Month: January 2013

Should Women Be In Combat?

The US has moved into the 21st century and made it official that women can be in active combat units…..they have been in a non-official capacity for years……but no they are legal, so to speak.  We can look at other countries in this world where women are actively engaged in combat and do perfectly fine…..Israel comes to mind…….IMO, women are qualified to do anything that we macho dudes can do…with the exception of shaking it after we pee……

I have heard all the complete bonehead rants about why they, women, should be excluded from combat……here are a couple of the more stupid of the comments…….

  • Women are too weak. Boykin believes soldiers still need certain “levels of sheer physical strength, speed, and endurance that are relatively rare among women.” But wait, if they’re “relatively rare” doesn’t mean that they, you know, exist?
  • Soldiers need to pee in front of each other! Boykin warns that combat missions often offer no access to base facilities. “Living conditions can be abysmal and base. … Soldiers and Marines have to relieve themselves within sight of others.” Apparently women aren’t just weak, they’re squeamish.
  • It would humiliate men. Even if some few women can cut it, Boykin has argued, “I certainly don’t want to be in that environment with a female, because it’s degrading and humiliating to do your personal hygiene and other normal functions” in front of them. So it’s not just the women who are squeamish.
  • Women are too sexy. Soldiers won’t be able to focus, Boykin argues, “in an environment that combines life-threatening danger with underlying sexual tensions.” Given that one VA survey found that 49% of women serving in the Middle East had been sexually harassed, apparently things are already pretty sexually tense.
  • Women might quit. Boykin worries that women will have “very little protection” from being put on the front lines, which would force them to “reconsider their place in the armed services. … That would be tragic.” Saletan’s response: “You can almost feel the general’s tears of sorrow. Women who have voluntarily joined the armed forces—that would be 100% of them—might run away, tragically, if their unofficial exposure to mortal risk, unshowered men, and outdoor urination becomes official.”

Only an idiot would object to women being in combat………if they are capable and willing then they should be embraced…..after all there are many, many Americans who refuse to go into combat for whatever lame reason they may have…..I salute women and wish them well……

Why The 2nd?

College of Political Knowledge

Subject:  Early American History

We have once again returned to the debate over guns since the horrible shooting deaths of children at Sandy Hook……all the yelling and screaming about guns, all the interpretations, all the threats, all the hoopla…..all this got me to thinking about a paper I wrote back in my college days about the 2nd amendment…..so I started going through my archives, which is in sad shape since Katrina, to see if I could locate the paper…..sad to say the paper is not around….but I did find the notebook that had some of the notes I taken for the paper…….I apologize but this is a re-construction of the paper from notes and recollection….and I am an old fart some my memory is a bit sketchy…….

The question is….why was the 2nd amendment put into the Constitution?  Since there is NO one left that can answer that question we need to look at events, situations and issues of the time of the writing of the Constitution…….I’m sure we will hear from someone that will quote the Jefferson thing about the tree of liberty…..let’s put that to rest now…..that was NOT a public statement he made, it was written in a private letter to a close friend and was never intended to be published……now that is out of the way……

First, we need to examine the conditions in the country……….Let’s begin at the end of the war……Cornwallis surrenders at Yorktown on October, 1781……..once the hostilities had ceased the Brits did not immediately leave……and the Continental Army dwindle down to about 1000 men….most of the fighters had left to return to their families and their businesses which had suffered much during the war……..by 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed the American army sole purpose was to keep an eye on the remaining Brit troops until they were removed……….

The Continental Army had been officially disbanded in November of 1783………

The year is 1783 and the troops that remained were disgruntled….disgruntle about the lack of back pay or the pensions they were promised if they continued the fight…….ever hear of the Newburgh Conspiracy?  (That is a rhetorical question)……..the Continental Army was camped near Newburgh, New York their mission was to watch the Brits in NYC…….during this time officers became disgruntled with the Congress and were threatening to march on Washington and bringing the rest of the Army with them…..the whole affair was settled by compromise but the Army had made a statement that they would do whatever necessary to get their way and their demands…….

After the ceasefire there was a concern that the Tories that had not fled back to England would re-group and form some sort of 5th column to undermine the government of the newly independent America…….

1786, there was a conflict between Maryland and Virginia called the “Oyster War”……….this conflict had raged for many years before the revolution and picked up again once the shooting had ceased……basically, it was a quiet war fought over control of the Potomac and at times was a bloody conflict…….

And then in 1786 was Shay’s Rebellion……..named for a Mass. rebel named Daniel Shay……..Seeking debt relief through the issuance of paper currency and lower taxes, they attempted to prevent the courts from seizing property from indebted farmers by forcing the closure of courts in western Massachusetts. The participants in Shays’ Rebellion believed they were acting in the spirit of the Revolution and modeled their tactics after the crowd activities of the 1760s and 1770s, using “liberty poles” and “liberty trees” to symbolize their cause.

Then there are the usual culprits post war…….Americans suffer from post-war economic depression including a shortage of currency, high taxes, nagging creditors, farm foreclosures and bankruptcies…………these problems effected all 13 states……and in doing so the population was becoming more and more resentful……..in short times were tough and government was not really helping  as much as the people had wanted……..

