Archive for November, 2006

Happy Thanksgiving

Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006

I know, a bit early, but the next few days will be hectic and I didn’t want to forget to wish you all a peaceful Thanksgiving and a year ahead filled with much to give thanks about.

Just came across this video of George Harrison and Paul Simon from Thanksgiving 1976, hope you enjoy it:

YouTube Preview Image

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Am I Paranoid?

Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006

One of the first things that came to mind when I heard of the imams being arrested today? What I would do if I were planning an attack.

First, I would want to weaken the opponent’s defenses, force them to drop their guard. In a PC driven society, this would be accomplished by creating a situation where support for the first line defenders was eroded through accusations of discrimination and profiling. After that idea has a chance to take hold in the media and with the more “liberal” politicians, the next step would be to create a situation that triggers calls for reform, congressional hearings, and punitive action against the people involved.

This might cause pilots and crew members to be hesitant to act; if I’m lucky, they might not be able to act because of lawsuit or congress driven changes to the rules of engagement.

That’s when I would move.

I know, sounds a bit paranoid, but it should be considered and explored. What if these are the first steps in an elaborate plan? First weaken the defenses by forcing everyone to drop their guard in reaction to discrimination charges and congressional hearings… then attack. Being a little bit paranoid is not necessarily a bad thing… especially if it turns out to be true.

I almost didn’t share what I was thinkin’ because there was nothing that I had heard to provide any basis for my thoughts (except that paranoia thing)… then I visited Strata-Sphere and read:

I cannot help but think the Imam incident in Minnesota was staged to create headlines and cause some recoil by the American public. It doesn’t seem right on many levels. The Imams did and said things that they knew would put people on edge. Now we learn their spokesman is tied to questionable Islamic fundraising efforts and has admitted to some ties to Bin Laden. So is there more to this? Possibly.

Hat tip to Strata-Sphere for saying some of what I was thinkin’.

Update: Gina Cobb provides more insight and info:

There is a bit more to the story.  According to a report:

An airport police report said a US Airways manager said three of the men had one-way tickets and no checked baggage. A passenger told police the men were praying and making critical comments about the war in Iraq. Some of the men also asked for seat belt extensions even though a flight attendant told police she thought they didn’t need them.

Maybe I’m not so paranoid…

Update: A week later, this is still a hot topic. Mark Levin discussed on his radio show, Wake Up America also questioning their motives.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Lessons or Agenda?

Tuesday, November 21st, 2006

There aren’t too many things in this world that are black and white.

  • In World War II, was the United States right or wrong to drop the A-Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How about the internment of US citizens of Japanese descent during the war?
  • Were the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan justified?
  • Was the Civil War really about slavery? Was the death of 365,000 soldiers?
  • When is killing right and when is it wrong?
  • Is a two dad or two mom family normal, acceptable, tolerable, unnatural, sinful and who decides what is normal in the first place?
  • And the news item that was the catalyst for our topic today: Is Thanksgiving a day to give thanks or a day to remember how the white man stole this land?

Shades of grey. As adults, we often struggle with differentiating right and wrong. What is right for one person or group of people can be very wrong for the other. Sure, we can justify our positions, but an absolute “right” is not easy to find.

  • Thou shalt not kill… unless in self defense? Or in time of war?
  • Thou shalt not steal… but is it stealing to farm and hunt the same lands as those who came before? Does anyone own the land?
  • Were we right to drop the A-Bomb to save American lives? Is one life more valuable than another because it is the life of a friend?
  • Is it right to kill an unborn child.. for any reason? It’s convenient to dismiss the baby-to-be as being something less than human so that no rights will be assigned, but then why is it not OK for someone else to kill that unborn child, why is that then considered murder?

The point is, adults can debate these issues and make compelling arguments on either side. Adults. Not children. Certainly not 3rd Graders (from AP):

Teacher Bill Morgan walks into his third-grade class wearing a black Pilgrim hat made of construction paper and begins snatching up pencils, backpacks and glue sticks from his pupils. He tells them the items now belong to him because he “discovered” them.

