Darn it! Just when I thought I was going to start making time to post regularly life got in the way…again. Life is funny that way. You make a mental note, or even better, you make a physical reminder to do something and then something more important comes up. I had this grand plan to become this authoritative blogger that lots of people checked out at least once a week. I never got around to figuring out what exactly I was going to be an “authority” on, but never mind the details. Oh yeah. I was going to plug in a few RSS feeds, update my links section, and add some pictures and videos…the whole 9 yards. As you can see, it has been about a month since my last post and a month since those dreams crashed upon the rocky shores of Life Landing. So here I sit, trying to look back and what exactly it was that sidetracked me and I cannot for the life of me remember.
I suppose I could blame it on work. But then, I leave for work at 7 am and get home around 7 pm (12 hours gone) so what about the other 12 hours. Well from about 7pm to about 8pm (1 hour) I am usually eating and catching up with the wife. No problem, I still have about 11 hours to write. Then, from about 8 pm to about 10 pm I am usually playing with the boys or on a random night watching one of the few TV programs I watch (2 hours). So that leaves me 9 hours. Oh…wait. I forgot about sleep. Ok…from 10 pm - 5:30am I sleep (7.5 hours), and from 5:30-6am I read (usually the Good Book) and from 6 to 7 I get dressed. No more hours left!
Am I supposed to keep this up until I retire?! What happened to ALL of my time? It was just the other day that I had extra time to do things like write and read and work out and play a game or two. No more. When did I get so busy? Maybe one of these days I will have some free time. Of course, by then, I won’t have any idea what to do with that time.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Thursday, February 01, 2007
"I support the troops but not the war"...Really?
Today I am going to attempt to wrap my mind around a topic – a difficult topic: “Supporting the troops but not their mission”. I am not for a second buying into the fact that the majority of the people who make this claim actually believe it – far from it. These people really don’t support the troops, the mission, or this country when it comes down to it – I am convinced of that. But taking them at their word for a moment let me tried to logically understand how someone could “support the troops” without supporting their mission.
On June 14, 1775 the Continental Congress adopted the New England army, which is officially recognized as the first United States army. On the same day it voted to raise 10 companies of riflemen to be the first directed enlistments into the Continental Army. The next day, June 15th, General George Washington took command and you should know the rest.
From the beginnings in 1775 to present day the United States has maintained an army (I use the term “army” to also represent the marines, navy, air force and coastguard) to do two things and two things only: (1) blow things up and kill people, and (2) threaten to blow things up and kill people. That simplifies it a bit, but at the end of the day, those are the two reasons we keep a fighting force.
So, having defined what the role of the army is, everyone knows what the role of the soldier (the “troops”) is. Sure, there are thousands of different specialists – from the electrical engineers, the supply coordinators, the medics, etc. - but they all have one thing in common…the electrical engineers keep the weapons systems going (blow things up), the supply engineers keep the bombs and ammo moving (kill people) and the medics keep the force in fighting shape (to blow things up and kill people).
Now that we have clearly defined the role of the army and the role of the troops – please explain to me how you can “support the troops” without “supporting” what it is that “troops” in general do? How can you say to a soldier: “I support you and all that you do” if you are against what it is that soldiers do? Could I go up to Dirk Nowitzki and say “Dirk – I support you in your bid to become the best basketball player ever. But I am totally against this sport called basketball…and will be protesting your upcoming game against the Spurs.” I suppose I could do that –what with free speech being what it is…but how utterly stupid would that sound?
Saying “I support the troops but not the war” is a catchy little phrase that helps liberals deflect attention away from their lack of understanding or their inability to develop any rational, fact based argument about war. “War kills”. No -Really? “War never solved anything”. Are you kidding me? Except for ending slavery, fascism, Nazism, and communism – you are right…war never solved anything.
There is no doubt that 95% of all Americans want every US soldier, sailor, marine and coasty home safe (I don’t say 100% because I am convinced there is a subversive element to society that truly wishes harm on the US and all it is associated with – while hypocritically reaping the bounty brought forth from living in the US…another story for another day). But here is the deal – Conservatives want the same thing too. Liberals don’t hold the copyrights to wishing all our soldiers safety. The difference is that conservatives want our troops home when they win. Liberals want our troops home ALWAYS – nothing is worth fighting for. They want them home no matter the cause, and if millions of Vietnamese or now Iraqis have to die as a result of the US leaving before finishing the job, well, so be it.
