I note a couple of points. I never got upset, remained calm and pleasant, but the young man became angry that I would not agree with him and he refused to talk to me further. Yet somehow I am the hater? Why do gays seem to crave the societal approval that gay marriage would seem to confer? They have the same rights as a straight married couple, just not the title. As a Christian, I don't crave approval from Buddhists or Muslims, or atheists for that matter. I am willing to engage them in discussion and explain my faith, but if they disagree that is in God's hands, and doesn't change my opinion of my own belief. Gay marriage advocates are very emotional abut the subject; if they were certain of their own life style's morality, they would not be so hung up on this issue.
Pictured is Kassidy Johnson, 9, leaning on her dad, Jerry Johnson, near the rifle memorrial to her big brother Cpl. Jeffrey W. Johnson, who was killed May 11 in Afghanistan.
There was a memorial on Friday at Camp Pendleton for the 14 Marines of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment who did not make it back from the 3/1's seventh month deployment to Afghanistan.
One of those Marines was a young man from Speedway, Indiana:
Sgt. John K. Rankel, a two-time Iraq combat veteran, had charged through machine-gun fire and rocket-propelled grenades to reach his men pinned down at a haystack. When he got there, he flopped next to them and said, “Hey, I heard you need some help out here.”
That was classic John — always calm, recalled Matthew Howard, a former Marine who served with him: “Even under duress, he was always confident and easygoing.”
Rankel waited until his Marines ran to cover. He was shot on the way out and died in their arms.
When Lima Company later moved into the Safar area, they built a huge combat outpost and named it after Rankel. A few weeks later in late August, after another long day in the field, their company commander explained why.
His words were tinged with fury: “I made it five times the size it needs to be because Rankel was a big man,” said Capt. John Kenneley, now a major. “We pushed it right up against the Taliban because John Rankel feared no one. He was a damn good squad leader and he gave his life looking out for his Marines.”
Kevin Rankel flew in from Indiana to attend his son’s memorial with a large group of relatives. He had tried to talk John out of joining the Marine Corps straight out of high school. The boy had good grades and was a decent athlete, said his father, a finance executive.
No one in their family had served in the military, but it was soon clear that John Rankel found his calling as a Marine infantryman. “He was doing exactly what he wanted to do in life,” Kevin Rankel said.
About 30 Marines joined the Rankels for dinner the night before the memorial.
“It meant so much what we learned last night, talking with the kids,” the father said. “I shouldn’t say kids; they are men at the same time. They have gone through so much ...”
Again, props to Gretel Kovach who has been embedded with the Marines in Afghanistan and who filed this story for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
A round-up of news items, columns, and blog posts that caught our eye this week.
The Democrats' diversity problem: The Voting Rights Act rules that govern redistricting is hurting congressional blacks' state and nation-wide appeal.
Recall the Justice Department's meddling down in Kinston, North Carolina, where they ruled that black voters needed to know who the Democratic candidates were... for city office.
Time to take another look at this well-intended but very possibly out-dated law?
From Cafe' Hayek and explaining the behavior of economists particularly in recessionary times:
There is truth in both of those arguments but I think it is useful to add some public choice as well with economists as rent seekers–if you want to be a player, you have to be willing to play. So those economists who argue for the virtues of intervention get a chance to play. Those who oppose intervention remove themselves from any chance of riding the government gravy train.
It’s a bootlegger and baptist argument–economists favored discretion and ad hoc intervention to save the economy knowing it is good for their own income and power. There’s also some groupthink involved. When everyone is touting the virtues of job creation via fiscal policy, you feel a little lonely suggesting it’s a sham. Finally, there is some risk aversion. Once you have some input into the policy process, better to do something than do nothing. Did Ben Bernanke really want to preside over the next real Great Depression while doing nothing? Better to do something, even if it’s flawed. The fact that you gain enormous power along the way would help any mortal man come to the view that doing something is better than doing nothing.
So, economists are becoming the new faith-based global-warming zealots? Terrific.
You may have heard the city of Cleveland threw itself a pity party on Thursday evening as LeBron James and his Miami Heat came to town to endure taunts, boos and signage that will not make anyone take pity upon Cleveland.
Oh, in case you were curious, the Heat thumped the Cavs 118-90.
It is very bad political advice. It also indicates a movement losing contact with political reality. When an ideology stumbles, its adherents can always turn to alcohol - or to conspiracy theories. It is easier to recover from alcohol. Conspiracy thinking is not only addictive, it is tiresome. It precludes the possibility of interesting policy debate or genuine disagreement - how can you argue with a plot?
