America: A Little “Dull” Might Do You Some Good

Reading today how guys like Romney get criticized for being “dull”. One comentator made the point that he could use a “groping scandal” to spice things up a bit.

I’m not a Romney supporter, per se. I’m also very pro-American and support it in any way I can. I say this to put in context the criticism I’m about to levy because in light of these comments against Romney, I think America could use a little “dull”.

By that, I mean America should not try to go for the extremes all the time. For instance, I’m not a fan of ObamaCare in the least, and believe it was a squandered opportunity to do something right in the healthcare area for once. Nevertheless, I am far from believing it will throw America over the cliff of socialism once fully put in place.

I’m a big believer in gun rights. Personally, I don’t like guns but I believe wholeheartedly in my right to own one and use one to defend myself or those I care about. However, Americanism dictates that I should have the “right” to brandish a fully-automatic M16 with an extended clip in public. Having a handgun in my glove compartment or beside my bed should some crackhead decide my place is the one he’s going to wrongly decide to burglarize one day is one thing – being able to dump 60 rounds into him in 5 seconds is another.

I support gay rights, however I do not think that allowing two gay men or women to get married is going to turn the entire country into a homosexual cesspool.

One of the things I love about America turns out to be one of the things which I think takes it so far over the edge sometimes to the point of lunacy, and that is its almost need to take everything to the extreme.

Again, I’m not saying this as a Romney supporter but if “dull” happens to mean a balanced, rational approach to the social, national security, and economic threats that we’re facing, then perhaps dull is what I want and exactly what I need.

After all, it seems to be working pretty well for Canada.

Fox Republican Debate: Why I Disagree With Ron Paul’s Assessment of Iran

A few nights ago on the Fox Republican Debate (Iowa, Dec. 15th), there was a heated exchange between Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann regarding a nuclear Iran. During that exchange, we heard Ron Paul validate his “hands off” Iran policy by citing a nuclear Russia, and an almost nuclear Cuba:

“If she [Bachmann] thinks we live in a dangerous world now, she ought to think back to when I was drafted in 1962 with nuclear missiles in Cuba. Kennedy called Kruschev and talked him out of having a nuclear exchange. And you’re trying to dramatize this like we’ve got to go and treat Iran like we’ve treated Iraq. We cannot solve these problems with war. We can solve our problems if we follow our Constitution and only go in if we have declared war – and then win the war and get it over with instead of this endless fighting and attitude that we have enemies all around the world.”

I disagree with Ron Paul’s assessment of Iran for three main reasons:

1) Iran isn’t Cuba in that it doesn’t have a check and balance like Cuba had with Russia. It wasn’t until 1992 that we found out how close we came to nuclear disaster, either by a Russian sub captain, or by Castro himself. Diplomacy may have been what ended the crisis, but history shows it certainly wasn’t what prevented a nuclear missile from being fired in the meantime. Castro himself said he would have recommended launching the nukes “if the US invaded despite knowing Cuba would be destroyed.”

2) I believe Paul is incorrect in thinking that “following the Constitution” trumps irrationality with fascist dictators. I admire Ron Paul for his conviction regarding Constitutional matters, however it seems like this is his “highest authority” whereas Iran’s highest authority is a religion that still involves the practice of killing “infidels”. In Ahkkie’s world, religious law trumps common law and that’s a huge difference between any of the other super

3) If Lawrence Wright’s “My Trip to Al Qaeda” is accurate, Paul must consider the fact that we in the western world seek “glory” through how we live, where as many in the Islamic world seek glory through how they die, or cause others to. For reference, see how much Iran is in support of “Honor Killings” and suicide bombers.

That all said, I don’t disagree with Paul’s assertion that Diplomacy is an option, I just don’t think it’s the best option. Sure, there is a reason why we haven’t had all-out Nuclear War between nations in our lifetime, and why nutbars like Kim Jong Il have been kept in check, but then again diplomacy didn’t work with Hitler and I think “Little Ahkie” is about as close to the second coming as we’ve seen.

Paul also seems to hold the U.S. Constitution in the highest regard, whereas nutbars like Ahmadinejad believe they are accountable to a much “higher authority” – one that glorifies martyrdom and wishes for the extermination of Jews. Is this the kind of guy I want with a nuke in his hands? Certainly not.

Further into the debate, Paul states that he worries about our “overreaction” to Iran. Considering the points above as well as the fact that Michelle Bachmann serves on the Armed Services Committee and therefore is privy to higher-level security information, I believe she’s right when she says that diplomacy may in fact be the biggest under-reaction to a threat in our history.

