Yes, That's Your Military
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Norman Rogers | tagged
Competence,
Defense,
Life,
Medical,
Military,
News,
People,
Security | in
Drop to One Knee and Weep
Email Article The Monthly Archives
The Frisky Mole Boy of Groton
Norman Rogers recounts the summer he spent hiding from the stern love of his father and living as the world-famous “frisky mole boy” in the Groton, Connecticut sewer system.
Talking Smack About Sports
The Things I Do
I’m a Mommy Blogger
The Admiral Hassenpfeffer
Ghost Ride The Whip
I Love My Guns More Than My Children
The Republican Party

Safe For Work Hotties
Money
Monday, January 11, 2010 
It doesn’t do any good to look back:
Suddenly, I find myself nostalgic for Bill Clinton. It comes as a shock. Back in 1996, I denounced his “breathtaking view of the ability and obligation of government to plan the economy” and his “profoundly anti-individualist ideas.”
But now I have a hazy memory of the Clinton years as a sort of Golden Age. Government spending was growing only slowly, the bad ideas were mostly small, and we bombed a lot of countries but didn’t put American troops at risk.
Of course, what I’m really nostalgic for is divided government. In his first two years, with a Democratic Congress, Mr. Clinton supported a health care takeover, an economic stimulus bill, an energy tax, an income-tax increase, a gasoline-tax increase, and even a retroactive tax increase on income earned before he was president. Though most of that never made it to his signing desk, it was still a bigger-government agenda than voters had expected from a guy who called himself “a new kind of Democrat.”
So voters kicked the Democrats out of Congress. President Clinton grudgingly proclaimed that “the era of big government is over.” And you could almost believe he meant it, especially compared to President Obama’s rallying cry, “Government must lead the way,” and his program based on that vision.
The times were a great deal less serious than now. The economy was much easier to manage when we made things in this country, as opposed to what we do now, which is refinance debt and forget to pay our bills. The important thing to realize is that this current batch of leaders is a batch that is in over their heads. Our problems are much worse than they were fifteen years ago; and yet, this crowd governs like it’s 1996, with nearly the same level of competence and practically the same sense of urgency. Those of us who loyally oppose the administration in power should remember that the problems this President faces are far worse than anything the Big Dog could have imagined.
Friday, December 11, 2009 
In light of the previous post, reflecting how the Reverend Franklin Graham sees Islam as it is practiced in the Middle East, it’s important to note that Islam, as it is practiced in this country, does conform to U.S. law and does, in most cases, assimilate into American culture. The freedom to practice religion is an integral part of American life. I do note where certain tenets of Islam come into conflict with American law—no, you cannot beat your wife or daughter in this country—but I have to point out that we have also had legal and moral struggles with certain tenets of Mormonism and Scientology and a host of other religions. This is where you have to cowboy up, and balance everything as best you can. You may not like Islam, but it is anti-American to tell someone they can’t practice their religion. You may wonder what your neighbors are up to, but you can’t invade their privacy. You may disagree with what your government is doing, but you can’t organize an effort to overthrow it.
The vast majority of people who practice Islam are law-abiding Americans. We should welcome anyone who wants to come to this country and live in freedom and contribute to our society. Xenophobia has no place at the American table. But we’re faced with the difficult question of what to do when practitioners of Islam become radicalized. In the news, recently, is the story of five young men who went to Pakistan to try to join al Qaeda. What was it about this country that caused them to do that? The answer is, nothing. There’s nothing about this country that would cause them to do that. There’s something appealing about radicalized Wahhabism, and jihad, and all of that other nonsense that caused them to try to join an international terrorist movement. What do you do when this happens?
Simple. You treat them like everyone else who radicalizes themselves in the name of religion or faith. Throw the politically correct to the wind. If we apply a little common sense and tolerance to the issue, we can fight radicalized practitioners of Islam like we fight radical Mormons or radical whoevers. We can apply the rule of law and try to be fair when we deal with people who want to cross the line and break our laws. Anyone who cannot embrace what America has to offer, and who chooses to try to bring down this country, forget it. I don’t think we can stand for that. I think we need to defend ourselves. And, I think, we need to have a frank and honest discussion about what to do in cases like this:
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the five men do not fit the typical profile of other Americans arrested on terrorist-related charges. These men came from middle-class homes and were educated and assimilated – unlike suspects such as David Coleman Headley, who was arraigned in Chicago this week for conspiracy in the 2008 Mumbai attacks and in a plot to attack a Danish newspaper. The five are also unlike a number of Somali men who left Minnesota over the past two years and are believed to have joined a terror group in Somalia.
