Cassie is right on the money and don't forget....George Bush hates Suzanne Somers too.

Cassie uses her fingers better'n a Kansas City harlot...

Dang. That is sidebar-worthy.

It may be sidebar worthy (I think it is) but it should have also come with a DRINK ALERT.

Cassandra's on a roll today! Here's more, this time on the subject of that *$%#@&% Murtha.

Uh, OS Card is a democrat who hated Reagan and our escapades in South America(uh, read some of his commentary in the Future on Fire anthology) and is for just about every socialy progressive idea out there(except maybe for gay marriage and where to draw the secular/sectarian line for public discourse). If this dude, simply because he's coming out in favor of The Long War, is now of the Extreme Right Wing Crazies something really wrong has happened to the def'n of right and left(somebody's parrallax filter is busted and it ain't mine). OSC is the modern day Scoop Jackson---he's an anti-anti-communist without being a communist enabler so to speak.

I've heard about that comic a few years ago. It's wack. Pure wackittude. So what. Ever read 'THe WAtchmen' or 'V'?

What about the Mars trilogy by KS Robinson(Davis, CA's own KS Robinson)? Pathetic liberal/progressivist talking points mascarading as fiction(with some wild sex scenes and political cloak and dagger throw in for kicks).
If it's bad fiction call it that. I hate the Mars series because I think the stories are stupid, the politics of it just adding to the stuff I don't like(I don't always like the politics of Phil K Dick, but the man wrote some amazing works of fiction).
If the 'right' is in some kind of slumber of reason the 'left' is Rip van Winkle, and this Annenburg dude needs to stop freebasing NPR.

Oops. Wrong thread. Sorry(nothing to see here, move along. Move along. These aren't the droids you're looking for.).(red face)

Okay, read the Kaplan story. Not having the same reaction.
"Anyone who's watched a presidential debate knows how useless they are for deciding our country's direction. The coming presidential primary season, which will stretch for more than a year, will be the scene of multi-candidate cattle calls in which entrants will moo canned messages, spring scripted attacks, ignore interlocutors' questions and declare inevitable victories." I agree with this point. There's no there there. That's something we largely agree on around here I thought.

Yeah, he thinks the only legitimate opinion is ones close to his(proll'y on the left side of things). What's wrong with that? If he has to admitt it we might actually get somewhere with news coverage. One set-up that is dry and boring and very Joe Friday. Another two that do the 'analysis' but are obviously ideological. I'm with Jonah on this front: if you have to admitt the bias it's all to the good even if you are the big fish news outlets.

But the main thrust, which cutting it up really hides, is that we're dealing with something that follows form without providing ANY substance. That's something we should all be worried about.

Like I said, point-by-point, I don't have a lot of disagreement with his observations.

It's his assumption, essentially, that he and the other organs of the MSM have a lock on what I still think *he* perceives as the objective truth.

And, by implication, only he and his.

Which, Kaplan missing the point, is why, when the tech allowed - all those alternatives sprang up, as the great unwashed noted that there were people who saw the world they do, and not always in consonance with the way the MSM believed it to be.

"Everytime I try to be positive..." (and more gloomy stuff)

Dammit, FbL, don't talk like that! Don't even think like that! If you do, next thing you know, you'll be mopin' and broodin' and drinkin' too much, and reading blogs late at night.

Please do not ask me how I know this.

I'll tell you this. I am an educator, in the sense that a bad example is very educational.

Well, JTG... add to that the apparent fact that nobody cares when I do. ;)

Heh. The Armorer prefers this not be a "ditto-head" echo chamber.

Perhaps, Ms. Fuzzy, you simply said all there was to be said, and no one felt you left anything out?

I have, at times, left deliberate holes in things for people to drive through and comment on.

At least, that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!

John, I find it hard to believe that I wrote something so air-tight there are no holes to be found.

But I do like the way you think... :D

Giving commanders additional assets, but only for a short time, is extremely dumb. What is a commander supposed to do with additional troops that will help the situation, and at the same time last only two to three months?

With a two to three month time frame those troops will either sit on thier butts for three months, waiting to go home, or they will be thrown into a piecemeal hurry plan that will get all screwed up when the politicians start screaming for the drawdown of numbers.

I've taken last second leave that was better planned then this political caveat.

very interesting.

and i shall accordingly suspend my prior pre-judgment until i learn more.

it does raise one question, though... you can tell that a shirt is "mauve"??

Well, mauve is less cumbersome than "pale, bluish purple"...

As for Mr. Rushing, time will tell. He certainly has a good reason to tell the story as he does - but at the same time, his popularity on the military lecture circuit says something.

I completely agree with Mr. Rush's assertion that the US needs to do more with Middle Eastern media outlets. Yes they have an agenda and yes it is counter to ours. So what? So does most of the MSM. I watched Al Arabiya when I was in Dubai and I read AlJazeera (dot com and dot net) and Jihad Unspun. You need to see all sides, heck, I listen to NPR. All kidding aside, AlJazeera is not the total terrorist tool it's made out to be. I read a hugely interesting article in Foreign Policy magazine about the fact that AlJazeera.net recognizes that it is for many Arabs their only portal on the rest of the world. They take that seriously and make an effort to include interviews with Israelis. We need to counter negative opinion in the Middle East and we can't do that from the sidelines.
If AlJazeera English was available on my cable listing, I would work it in. It wouldn't knock out CSpan or FoxNews, but it would beat out CNN. At least AlJazeera is upfront about their agenda.

Amazing!
Close mouth.
Suspend initial reaction.
Open ears.
Evaluate.