So, am I saying that in a time of war there can be no dissent as to the prosecution of the war? Of course not. I am saying that during a time of war, there should be no question as to whether or not the US will really “support the troops” by giving them the weapons, ammo, clothing, food, equipment, and rules of engagement they need to WIN. What they do not need is hollow lip service that smacks of dishonesty.
On June 14, 1775 the Continental Congress adopted the New England army, which is officially recognized as the first United States army. On the same day it voted to raise 10 companies of riflemen to be the first directed enlistments into the Continental Army. The next day, June 15th, General George Washington took command and you should know the rest.
From the beginnings in 1775 to present day the United States has maintained an army (I use the term “army” to also represent the marines, navy, air force and coastguard) to do two things and two things only: (1) blow things up and kill people, and (2) threaten to blow things up and kill people. That simplifies it a bit, but at the end of the day, those are the two reasons we keep a fighting force.
So, having defined what the role of the army is, everyone knows what the role of the soldier (the “troops”) is. Sure, there are thousands of different specialists – from the electrical engineers, the supply coordinators, the medics, etc. - but they all have one thing in common…the electrical engineers keep the weapons systems going (blow things up), the supply engineers keep the bombs and ammo moving (kill people) and the medics keep the force in fighting shape (to blow things up and kill people).
Now that we have clearly defined the role of the army and the role of the troops – please explain to me how you can “support the troops” without “supporting” what it is that “troops” in general do? How can you say to a soldier: “I support you and all that you do” if you are against what it is that soldiers do? Could I go up to Dirk Nowitzki and say “Dirk – I support you in your bid to become the best basketball player ever. But I am totally against this sport called basketball…and will be protesting your upcoming game against the Spurs.” I suppose I could do that –what with free speech being what it is…but how utterly stupid would that sound?
Saying “I support the troops but not the war” is a catchy little phrase that helps liberals deflect attention away from their lack of understanding or their inability to develop any rational, fact based argument about war. “War kills”. No -Really? “War never solved anything”. Are you kidding me? Except for ending slavery, fascism, Nazism, and communism – you are right…war never solved anything.
There is no doubt that 95% of all Americans want every US soldier, sailor, marine and coasty home safe (I don’t say 100% because I am convinced there is a subversive element to society that truly wishes harm on the US and all it is associated with – while hypocritically reaping the bounty brought forth from living in the US…another story for another day). But here is the deal – Conservatives want the same thing too. Liberals don’t hold the copyrights to wishing all our soldiers safety. The difference is that conservatives want our troops home when they win. Liberals want our troops home ALWAYS – nothing is worth fighting for. They want them home no matter the cause, and if millions of Vietnamese or now Iraqis have to die as a result of the US leaving before finishing the job, well, so be it.
So, am I saying that in a time of war there can be no dissent as to the prosecution of the war? Of course not. I am saying that during a time of war, there should be no question as to whether or not the US will really “support the troops” by giving them the weapons, ammo, clothing, food, equipment, and rules of engagement they need to WIN. What they do not need is hollow lip service that smacks of dishonesty.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
School Choice
Why is it that the freedom to choose is good in all areas of our life but schools? We all agree that because I can choose between All State, Farmers, GEICO and others that I get a lower rate on my insurance. We agree that the ability for me to choose one out of a thousand mortgage lenders is going to ensure that I get the best interest rate possible. Can you imagine what the cost of an airline ticket from Dallas to Houston would be if only American Airlines operated flights – no more Southwest? Competition lowers prices, it foster innovation, and it adds quality. But for some reason, I am supposed to believe that all those three things that competition brings us are not at all applicable to schools?