You know where we stand on this matter. Coping mechanisms in both '06 and '08 where also we knew exactly why the Republicans got trounced and it had zero to do with messaging or conspiracies.
Seriously. Given the alternative, conspiracy theories are so lame.
After the Democratic “shellacking” in the midterm elections, everyone wondered how President Obama would respond. Would he show what he was made of? Would he stand firm for the values he believes in, even in the face of political adversity?
Perhaps, Krugman could share what he believes are those "values" that President Obama believes in because after 3+ years of being on the national/global stage, we sure as hell don't know what his values are.
And we were told it was Sarah Palin who was not properly vetted. Suckers.
Michigan coach Rich Rodriguez fought back tears, talking about the toll his job has taken on his family, and used passages from the Bible and a Josh Groban song during an emotional address that closed the team's banquet.
"I truly want to be a Michigan man," he said Thursday.
Rodriguez might not get that chance next season.
He didn't have to deal with the awkwardness of having Stanford coach Jim Harbaugh in the same ballroom, getting honored with the Wolverines who were honored 25 years after finishing the season ranked second, but the tension he feels about his job security was apparent.
A couple of things here. Michigan football officially recognizes 2nd place finishes?
Also, the conventional wisdom was that RichRod needed to win one of his last two games (Wisconsin and Ohio State) to save his job. They got drubbed in both finishing a bowl-eligible 7-5. We bought into this logic until early this past week. We think RichRod stays and here is what we wrote about his hire 3 years ago:
Let’s face it… Michigan is the CBS of college football. They are the embodiment of the stodgy, gray-flannel suit establishment of college ball. And like CBS, Michigan’s presumed dominance has been taking some hits of late – the program was showing its age and subsequently the ratings… and rankings were beginning to slip.
They took a huge gamble on Rodriguez and his very un-Michigan-like spread-option offense. If the Tiffany Network of college football whacks Rodriquez now, after only 3 years, it will appear that they are flailing and directionless... and perhaps as worse, admitting that they completely screwed up in the hiring decision. Rodriguez, who does have that offense dialed-in, gets another year to go at least 9-3. The now-rare occurrence of beating Ohio State would greatly help matters as well.
As for that song that got the head ball coach all misty...
Back in the day, there was a summer concert festival held annually here in Southern California called Hootenanny that featured rockabilly, psychobilly and other various sundry roots rock acts and which played out on several stages.
At one particular event held up in Orange County, we recall the masses crowding the main stage to hear these guys who went on right before the headline act, Chris Isaak, after which half the crowd dispersed when Isaak did go on.
Ladies and Gentlemen, from deep out of the bleeding heart of Texas, it's The Reverend Horton Heat performing "Galaxie 500"
One in a series that takes a look at some of the zany and madcap things said by Sarah Palin.
"We have to pay for unemployment insurance, we don't have to pay for tax cuts for the rich," Sarah Palin said. "Tax cuts do not create jobs. They haven't throughout the Bush administration. Unemployment insurance creates jobs and does not add to the deficit."
"Extending unemployment insurance benefits is not only a critical form of economic security for American families, but also a key source of fiscal stimulus that has the potential to ease pressure on the labor market by stimulating economic growth," the report said.
Of course, Sarah Palin didn't say these things but rather the first paragraph fell from the lips of that glittering jewel of colossal ignorance, Nancy Pelosi and the second paragraph was from something called the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress which despite its bipartisan-sounding name is chaired by two New York Democrats, Carolyn B. Maloney and Chuckie Schumer.
Sarah Palin could string together a quantity of gaffes that would stretch from her back yard to Russia and still not come close to uttering anything as clueless and demonstrating such an astounding misunderstanding of basic economics as Pelosi, Maloney and Schumer displayed just there.
Rumors swirled that the former White House budget director will join the worldwide bank Citigroup.
Bloomberg first reported Mr. Orszag is close to taking an investment banking job at Citigroup, where his former mentor Bob Rubin served as an executive and board member.
Citi declined to comment on the rumors.
The move is the latest for Mr. Orszag who left the White House earlier this year. The Financial Times reported that Mr. Orszag will was likely to be offered a position dealing with clients and top government officials rather than running a business.
(italics, ours)
Yeah, no kidding - would you let this guy anywhere near a business enterprise?