If you can teach this to the 80% of adults who are totally clueless in regards to this simple procedure, you would be worthy of a Nobel Prize.

Maggie - go to Al-jazeera.net, select "English" and you can stream the video reports.

As Josh noted in his pitch "What you see depends on where you stand."

Trite, but true.

You see, John, just HOW important your blog is?
I LEARNED SOMETHING here that means more to me than if I had sat in a classroom and listened to
an academician Of The Left. I would have not been as willing to listen.

You don't spin things...YOU PUT THEM IN CONTEXT.
A rare gift.

And that goes for the readership and posters too.
You have no idea how much I do take in when I am able to devote my full attention to something.

Cricket
Not all the time. John likes to post photos out of context in order to see his faithful readers spin. Then comes the counter-spin as tangents and false leads are followed. Then the distracting "hints" ...

Cheers

So the CUlture Centric Warfare people return and volley inthe tennis match that is the argument of Hammer vs CCW. Interesting.

He puts another bit into place for why I believe in the bifurcation of roles: Big War and Non-Big War. Asking for everyone in the military to be super-soldiers or Swiss Army knives cuts down on the viable population for service. How many people out there really are polymaths?

If he ever does a CSPAN taped event I'll be sure to watch.

JMH: 8^)

Well...I feel about as foolish as the others who had to close mouths and re-evaluate. Thanks for another eye opening lesson.

I do watch the streaming video, actually I listen more than I watch. I was talking about having it on TV so when I was home I could just have it on. I don't really care to *watch* much on the computer. I like having it on while I do stuff around the house...........is this enough info about the Princess' viewing habits? Do you want to know what it is I'm doing? What I'm wearing?

Nah, we've already heard all we need to about your undergarments and the differences between flashing and mooning...

LOL, I am wounded! Are you saying the mystery is gone?

Hey John, did Rushing have anything to say about CENTCOM paying for good press scandal that went on last year? Did he use that as proof of 'we don't know jack'?

Why Ry? Do you have a problem with that? I think it's perfectly acceptable. It's common practice there. This is a case where "Everyone's doin' it." is an acceptable answer. It's not underhanded. It's the way things are done. Don't forget - they paid, yes - but the stories were true.

Yes, Ry, he did as a matter of fact. I countered with the appalling attempt by Big Army to reel in bloggers with "exclusive content" that was not only not exclusive, but wasn't even well-disguised recruiting ads.

Maggie - Rushing's point on that issue was... we talk about establishing a 'free and independent press' and then we start doing what all the local state-owned or cowed media does.

The message doesn't match the policy.

Well ya gotta start somewhere! We advocate a safe democracy for them, but we're starting off with heavily armed curfews. We have to get our stuff in front of their disapproving little faces before we can establish a free and independent press.

Off the subject, only slightly... when we were stationed in Bahrain (before the US State Dept kicked us out in 2004) I was confused noting that the local and very popular grocery store was also named Al Jazeera! The name is everywhere. I, for one, wouldn't have automatically assumed the connection.

"Why Ry? Do you have a problem with that? I think it's perfectly acceptable. It's common practice there. This is a case where "Everyone's doin' it." is an acceptable answer. It's not underhanded. It's the way things are done. Don't forget - they paid, yes - but the stories were true."
Ack. I'm not used to having the eye of the Blog Princess on me like this. Make her stop, Chief!

Maggs, I was only trying to feel out where Rushing was going. Trying to find out what he felt worked and was good tactics in the Public Affairs/Hearts and Minds arena. Just trying to feel out where the borders of his thoughts are in relation to mine own.

Though I do differ on the 'it's perfectly acceptable'. To me it was dumb because of the negative effect finding out the 'astroturfing' would have on the H&M campaign.

It's like finding out that a critical study on car safety was bankrolled by General Motors. It easily can generate the feeling that people are being manipulated, lied to, and the buyer/occupier is duplicitous(something the Arabs seem pre-disposed to based on my readings of Col de Atkine).

Fair? Probably. Order of the day in the region? Most likely. Effective and smart(particularly that we're dealing with a leak of secrets just about every week)?

The truthfulness of the reportage is immaterial if the general impression resulting from it is negative and counter-productive. I might just like this Rushing guy or at least agree with him on some crucial things. I am the most active member of the CCC after all.

"Yes, Ry, he did as a matter of fact. I countered with the appalling attempt by Big Army to reel in bloggers with "exclusive content" that was not only not exclusive, but wasn't even well-disguised recruiting ads." LOL. So you disagreed by agreeing to the 'we don't know jack' then?

I often wonder how we would feel if the military came up with a compatent PR wing? Would we feel safe? Would we feel, collectively I'm speaking here, more afraid of the 'military-industrial complex'? Just because it's effective doesn't necessarily mean it is the right thing to do. Even if we aren't fighting a 3rd Generation type war but one centered mostly in the skulls of the American populace as the means to secure victory by our opponents. Am I nuts here? (mostly thinking on the fly).

Oh, and whatever you did has stopped the error messages. Which means my spelling goes back to complete crap from just mostly crap. Never would've suspected that I was once second overall in my elementary school all grades spelling bee would you? ;)

And Navy Wife hits on the core of the copyright suit. al-Jazeera apparently means either 'the island' or 'the peninsula' in arabic, and is, in fact, a very common business name.

Kind of like the flurry of copyright suits that the french clothing designer Claude Montana was threatening to businesses in... Montana, for using the name Montana. He never did get around to trying to sue the state itself.