I hear, by those opposed to school choice, that it will lead to massive overcrowding in the better performing schools. Let’s apply this same argument to my cable provider. Prior to last week, Grande Communication provided my internet, phone and cable service. Recently though, Verizon installed their cutting-edge fiber optics cables (FIOS) in my neighborhood – promising better service, content and reliability at a slightly lower price. So, even though in this case Grande wasn’t a terrible product, they were an underperformer when compared to FIOS – so I switched. But according to the “overcrowded argument” soon FIOS will be in BIG TROUBLE because “so many people will be switching to their service”. Can you imagine the executives at Verizon saying, “You know Bill - we really need this FIOS thing to work, but there better not be too many people wanting to use it.” Nonsense! If people en mass start switching what will Verizon do? They will expand their assets to accommodate. They will adapt. What will Grande do? They will do one of three things: (1) they will close the doors in profound sadness that they were not able to compete, (2) they will make no changes and sputter along financially, or (3) they will innovate and roll out a competing product at a competing price. As the Guinness Beer guys say – “Brilliant”!
And that my friend is what the schools will do too. The over performers will add space and add more outstanding teachers to an outstanding curriculum. The under performers will face the same three choices as Grande faces. They will close down the school and bus students elsewhere (not likely). They will keep underperforming, happy to lose the 15-20% of students who decided to leave, or they will innovate and bring in teachers who can teach a curriculum worth teaching in an environment conducive to learning.
I am also told that students will be bussed hours away from home and not get in until 6 at night. This confuses “school choice” with “mandatory integration”. Let us not forget the most important word in “school choice” – “choice”. I realize that some school districts force certain kids to be bussed to other districts due to arcane anti-segregation policies handed down by judges. This is not what school choice is. Parents should be able to “choose” whether or not the added benefit of getting a better education is worth it “to them” to put up with the challenges of transporting their child to that other district. It is a choice, not a mandate. This ties in with why I think the number of transferring students will always be low (I probably overshot earlier by even saying 15%). The challenge of transportation will prevent some, if not most, from leaving. Of course parents have the ultimate choice, they could move – as many do. But why should choice in public education be granted only to those who can afford addresses in Southlake Carroll or Highland Park? Remember, this is public education here. I make no argument that everyone deserves a private education – which in many cases is superior. I am only stating that public education should, for the most part, be standard regardless of how pricey your neighborhood is.
Frankly, I won’t rehash the other feeble arguments against school choice. They have something to do with “going back to segregation”, “forcing down standards in good schools”, etc, etc. It comes down to simple logic. Education is a service no different than any other. We pay an amount (through property taxes) and expect a certain product/service. When we don’t get the level of service we feel is needed we go somewhere else – it is that simple. Schools are in the business of education. When they don’t educate at the level we feel is adequate we should be able to go somewhere else.
I hear, by those opposed to school choice, that it will lead to massive overcrowding in the better performing schools. Let’s apply this same argument to my cable provider. Prior to last week, Grande Communication provided my internet, phone and cable service. Recently though, Verizon installed their cutting-edge fiber optics cables (FIOS) in my neighborhood – promising better service, content and reliability at a slightly lower price. So, even though in this case Grande wasn’t a terrible product, they were an underperformer when compared to FIOS – so I switched. But according to the “overcrowded argument” soon FIOS will be in BIG TROUBLE because “so many people will be switching to their service”. Can you imagine the executives at Verizon saying, “You know Bill - we really need this FIOS thing to work, but there better not be too many people wanting to use it.” Nonsense! If people en mass start switching what will Verizon do? They will expand their assets to accommodate. They will adapt. What will Grande do? They will do one of three things: (1) they will close the doors in profound sadness that they were not able to compete, (2) they will make no changes and sputter along financially, or (3) they will innovate and roll out a competing product at a competing price. As the Guinness Beer guys say – “Brilliant”!
And that my friend is what the schools will do too. The over performers will add space and add more outstanding teachers to an outstanding curriculum. The under performers will face the same three choices as Grande faces. They will close down the school and bus students elsewhere (not likely). They will keep underperforming, happy to lose the 15-20% of students who decided to leave, or they will innovate and bring in teachers who can teach a curriculum worth teaching in an environment conducive to learning.