One man in the latest case, Ramy Zamzam, attended the dental program at Howard University in Washington.
“This might be most clear wake-up call for the American Muslim community,” says Ihsan Bagby, professor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky in Lexington. “These were the kids who should have been clear about what Islam says, but somehow they got a radical message. I’m not sure they got it from their parents or the mosque they attended – so where did they get it from? That’s the question the American Muslim community wants an answer to.”
He adds, “This may be a real slap in the face…. They thought they were immune to this type of thing.”
The five men, ages 19 to 25, traveled to Pakistan in November from their homes in the northern Virginia and Washington, D.C., area, according to federal investigators. Their travels did not initially create commotion, but their parents discovered a video featuring the men expressing extremist sympathies, and they alerted the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR. According to CAIR, its officials then alerted the FBI, which worked with Pakistani authorities.
The case is already being treated differently from the cases in Chicago and Minnesota – not just because of the men’s more affluent background, but also because of the proactive measures taken by the Muslim community that led to their capture.
Ever since the 9/11 attacks, Muslims have often felt a need to defend their religion against perceptions that it was somehow fostering terrorist behavior or that certain mosques or organizations were linked to international terrorist organizations. “Muslims had no other choice: They had to go out and talk about their own faith; they had to condemn violence,” says Malika Zeghal, who specializes in religion and Islamic studies at the University of Chicago.
Making matters more complicated, relationships between law enforcement and Muslim organizations have worsened in recent years. Relations between the FBI and CAIR, one of the largest Muslim US civil rights organizations, have been particularly strained for about a year.
The discussion we have to have is how to stop radicalized practitioners of Islam from attacking this country. We cannot stop every attack, nor can we stop someone who is willing to give their live for their cause, however misguided. We have to try, but we can’t have absolute security.
Muslims don’t need to defend their religion. As it is practiced in this country, they’re fine. What they need to do is nothing. They’re not to blame for the radicals in their midst. That’s like blaming the Baptist church because someone shot an abortion doctor.
If you can apply equal parts tolerance, common sense, and the rule of law to cases like this, I don’t see how you can go wrong. I really don’t. There’s an opportunity for all areas of the political spectrum to realize their prejudices, and that has no place in the debate over how to defend this country. If you’re right with the law, you’re on the path to getting right with America. If the central organizing principle of your life is to hate people who are different, you’re well on your way to abandoning everything that America has to offer, and I don’t care who you are or how white your skin is.
Friday, December 11, 2009 You simply cannot speak the truth on the American airwaves these days.
Is Graham wrong? He’s wrong in that what he’s saying is politically incorrect, but he’s right when he talks about Sharia law as it is practiced in the Middle East. I give him some credibility to competently speak about what he has seen, simply because he actually goes to these countries. He’s actually seen it with his own eyes. Has the media? Does the media tell the truth about Islam? Or is Franklin Graham demonstrating, through personal experience, that he has a better grasp on it than they do? Does he have a better sense as to how Islam is interpreted and practiced in the Middle East? In the clip, you can see the catnip that Campbell Brown is trying to chase. She senses the gotcha moment, but Graham is above the gotcha moment. He knows what he has seen. He knows that women are beaten to death, and that Islam, in some forms, cannot be practiced in this country.
Graham’s interpretation doesn’t necessarily define what the religion is, but it does highlight how we fail to speak clearly as to how this religion is used to enforce a Medieval mindset about women, and women’s rights, all throughout the parts of the world where Islam is practiced.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Antigua
This has all the elements of a "fan boy" story, so, before I get all giddy about how I am finally able to put up a happy post and finally create a tag for Competence, let me lay this out for you. Two U.S. Congressmen, one a Democrat, the other a Republican, recently went to Antigua to help out some Americans. This is what good politicians do and they deserve high praise for their selfless act:
In a scene reminiscent of a political thriller, Reps. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) recently made an emergency trip to the Caribbean island of Antigua.