IIRC (and I could be wrong) he was taking advantage of then-recent changes in EU copyright laws, and was bringing actions mostly to show he was trying to protect the brand, without really having an expectation of winning. Still, musta been scary to be some little business getting threatening letters from high-powered lawyers.

But Ry - It didn't hurt us over there and that's what mattered. The bad taste in the mouth happened back home and frankly, who cares! The MSM almost universally picks at whatever we do over there so F#$^% 'em. The point of the operation was to get our story out to that population. The people of the ME thought nothing of our paying to get it there.

Maggie - Rushing's contention is that it *did* hurt us over there, because our actions didn't match our words... IOW, we were little different on the issues of the Press than are the local governments over there - yet we are claiming to be.

And that the locals note the failures more than the successes, and since we're trying to buck the tide, we have to be more consistent - and consistently different.

I'm with Ry on this one.

You know, what has me wondering is this: Why would the media accept Dan Rather's obviously
faked memos, the photoshopped evidence, yadda yadda if there was no propaganda value in it that served an agenda? I mean, come on. If we are to insist on accuracy in reporting, we need to hold those who lie accountable.

That isn't censorship to demand integrity in reporting.

But to not understand a culture like Islam in light of what they are given to percieve is naive. Having an American former member of the military in there will be interesting to see how he walks the walk.

I wonder, all you former commanders out there; would you go with just perceptions if you had to deploy your troops in harms way, or would you want to know more about the cultural climate (the reality) before you did so? And which would be more helpful?

And does anyone even understand what I just asked, cause I am not sure I understand it...
*takes deep breath to quit hyperventilating*

Rushing states it better than I can. 'Acts don't match message.' If they think we're exactly like the regimes they've lived with there's nothing stopping them from throwing support to someone who is THe Big Guy on The Block. There's no moral or ideological difference so why not go with the guy who is controlling the streets, and then switch loyalties if it earns me a couple of bucks and keeps my family safe? They're all lying bastiches who use the people and abandone them when it suits----that's the message it sends, or can send.

And in case you keep missing what I'm saying about the talk to Iran and Syria thing: losing the domestic US audience means game over, Last Helicopter Outta Saigon all over again. It matters Maggs.

I could give a flaming crap about what the MSM does. I hated English and Communications majors when I was an undergrad because I thought they were useless twits unable to think about anything other than 'am I being paid attention to?' with all their concern about having great leads and 'hooks' in their writing. Just because they're jerks who don't care about the ramifications doesn't mean there aren't any and WE should worry about same. They can go screwball themselves. But acting like them does breed cynicism---look at how we think of the media.

I think I get what you're asking Cricket, but not the expert you want the answer from. You're asking if a commander wants some real understanding of the region and the culture he's about to deploy into? Foreign Affairs Officers exist. So I'd say yes. THere's even an institutional slot to make sure such knowledge is available. But I'm not ex-military so you might want someone to corroborate or totally destroy my answer before you accept it.

But even FAOs are suspect. Journalism is about
integrity in recording history. To be fair, one does have to report the other side, but outright
lies? Is that Al Jazeera's perception of us, or
propaganda based on an agenda?

The Rathergate scandal led to a victory in the elections for our side, but that was a case of bloggers hollering foul loud enough that the MSM couldn't ignore it.

Those who point out factual errors within the theopolitics of Islam are silenced. Let us look at Al Jazeera's take on the Flying Imams.

So does Al Jazeera have an American posterboy to
silence criticism or to explain cultural differences or spin?

And I appreciated your answer, Ry. I would call that honest.

I especially like the part that talks about removing their power base - the energy that they control. No amount of pressure is going to matter as long as tyrants can pay people to keep them in power.

SECDEF Rumsfeld clearly sees, understands, and plans for the long term and big picture of dealing with the threat of radical Islam. Although this memo deals with Iraq specific issues, remember that he and the DOD have been, and will be engaged around the world for the foreseeable future. The goal is victory, and keeping the fight in Kabul, Kirkuk and the far away homes of the Islamists, instead of foolishly retreating to CONUS and waiting for the suicide bombers in Kansa City, Atlanta or elsewhere. Of course, the bad guy's most fervent wish, and our most horrific scenario is for them to acquire nuke capability and take out DC, or New York, or San Diego, or all of them.
Our actions in Iraq must be dealt with as part of the larger clash of civilizations, with the goal of massive cultural changes in the regions that harbor Islamist extremism, destroying its foundations and replacing it with the concepts and advantages of freedom.
Winning this requires more than cheap shot political sniping, or leaking classified materials to undercut our leaders. It requires a united country, unshakable resolve and a commitment for the long haul. This will last years, or more likely decades, and is not the time for the weak, opportunistic politicians. Hoping the threat will leave us alone, or that the suicide-seeking 12th Imam crowd in Iran with nukes will never use them is delusional.
Serious stuff, indeed. Sadly, we seem to lack serious leadership in Congress, the media, and perhaps even in the White House. Rumsfeld has led our defense well since 9-11-2001, but there is a vacuum of future leadership that will read, think, lead and win.
Our brave and successful troops are doing everything asked of them, and they need and deserve better, and so do the rest of Americans, and indeed Western Civilization.
The Democrats, may have won their political battle, but are no the verge of losing the unbelievably vital war(s) we are engaged in now, and in the near future. North Korea, the threats to Israel, and indeed, China also are part of the mix.
Interesting times, indeed.