The reaction is exactly what Morgan expects: The kids get angry and want their things back.

Morgan is among elementary school teachers who have ditched the traditional Thanksgiving lesson, in which children dress up like Indians and Pilgrims and act out a romanticized version of their first meetings.

He has replaced it with a more realistic look at the complex relationship between Indians and white settlers.

Let’s start off with the assumption being made:

  • The White Settlers stole from the “Indians”. 

That’s what the children will take from this black & white description of a “complex relationship”. This is not an in depth discussion of the relationship between the settlers and the “Indians”; this is quite simply an attempt to convince children to “change sides”. In this lesson, the settlers are the bad guys, pure and simple, and every one of us is here because we stole from the “Indians”.

Morgan said he still wants his pupils at Cleveland Elementary School in San Francisco to celebrate Thanksgiving. But “what I am trying to portray is a different point of view.”

Who’s point of view? His? Is that what teachers are supposed to be teaching to 3rd graders? And is expressing a point of view teaching or promoting a personal agenda? And why on earth does an adult, a teacher, feel the need to “teach” 3rd graders that the land they are living on was stolen?

“I think that is very sad,” said Janice Shaw Crouse, a former college dean and public high school teacher and now a spokeswoman for Concerned Women for America, a conservative organization. “He is teaching his students to hate their country. That is a very distorted view of history, a distorted view of Thanksgiving.”

Chuck Narcho, a member of the Maricopa and Tohono O’odham tribes who works as a substitute teacher in Los Angeles, said younger children should not be burdened with all the gory details of American history.

“If you are going to teach, you need to keep it positive,” he said. “They can learn about the truths when they grow up. Caring, sharing and giving — that is what was originally intended.”

Exactly! There is time for discussion and debate when you have the emotional maturity, the confidence (and opportunity) to express your own views, and the intellectual agility to engage in such debates.  3rd grade? When you are 8 years old? Uh… no.

The lesson of Thanksgiving is “caring, sharing, giving”. What’s wrong with that?

Becky Wyatt, a teacher at Kettering Elementary School in Long Beach, decided to alter the costumes for the annual Thanksgiving play a few years ago after local Indians spoke out against students wearing feathers, which are sacred in their culture. Now children wear simple headbands.

“We have many mixed cultures in Long Beach, so we try to be sensitive,” Wyatt said. “What you teach little children is important.”

That’s fine. This is not about offending people. I hope they keep that in mind the next time an “artist” wants to display an upside down cross in a bucket of urine.

Instead of teaching about stealing, instead of banning feathers, why not teach about Native American culture, their view of the land, how they hunted, how they lived. Compare that to the struggles of the Pilgrims and tie it all together with a positive, 3rd grade level message.

Laverne Villalobos, a member of the Omaha tribe in Nebraska who now lives in the coastal town of Pacifica near San Francisco, considers Thanksgiving a day of mourning.

She went before the school board last week and asked for a ban on Thanksgiving re-enactments and students dressing up as Indians. She also complained about November’s lunch menu that pictured a caricature of an Indian boy.

The mother of four said the traditional Thanksgiving celebrations in schools instill “a false sense of what really happened before and after the feast. It wasn’t all warm and fuzzy.”

Sheesh.. maybe we shouldn’t celebrate anything anymore.

  • Celebrate Independence Day? Sure to offend some of our British friends.
  • Celebrate Martin Luther Kings birthday? Must be a racist somewhere that offends.
  • Celebrate Halloween? Already hear about real live witches being upset over this one.
  • Celebrate New Years Eve? Don’t you think the Chinese might find that annoying. Might upset some Jewish folks too since the year is all wrong.
  • Celebrate Labor Day? Kind of insensitive to unemployed folks, no?