Considering the revolving door between Wall St. and the levers of power in D.C., we suppose we wouldn't be so opposed to crony capitalism and this American economic fascism, if the people involved weren't so god-awful at what they do.
“I have only one loyalty,” he says, “and that’s to the immigrant community.”
That from Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-MX via Chicago), illegal immigrant and open borders shill.
Just a little reminder, folks, regarding the mentality and ideology behind "comprehensive immigration reform" and the opening act, the DREAM Act, which is currently showing in the lame duck session of Congress.
Never mind that Gutierrez pledged an oath of loyalty to the Constitution and to the United States, his non-immigrant constituents might be interested in just how he prioritizes their interests.
And while we won't dare question Congressman Gutierrez's patriotism, whether he realizes it or not, he's a tool of the anti-American, open-borders left and all the thinly-veiled racism, third-world socialism and anti-capitalistic ways they bring to the table.
Want more proof that the DREAM Act, which would in part, grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, is not about cogent, rational legislation towards sensible immigration reform but rather shameless pandering to the open borders loons? There are currently four versions of the DREAM Act on the Senate docket, including one that rolled out Tuesday night at 8:45 P.M.
Here's Senator Jeff Sessions expressing some mild displeasure with Harry Reid over the lack of due Senatorial process in light of the DREAM blitz:
When the well-intended and high-minded among us call for "dialog" and "civil discourse", we respond, where is there any room or hope for "dialog" and "civil discourse" when these shenanigans are going down?
After some congratulatory back-slapping over the filters his employer put in place that governed which wikileaks were published, Brooks gets down to what was damaged the most, perhaps, by Mr. Assange:
Yet it might be useful to consider one more filter. Consider it the World Order filter. The fact that we live our lives amid order and not chaos is the great achievement of civilization. This order should not be taken for granted.
This order is tenuously maintained by brave soldiers but also by talkative leaders and diplomats. Every second of every day, leaders and diplomats are engaged in a never-ending conversation. The leaked cables reveal this conversation. They show diplomats seeking information, cajoling each other and engaging in faux-friendships and petty hypocrisies as they seek to avoid global disasters.
Despite the imaginings of people like Assange, the conversation revealed in the cables is not devious and nefarious. The private conversation is similar to the public conversation, except maybe more admirable. Israeli and Arab diplomats can be seen reacting sympathetically and realistically toward one another. The Americans in the cables are generally savvy and honest. Iran’s neighbors are properly alarmed and reaching out.
Some people argue that this diplomatic conversation is based on mechanical calculations about national self-interest, and it won’t be affected by public exposure. But this conversation, like all conversations, is built on relationships. The quality of the conversation is determined by the level of trust. Its direction is influenced by persuasion and by feelings about friends and enemies.
The quality of the conversation is damaged by exposure, just as our relationships with our neighbors would be damaged if every private assessment were brought to the light of day. We’ve seen what happens when conversations deteriorate (look at the U.S. Congress), and it’s ugly.
The WikiLeaks dump will probably damage the global conversation. Nations will be less likely to share with the United States. Agencies will be tempted to return to the pre-9/11 silos. World leaders will get their back up when they read what is said about them. Cooperation against Iran may be harder to maintain because Arab leaders feel exposed and boxed in. This fragile international conversation is under threat. It’s under threat from WikiLeaks. It’s under threat from a Gresham’s Law effect, in which the level of public exposure is determined by the biggest leaker and the biggest traitor.
Many years ago, we shared some candid and rather unflattering thoughts regarding a friend we truly did admire and respect to another person. What we said got back to our friend. Words cannot describe how mortified we were. It took years to rebuild the trust and friendship we had originally so we can understand where Brooks is coming from.
That ineptitude is not the only aspect of the US government revealed by the Wiki dump. One also gets an overpowering sense of just how well-intentioned the United States is. The cables I've read so far show our diplomats trying to make sense of a Bizarro World in which the United States tends to say what it means while almost every other nation is essentially allergic to candor or straight talk.
Arab potentates say exactly the same things the Israelis say about the Iranians and their intentions -- but won't say them out loud in public, nor lift a finger themselves. The Chinese whine about oil and Iran, and we help them with the Saudis.
Our diplomats must cope with Khadafy's lunacy, the solipsistic nihilism of Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe and the shifting allegiances and gamesmanship of Vladimir Putin.
