land, the only experts on what is truly Constitutional (and therefore, legal), refused to spend their time on this, they were satisfied with the FISA court's (a lower court) ruling, one way or another.
'Critically' Inadequate
For those of you that were "wrapped around the axle" on the UAE Port deal, this should be an interesting article.
Anne Applebaum, of the Washington Post, takes a long hard look at foreign firms that have management of what could be called "critical infrastructure", to borrow a phrase from Senator Clinton.
What I find interesting is that she doesn't mention that the UAE firm that was purchasing control of 6 cargo container terminals in the US has had control of the cargo container terminal in Miami, FL for a number of years. Possibly, even, before 9/11 ... I haven't seen the exact date, yet, on that purchase.
Anne Applebaum, of the Washington Post, takes a long hard look at foreign firms that have management of what could be called "critical infrastructure", to borrow a phrase from Senator Clinton.
What I find interesting is that she doesn't mention that the UAE firm that was purchasing control of 6 cargo container terminals in the US has had control of the cargo container terminal in Miami, FL for a number of years. Possibly, even, before 9/11 ... I haven't seen the exact date, yet, on that purchase.
Political "Huevos"
I don't get it.
Senator Russ Feingold, this week, called for the Senate to censure President Bush over the NSA wiretapping situation.
Let's review a few things:
Censure is the second strongest thing Congress can do to a President, behind impeachment. Only one President in American history has received Senate censure, Andrew Jackson in 1834.
In the article, Senator Feingold is quoted as saying:
"We have a great case that they have done a poor job of fighting the war against terrorism," Feingold said of the Republicans in an interview yesterday.
According to the article:
Many Democrats, while sympathetic to Feingold's maneuver, appeared to be distancing themselves from his resolution yesterday, wary of polls showing that a majority of Americans side with the president on wiretapping tactics.
The article goes on to state that many Congressional Republicans have come down on Senator Feingold for proposing censure.
Now for what I think.
Let's start with the Administration doing a "poor job of fighting the war against terrorism", according to the Senator.
My question to the Senator is: "Do you want to stick with that story, Senator, or do you want to retract that one?"
Think back with me for a moment. Let's start at an arbitrary point ... the 10 years leading up to 9/11 would be good, right?
al Quaeda bombed three hotels where US troops were staying in Aden, Yemen in 1992
Some claim that al Quaeda helped with the shooting down of the helicopters in the incident immortalized in the movie "Black Hawk Down"
al Quaeda bombed the World Trade Center in 1993
al Quaeda bombed a US military facility in Riyadh in November 1995
They bombed the Air Force barracks, Khobar Towers, in Saudi Arabia in 1996
The 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Tanzania which killed more than 200, and wounded 5,000 more were credited to them.
They attacked the USS Cole in 2000 killing 17 US service members.
Then, there is, of course, 9/11, in which over 3,000 Americans died.
On the other hand, since 9/11, name a terrorist attack against American soil, or an American that was not in a war zone.
...
I'm waiting.
...
So, the President's government has done a better job of thwarting terrorism against Americans and American soil than President Clinton, or his father did, even if you factor in "dumb luck" ... such as the possibility al Quaeda has not made a target of us in that time frame.
Now for the "huevos" part.
Republicans are coming out against Senator Feingold's censure proposal.
I think they are dead wrong in this strategy.
I think they should encourage the Senator in his efforts. In fact, they should not only support this censure coming to the Senate floor, they should come out in favor of it being a roll call vote.
That's right.
A roll call vote, for those of you that don't know, means that every Senator's vote is recorded by name for posterity.
I think Republicans should push for the vote to come to the floor, and for it to be recorded.
Let every Senator go on record as to what they think.
A vote against censure, no matter what party, is a vote for the President.
I believe the phrase is: Hoist by your own petard.
Senator Russ Feingold, this week, called for the Senate to censure President Bush over the NSA wiretapping situation.
Let's review a few things:
Censure is the second strongest thing Congress can do to a President, behind impeachment. Only one President in American history has received Senate censure, Andrew Jackson in 1834.
In the article, Senator Feingold is quoted as saying:
"We have a great case that they have done a poor job of fighting the war against terrorism," Feingold said of the Republicans in an interview yesterday.
According to the article:
Many Democrats, while sympathetic to Feingold's maneuver, appeared to be distancing themselves from his resolution yesterday, wary of polls showing that a majority of Americans side with the president on wiretapping tactics.
The article goes on to state that many Congressional Republicans have come down on Senator Feingold for proposing censure.
Now for what I think.
Let's start with the Administration doing a "poor job of fighting the war against terrorism", according to the Senator.
My question to the Senator is: "Do you want to stick with that story, Senator, or do you want to retract that one?"
Think back with me for a moment. Let's start at an arbitrary point ... the 10 years leading up to 9/11 would be good, right?
al Quaeda bombed three hotels where US troops were staying in Aden, Yemen in 1992
Some claim that al Quaeda helped with the shooting down of the helicopters in the incident immortalized in the movie "Black Hawk Down"
al Quaeda bombed the World Trade Center in 1993
al Quaeda bombed a US military facility in Riyadh in November 1995
They bombed the Air Force barracks, Khobar Towers, in Saudi Arabia in 1996
The 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Tanzania which killed more than 200, and wounded 5,000 more were credited to them.
They attacked the USS Cole in 2000 killing 17 US service members.
Then, there is, of course, 9/11, in which over 3,000 Americans died.