Now, when legislators claim they are urgently needed in a place like Antigua, ITK’s skepticism skyrockets, but as it turns out, the bipartisan duo were on a legitimate mission: to secure the release of six New Yorkers who had been held by Antiguan authorities for more than a month.
Towns makes sense because he represents New York, but why Chaffetz?
Simple: Towns asked him.
Chaffetz, who serves on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee that Towns helms, gets along well with his chairman. When he was asked to accompany him, Chaffetz told ITK, “I was happy to go along, because it was the right thing to do.”
As Chaffetz described it, the detained constituents had gotten into a disagreement with a taxi driver last month over whether their fare was $50 round-trip or $50 each way ($100 total). Unbeknownst to the group, the driver transported them to what Chaffetz described as an “unmarked” police station, where he dropped them off.
“Police officers came outside,” Chaffetz said, “but they were in plain clothes, and there was no sign that this was a police station.” The details are a little fuzzy at this point, but a scuffle ensued, and before they knew it the Americans were behind bars, charged with a litany of offenses, including battery of a police officer.
Normally, members of Congress disappoint me. These two fine lawmakers give me a reasonable degree of hope. How sad is it that it took me two years to get to that tag? Two years! It's a calamity.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
It doesn't take much to go cheap, to go crass, or to simply do sloppy, ridiculously bad work. Whoever thought it would be funny or smart to compare Speaker Nancy Pelosi to "Pussy Galore" has to be about the most worthless person in the entire Republican Party right now. I'm guessing it was Michael Steele who did it. Pussy Galore was, and you'll have to excuse me, but this old Cold Warrior lived through those times, a woman you wanted to know. She was blonde, and Nancy Pelosi is not blonde. When you compare a woman to another woman, and you fail to have someone wise who can say, "ah, that's a poor comparison because one's blonde, the other is not blonde." Who are we kidding here? Nancy Pelosi is not Pussy Galore, and that's my final word on that comparison. So when Representative Jason Chaffetz said this, well, I instantly realized that I had to get his back and give him a shout out:
At least one Republican doesn't think it's OK to compare Nancy Pelosi to Pussy Galore.
After viewing an RNC video that juxtaposed the speaker with the James Bond villainess, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told POLITICO Saturday:
"I thought it was reprehensible, irresponsible and unpersuasive. If we're going to regain the credibility of the American people, we're going to have to stop with silly antics like that. It may get a snide chuckle inside the Beltway, but it offends most people. We have to get away from the politics of personal destruction," he said of the video.
The RNC declined repeatedly to explain the Pelosi/Galore connection, saying only that the video was about the speaker's "lack of leadership." Chaffetz is the only Republican thus far who has been willing to comment on the video.
"Policy and public comments are fair game, and there are creative ways to amplify it, but I despise it when Democrats and organizations like MoveOn.org use these types of tactics," Chaffetz said. "I would like our party to be more consistent in calling out inappropriate behavior like this. We've got to show some leadership and get serious about the issues at hand. It just bothers me that we have someone in the bowels of the organization on payroll working on stuff like this."
This is, for lack of a better term, the Michael Steele era, at least for now. His imprimatur and his stamp are on things, and even when he's not responsible, he's still responsible. That's what it means to take a big-paying, high-profile job. The Republican Party has to be classy, smart, and clever. Clever like a Ronald Reagan quip, one that doesn't offend anyone. Do you sense there are simply too many kids running things these days? They need to find some graybeards and get them to straighten things out in the offices of the Republican Party apparatus. Michael Steele, thanks for trying. The job's too big for you. We need someone to get in there and put a stop to this dreck. That being said, I think it is time to introduce my new "catchphrase." My catchphrase is "Conservatism is Cool Beans." It's designed to get young people to think a little differently about the Republican Party and the conservative movement and it uses their language and their easy familiarity with words. Here's a sample script for a quick radio advertisement or a Super Bowl commercial:
Hey, have ya heard, dawg?
Whassthat, homey?
Conservatism, man.
Conservatism?
Yeah, man. Conservatism is cool beans.
I dig that!
Oh, you know I be digging that.
Give it up for conservatism you all! Conservatism is cool beans!
Now that we have a young fellow like Representative Chaffetz out there, calling them like he sees them and hitting the nail on the proverbial head, we need to sign him up as a spokesman for the catchphrase. I would love to hear him go on NPR and say "Conservatism is Cool Beans!"