Thanksgiving has become a day to “give thanks” for all that we have, here and now. Because someone has decided it is a day of mourning, we need to keep it under wraps? Do the Thanksgiving celebrations depict violent acts? Or do they try to show an idealized view of the world where people come together in peace and share their harvests? Is that such a bad thing? Are we so sensitive to peoples feelings about events that occurred hundreds of years ago that we are now banning the teaching of a simple concept: Love Thy Neighbor?

James Loewen, a former history professor at the University of Vermont and author of “Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your High School History Textbook Got Wrong,” said that during the first Thanksgiving, the Wampanoag Indians and the pilgrims had been living in relative peace, even though the tribe suspected the settlers of robbing Indian graves to steal food buried with the dead.

“Relations were strained, but yet the holiday worked. Folks got along. After that, bad things happened,” Loewen said, referring to the bloody warfare that broke out later during the 17th century.

Morgan, a teacher for more than 35 years, said that after conducting his own research, he changed his approach to teaching about Thanksgiving. He tells teachers at his school this is a good way to nurture critical thinking, but he acknowledged not all are receptive: “It’s kind of an uphill struggle.”

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with exploring these issues more critically and in depth with HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. Hiding from the historical truth is not healthy. Both sides need to be presented as fairly as possible. What did each side do right? What did each side do wrong? In retrospect, what could have prevented the wars? This topic can be explored and debated by teenagers who are ready to grow into adults where they will be well served to have developed the skills necessary to adopt and defend an educated position on any topic.

3rd graders? Uh… no.

Update:  Sister Toldjah and Michelle Malkin are also discussing

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Slap Down – No Draft on Agenda – Pelosi

Monday, November 20th, 2006

Not surprised Pelosi would not support a draft. A bit surprised she slapped down the likely Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee publicly… guess I shouldn’t be (from AP):

(Pelosi) said restoring the military draft will not be part of that agenda when Democrats take over the House in January.

Incoming Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., caused a stir by repeating a long-held position that a draft is the best way to ensure that all levels of society are represented in the military. Besides Rangel, there is almost no support in Congress for restoring the draft.

But there is some common ground:

“It’s not about a draft, it’s about shared sacrifice in this country,” Pelosi said. She said Rangel is “a strong voice for social justice in our country” and his support for the draft was “a way to make a point.”

Now THERE’s something Pelosi CAN support! Forced volunteerism.  Is it still our sacrifice if someone forces us to do it? Sounds like conscription, servitude, some are even comparing it to slavery… but it doesn’t sound like the sacrifice of an individual born with free will… sounds a lot like the communist model of forced service.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Feeling the draft?

Monday, November 20th, 2006

Now that we opened the door to a Democrat controlled Congress, don’t be surprised to feel a draft.

In the 2004 Presidential campaign, one of the big left-wing lies was aimed at scaring folks by claiming Bush was planning to reinstate the draft. Yet here we are two years later and the main proponent of the draft is a Democrat. This is not the first time Charles Rangel has brought up the subject, as discussed here, but it is the first time he will have the power to act on his brilliant idea (from AP):

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.

Rep. Charles Rangel D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

“There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way,”

Flimsy evidence? Do we really have to keep having this debate? Does he really believe what he’s saying? Perhaps repeating a lie over and over has convinced him it is true… but facts are annoying little buggers. At the time, everyone in the intelligence community worldwide believed Iraq had WMD’s; Democrats like Kerry and H. Clinton couldn’t get to a microphone fast enough to implore the administration to act on Iraq, Congress overwhelmingly approved the use of force… someone give this man a quarter so he can buy a clue.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.

Here we go… class warfare, race baiting, call it what you want. Rangel doesn’t want the draft really, what he wants is to make this all about us vs them, poor vs rich, black vs white. Rangel’s war isn’t against Islamic Fascists, it’s all about class and race.

At best his motivation is to drive foreign policy through some misguided belief that Presidents will be reluctant to defend our country if rich kids are in the army. Assuming that’s even true, how is that a good idea?

What is very difficult to understand is how an all volunteer military is unfair to anybody. Do we get a better fighting force through the draft, or would we really wind up with a fighting force painted in John Kerry’s image.

