THAT MAY NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO ALL READERS. IT IS NOT MY INTENT TO EMBARRASS, DEMEAN, INJURE OR HURT SOMEONE'S FEELINGS. ON THE OTHER HAND, I PLAN TO SPEAK MY MIND. MY REGRETS IF YOU FIND THIS OFFENSIVE, BUT YOU ARE READING AT YOU OWN RISK.
Met a Marine in Central Florida
Stills taken from a video cam.
My thoughts on watching a simultaneous moon set and sun rise from the leather of a
motorcycle seat.
The Afghanistan Argument
Written Oct 20, 2009
There is nothing in Afghanistan that is in our national
interest. Certainly not enough to
warrant the death and bleeding of our young men and women and the expenditure
of hundreds of billions of dollars yearly.
History tells us it's impossible.
What on earth would cause us to ignore history and dive into this
morass.
Here are some reason I have read warrant our stay in
Afghanistan.
1. Oil. First, Afghanistan does not have any
oil. Its only real export is the drug
trade. Control of Afghanistan is
required to ensure the flow of oil from the middle east. Even if this were true, which it is not,
consider the following data taken from
http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn355energyfactsed "Amount
of U.S. oil consumption that comes from U.S. production: 7.3 mbd, or 42
percent. We produce fifty percent more oil than Iraq and Kuwait, almost as much
oil as Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. Nevertheless, we import more than half
the oil we use.
Amount of U.S. oil consumption
that comes from the Middle East: 2 mbd -- 12 percent, only three percent from
Iraq and Kuwait. The rest of our imported oil comes from places like Canada,
Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, Algeria, Ecuador, and England."
There is something dreadfully wrong with this
story. Oil is not the reason we are
there. There might have been a 9/11
reason, but that seems to have been lost over the years. What is it?
What are we doing?
2. If we pull out, the Taliban and Al Qaeda will
have easy access to space for training camps that would produce jihadist whose
goal would be to attack the US on its home soil. The problem with this argument is that the
vast areas of the northern half of Africa are already available and hospitable
to Al Qaeda. (See the article near by on
the policy shift on dealing with Sudan.) Space for camps is a red herring. In addition, my "guess" would be
that more information on how to be a terrorist is contained on the WWW than you
can get from an Al Qaeda agent in a desert camp. If you are not convinced yet, remember that
the final training for the 9/11 bombers was accomplished right here in the
US. The CIA and FBI both know that there
are training cells in the US. So what
are we doing in Afghanistan?
3. If we pull out, the Taliban may destabilize
the Pakistani government and thusly open the door for Taliban/Al Qaeda access
to nuclear weapons. Yep, that
might happen. Now what? The Pakistanis
and Indians may find a dumb excuse to exchange nuclear weapons on each
other. Other than the radioactive fall
out, what has this to do with us? We
lose all the call centers for Dell, Apple, Microsoft, etc.? What would the international community, less
the US, do? Nothing, they never do. What would the UN do? Nothing, they never do. This is especially true if the US did not
participate. Some where out there, there
is an Ivy League graduate who will draw you a dominos chart that outlines what
will happen if Afghanistan goes to Al Qaeda.
These same guys/gals did the same for Vietnam and they were wrong. Dead wrong.
I may have my history wrong, but has there ever been an event where a
known member of the Taliban has done harm to a US citizen or US property
outside of Afghanistan? They help to
kill our troops and other US citizens because were are in the lands of their
ancestors and are impious infidels.
These tribal people of Afghanistan are happily ignorant and illiterate
to the ways of modernity and should be left to worship their medieval rock gods
as they have done for centuries. If we
leave their country, they have little reason to care about the global jihad
that their buddies, al Qaeda, want to impose on the US and the west.
4.
Now for the hard sell. What
happens if our departure from Afghanistan results in the physical attack on the
US by Al Qaeda with a WMD. Here is where
all of us in the US get into the game, not just our troops. If attacked by a Muslim jihadist group or individual we respond the same day
by creating a smoking hole in any Al Qaeda supported country. Pick one, any one. We follow the rules of war and apply maximum
force to a focused target with the intent of destroying the enemy's will to
resist. There is no consideration of a proportional response.
