Support Our Troops... Until Wounded

Soapbox time.
I stumbled across a horrific article about how the military treats our soldiers.

Imagine this...

For sense of duty, honor, or whatever reason, one decides to join the military (BTW:I salute you, as I could never do that). Once you enlist, you receive a $10,000 enlistment bonus. You get assigned to a war zone, conflict area, etc. where you subsequently get wounded and honorably discharged.

Soon after, you get...
a bill from the Pentagon demanding the prorated enlistment bonus back.

Really. THIS is how our government treats the soldiers that have made incredible sacrifices.

I am TOTALLY not making that up.

Click Here to read the story.

Quote of the Day

"All children need a laptop. Not a computer, but a human laptop. Moms, dads, grannies and grandpas, aunts, uncles -- someone to hold them, read to them, teach them. Loved ones who will embrace them and pass on the experience, rituals and knowledge of a hundered previous generations. Loved ones who will pass to the next generation their expectations of them, their hopes, and their dreams."

--General Colin L. Powell

Word For The Day

kakistocracy

SYLLABICATION: kak·is·toc·ra·cy
PRONUNCIATION: kk-stkr-s, käk-
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. kak·is·toc·ra·cies
Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.
ETYMOLOGY: Greek kakistos, worst, superlative of kakos, bad

Third World War

I recently came across this article explaining how China's Defense Department is utilizing cyberweapons, in the form of viruses and hacks. It occurred to me how applicable this is in our modern society. Not only in warfare, but also in terrorism.

Think about it.

9/11 poked a sleeping bear, as did the embassy bombings, Oklahoma city, etc. But what if...

A terrorist organization wanted to attack America, for whatever cause/reason/manifesto. Instead of bombs, they attack our economy. They attack the databases at NYSE, AMEX, NASDAQ, the numerous banking systems. It's a scary thought. And it COULD happen. A sleeper worm could destroy our economy (for those not of the geeky persuasion, that's a virus that infiltrates other programs, but doesn't do anything until a set date, making it difficult to spot until activated) . Think about it. Credit cards wouldn't work, you wouldn't have access to your bank accounts, investment portfolios, 401Ks... Companies would not be able to sell anything, since nobody can buy. Life would not be the same. Living in a technocratic Capitalistic society definitely has its drawbacks.

I'm curious if our own defense department is working on something similar.


"I do not know what the third world war will be fought with, but the fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones." -Albert Einstein

Christianity and war

No secret as to my opinion on religion. But I do still read up on what people believe to gain an understanding of them.

Bush's "Holy war" being one of the things I don't understand.

I'm not one to propogate religious essays, but I came across something that was VERY intriguing and well written.

Warning: It's a long read.

Clicky

What if...

I'm proud to be an American. At least, proud to be what America has and can stand for. But when I say America, I mean the philosophical ideals, the ethereal connotation of it.

America to me means freedom, liberty, equality; none of which seems to exist in America as it is today, in its practicing societal form.

What if...
America has become the "great evil empire" of the new millennia? I was remembering Russia being labeled this by Reagan in the 80s. Now that I look at it, there are many parallels to 80s Russia and the current US government, which back then were deemed "heinous acts."

The one that really got to me was thinking about the strike Russia took against the Mujaheddin insurgency in Afghanistan in 1979. The main difference being that they were there to support the existing government instead of overthrowing it, as we have in Iraq. But both wars were (are) very unpopular and utter failures.

How far away are we from an all-powerful government? Closer than you might think. The current administration, using "executive privilege" are creating a branch of government shrouded in secrecy, and is bordering authoritarianism. The Bush administration are not typical conservatives. True conservatives typically prefer small government power, more as a administrative role to the constituents than active decisions. Bushies are, as Dean puts it, "radical authoritarians." They make decisions without informing the people (or even the other branches of government, in fact) of the what, why, or even how. When our own legislative branch can't ask questions of the executive branch under oath, ESPECIALLY Karl Rove, the checks and balances have failed. What does the Executive branch have to hide? There are no National security issues here. It seems to me that they are just flexing their political muscle, pushing the envelope of their power. To put things into perspective: Nixon waived privilege during the Watergate hearings, as did Reagan during the Iran-Contra hearings.

Our liberty is disappearing, along with our power as a people. If you have any doubts, I recommend you read Lord Johan Steyn's Guardian article here.

Back to my original question. "What if..." Do you think the Russian people during the Cold War were any bit the wiser as to the actions of the government? So far we still have free press, but no telling how long that will last. Besides, the current administration has a well-known history now of giving out false information and propaganda.

I hate to admit it, but perhaps we're more in the dark than we believe.

Why the Democrats need Hillary

I don't like Hillary Clinton. For starters, she's not really qualified to hold office as opposed to many other Dems out there. Also, there's that business with her distancing herself from Bill when he needed her most. Yes, I still hold a grudge about that. In addition, she talks a lot of smack but you never hear about anything she's actually done as a Senator.

That being said, she's the "Great White Hope" for the Democratic party in '08. They need her. Last year, the American people said that enough was enough with our current leaders, and changed teams in an almost unprecidented rally. So what happened after that? Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Tons of Non-binding resolutions, which mean (for wont of a better term) absolutely dick. To me, this was them being that smart little kid in the back of the class with great ideas saying, "We should maybe do this if it's ok with everyone else, but it's fine if you don't want to."Geez, grow some cojones, why don't you?

Which brings us back to Hillary. Laughably, she has the biggest pair of jewels on the Senate floor. She's outspoken, and a way of making people rally to her. She's a very strong speaker, and to be honest doesn't really take any shit. If you haven't seen the last State of the Union address, I encourage you to. Not for the rediculous sludge spewing from Dubya, but for the moments that the camera turns to Hill. I laughed out loud seeing her responses and golf claps. She also seemed to have a smirk on her face that I interpreted as "I can't wait to be the one giving this speech." She's ready to stir the pot, and I think we should let her. She has the personality, the huevos, the charisma, as well as the ability to call it as she sees it. I can't wait to see her in a debate.

Which brings up the question: Is America ready for a woman president? Honestly, with who the American people have elected into office in the last couple of decades, I don't think they'd really care. I'm sure that people ignorant enough to use that as a reason to not vote for someone don't vote anyway.

Besides, who else do the Dems have?
-Obama's there, but even though he's young, charismatic AND black, he doesn't have the ability to raise support, and nobody's taking him seriously. Plus, I haven't been too impressed with his speeches. Go to his website and watch the vids. You'll see what I mean.
-Lieberman is the most intelligent and best qualified for the job. However he has the personality of a wet mop. I get the feeling that during debates in the HSGA Committee, Susan Collins continually sneaks up behind him and gives him a wedgie. Plus, he's one of the few Dems that support the war. BOOOOOOOOO!
-Dodd. Dodd who? It's saying something when he shows up in the polls at LESS than the margin of error.
-John Edwards. He's a smart guy, and arguably the best-looking out of the bunch. But it'll take a while to get the stench of the losing Kerry 2004 ticket off of him.

We need someone to be able to take control of the beurocracy and give it a stern talking to. Since Dean declined the nomination, my support goes to Hillary. Ick.