What will be interesting is when the draft displaces lower income people from military jobs… then what? Or is the plan to expand the military?

If Rangel wants to expand the military, how does he propose funding more positions to cover the folks drafted? If the goal is to have less wars, why on earth would the military need to get bigger and how do we justify the expense?

What will need to happen is drafted men and women will need to displace volunteer men and women (like a reverse quota) so that Rangel’s vision can be realized. Then all of those men and women who planned to have military careers will need to find employment elsewhere.

In 2003, Rangel proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. It was defeated 402-2 the following year. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.

Fortunately, Rangel’s brilliant idea (which has more to do with driving a wedge between races and classes in our country and less to do with actually reinstating a draft) is likely to go nowhere. But this is the type of talent that the Democrats will have running Congress. This man will be the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee… arguably the most powerful Chair in the House.

If we ever get to a point where we are in a full scale world-wide war with multiple fronts and a draft is necessary for our national security, then so be it.  But let’s stop playing games with our national security. Rangel is talking out of both sides of his mouth:

Rangel … sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

… the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.

He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, “young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it’s our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals,” with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

“If we’re going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can’t do that without a draft,”

Which is it Congressman? The draft is to:

  • A) prevent politicians from starting wars,
  • B) reduce the number of lower income families in the military and increase the number of rich kids serving,
  • C) require all 18-26 year-olds to serve their country in some capacity and then pay for their school, or
  • D) build up the force numbers to prepare for war with Iran and North Korea.

Or maybe it’s E) ensure the Democrat base feels oppressed and continues to require “heroes” such as Charles Rangel to protect them from the big, bad Republicans.

UpdateGina Cobb zeroes in on the servitude aspect of Rangel’s plan, requiring that every 18-26 years old “serve” our country, essentially eliminating free will and driving this country down a far left path towards communism… we get what we vote for folks… please keep this in mind in two years.

Update II:  Enjoying a friendly debate over at Gina Cobb. Looked up so,e info to support my position and found something interesting.  If every citizen is required to perform 2 years of service, based upon current census stats, each year approximately 5 million people will be pressed into service.  At any given point in time there will be 10 million “volunteers”.  

1) How do we plan to pay for the 10 million citizens who will be employed at any one time 2) Since we will have 10 million citizens pressed into service, what do the career military types plan to do for a living, or are we planning to keep all of the career military types PLUS the 5 million new recruits each year (for a total of 10 million since the new recruits will be in place for 2 years).

Update III:  Jesse Jackson weighs in:

…in a telephone interview from New York City, said rising costs have pushed college out of reach for many of the poor. That, he said, coupled with shrinking manufacturing jobs, have made it harder for low-income people to find work, leaving military service in a time of war as one of their few options.

Rangel, Jackson said, “Forces the right debate: Why should a privileged body of people benefit from national security, benefit from economic gains with no risk. Another group takes all the risk and gets the least benefit.”

OK… let’s assume for a moment the first statement Reverend Jackson made is correct, wouldn’t this mean even LESS opportunities for low-income people?

More at Rhymes With Right

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Grrr

Sunday, November 19th, 2006

It appears my web host is having intermittent problems…  I apologize if this is causing any frustration with “page not found” messages.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Smaller weapons for smaller targets

Saturday, November 18th, 2006

This is like something out of a sci-fi movie:

Israel developing anti-militant “bionic hornet”

Israel is using nanotechnology to try to create a robot no bigger than a hornet that would be able to chase, photograph and kill its targets, an Israeli newspaper reported on Friday.

The flying robot, nicknamed the “bionic hornet,” would be able to navigate its way down narrow alleyways to target otherwise unreachable enemies such as rocket launchers

On the one hand… way cool.  On the other hand, freaks me out. I don’t know about you, but having real hornets chase me is not something I look forward to, let alone mini robots with sensors and weapons.

This is an amazing concept that could really help the fight against terrorists… let’s just hope we aren’t sorry down the road when the other side gets them.

And we thought killer bees were bad…

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share