“…reaching out to U.S. military retirees…” The system doesn’t know how to reach out to retirees except to hire us indirectly as contractors and then pay us a sinful amount of money and then wonder why the effort is so expensive. The DoD could have saved a lot of money and bad press (concerning FWA [Fraud, Waste & Abuse] in the contracting area) if they had invited all retirees to come back on active duty and use their expertise wherever it was needed regardless of branch of service. This would have been cheaper and more efficient than paying contractors enough money to get them to deploy to a war zone. Maybe the new guy will think of this instead of such a heavy dependence on expensive contracts. There is nothing a contractor is doing in Iraq that there are not plenty of retirees trained to perform that task. As I mentioned earlier, many of the contractors working in Iraq are retirees. The project I just left was over half retirees, but here’s the catch; working as contractors we came from every branch of service as we were recruited by the companies based on our skill sets. I don’t know if the Armed Services could set aside their parochial attitudes in order to field such a unit. But if they could and if they could sell the idea to the retiree community, they could save a gazillion dollars and tell KBR to go p*** up a rope.

Oldloadr - And we'd get campaign ribbons... which, if you're really honest with yourself, many of us would rather have than fat paychecks.

Because of what they mean. And who we are.

John - Absolutely! In fact, when I deployed on active duty I was happy with the tax break and hostile fire pay, especially since I did get the campaign medals (and VFW membership). But then, I always looked at military service as just that... service. I never expected to get rich and didn't care that others in our society were getting rich. I'm not being a martyr, I just believed that if GIs got paid like pro atheletes, it would take something away from the idea of service... I guess I'm waxing Quijotic. Anyway, I made a lot more money as a contractor, but I would have preferred to have been in uniform wearing my stripes.

I like the suggestion
"Assist in accelerating an aggressive federalism plan, moving towards three separate states — Sunni, Shia, and Kurd."

Of course, the ones with oil in their area will not like this arrangement. So I suppose it's a weak proposal in that regard. It would breed instability. But the political boundaries that are Iraq make no sense.

(This is going to sound harsh, but think before you take out the bats to thump this baby seal).
Would taking retirees back be such a good idea? I don't think so. What happens when the lot of you come back with lots of rank and your own ideas about things?

Except for the cost I like the way things are working now, inefficiency and all. We get the benefit of your expertise while not having to: a) go thru another bit of forced separation when hostilities end; b) mess with the command structure/Unity of Command Issues(if your purpose is to be the contrary how can you do that when on active duty you have to toe-the-line?) c) long term budget effects (yeah, those benefits add up and effect the services in ways that affects future readiness---it all comes from the same Congressional money pile).

As a contractor you still get to put your expertise to the good. You get to be contrary to the way things are done and have other avenues of advancing those ideas without both boots coming down on you from above(or having Whoever Sits Above circular file it because of its contrary to their wishes nature).

And then, 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'. Is it broken? Then don't f with it. Get your input in as best you can, but accept that you best serve where you're at now.

ry - Most of your points are subjective so therefore your opinion is as good as mine, I suppose. However, there is one point I would like to mention that is somewhat in error: "... long term budget effects (yeah, those benefits add up..." That is actually where retirees are the most cost-affective since we already have the benefits for ourselves and our dependents. The only thing that would change is I would not pay $460/year for Tricare while on active duty. Most call ups are for 2 year tours so the odds of anybody being promoted (if their service would even consider them) are out there so the only out-year change would be a few dollars more in retirement based on qualifying for a higher percentage.
On the subject of speaking your mind, I did not feel any more or less free to speak up as a contractor then I did on active duty, but what I did feel is less empowered to influence decisions above my pay grade. It seemed like every technical input I made to senior management that was eventually adopted was like pushing a noodle. However, that was my personal experience and I could not in any way quantify that for the entire theater. That's why I'm not arguing vigorously on this point.

Fair enough Loader. We academic punks sometimes need to cross the street and talk to the rank and file sometimes.

"the only out-year change would be a few dollars more in retirement based on qualifying for a higher percentage." But this is exactly what I am talking about. How many people are we talking about here? A few hundred? A few thousand? Ten Thousand? What's a 3% incease in retirement pay look like for a few thousand people?

Yeah, it is opinion. Reasoned opinion, but still opinion.

Ry - a couple of points.

1. If I go an active duty again, I will accrue retirement credit at 2.5% a year. And when I re-retire, that will bump up my retired pay - but calculated based on my original retirement date. In other words, while my month-to-month paycheck would be at the current rates, my retired check bump would be based on my 2000 pay scale.

2. The actual number is business sensitive, but to get me over there as a contractor, at exactly my current pay, would cost a minimum (and that's *really* a minimum) of 1.5 times what I actually see. Minimum.

I'd have to sit down with a spreadsheet, but a two year stint would add about, oh, 3600 a year to my retired pay.

With what you'd pay my firm to hire me as a contractor, without going into real details, it would take 25 years or so for the bump in my retired pay to match the extra you're going to pay upfront in today's dollars for my services as a contractor. For the First Year.

Or about 50 years for the two years. My family tends to long life, but only one of us has made it to 100.

Okay, I'm an idiot. What else is new?;)

Seriously, 20 years of 3% increased pay for say 3k people in 2000 $ which will have to go through COngress along with funding for weapons systems vs. teh gov't being willing to accrue debt to pay the premium? We need a spread sheet and I'm incapable of doing something on this scale(I'm gollum and you're busy). So I'll have to remain skeptical while defering to wiser and more informed men than I.

Of course, my unstated assumption is that as soon as we're out of Iraq and 'Stan, with a Dem president, we'll see a budget major cus to the DoD. That proll'y colours my analysis a bit(that subjectivity Loadr was hinting at).