Thousands die. Many who have nothing directly to do with
this ideological conflict. But, they
tolerate their governments who do.
This action would be decried by
every nation on the planet. But believe
me, every nation and especially all the non-nations and Islamic fighters would
understand that the US would not tolerate an attack on its shores and that it
was committed to survival of its way of life.
This is problematic, because many of you do not believe that our way of
life is worth this effort to protect it.
If an Arab, Pashtun or Persian is
willing to blow him/herself up for a cause/entry into paradise and take as many
impious infidels and Muslims with them as they can, we should not be afraid to
give them a chance to do so in very large numbers. Even if the application of such force is
unsuccessful in convincing the "moderate" Muslims to control the
jihadist, it should delay the next attack on the US. All Islam has to do is tolerate the beliefs
of all non-Muslims. How hard would that
be to deter the destruction of another Muslim city.
If you do not believe that we are
in an ideological war, you are part of the problem. The rules of war outlined in the Geneva
Convention do not apply in this contest because these jihadist did not sign up
to the convention and mock us for our weakness in allowing them to fight by
their rules while we turn the other cheek.
Right or wrong, these fighting Muslims hate us and want us dead or
subjugated. Some will say, this kind of
action will bring down the wrath of the billions of Muslims on the US. The enmity of Muslims to infidels who invade
their sacred lands exist today. A major
portion already believe it is the mission of the west to destroy Islam. An act
of war would do little to modify this enmity.
I understand that the application of paragraph four has the
same chance as Thomas Friedman believing that global warming is a hoax. I do believe that most US citizens think we
are submitting to think tank logic when the reality of our war with terrorist
is dirty, ugly, violent and is a no holds barred conflict we are losing. One last thought. I find it disingenuous to the max for our
leaders and the press to refer to our enemies as terrorist and not include the
words Jihadist, Muslim or Islamic to modify the noun. Unless I am misinformed, we are not fighting
any Christian, Hindu, Shinto, Zoroastrian, or Buddhist zealots. So... the terrorist are by definition
Islamic, or Muslim or Jihadist. Let's
call this what it is. If you are Muslim
and find this insulting, stand up and say so but watch out if you chose to
apply violence to your argument or force your beliefs on those who chose not to
sign up. I acknowledge your right to
shake your fist in my face as you make a point, but you lose all your rights
when your fist comes in contact with my face.
Get us out of
Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan, Korea, Okinawa and the UN and NATO, Allow the rest of the world to work out their
differences with diplomacy or force as they deem appropriate. Unless it manifestly impacts our national
interest, we should stay out. This is
not isolationism, its minding our own business which is almost always a good
idea. I would add to this position of
minding our own business the practice of US sponsored international aid. There is not a place on the planet were we
give aid that we are not publicly abused and hated for these efforts. There are probably few people who believe
that the world effort to assist Haiti after the earthquake is anything other
than a humanitarian effort to assist a poor and desperate population. I would agree. But wait.
As time passes, there will more and more nations who will find fault
with what the US has done in Haiti. The
French ambassador has already accused the US of having imperialistic designs on Haiti because of the number of
troops we have placed on the ground.
Nuclear Arms Reductions
Written Sept 8, 2010
It occurs to me that the philosophy of Mutually Assured
Destruction (MAD) worked and is working because the concerned parties believe
that their own personal survival is paramount.
For most species this is so. But
for the Islamic species it is not. Or...for
some number of Muslims it is not. In
fact, their greatest glory is to martyr themselves in some diseased belief that
death in a Jihad is their ticket Valhalla.
For this group, MAD is moot.
Even is this was not true, how does an arms limitation treaty
advance the interest of the US. Our arms
limitation diplomats have had zero success with using this issue to change the
behavior of any existing or wannabe nuclear power. Perhaps the most disgusting example of my
point is America's dealings with North Korea.