I am also told that students will be bussed hours away from home and not get in until 6 at night. This confuses “school choice” with “mandatory integration”. Let us not forget the most important word in “school choice” – “choice”. I realize that some school districts force certain kids to be bussed to other districts due to arcane anti-segregation policies handed down by judges. This is not what school choice is. Parents should be able to “choose” whether or not the added benefit of getting a better education is worth it “to them” to put up with the challenges of transporting their child to that other district. It is a choice, not a mandate. This ties in with why I think the number of transferring students will always be low (I probably overshot earlier by even saying 15%). The challenge of transportation will prevent some, if not most, from leaving. Of course parents have the ultimate choice, they could move – as many do. But why should choice in public education be granted only to those who can afford addresses in Southlake Carroll or Highland Park? Remember, this is public education here. I make no argument that everyone deserves a private education – which in many cases is superior. I am only stating that public education should, for the most part, be standard regardless of how pricey your neighborhood is.
Frankly, I won’t rehash the other feeble arguments against school choice. They have something to do with “going back to segregation”, “forcing down standards in good schools”, etc, etc. It comes down to simple logic. Education is a service no different than any other. We pay an amount (through property taxes) and expect a certain product/service. When we don’t get the level of service we feel is needed we go somewhere else – it is that simple. Schools are in the business of education. When they don’t educate at the level we feel is adequate we should be able to go somewhere else.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
The Muzzle is Off
It has been some time since I was moved to write. Partly because I have grown weary of banging out my frustrations on the internet and partly because of lack of time. But no more. No more will I let those “who thinks nothing is worth fighting and dying for” hijack the public debate on the war effort.
I was at once moved to gratitude and sickened at the sight of several thousand anti-war peaceniks protesting at the Capital (and defacing it) this weekend. It brings me great pride to know that I live in a country where the most ignorant, un-American, spineless twits among us can legally assemble and protest the policies of this country. But I am sickened that these same people think that it is well within their “right” to spit on (literally) the soldiers who give them this freedom, who think it is their “right” to spray graffiti on the steps of the Capital, who equate the President with Adolf Hitler (Tim Robins). Who are lead in chorus by the most prejudiced among us (Jesse Jackson) and by a lady who wants to be your next President – a lady who in 2003 stated over and over to anyone who would listen how sure she was that invading Iraq was the right thing to do - now, she thinks “not so much”. Do you remember the hot water she was in with her “base” over her support of the war resolution? She assured her “base” of liberal supporters that Sadam was a serious threat. She had “done her homework” on this and realized there was “no other way.” This spineless Senator would now like us to believe she was duped.
The lack of spine in this country is astounding. This spinal malady is spread evenly among the hippies of the 60’s (who are now in their 60’s) and the spineless offspring they brought into this world. Their kids grew up with the amazing ability to see all of the world’s evil and know that America was to blame, but were unable to see any of America’s greatness. This blindness to reality, coupled with the lack of spine is truly a medical phenomenon that will be studied for years to come. I only hope and pray that there are still American’s left to study it. Will anyone really be surprised to see Jane Fonda put on a turban and stand next to Al-Sadr in solidarity against the “imperial devils”? Wait. It’s coming.
“No blood for oil” I am told. Yet I am also told that “the price of oil is too high”. I am told it is too high because “Bush started a war knowing it would drive the price up”. Well, which is it damn it?! Are we there stealing oil for nothing (which would depress the price) or are we there purposely disrupting the supply to drive it up? This lack of critical thinking by the left has me wondering how in the world they become college professors. Is this the critical thinking skills that are being taught on campuses nationwide? Sadam never attacked us? Yeah. Your right - but neither did Adolf Hitler. Huh? That’s right – it was the Imperial Japanese who attacked us and not Germany. We didn’t invade Iraq because they attacked us on 9/11. We invaded them so that would not be ABLE to attack us. Get in your time machine and go back to early December 1941. Would you think it wise to attack the Japanese fleet as they were steaming toward Hawaii?
“We should let diplomacy work.” Sure, just like it worked in Tehran for 444 days of hostage taking, just like it worked with the Kobar Towers, the USS Cole, the now nuclear North Korea and soon to be nuclear Iran. Ask Israel how diplomacy is working for them? Get back in the time machine and ask England how Chamberlin’s diplomacy worked for them. Take the machine back a little more ask George Washington how it worked for him…oh wait. It didn’t – and because he chose not to negotiate with King George and because of people like Thomas Paine (who indeed showed is strong spine by publishing Common Sense) we now have the greatest country ever in the history of ever. Diplomacy is only as effective as your military threat. You cannot have a military threat if you never use military action.