2.5%, please. And if you are going to offset contractors with retirees, you are going to offset the costs for your contractors.

And remember, Ry - they're *already* paying me currently about 45% a month of what they'd be paying me if they brought me back on active duty, so the actual cost to the treasury is less than adding a body from scratch.

So you have to wonder what is the fascination the government has with contractors? The only advantages I see to contractors from the government's perspective (and I don't think these outweigh the financial cost):
1. The MSM doesn't make as big a stink when contractors die.
2. The government can fire one in 24 hours.
3. The government can hire one and have him/her on the ground in 4 weeks.

Hmmm. I wonder what score the average Congresscritter would get. Many of those are based on the Constitution as written, not on the way the government operates today.

Heh, Just take a look at question 78.

Last answer.

Of course, stupid redneck me having not been educated in Pelosi's California I didn't realize those are the things that have my hands at the end.

Only the goverment has the right to own weapons.

I still say that Military Service is a better path to legal immigration.

We already help educate many to obtain their GED, and while it would be an expense to teach English, it would be useful and a win win situation all around.

I do not like most of the new questions, though they are a bit better than some I remember of the previous test. These are heavily biased in favor of people who know more about the United States than most native borns, even after 12 years of school. I could not have told you how many voting members of the House there are, or how many amendments to the constitution there are (without looking it up). I think a couple million American 12th grad-ers should have to take this, then we'd see if it's a valid test for new voters.

As for Q. 78. Name two rights of everyone living in the U.S.
A: Freedom of expression
A: Freedom of speech
A: Freedom of assembly
A: Freedom to petition the government
A: Freedom of worship
A: The right to bear arms

MM is right, they forgot the part about "keeping" arms, but there are more problems with that one. In fact, its interesting to see that the people who wrote the test don't understand how to use the English language precisely. The answer to q. 78 should only have two "Freedoms of," freedom of speech and freedom of the press. There is no freedom or even a right of "expression," nor a freedom of "worship," nor a freedom to petition the government, nor a freedom of assembly.

There are in Amendment One only 2 "freedoms" (speech & the press ) and 2 "rights" (a right of people peaceably to assemble & a right to petition the Government for a redress of griev-ances). The text pertaining to religion states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Nowhere does it say anything about a freedom of expression.

I know the free exercise of religion can be considered freedom of worship, but the differences are subtle and important. Essentially, we have become a country that somehow construed what the constitution says to mean freedom from other people's religion at all times, eve-rywhere, if we are offended by the practice of religion. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that people have freedom _from_ other people's religions, or that people have a right to not be offended (see the freedom of speech part). And it does not guarantee the right to have no religion at all or of atheists to not be offended. It just says the FEDERAL gov-ernment cannot make laws respecting establishment of religion (we cannot have an offi-cial national religion, we cannot be told what to practice, or where, or when, or when not to, etc. by the Federal government) or preventing others from practicing their relgions. It says nothing about what states can do, and given that it doesn't, then the last two of the first 10 amendments apply:

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I know that's a bit of tangent, but lack of precision in interpretation of the constitution is something that has caused us (and is causing us) a great many problems.

V/R

One would have hoped the official answers are correct.

I don't see it as hard at all. 6/10 with answers pre-available. Looking at them I would have probably passed if i did it off the cuff. The driving licence is much harder here than those questions.

Well Sanger, while I think you are technically correct that you have a "right" to assemble, not a "freedom" to assemble, it's probably too fine a distinction to count as wrong for non-legal environments (ie. lawyers should know better).

While technically the pitcher must be touching the pitching rubber at release of the ball, watch any film and you'll see that nobody ever is. Any umpire that ever calls it a balk (technically correct) will never work again.

Trias,
Excepting the "Keep and" portion for the last answer (again, close enough to count for this) I think the exam has it exactly right. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Notice also that the "right to hunt" isn't listed either.

It's that the idea that the right is only a collective right is pervasive among many democrats. The collective having the right being the National Guard (ie. the government). Why would you need to give the government (a military arm of the government no less) a "right" to own weapons when it already has the power to raise armies. What exactly did they think they were supposed to fight with? Poetry? :-)

Ok, so I'm a stickler, am I, too lawyerly, eh? And you all are so smart?!? Ok, how about this question, which some of you probably think you got right:

113. Name one war fought in the United States in the 1900s.

A: World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, or Gulf (or Persian Gulf) War

ALL! WRONG! Not one of the listed wars was fought IN the United States in the 1900s! Neither Hawaii nor Alaska were states until 1959. The U.S. might have been attacked along some coastline in WWII, but the war was not fought here. The U.S. fought IN all of those wars.

You know, I was a linguist by trade once. Little things like prepositions make a BIG difference when you're translating and to a non-native speaker that can sound like a trick question. And don't even get me into idioms, which American has tons of (and now watch someone try to tell me three things wrong with my last sentence. Two of the three are not, the 3rd is iffy.)

And here's another for all you native speakers, but consider how this can be answered by a person who is translating (or even by an intelligent youngster, or by a smart-aleck like me):

54. What is one thing only a state government can do?
A: Provide schooling and education
(Private schools exist all over the place, and the Federal government runs all kinds of schools and universities, so this one isn't true)
A: Provide protection (police)
(Private protection and police companies exist all over the world, and SPs & MPs patrol near military bases, so this one isn't true.)
A: Provide safety (fire departments)
(I can provide for my own safety if I want to, thank you very much, and doesn't the Army AND FEMA do such things, like during federal emergencies? Wrong again.)
A: Give a driver’s license
(yeah, how about a CDL, which is issued by the state, but is required by the Feds to Fed standards!) www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration-licensing/cdl/cdl.htm
A: Approve zoning and land use
(Didn't the Supreme Court just decide something along these lines, hmmmm?, and who owns the federal lands and parks? The States? Wrong AGAIN!!!)