Quietly Encroaching on The Constitution? Posse Comitatus at Risk

I’m having a discussion over on another blog right now about “credibility” when it comes to one’s choice in news sources, in particular, FOX News. Unlike some others, I don’t get bent one way or another in either supporting FOX News or not supporting it. Although I’ll admit to a small crush on Megyn Kelly (OK, a huge one!) beyond that it’s just another channel of many. I don’t watch FOX because I think there’s truly no spin, I watch it simply because they report on things that other networks won’t, and sometimes those things are important to me. It’s part of a bigger perspective.

I feel the same way about blogs like Glenn Greenwald’s at Salon when it comes to constitutional issues even though I might disagree with his well-documented, well-supported views 80% of the time, and I also feel the same way (albeit more reluctantly) about Alex Jones’ “InfoWars” site as well. Yes, it’s tin-foil-hatty, and yes, it’s very, very bent to the far right, but occasionally it does offer something credible that I don’t hear from the other sources.

Via Drudge, I just saw a post on Infowars that says there’s a Senate bill being introduced that within it, a certain provision would allow the American military to treat the US as a battle zone and arrest American citizens.

This is being challenged by the ACLU and at least one senator.

If there’s any sort of common thread that I would have with liberals and the ACLU, it’s that I share concern when certain basic freedoms are being taken away. Some of those freedoms I’m ok with, such as the government listening in on phone calls to catch terrorists, but there’s some biggies that I’m not – posse comitatus being one of them. No matter what the government’s justification for removing this, I would find it to be too slippery a slope making it open for abuse. Besides, I don’t think there’s anything that the Guard or cops couldn’t handle? (Although, one thing that comes to mind is CBRN and first responders – likely that the military is best equipped to handle that internally but they could easily be under command of the National Guard in those cases, in my opinion?)

Anyways, my alarm’s maybe at a 2/10 so far on this. Who knows where the Bill will go – maybe nowhere. I’m more curious at this point to see if and/or when other networks start to pick it up. (Drudge was the only reason that I did.) Let’s see if this is something considered mainstream enough to be “news” in the coming days.

I Had Dinner With Two Christians Yesterday and Lived

In the wake of the Norway bombing there seems to be a renewed attack on Christianity. I believe this anger is misplaced. Instead, it should be a renewed attack on Fanaticism.

Some, like Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn, the New York Times, or left-wing bloggers will be all too quick to point out Anders Behring Breivik was a “Christian” in their ongoing attack on religion.

I’m still unclear on their exact point. Is it “This is what religion does to people”, or is it “Christians can be bad people, too”? I would have to think it’s the latter since, as Ann Coulter correctly points out in her article “New York Times Reader Kills Dozens In Norway”, “…as [Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan] gunned down his fellow soldiers at a military medical facility in 2009, only one of seven Times articles on Hasan so much as mentioned that he was a Muslim.” If the left’s point was really that religion itself is bad, why would they sympathize with fanatical Muslims as much as they do?

The dictionary defines a “Fanatic” as “a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause)“. I happen to like Churchill’s definition better: “one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject“.

There is nothing wrong with Christianity if it’s not taken to the point of Fanaticism. Same with Judaism, same with those who follow the Qu’uran. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Fanatic. Jared Lee Loughner was a Fanatic. Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, and the Klu Klux Klan were/are all fanatics. Shouldn’t we be attacking Fanaticism rather than the religions themselves? Perhaps this way, more peace-loving Muslims would come out and speak against the acts that are committed in the name of their religion like many Christians do.

I went for dinner with two very devout, heavily-practicing Christians yesterday, and I came out fine. I wasn’t preached or lectured to. Worse, I wasn’t shot, maimed, or killed just because I held different views than they did on a number of issues, including a different belief in who our creator might be. Like the title of my post says, I made out fine, so perhaps the left should cut the Christians some slack here. They gave as much to Hasan.

Going one step further, I’d also suggest that instead of immediately attacking Christians, perhaps they should think about how their insistence on beyond-reason-political-correctness is largely what causes fanatical anything to live and thrive.

What is America’s “Blame” For Suicide Bombers?

The answer is none. None, nada, zero.

Oddly enough, I believe George Bush said it best here: “It is only when you do not have hope in a society that you join a suicide bomber team.”

I can hear the far left now: “Oh sure, Bush! Bombing the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan and murdering thousands of civilians, we’re sure providing a lot of hope!”

I have two problems with the far left on this issue:
1) They sympathize with terrorists. They apply compassion to a group of people who have sworn an oath not to have any ounce of compassion for them in return. Apart from this simply being stupid, while this may seem “noble” to the far left, to me it is ridiculous when for one this compassion is sorely misplaced, and for another it shows their ignorance in the fact that they’re actually the pawns of the terrorists they pretend to care about.