I say dealings because this 4th world country has stuck it to America's
politicians and diplomats at every turn.
It is way past embarrassing!
Are we to believe that our representatives are making secret
trade, immigration, military and corruption deals with...Russia, France, China,
Great Britain, Iran, Pakistan and India in an effort to reduce the number on
nukes on the planet? We are saying that
stuff we want to happen for our citizens is dependent on nuke numbers? Well if we are, there is nothing here for the
citizens of the US. Secret or not.
So let me propose, notwithstanding the unsolicited strategic
posture proclaimed recently by some flag officer in the Pentagon, there is no
upside to reducing our strategic nuclear stockpile. None. That is, of course, unless you are a member
of a growing group of "come on fuzzy feeling" citizens who believe
that making unilateral reductions in our nuclear arms is the "right"
or "moral" thing to do.
Clearly the use of nuclear weapons on the towns and cities of another
nation is an amoral act in itself. So,
using one weapon on a city is no more amoral that scattering a hundred warheads
over a nation. There is no distinction
in your heaven that separates vaporizing 100,000 souls or 100,000,000. Don't forget, that Jihadist out there with a
similar weapon would gladly kill this many and would be supported by 2B of his
fellow worshipers.
In this environment, reducing our weapons numbers, other
than to modernize is crazy, perhaps criminal in some minds.
The US furthers none of its national interest by entering
into an arms agreement. The crazies are
going to do crazy things no matter what we do.
So...immediately withdraw from any and all nuclear limitation treaties
and in the same breath, publicly announce that the US is returning to a policy
whereby the nation reserves the right to use preemptive nuclear strikes when it
is being threatened. This will become a
core posture in all international treaties and diplomatic agreements. This may not deter the crazies, but it might
influence those who harbor the crazies to reconsider their options. If there are diplomatic negatives in ongoing
negotiations, so be it. That's why the
professional diplomatic corps gets paid.
The Bakken Oil Fields
Created 6 Feb, 2010
Here's an
interesting read, important and verifiable information: I did not write this.
About 6
months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and
one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host
said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct
question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in
the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East
put together." Please read below.
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in
April 2008 that only
scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man
was it big. It was a
revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on
how much oil was in
this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota ,
western South Dakota , and extreme eastern Montana ..... check THIS out:
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery
since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American
dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates
it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at
$107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3
trillion.
"When I first briefed legislators on this,
you could practically see
their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.."
says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial
analyst.
"This sizable find is now the
highest-producing onshore oil field found
in the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh
Post Gazette. It's a
formation known as the Williston Basin , but is
more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' It stretches
from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years,
U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil'
companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a
recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive
reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And
because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just
$16 PER BARREL!
That's enough crude to fully fuel the American
economy for 2041 years
straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the
floor, then this next one
should - because it's from 2006!
U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World
Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky
Mountains lies the
largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is
more than 2 TRILLION
barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated
its extraction. In
three and a half years of high oil prices none has
been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore
drilling?
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil
inside our borders,
than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here
are the official estimates:
- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western United
States .
HOW can this
BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the
environmentalists and others have blocked all
efforts to help America
become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are
letting a small group of
people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?
James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says
we've got more oil in
this very compact area than the entire Middle East
-more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil
reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.
Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with
this find? Think
again! It's all about the
competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the
environmentalists?
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
Black Americans
Written January 7, 2012
Black Americans are victims?
Black Americans are always
about race?
Black Americans are always
about slavery?
Black Americans are liberals?
Black Americans are
Democrats?
Black Americans are happy
with their representatives?
Young (15-29) Black men have
the highest death rate, the highest death rate by homicide and HIV, the highest
rate of unemployment, the highest number incarcerated in prisons and the lowest
levels of education. I have no facts to
support my belief that a large majority of these same black males come from
families with no fathers. They are a
product of generations of dependency on social welfare programs that have
destroyed a proud history and replaced it with a culture of the street that
embraces ignorance.