And WHAT kind of English is this?!
42. Who signs bills to become laws?

Let's see, do I sign a bill to become a law? Nooooo, I can't become a law, but I can sign a bill to make it a law...

See, I understand about fuzzy logic and all, and I appreciate that we need to give test takers the benefit of the doubt. I don't have a problem with the questions (even the really dumb one about the tallest mountain--who really cares?), but I do have a problem with people writing tests who haven't test writing skills or skill with the language, ESPECIALLY when the test is supposed to be taken in by people whose native language is NOT American.

And just for the record, American is distinct from English the way Mexican is Distinct from Spanish. See "The American Language" by H.L. Mencken if you doubt it. If you really care, I can suggest some other books that'll lern ya' stuff too...

V/R

"Which mountain is the highest mountain in the United States?"

I have no frikken idea but I can vertical step a 113 twice the height the book says it can with a full load and pick up a moving target with 30 year old M16 at 300 meters.

Who would you rather have behind the sticks, me or the book weenie?

Mount McKinley, now generally known as Denali.

And I drove a Lynx ...

Cheers

Sanger:
Ending a sentence in a preposition?

America was founded not on pragmatism and self-interest, but on the idea that people had dignity that no man could take from them. If we can even for a minute advocate the brutal oppression of the Iraqi people because it serves our "best interests," then we have forgotten who we are, and become the tyrants our forefathers sought to rid themselves of.

America was founded not on pragmatism and self-interest, but on the idea that people had dignity that no man could take from them. If we can even for a minute advocate the brutal oppression of the Iraqi people because it serves our "best interests," then we have forgotten who we are, and become the tyrants our forefathers sought to rid themselves of.

I say this in the deepest sincerity and with a true perplexity: How does someonelike Chait sleep at night? The self-absorbed, sanctimonious, immoral SOB!!!

We seem to have attained a world confluence of events that virtually assure things will indeed get a lot worse before they get better.

Most Americans have a two week memory.

The similarity between now and the period preceding WWII is bizarre.

The election of Democrats, has assured things will decay. If you doubt that let’s talk about it in .. oh say 2 years.

Will America again be great? I think so. I hope so. But I think it will take a crucible of the proportions of WWII or worse to achieve it.

... and music plays in the background
You must remember this
A kiss is still a kiss
A sigh is just a sigh
The fundamental thing apply
As time goes by.

jim b puts on his Fedora, and buttons his trenchcoat, he takes out his Zippo and lights up a Camel.... and ambers towards the door.

He pauses, turns and says, "Goodnight Chesty, wherever you are."

jim b exits stage right.

Actually, putting Saddam in power *might* be a good idea.

After he's dead.

I'm just thinking that more dead people holding elected offices means fewer stupid laws getting passed and screwing with people's freedoms :-)

“But Chait is essentially arguing that peace at any cost is preferable.”

Actually, I beg to differ. I’m no fan of Chait and The New Republic (and I don’t agree with his general doom and gloom tenor here, or declaring failure in the Vietnamization program(though what I’ve read of de Atkine(http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs1.html) doesn’t leave me real confident in this regard either. I’m just not ready to call this patient dead yet.)), but he is not arguing that at all in my mind.

Seems to me more like pure Machiavelli-esque thinking to me, ‘It is better to be feared than loved.’(Leaving out the rest of that chapter from The Prince). The only real error was going provocative in saying we should put Saddam back in power.

Peace at any price? Maybe. But not as you mean it, as the Chamberlain inspired epithet, John. More like shaking hands with Pinochet or Noriega or any of the other royal turds we’ve done over the years to get the job done. He’s thinking brick by brick.

Maybe people get angry that this sol’n is pragmatic and ideologically/morally un-satisfying. Tough.

You’ll live. The people on the ground might not. That matters more than you feeling good about ideological purity—in my book anyways.

Tough. We’ll take the win and try to use it as a stepping stone to the next goal in winning the Long War. You’ll get over it just like how all those men who served from 1945 to 1991 lived with not seeing their goal realized.

Nobody liked Containment on a moral basis. But the slumbeech worked to end the advance of Global Communism by ‘wars of national liberation’ and ultimately the USSR itself. But for 50 years people lived behind the Curtain. Which was better? Having a policy that handed us something tangible and good---while being suboptimal---- or going for broke and losing it all (there sure were a lot of missiles and divisions in the Warsaw Pact that we might not have been able to overcome in a Rollback policy.)? I’m with Patton. Give me a so-so plan that gets me something tangible today. I’m not much for vaporware or promises of better things tomorrow when there is something to be realized today. Know when to cash out of the card game with something instead of holding out for the one big pot and possibly losing it all.

Stabilizing Iraq is a tangible good. Even our quasi-allies in the region, the Saudis, are so worried about spill over that they’re building a border fence. Chait’s right in that we don’t have enough to control the whole country or to put it in lockdown (does anyone here really dispute that?). What happens if we wind up having to do stabilization operations elsewhere in the region if, say, the violence boiled over into Saudi or Iran or Syria (non-zero possibilities)? Do we have the capability to handle it? What happens if the Kurds tire of the nonsense and declare independence (bringing Iran and Turkey into a fight with them)? Nice quaterlateral war right there, and do we have enough to win and perform reconstruction operations if we won?