The year is now 1787 and the new country was living under the Articles Of Confederation……..and a convention was convened to draft a new constitution…..which would become the law of the land…….and this is where our story grows to the analysis on my part…….the convention by September of 1787 had a written document and was waiting for the states to ratify it.  Now the first 10 amendments were known as the Bill of Rights, which were proposed to a joint session of Congress in 1789 and formally became part of the Constitution in 1791, December to be exact…………(Another rebellion in the making was the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791)……..

Like I said, NO one can say for sure what the Founding Fathers were thinking at the time….but a check of the events proceeding the constitution leads me to believe that the 2nd amendment was put in to make up  for the lack of a standing army…..the government did not have the manpower to enforce many of its new laws….and for that reason the 2nd was inserted to make sure that there would be a well armed pool from which to draw from in the event of rebellion……I mean Jefferson conned Washington into staying another 4 years because he was worried that if Washington left it would leave a void and might incite rebellion……and end this country short history of independence………..

We all know the interpretations by the Left and the Right…….but the problem is it is their opinions which are no more valid or silly than anyone else…..do I think that the 2nd was suppose to be a permanent thing….nope, I feel that the Founders thought that when the country was stabilized and at real peace the amendment would be modified…….personally, I do not believe the 2nd was about protecting citizens from the government but rather protecting the government from its citizens……….

Re-Branding A Party

After the loss in 2012 the GOP said it would do some soul searching and find a way to start winning elections……personally, I think it is a good idea….while I do not support many conserv ideas……I do think that the process needs a good viable party to compete……

The RNC had its winter meeting and the re-branding has begun…..

“We must compete in every state and every region, building relationships with communities we haven’t before,” Priebus will say, POLITICO’s Mike Allen reports exclusively. “We must develop the best technology with the help of the best minds—and train activists, volunteers, and candidates with the modern tools of a modern party. … We can stand by our timeless principles—and articulate them in ways that are modern…relevant to our time and relatable to the majority of voters.”

Priebus will outline a number of steps the GOP should take to expand the base and get competitive in a broader swath of states. Among his suggestions: train “candidates, volunteers and operatives” on basic subjects like fundraising and campaign strategy — but through a variety of high-tech methods, including Skype sessions and Google hangouts; give the “next generation of organizers access to the brightest experts,” take the initiative on leading in the “digital space” and focus on being “welcoming” and “inclusive” without forgetting GOP “principles.”

“It means renewing those principles because only they can offer the solutions to the liberal induced problems of our time…” Priebus is slated to say. He will add, “And to those who have left the party, we want to earn your trust again. To those who have yet to join us, we welcome you — with open doors and open arms.”

And then there was the speech by LA. governor Bobby Jindal……….

Newser) – Bobby Jindal delivered the keynote address at the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting last night, a speech billed as a “rebuttal” to Barack Obama’s inaugural address, but he took aim as much at his own party as Obama’s. Jindal said that while Republicans should stick by their “timeless” conservative principles, “we might need to change just about everything else we do.” He repeated his much-quoted line that “we must stop being the stupid party,” decrying the “offensive and bizarre comments” that have damaged Republicans. “It’s time for a new Republican party that talks like adults.”

Jindal said conservatives had become too wrapped up in thinking about Washington. “We seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping,” he said. “If our vision is not bigger than that, we do not deserve to win.” He called for “re-thinking nearly every social program,” among other, radical moves. “What we are doing now to govern ourselves is not just wrong. It is out of date and it is a failure.” The speech was clearly intended to position Jindal for an expected 2016 presidential run, but according to Zeke Miller at BuzzFeed, it “appeared to be coolly received” by Republicans in the room.

Does Jindal believe what he says?  Not sure, but I am sure that he wants to run in 2016 and will say whatever necessary to make the case that he is qualified and a good option……..

These are pretty good words and sound like the beginnings of a plan…..but only if they are true and just not some talking points to make the 6 pm news……..I personally, have my doubts that the party will do much different than the last time they ran candidates……for one their quiet plan to game the electoral college……

(Newser) – Republicans in swing states that went for President Obama are pushing for a big change in how the Electoral College works, reports the Washington Post. The idea is to apportion electoral votes according to congressional district, instead of the winner-take-all system that most states employ. In Virginia, for example, the difference would be dramatic—Obama would have taken only four of the state’s 13 electoral votes in 2012.

“The last election, constituents were concerned that it didn’t matter what they did, that more densely populated areas were going to outvote them,” says the Virginia state senator sponsoring the bill. Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—whose legislatures are controlled by the GOP—are also considering the change, but Virginia could vote on the measure as early as next week. Currently, only Maine and Nebraska use the congressional district system. Critics call the proposed legislation “sore-loser bills” and point out ending winner-take-all would greatly reduce Virginia’s importance as a swing state.

It appears that the voter fraud stuff did not do much to help win an election so we will try something else……..I would not be so suspicious if they chose states that were not the key swing states in the last election……or if they plan to do this is every state to include the South where they would not get all the electoral votes…..but I have a feeling that is not part of the plan…….

But beyond that…..look at all the Repubs not running for re-election…..why?  They are scared to death that they will be primaried and lose……….that is NOT re-branding!  That is running scared!

Let me see if I have a grip on this……..the party firers Steele, the guy who led them to a massive victory in 2010 and rehires the guy that oversaw their massive defeat in 2012……….What does this mean?  Sorry Bobby but STUPID is here to stay!