For Black Americans, how is
this Democratic, liberal, victim of race and slavery thing working for you so
far?
A Proposed Black
Museum
Written Jan 23, 2011
What part of American history will be contained in this
museum that is not already part of the Smithsonian's organization of museums?
If you are one who believes that race remains a deterrent to
equality in America, then how can a formal Federally funded edifice that is a
constant reminder of slavery and Jim Crow laws do anything but stoke these
fires of hatred and resentment among the black population of this country. There is no "healing" in such a
place, only the continuation of a culture that views itself in the ever
blinding light of victimization.
The article mentions a system that would be able to track
American black family's back to their origins.
Would this search engine include the members of their families who were
complicit with black Muslim slavers who "harvested" their fellow
black neighbors for the purposes of profit by their sale to whites for service
in the colonies. What would the museum
say about a comparison of the living standards of your average black family in
the US with the same measurement of any group of black families in Africa. What would that say, not about the immorality
of slavery, but about the results of slavery in the US.
According to the US Census, blacks make up just under 13% of
the population in 2009. Hispanics and
Latinos, make up just over 15% of the population. Where is the funding for a Museum of Hispanic
culture and history? Should every
minority in the US have its own federally funded museum on the Mall? Based on these numbers, the answer would be
yes.
These institutions, regardless of their propaganda,
perpetuate the division amongst us and prove that diversity is a national chore
whose cost in national angst and resources make a mockery of the thought that
..."in diversity there is strength".
This angst and cost of diversity may be worth the effort, but it is
extremely expensive and inefficient and we should not pretend otherwise.
America's strengths reside in it's Declaration of
Independence, it's Constitution and the concept of a republican form of government
where capitalism is the business model.
There is nothing to be gained by creating organizations whose goal is to
create a continuum of hyphenated Americans.
Civil
Unrest in the US
Written
Feb 20, 2013 to members of the S.C. General Assembly
Can you believe it...No responses.
The sites below document, as well as some news blogs can,
some of my comments nearby.
I understand that the business of you guys is to represent citizens in your
districts in the SC General Assembly, but I have many concerns about what is
happening in DC and thought I would share them with you. It is my honest
hope that this is not the first time you have heard this discussion.
There are a handful of my friends, mostly veterans, but not all, who write each
other regarding the politics of the day.
In a response to a discussion by Richard Reich on increased spending on
"investments" like infrastructure and education, I made the following
comments: Most of this is a stream consciousness and may seem a little jerky at
times. For that I apologize.
For the concept of government control over its citizens, I make no apologies
and hope that someone out there gives two hoots about the threat to our
Constitutional Liberties. What are you doing?
The Devil is in the details. Spending on infrastructure may be, perhaps, the
largest pile of porcine scatology next to military spending. Senators and
Congressmen have been infamous and proud of the ways that they have "porked" the US Treasury on behalf of
their constituents. These bills that fund education and
infrastructure are huge complex omnibus monsters that have so many topics in
them not related to the subject of the bill, it makes tracking these Pork
projects problematic. My friend says that I will beat a horse after it has been
laid to rest in the ground. True. Speaking of that, lets go back to
the 10Amendments for a moment. One of the Articles of the 10Amendments is:
"Section 1. All bills, orders, or resolutions passed by the Congress shall
be limited to a single topic." No more subsidies for ethanol or wind
power included in the Farm Bill.
Or, perhaps the worst and possibly most dangerous example is the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for
2012 in which the following was a huge issue that I never heard of until two
days ago. I may not read enough. Thank you Wikipedia.
"The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention were
contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In
particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons
the government suspects of involvement in terrorism. The controversy was to
their legal meaning and potential implications for abuse of Presidential
authority. Although the White House[12] and Senate sponsors[13] maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential
authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress
"affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the
exercise of that authority.[14][15] The detention provisions of the Act
have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and
some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's
authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held
indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including
arrests by members of the Armed Forces.[16][17][18][19][20] The detention powers currently face legal challenge.