Stabilizing Iraq is an imperative. That hasn’t changed since the day we toppled Saddam. It’s brick by brick. First we get control, even using a slumbeech to do so like we did in S. America, then we move on to other things like creating the institutions for a working democracy (like we did in S. Korea 50 years ago). It’s an awfully big cake you all are talking about. I don’t think we can take it in one bite. It prevents a buttload of worse alternatives from coming to be. That’s reward in and of itself. Perfect it isn’t, but it’s a damn sight better than the possibilities we’re staring at (like say a President Hillary/Obama/whoever who decides to withdraw with honor, which is anything but that.).

And where were you guys when Dusty advocated much the same thing a few days ago? Letting one faction annihilate the other and then cooperating with whoever was the winner was something he advocated. It’s the same strategy really since it winds up shaking hands with a bloody handed bastiche and faction that is far less than the ideal ally; his faction being more feared than the others as a result of winning the internecine fighting. Pure Machiavelli.

Using Saddam was a mistake. But essentially he’s talking about using a strongman to unify the country, a puppet we will then replace 15-25 years from now, and get into a position to have a credible threat of force for other things like bashing heads of a small number of anti-gov’t groups instead of half the farkin’ country. It’s getting us into a position to have a stronger diplomatic hand vis. DPRK and Iran. Diplomacy doesn’t work real well when the other side knows you have nothing to force them to change and the deals you’re offering are the better alternative to being bombed and kicked out of power by main force. It’s giving us a reserve to call on if we wind up having to go super-kinetic in Afghanistan again. But it isn’t ideologically satisfying. It isn’t the story book ending of the good guys, might for right guys, winning a total victory and coming home to lasting peace. When has the story book ending been reality?
“I say this in the deepest sincerity and with a true perplexity: How does someonelike Chait sleep at night? The self-absorbed, sanctimonious, immoral SOB!!!”
We typically fall asleep on the couch reading Fuzzy, which annoys The Wife. ;) We don’t necessarily like the choices we make, wondering how we’re going to explain them at The Pearly Gates, but that’s what the situation on the ground looks like. Using ‘The Hammer’ like CPT Bauer thinks is prudent (http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/006689.html) is off the table for various reasons (either we’re wimps or that it tries to make everything into a nail because we have a good hammer or that it just isn’t applicable to each and every case. Take your pick, but I think all three might apply at any given time.) just isn’t in the cards. The Japanese sol’n, hitting them so utterly hard that they change their entire culture in response, just isn’t going to happen---accepting political and social reality isn’t a crime. You aren’t going to un-wussify the country in two weeks, much less the world. So what have we left? The tried and true brick by brick that requires us to shake hands with pure farkin’ bastiches is just about all we have. Utterly ideologically and morally unsatisfying it is. So what? We’ll live. We’ll have a ‘two steps forward and one step back’ situation in the Long War. We’ll be giving the Iraqis something we long promised them: a road to peace and freedom and liberal democracy, and economic improvements that come with those ideas/institutions so 50K kids and old people don’t die a year from lack of health care or a Sunni be afraid of a Shia or some 20 year old kid won’t take $20 to plant an IED since it’s the best work around while his family lives below the poverty line experiencing real, not relative, poverty(lack of food, lack of housing, and lack of stable work).
So I’ll take that accusation of being an SOB, Fuzzy. I’ll take it and enjoy it. It’s pretty fitting anyway; but at the end of the day simply saying ‘support the Troops and how dare Chait and ry stab them in the back!’ doesn’t keep one more Troop or one more Iraqi alive nor does it get the dying over so people can have normal, meaningful lives in the long term. I’ll take it and enjoy. A real badge of honor for me such a charge is because it shows I’m being intellectually honest about the situation and thinking beyond next week to the total fight. I’m a SOB, but I’m an SOB that’s going to get us thru this with the lowest total body count and a world that isn’t FUBAR because I am willing to take half a loaf. I can live with that.
It’s going to be a long night of reading.

Ack. What happened to the spacing and paragraph breaks at the end? Damn cut and paste from Word. I’m still getting error messages, John. Something’s still not right with either my ‘puter or connection, or with the site. Sigh.

So I’ll take that accusation of being an SOB, Fuzzy. I’ll take it and enjoy it. It’s pretty fitting anyway; but at the end of the day simply saying ‘support the Troops and how dare Chait and ry stab them in the back!

I think you misunderstood why I called Chait an immoral SOB. "The troops" were not foremost in my mind when I wrote that. I was thinking of the idea of putting Saddam back in power so that the entirety of Iraq is living in fear and terror again (vs. only certain sections now) and America isn't taken seriously on the war/foreign policy front for who knows how wlong (the latter of which has repercussions that are truly staggering and terrifying).

And as far as the rest of what you wrote, Ry, I have no comment because I'm too tired to understand it.

Ry simply demonstrates to me, over and over again, why I would not have succeeded at General or beyond.

I simply don't let myself think like that. I spend too much time looking backwards.

Anyway Fuzzy, boiled down, what Ry said was: Ignore Saddam per se, that's just a hook to get you to read, find a right proper strongman to rule, vice govern, who will be able to kill enough people to impose his will (which we are not able/willing to do) and accept a shit sandwich as being preferable to diarrhea soup. At least the bread is edible.

He essentially pointed out that's what we did with the Soviets, because we knew we didn't want to meet them in an all-out war.

And that it worked, while it wasn't perfect.