2) The second problem I have is their blaming of America for suicide bombers. Their logic seems to be “We bomb, so they bomb”, or “We terrorize, so they terrorize.”

Bullshit. First of all, I’ve met none on the far left who actually flat out have the guts to say that we’re actually to blame for 9/11, the London Bombings, or any other terrorist act (except for perhaps Glenn Greenwald) even when they flat-out believe it. “Ya, but look at what we did in Iraq/Afghanistan/Nicaragua/etc.” is about as close as I’ll usually hear. Either way, they’re defending these “retributions” by saying that on some level, we deserved them. After all, if we’d stop waterboarding them, detaining them, and denying them their basic human rights they’d want to bomb us less, wouldn’t they?

Nope. I go back to Bush’s statement. America did not give these people a lack of hope which led them to become terrorists. That lack of hope came first from their parents. It then came from their spiritual leaders. After that it came from their political leaders and finally it came from their choice of peer group.

If America was so much to blame for “creating” suicide bombers then by the same logic we’d have a number of Londonites who would have been suicide bombers in World War II, wouldn’t we? After all, the Germans were bombing the shit out of them, right? Go one step further: how about the Jews? Tell me how many Jews, who experienced far worse atrocities to them, in greater numbers, and over a far greater length of time decided to strap a bunch of bombs to themselves back then and blow up a nightclub, or hit a German subway tunnel today? It’s an easy answer: zero. The far left’s logic (and b.s. sympathy) fails.

The fact is the left is f–ked up on this issue because both their sympathy and their blame are completely misplaced. I speak to why it’s misplaced in another post, but in the meantime if the far left wants to have sympathy for the terrorists then I suggest they don’t whine and cry for them after they’ve taken American lives or their own. Instead, they should apply their sympathy and support here for these kids before they’ve had a chance to harm anyone, most of all themselves.

That’s what I have to say about “sympathy”. As for “blame”, blame the parents who consider this, as another example, to be a suitable alternative to Sesame Street.

Blame the religious leaders that rob their people of any kind of true spirit or compassion on this earth and take the innocence and compassion away from children at their earliest opportunity. Blame the Afghan degenerates who, while supposedly “defending their homeland” as the left tries to put it, take a pause out of their “war” to throw acid in teenage girls’ faces.

We rarely, if ever, see the far left blogging about these things, do we? If I saw them blog about these sorts of things even 1/10th as much as they blog about how “evil” Bush is or America is, I might actually believe them when they say they support the troops, but since they don’t, I don’t.

Their perspective is of course their choice, but when it comes to the question of “do we give people hope?” in these terrorist breeding grounds, my answer is opposite to theirs. It is a flat-out, unequivocal “YES!”

America is living proof that government can be by the people and for the people. We have also demonstrated continuously, in spite of our failings, that we are always willing to lend a helping hand to those in need not because we have to, but because we simply want to – even when it’s not for people of our own race, country, or even religion.

Finally, we’ve also shown people of the world that if they, too, believe in freedom then we will try our best in some way to help them – whether that’s as “small” as fostering a culture of innovation in our country that creates things like the Internet or Twitter, or as “big” as having a military and intelligence apparatus strong enough to take out the #1 terrorist, or arm citizens wanting freedom against their oppressors.

We’ve done more to instill and nurture hope in people and countries around the world than any other country has. We’ve done it since our very beginning, and we’ll continue to until the very end. That’s who we are. Even the complaining on the far left is very evidence of the hope that we either do provide or can provide.

We have to, however, remind the people we’re trying to help that we’re still human though. We don’t always get it right. We sometimes don’t do enough, and we sometimes go too far, but in the end we still try.

The far left may argue that our country robs hope from others. I say it’s in fact the opposite – that we provide more hope than anyone else does. I will also go as far as to say that those who disagree – that believe we rob hope rather than provide it – have no purpose being here. They deserve a place where they think their life can mean something and that they can change things, and if they don’t think it’s here, they should find another country to be disgusted by America from.

And finally, as for the Bush hatred the far left has, I’ll ask them which they hate more – Bush going into Afghanistan, or this, or this, or this.

Then I’ll say, “Prove it.”

Giffords’ Warning – Consequences Indeed ***UPDATED***

I’m not going to get into the right vs. left argument here – there’s enough out there going on about that. This short clip, however, pretty much sums up the truth that when your intent is to elevate frustration and connect with anger, there are consequences, no matter which side does it.