In his signing statement for this bill, the President "Promised to never
use this aspect of the Bill". Signing statements have no stature in
law. In 1942, the greatest Democratic president in American history
incarcerated and stole the belongings of 80,000 American citizens who just
happened to be members of the Japanese race/culture. So we have a
Congress and President who have prepared the ground and created a law to
detain, without due process, American citizens. In one motion, they have
by passed our liberties of posse comitatus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act) and habeas
corpus. Based on existing law, the four of you could be detained, probably in
Guantanamo, for being members of the elected government of S. C., a known hot
bed of secessionist and home grown American terrorist. South Carolina,
the home of the Rebellion and of Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham. Two
thorns in the side of this administration for years. Do you think an
administration of this stripe will give two hoots in hell about a legal
challenge. Does this bother you? Do you believe what I am saying is
false or the ranting’s of an aged veteran who sees the boogy man behind every
bush?
On 2 July of 2008 at a speech in Colorado, the President, then candidate, was
recorded deviating from his teleprompted
text and saying the following,
"We cannot continue to rely on
our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've
set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as
powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." (emphasis added)
This year, The Department of Home Land Security ordered 1+ BILLION rounds
of ammunition to include .223, .308 sniper rounds and 40 cal. hollow points.
You may recall that hollow points, some times called Dum Dums, are specifically
prohibited from use in combat by the Geneva Convention. The US Weather Service
ordered tens of thousands of rounds, NOAA
the same. Just to put that number into perspective, the total average
rounds expended each year in the mid east is approximately 70 MILLION
rounds. DHS' purchase represents 20 years of annual defense department
combat in the Mid East, in the continental US where the only enemies of the
State are its citizens. DHS is also purchasing multiple thousands of
Drones for use in the US. Why is this happening?? Are you or am I
misinformed? Does it matter that this level of ammunition is enough to
put five rounds in the body of every man, woman and child in the US. I
believe, but do not know, that TSA employees are probably the largest force of
personnel under the direct "command" of the DHS. Can you
imagine the quality of TSA agents in our airports today being given weapons to
suppress civil unrest in this nation? The concept is so out to lunch it
is almost comical. So, why does the DHS need this quantity of people killing
ammunition. You do not practice you marksmanship with expensive hollow
points. Do you know why all this is happening?
I digress only slightly. We spend twice as much per student on education
than any country in the world and we get piss poor results for our money.
As long as public service employees are allowed to have unions, this will NEVER
change no matter how much money you throw at it. Then there is
Infrastructure spending. As long as it is used for vote acquisition it
will NEVER achieve the lofty goals we mentally set for it. One can only
imagine the corruption that will accompany such an effort. 10Amendments...term
limits.
Addressing education and infrastructure seems intellectually comical and
perverse when the Government appears to be preparing for a level of civil
unrest that would approach a civil war. Do you think our Government is
looking at the films of the riots in Greece and saying to themselves...if our
fiscal house of cards falls, the dollar falls, unemployment doubles or triples,
the value of peoples life long savings in both dollars and investments in
stocks, bonds, land, gold, you name it falls like a stone, will the citizens be
coming after us? Think of the hordes of citizens who no longer get their
monthly checks from the government and need food and shelter as well as drugs.
Where will they turn?
This is not a conspiracy theory. The ammo and drones are real. The
desire of the administration for a civilian army to equal the US Armed forces
is documented and real. The debt and deficit are real. The ability to
Federalize all transportation, communications, food distribution, medical care
and now incarceration of its citizens without due process is real and
documented as law in the Patriot Act, executive orders given by Bush and
formally adopted by Obama and the NDAA of 2012.
What do you think is going on? What are you doing about it? At what
point do we admit that there is something really wrong in our Country and we
are impotent to deal with the problem . Finally, what in the name of the
cosmic void are our Congressmen doing about this. Have you yawned
yet? If so, we know what the problem is.