Ry likes his plan because IIRC, he also believes the Iranians will act rationally (within their context) and not go slinging nukes around once they have them (something I feel is probably inevitable).

Ry seems to be advocating a containment strategy for the entire region.

I think none of us understand Islam well enough to really think that one through.

I remember a sophomore PolySci course (over 40 years ago), in which ALL the known forms of government were discussed and analyzed.

On the final exam, we had an essay question in which we had to rank those known forms of government as to their ruling efficiency.

The correct answer had to say that the most efficient form of government is what was then known as a "benevolent dictatorship". The professor had told us that the thing that most closely resembled a "benevolent dictatorship" was Tito's Yugoslavia.

Hmmmm. This is probably a case where the theory is correct, but no good examples fit it.

“Ry simply demonstrates to me, over and over again, why I would not have succeeded at General or beyond.
I simply don't let myself think like that. I spend too much time looking backwards.
“

Not sure if I’ve been snarked, back handed compliment, or what. This could be a subtlety I’m not handling well or an honest lament I’m not understanding (being a lowly Ferret instead of a Bear).

You’ve got me partly John. I’m not calling for a new Containment, even if I do keep bringing it back up. Half a loaf is really the take away message I wanted to get across (then just say that, dolt.). A partial victory is better than none at all.

I don’t want to ‘firewall off’ or Contain the ME. Bad strategy as that generated the mess we have now and experienced in the recent past. Worse, that leaves the Iranians Numero Uno in the region, and plenty bold. More that we have a strategy that’ll get us where we want to go in twice the time we really wanted to take rather than never at all, if we have the cajones and thick enough skin to survive the opprobrium that’ll be hurled our way (see my fight with HE about US actions in S/C America for example) to do it.

And I think you’re being a bit unfair about my attitude toward Iran. I’m willing to see if they’ll act like big boys instead of a whinny child. At the same time I want the ability to kill Damien close at hand and ready if that’s what the whinny child turns out to be. I’ll take the soft kill if I can get it, even if using The Hammer would be more satisfying. I could try and describe it using Principles of Warfare, but I’d butcher them(bloody amateur that I am). We don’t have to devote military forces (which we haven’t got to devote I might add) to this problem right now. So let’s not do so (and having to try and close the border with Iran is doing exactly that). But let’s get the force ready for when we need it (and doing reconstruction of Iraq for the next ten years the ideologically satisfying way isn’t going to get us there.). Resource allocation imposed by reality we face. Spending all our time in Iraq does diddly about the Iyatollah flinging Shahab-3/4/5/? tipped with nuclear warheads at all.

Take the chit sandwich for now, there’s a McDonald’s up the way a bit, and a really good steak joint at the end of the long, muddy, soul trying road. If you’re willing to take the long way. Otherwise you risk not getting to the steak joint at all (and I want my Bloomin’ Onion, damnit.).

It’s the choice between something that’s (to be pulling numbers out of the air) 80% likely to work while taking twice as long over one that’s only 50-50.

I think Economy of Force is the principle you're groping for, Ry.

It was a compliment, mostly. There's a 'but' in there, of course.

"There's a 'but' in there, of course." Of course. But, Which 'but' are we going with this time? undisciplined? Only partly right/less than half right 90% of the time? Inexperienced? Ain't earned it? Illegible, un-readable, verbose, and sanctimonious? Vitrious(now there's some humor)? There's tons to pick from, Boss. Which one we picking today? ;)

In my view if the democratically elected Iraqi government can't hold it together than that's pretty much how it will go with some Shiite in power.

To hold it together really needs a loyal powerful military and the support of the people. I'm not so sure the current government has either. Iraqis appear to have turned to traditional power structure of their culture ie Islam and tribalism.

I don't think the US is capable of keeping nukes out of everyone's hands now. It's left it far too late to ensure responsible governments control such weapons and this Iraq attempt, even should it about face and succeed, will only delay it's coming.

Iran with nukes, North Korea with nukes, you name a non nuke nation, hell even Australia is heading that way. Philospohically i think we're too far behind and headed for a disaster we're largely unable to avoid.

Trias - I fear you are correct.

Ry: Which one we picking today?

It's always more fun to watch you fly in a circle, with only one wing.

I don't buy inevitability for the most part. There's too many decisions to be made along the way to say that it was inevitable. Reading thru Kagan's 'On the Origins of War' and the bit about debates and thinking held by the Spartans and Athenians prior to the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. Same thing can be seen there. It's the collection of choices that lead to it. Not fate. Iranian and DPRK achieving nuclear armed nation status can be halted. It's a matter of what choices we collectively want to make(like maybe choosing that stopping DPRK is more important than supporting the One China-Two Systems arrangement.)

That's, lots of nations now looking to join the nuclear club, also why I support ABMD research. Might be to little to late. We'll see. I have a real jones for the ABL to jump the last couple of hurdles (they're pretty dang high though). We once had B-52s up on a near constant basis. I find a defensive system more palatable than going back to 'we'll toss nuc ALCM if you don't play nice'. Knock it down or burn a hole in it that the electronics can't survive re-entry. Brilliant pebbles, held on a group of satellites, sent on a downward path into the flight path(so we don't have a cloud of junk potentially slamming into valuable platforms) of the missile would also be nice(but weaponizing space in such a manner is ample proof of warmongery and fascist tendencies, dontchaknow).

Well, it's what I've got John(flying on one wing). Of course we didn't exhaust all the possibilities(there's tons to pick from after all). I'm just going with those that are the most common. You got a special 'but' in mind?