If the pop-culture version of the US government had any basis in reality, it would be revealed in these documents. These are, after all, written for a tiny audience of governmental high-ups, and are supposed to be frank and unadorned. If we were plotting to overthrow governments, or figure out ways to divert precious resources for our own use, such things would appear in these cables.
They don't, because that's not what really goes on -- at least not so far as the United States is concerned. From the bits I've been able to read, the WikiLeaks documents open a window onto a US government trying to keep weaponry out of the hands of bad actors, to help bring peace and stability to Iraq and Afghanistan, to figure out the constitutional basis of a coup in Honduras.
This isn't the Ugly American. It's the Smiley-Face American.
And both Brooks' and Podhoretz's columns, in turn, reminded us of a post by B-Daddy while doing some guest-blogging at BwD, stressing the critical importance that a functioning republic have a loyal, dedicated and competent civil servant work force that runs the government and continues with their respective duties and responsibilities regardless of which party is in the Oval Office or roaming around Capitol Hill.
This is both a strength and a weakness of our system. Because the Federal Agencies operate under the laws passed by the Congress, they move out, slowly perhaps, to execute the mission given to them by law. When a new administration is in power, the mission doesn't change. Except for the actual war fighting execution, where the President is in charge as Commander in Chief, even if he doesn't want to face up to that, even the Defense Department cruises along building systems and training forces without huge changes.
"Left full rudder." "Aye-Aye Captain, but the rudder is already left full."
Yesterday, we blogged about 1st Lt. Will Donnelly (Kings Point '08) who was killed in action on Thanksgiving Day.
Regular reader and frequent commenter, Steve (a former Navy Corpsman who served alongside Marines) suggested that to honor the life and sacrifice of Will, a donation be made to the Marine Corps Scholarship Fund.
The site is here where you can find out more about this worthy program.
Though they did not have children, we feel that would be an excellent way to honor William J. Donnelly IV and support his wife, Linsey.
Via Deadspin, a surprisingly congruous mixtape featuring Lions great Barry Sanders set to Clint Mansell & The Kronos Quartet's overture from the Requiem For A Dream soundtrack.
At 1:24, there is an inhuman burst of speed that's synched-up perfectly with the music.
After all that, though, he's still behind Jim Brown and Walter Payton on the all-time running backs list so just wait 'til you see their mixtapes.
And from the peanut gallery:
Wait until you see the Bridgeport Education Holiday Bowl highlight reel set to Trans Siberian Orchestra's Christmas Eve/Saravejo. If that doesn't get you pumped for middle-of-the-pack PAC10 vs Big12 action nothing will.
- Eddie Suttons
Surprisingly congruous, right?
After Euclid's persuasive sales pitch, the rest was history.
...two 'Merican kids stickin' it to the heartland.
Well, looky here:
We are writing to make you aware that we do not support an extension of either the 54 cent-per-gallon tariff on ethanol imports or the 45 cent-per-gallon subsidy for blending ethanol into gasoline. These provisions are fiscally irresponsible and environmentally unwise, and their extension would make our country more dependent on foreign oil.
Subsidizing blending ethanol into gasoline is fiscally indefensible. If the current subsidy is extended for five years, the Federal Treasury would pay oil companies at least $31 billion to use 69 billion gallons of corn ethanol that the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard already requires them to use. We cannot afford to pay industry for following the law....
Eliminating or reducing ethanol subsidies and trade barriers are important steps we can take to reduce the budget deficit, improve the environment, and lessen our reliance on foreign oil. We look forward to working with you on responsible energy tax policy.
So where did this come from? American Enterprise Institute? Cato? Heritage Foundation? The newly-minted tea party caucus in Congress? Wrong on all four counts.
This was part of a letter to Senate leaders from a bipartisan group of 12 senators and which was co-authored by Diane Feinstein and John Kyl.
We're almost speechless. There has to be a catch, though, right? The term "bipartisan" normally scares the crap out of us. They have to be angling towards something, right?
Can an energy policy be so horrifically bad, so wrongheaded and dreadful that it could inspire a letter this forceful from two people generally at the opposite ends of the political spectrum? And can it be pulled off without malice or forethought? Putting the cynic inside us aside, yes, dear friends... yes it can.
There is obviously a long way to go with political considerations for senators from regionally-affected states and the no-small-matter of the Iowa caucuses in a little over a year but its a great first step. With that in mind, let us rejoice in the opening salvo in the battle to defeat the worst energy policy idea of all time.
Posts