Like Paul Krugman, Riech is too much of a political animal to be an
intellectual economist any more.
Letter to Senators
Graham and DeMint
Written June 19, 2010
Senator: If you would like for me to support an issue with money
and volunteering to make phone calls, here it is.
Start, if not
already started, a move to hold a Constitutional Convention called by the
several state's legislatures. As I am sure you are aware, it takes two
thirds of the legislatures to call a convention and three fourths of the
legislatures to approve amendments to the Constitution. Go here to see what needs to be considered at
a Constitutional Convention.
Although I hold
you in the highest regard, it is not clear whether you or any of the other
elected officials in Washington have the commitment to country to give up
your office for the sake of the country. I am referring to term limits.
This is one of the amendments you will find listed at the above link.
No one, and I mean no one believes three fourths of the Congress will
vote to do away with their jobs.
Think of it!
Your first day as a Senator and its the first day of your one and only
term. If I were King, (this is not what the proposed amendment states,
this is my idea) it would be six years for Senators and Congressmen. You
could care less about lobbyist because you now have no requirement to raise
money for your next election because there won't be one. You could always
vote your conscience even if it ran against your constituents. If you
wanted to serve on a special committee but a Harry Reid kind of guy was never
going to allow it, just wait. Because, the Harry Reid kind of guy will not
always be there in perpetuity. You have taken a risk to serve the country
because you will not be able to work for any company that does business
directly or indirectly with the Federal Government for a period of three years
after you depart Federal Service. Unless you served in the Federal
Government in some other capacity, the US Military or GS, you will depart the
Senate with no pension and no health care other than that which is available to
every citizen. You will not be eligible for any pay increase that you
vote for during your term.
You, Senator
DeMint, in particular, are the closest we have in the Senate to the ideas most
Americans hold dear. Not all but most. But even you, you who have
taken the hard stand against pork, after two or more terms in the Senate will
begin to fall into the power hungry posture that now dominates our Congress.
I, like many, do not believe that having a Byrd, Stennis, Thurman,
Kennedy or DeMint as permanent fixtures in the Congress is good for our
country. We may not get the best and brightest as Congressmen with this
plan, but look what the best and brightest have done to our country. I
want amateur Congressmen that know they only have one shot at doing good for
their neighbors, our culture and our nation. Mr. Smith Goes To
Washington? Perhaps. But under my plan, Mr. Smith is not competing
with Nancy Pelosi but is in bed with guys and gals just like him.
So, Senator:
Will you ever read this? Will a member of your staff snigger and
say what a fool, this guy does not know how the system works and smartly blitz
off a form response and consider the matter dead. I think I do understand
how the system works, but that is not important. How it works now is broken.
How and if you and your staff chose to intentionally fall on your
respective swords in the hope that you can start a new day where how the system
works is turned upside down is the question. Its a lot to ask. But
it is no harder for me to ask you give up your potential careers than it is for
you to ask a 19 year old Lance Corporal to die for the likes of a mafia tribal
chief named Hamid Karzi. What I ask of you the Lance Corporal has already
delivered. See if you guys can muster the same commitment to country that
the Lance Corporal did for us. You may take my word for it, there is
nothing more satisfying than giving up your personal desires so that your
organization can succeed and then let that success wash over all of you.
Finally,
blessedly, I am attending a 40th reunion of my squadrons deployment to Vietnam
in 1969 at the Marine Corps Museum in Triangle, VA this month. One of our
members recently passed away form a long illness, but he had given me a Zippo
lighter when we were in country and on it was inscribed the following: "For those that will fight for it...FREEDOM...has a flavor
the protected shall never know"
L/Cpl Edwin L. "Tim" Craft
1968 Khe Sanh Combat Base
The fight is not
always on the battle field of physical violence.
Warmest regards
Gus Fitch
GUYS SEE IF YOU
CAN TAKE THE TIME TO ADDRESS MY COMMENTS. I NEED TO KNOW I AM NOT TALKING
TO A MACHINE. THERE IS NO LOYALTY BETWEEN A HUMAN AND A MACHINE.