On the other hand, since 9/11, name a terrorist attack against American soil, or an American that was not in a war zone.
...
I'm waiting.
...
So, the President's government has done a better job of thwarting terrorism against Americans and American soil than President Clinton, or his father did, even if you factor in "dumb luck" ... such as the possibility al Quaeda has not made a target of us in that time frame.
Now for the "huevos" part.
Republicans are coming out against Senator Feingold's censure proposal.
I think they are dead wrong in this strategy.
I think they should encourage the Senator in his efforts. In fact, they should not only support this censure coming to the Senate floor, they should come out in favor of it being a roll call vote.
That's right.
A roll call vote, for those of you that don't know, means that every Senator's vote is recorded by name for posterity.
I think Republicans should push for the vote to come to the floor, and for it to be recorded.
Let every Senator go on record as to what they think.
A vote against censure, no matter what party, is a vote for the President.
I believe the phrase is: Hoist by your own petard.
Is Iraq Really In A State Of Civil War? Or Are There Signs of Freedom and Prosperity? | NewsBusters.org
Michael Rule, the writer of this article for Newsbusters.org, closes this post with:
It seems no clear thinking individual wants civil war, and that Iraqi politicians realize the only people who would benefit are the extremists. Wouldn’t the American people be better served if perhaps the media spent more time reporting the facts in Iraq as a whole and less time sensationalizing the idea of civil war due to violence in Baghdad?
Mr. Rule, the answer to that one is fairly obvious. The corps of reporters from America that are in Iraq are not much different than the White House press corps.
These are reporters that sit in their hotels and offices in the Green Zone in Baghdad and write either what they see in their little neighborhood. So, it doesn't matter what is going on in a country that is about twice the size of Colorado. If things are bad in the neighborhood of the large city they live in, then the entire country is falling apart ... no matter what the facts are outside the city limits of Baghdad.
It's a classic case of: "I've made up my mind. Don't confuse me with the facts."
It seems no clear thinking individual wants civil war, and that Iraqi politicians realize the only people who would benefit are the extremists. Wouldn’t the American people be better served if perhaps the media spent more time reporting the facts in Iraq as a whole and less time sensationalizing the idea of civil war due to violence in Baghdad?
Mr. Rule, the answer to that one is fairly obvious. The corps of reporters from America that are in Iraq are not much different than the White House press corps.
These are reporters that sit in their hotels and offices in the Green Zone in Baghdad and write either what they see in their little neighborhood. So, it doesn't matter what is going on in a country that is about twice the size of Colorado. If things are bad in the neighborhood of the large city they live in, then the entire country is falling apart ... no matter what the facts are outside the city limits of Baghdad.
It's a classic case of: "I've made up my mind. Don't confuse me with the facts."
Iran's "Unknowns": Face the Facts
I've talked about this before, many times. On Rush Limbaugh's website, he posts links to all of his written source material 30 minutes before the show starts, and it stays up on the main site until the next show starts. At the top of the page, the webmaster puts this quote from Rush:
"Most People's Historical Perspective Begins With the Day of Their Birth."
I disagree with that. In my experience, most people have a historical perspective that is, at best, 12 months long. Given what I have seen, Rush is much too generous.
Let me ask you a question: were you born before 1979? If you were, do not read any further, yet. Read the linked article, come back here, and finish the post.
The article linked through the title of this post is a great example of this. Amir Taheri presents numerous facts about Iran. I am sure to most of his readers these facts came as more than a bit of a surprise.
That is what proves my point. Mr. Taheri does not present any facts that are new revelations. Nothing he writes about is from some esoteric news source or academic journal. This is all information that has been presented by the main stream media.
What's worse is that we are not talking about obscure stories buried in the TV news cycle or obscure stories buried in the back pages of a newspaper. We are talking about lead, or near lead stories.
The straw that breaks the camel's back is that the pattern of behavior he chronicles about the Iranian government is not a recent development. We are talking about information that has been a constant element in main stream reporting in the US since the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979.
"Most People's Historical Perspective Begins With the Day of Their Birth."
I disagree with that. In my experience, most people have a historical perspective that is, at best, 12 months long. Given what I have seen, Rush is much too generous.
Let me ask you a question: were you born before 1979? If you were, do not read any further, yet. Read the linked article, come back here, and finish the post.
The article linked through the title of this post is a great example of this. Amir Taheri presents numerous facts about Iran. I am sure to most of his readers these facts came as more than a bit of a surprise.
That is what proves my point. Mr. Taheri does not present any facts that are new revelations. Nothing he writes about is from some esoteric news source or academic journal. This is all information that has been presented by the main stream media.
What's worse is that we are not talking about obscure stories buried in the TV news cycle or obscure stories buried in the back pages of a newspaper. We are talking about lead, or near lead stories.
The straw that breaks the camel's back is that the pattern of behavior he chronicles about the Iranian government is not a recent development. We are talking about information that has been a constant element in main stream reporting in the US since the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Rough winter in the States?
I'm so glad to hear that so many of you are experiencing a warm and cozy winter.
The above picture is of Neuschwanstein castle. It is the castle that the "Disney" castle is based on. It's about an hour's drive south of where I live. This photo was taken since Friday.
A friend of ours from Gimli's training class said that the snowstorm this last weekend dumped more snow on us than this part of Bavaria has seen in 7 or 8 years. It's been snowing more, daily, since she told us this on Saturday.