So, no – I am not advocating abridging the First Amendment just because I don’t like what is being said. I am advocating making my voice, and the voice of all those Americans who want victory, heard. This is the greatest country ever assembled. Its greatness preserved by the blood of patriots and by the voice of the patriotic. Patriotism is not manifested by blind support of the government. It is manifested in blind love of country. I dare say the act of spitting on a wounded soldier is the antithesis of patriotism – and I for one will not stand for it.
Disgusting act:
I was at once moved to gratitude and sickened at the sight of several thousand anti-war peaceniks protesting at the Capital (and defacing it) this weekend. It brings me great pride to know that I live in a country where the most ignorant, un-American, spineless twits among us can legally assemble and protest the policies of this country. But I am sickened that these same people think that it is well within their “right” to spit on (literally) the soldiers who give them this freedom, who think it is their “right” to spray graffiti on the steps of the Capital, who equate the President with Adolf Hitler (Tim Robins). Who are lead in chorus by the most prejudiced among us (Jesse Jackson) and by a lady who wants to be your next President – a lady who in 2003 stated over and over to anyone who would listen how sure she was that invading Iraq was the right thing to do - now, she thinks “not so much”. Do you remember the hot water she was in with her “base” over her support of the war resolution? She assured her “base” of liberal supporters that Sadam was a serious threat. She had “done her homework” on this and realized there was “no other way.” This spineless Senator would now like us to believe she was duped.
The lack of spine in this country is astounding. This spinal malady is spread evenly among the hippies of the 60’s (who are now in their 60’s) and the spineless offspring they brought into this world. Their kids grew up with the amazing ability to see all of the world’s evil and know that America was to blame, but were unable to see any of America’s greatness. This blindness to reality, coupled with the lack of spine is truly a medical phenomenon that will be studied for years to come. I only hope and pray that there are still American’s left to study it. Will anyone really be surprised to see Jane Fonda put on a turban and stand next to Al-Sadr in solidarity against the “imperial devils”? Wait. It’s coming.
“No blood for oil” I am told. Yet I am also told that “the price of oil is too high”. I am told it is too high because “Bush started a war knowing it would drive the price up”. Well, which is it damn it?! Are we there stealing oil for nothing (which would depress the price) or are we there purposely disrupting the supply to drive it up? This lack of critical thinking by the left has me wondering how in the world they become college professors. Is this the critical thinking skills that are being taught on campuses nationwide? Sadam never attacked us? Yeah. Your right - but neither did Adolf Hitler. Huh? That’s right – it was the Imperial Japanese who attacked us and not Germany. We didn’t invade Iraq because they attacked us on 9/11. We invaded them so that would not be ABLE to attack us. Get in your time machine and go back to early December 1941. Would you think it wise to attack the Japanese fleet as they were steaming toward Hawaii?
“We should let diplomacy work.” Sure, just like it worked in Tehran for 444 days of hostage taking, just like it worked with the Kobar Towers, the USS Cole, the now nuclear North Korea and soon to be nuclear Iran. Ask Israel how diplomacy is working for them? Get back in the time machine and ask England how Chamberlin’s diplomacy worked for them. Take the machine back a little more ask George Washington how it worked for him…oh wait. It didn’t – and because he chose not to negotiate with King George and because of people like Thomas Paine (who indeed showed is strong spine by publishing Common Sense) we now have the greatest country ever in the history of ever. Diplomacy is only as effective as your military threat. You cannot have a military threat if you never use military action.
So, no – I am not advocating abridging the First Amendment just because I don’t like what is being said. I am advocating making my voice, and the voice of all those Americans who want victory, heard. This is the greatest country ever assembled. Its greatness preserved by the blood of patriots and by the voice of the patriotic. Patriotism is not manifested by blind support of the government. It is manifested in blind love of country. I dare say the act of spitting on a wounded soldier is the antithesis of patriotism – and I for one will not stand for it.
Disgusting act:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)