Respectfully,
Gus Fitch
Diversity
Written Jan 3, 2011
C. Edwards Deming postulated the
14 points of his Total Quality Management (TQM) system (http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/total-quality-management/overview/overview.html). This system has lost some of its following in
recent years here in the US but is still going strong in Europe.
For anyone who has been through
the pain and rigors of transitioning a company to the concepts of TQM, you are
aware that the word "process" defines every thing. Simply put, individual initiative is
suppressed and replaced with a process that defines how a given task will be
preformed always. TQM demands consensus. All decisions are made by committees and
consequently there is no accountability for ineptitude or failure.
I would submit that all management
tools that obtain their legacy from Deming's TQM are the antithesis of
diversity.
So which is it to be? I would submit neither! The point I am trying to make is diversity
demands consideration of all sixteen or seventeen diverse classifications
contained in the definition above within a single organization. TQM attempts to do away with all those kinds
of considerations for the purpose of efficiency.
I have tried, unsuccessfully, to
determine who was the first person to use the expression, "...there is
strength in diversity". I can
report, however, the expression has been publicly repeated thousands of times
subsequent to its first usage. Google
the expression to see who, when and why.
The Death of Black Culture
Written 25 July 2013
Here is my case: This is a response to comment writer from the NYTs.
Based on the reply comments to Tom's comment, it would seem that there are some who still believe that decades of African-American rule in the cities was not responsible for their bankruptcy but white rule prior to black rule is the cause of it all. Is there no black person who is anything but a victim of white oppression. Is there no one in the black community that will step up and say that we screwed the pooch, it's our fault? Are American Blacks this weak in their character that they can tolerate no failure, no criticism, accept no responsibility for what happens in their cities, communities, schools and the rest of a city's services. No. African-Americans should man up, accept the fact that, as a race, they have failed. They must turn around their culture so that education and parental responsibility, not basketball, incarceration, victimhood and single parenthood are the way to the future. If the race does not take this high road, they will be sentenced by their own actions to a culture of ignorance, poverty and darkness.
No amount of fawning and pawing about past slavery and Jim Crow laws will change the direction of black culture in this country if they do not get off the dole and establish pride for scholasticism, shame for pregnancy out of wedlock and ostracism for those who break the non-God six commandments.
Although perverse, there is a good case to make that slavery may have been the best thing that ever happened to black Americans. The shame of slavery can not be completely washed away, but blaming its injustices for every slight, real or imagined in todays world is either insanity or loss of sight to the obvious. Given decades of pain and suffering, some may find it naive and blasphemous that I utter such a statement and paint me as a racist and ignorant. I promise you, I am neither. Ask any black person in the US would they swap places with any of their black brothers in the Congo, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Mali or any country of Mediterranean north Africa. It may have taken more time than it should have, but the wait was worth it. The poorest of our poor is still orders of magnitude wealthier than the village African who is still hunted by his fellow black Muslims for slaves.
No amount of fawning and pawing about past slavery and Jim Crow laws will change the direction of black culture in this country if they do not get off the dole and establish pride for scholasticism, shame for pregnancy out of wedlock and ostracism for those who break the non-God six commandments.
Although perverse, there is a good case to make that slavery may have been the best thing that ever happened to black Americans. The shame of slavery can not be completely washed away, but blaming its injustices for every slight, real or imagined in todays world is either insanity or loss of sight to the obvious. Given decades of pain and suffering, some may find it naive and blasphemous that I utter such a statement and paint me as a racist and ignorant. I promise you, I am neither. Ask any black person in the US would they swap places with any of their black brothers in the Congo, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Mali or any country of Mediterranean north Africa. It may have taken more time than it should have, but the wait was worth it. The poorest of our poor is still orders of magnitude wealthier than the village African who is still hunted by his fellow black Muslims for slaves.
No comments:
Post a Comment