Monday, November 30, 2009

Michael Moore may not be a fool, but he sure is foolish


My strongest impression from this letter is: WTF, Michael Moore; you have an AOL email account? Sheesh.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

It must be noon, for Pat Buchanan is correct

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and today is Pat Buchanan's day. It leaves an ashen, nasty, taste in my mouth to say it though. He talks about the same misgivings which I have about using the US courts to fight terrorists. I'll let his words speak for themselves.

"And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage."


That is, by putting terrorists on trial we abrogate the entire legal basis for using the military to fight them. One does not follow due process procedures in combat. Imagine having to interview each enemy soldier to determine guilt or innocence before they might be fired at. Not just interviewing, though. An arrest must be made, a trial (with counsel) granted then conducted. Guilt must be ascertained, then sentencing would follow. What exactly is the punishment for taking up arms against the United States, anyway? Ten years for sedition or treason? But they aren't citizens of the United States so that's out.
See what I mean? Nothing but trouble. If OJ Simpson could wriggle out of a murder conviction through prosecutorial missteps, then why not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? I sure hope that Obama knows what he is doing here. This is his show and it might very well be a disaster.

Friday, November 13, 2009

This is Badass

Military Photos: Testing the XM-25

I know this is only a prototype. I know its still being tested. I know it won't look like that when it gets dropped into the itchy hands of American grunts someday. Still, doesn't that make you want to go out and tear up the range?

(thanks to Strategypage)

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Army Reserve medics are better

Support: Older Is Better And Will Save Your Life
This is something I noticed while I was in the army, myself. The reservist medical troops were better, sometimes much better, than their active duty counterparts. Something I suppose about the reservists doing their job everyday, and not spending time taking some pretty pointless classes and other training.
The reservists also got to learn, and use, more advanced techniques and equipment and as a result have more cutting-edge knowledge.
It really is hard to compare the job experience a standard combat medic in the regular army gets to that of their paramedic counterparts in the civilian world. Regular duty guys spend a lot of time doing not much at all while a big-city paramedic working in an ER or an ambulance crew get worked like dogs. All that pays off for the sick, and injured though as superior knowledge and experience lead to superior results. That is, less dying and more living. (hat tip: Strategypage.com)

NOW calls for Cable to be suspended - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

NOW calls for Cable to be suspended - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

Wonderful. The NOW has next to nothing to say about Wm. Clinton's transgressions or the exclusion of women from Obama's inner circle, but does have time to worry about allegations made against a football coach.
Cable should be suspended alright, because he has a horrible football team to show for his efforts. If the allegations against him are proven then the NFL should take whatever action it takes in such cases. I'm not sure that allegations alone should lead to suspension, especially when they are unrelated to his actual, you know, job.
I see from the article that he admits slapping his (now ex) wife twenty years ago.  Terry O'Neil:
“Why would the NFL tolerate having a man who admits to having battered his wife"
Honestly. Our president did cocaine twenty years ago, our media icons have violated many, many, laws. Roman Polanski raped a little girl twenty years ago. I'm supposed to get excited that a football league has a man working in it who slapped his wife twenty years ago? I wonder if she ever slapped him? Does that make a difference? Should it? Are there two tiers of justice and transgressions for the two sexes?