This is a criticism of BOTH sides, btw. Take a stroll through the comments of the Daily KOS, for example, to see what anger and hate the left promotes, and the degree to which they take it. The Democrats have maps with targets on them, too, and even Loughner was known as a Left-wing loon. Surely Loughner has slipped through the cracks of a largely politically-correct system that, heaven forbid, calls a wacko a wacko. But how did he get access to his gun so easily? Largely right-wing policies. As I state in another post, both extreme sides are to blame because they’re both sides of the same coin – one that preys on those who feel hopeless.

The right has gone overboard on many occasions in attacking the left. The left, never one to “waste a crisis”, uses those opportunities – and will use this one – to attack back with strong attempts to control the airwaves, institute stricter gun control policies, and other parts of their agenda and further their attacks on the right (which have hardly been all defensive). The right will get their back up and push back.

This is America, and no matter whether on the right or the left, we’re fighters. It’s in our culture, and it’s our way. We don’t get to be a world superpower by being passive wimps. However, for that power to be effective (and deserved), it must also come with discipline and restraint – two things we’ve been shown to lack throughout America’s history on far too many occasions, whether militarily, socially, and now even economically. Although Giffords wasn’t referring to these things specifically, her words still hold true.

David Frum on The Unintended Lesson of WikiLeaks – But Will It Be Learned?

In a Dec 4, 2010 blog post, David Frum suggests that

The organizers of Wikileaks say they wanted to blow the whistle on government fictions and expose the ugly realities. In a way they probably never intended, they have done just that. They have revealed that Iran is even more dangerous, Turkey even more hostile, Pakistan even more precarious and the Palestinians even more irrelevant than generally understood.

He’s probably right, but so what? I just can’t see anything happening – we’re too apathetic as a nation, and our attention span is way too short.

Uggh – I sound like a crotchety old man (thinking “Walter” from Jeff Durham’s act). I may have to change the title of my blog from The Rantings of VRK to The Cynical Rantings of VRK.

Enough negativity! A new challenge for me: I’m going to make five positive posts in a row. Real happy stuff! Stay tuned! (That echoed…)

WikiLeaks Should Do What The Press Should Do, But Takes It Way Too Far – UPDATED

So another WikiLeaks dump by Assange. I haven’t read any of the leaks, however I have the following opinions regardless:
1) WikiLeaks, and Assange, is a Terrorist. It’s weapon is information, but its desired result is injury/death, chaos, and fear. Its purpose is wrong, what it’s doing is wrong, and it should be shut down. In spite of its claims, it does not exist to further some moral cause. Its causes, such as “exposing human rights violations” are just its excuses. All it is seeking is cash and notoriety.
2) The voice of the whistleblower should be the Press, not WikiLeaks. When two college students can get further into an organization to expose it than the press can or cares to do, that’s a clue. Investigative journalism is nowhere near what it was ten years ago.
3) Is this the extent of our partisanship in this country? What makes someone want to send confidential material to WikiLeaks? For one, it shows how the Press can’t/shouldn’t be trusted. For another, it shows how partisan our patriotism has become.

I will say that I agree with the FEAR of a WikiLeaks or something like it. It causes people to pay more attention to internal security as well as the actions people take in the name of the public interest. That isn’t, however, support for WikiLeaks itself – it’s a call out to the media to DO THEIR JOB. It’s the media that should be investigating and exposing such alleged offenses, and being the champion of the whistleblower. It is the media and the law that those doing wrong should fear, not some informational terrorist, and that is all Julian Assange is.

As for WikiLeaks, everyone involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

**** UPDATE ****
Let me clarify – do I believe any whistleblower or whistleblower site should be prosecuted for exposing any illegal activity that was sought to be sequestered to avoid legal repercussion? No. This, however, is a simplistic defense of WikiLeaks and in my opinion, is not appropriate.

Exposing someone trying to cover up the fact that they broke the law is one thing. Exposing cables between how the US “really” thinks of Canada, or Saudi Arabia, or what Saudi Arabia really things of Iran is another. The fact is that secrecy is not always wrong – it is at times necessary, and at times vital to keeping the peace. Anyone married or in a relationship knows this. Your spouse may actually look fat in those pants or be lousy in the bedroom, but that doesn’t mean your neighbor or the rest of the world needs to know you think that.

We engage in confidential discussions with our allies that are based upon trust. If those discussions are illegal, expose them. If not, however, respect your allies as you would respect any other friends’ confidence and keep their words confidential. Tell me why the world needed to know what the US was thinking about Canada, or what the Saudi King thought about Iran, and you might change my opinion re: prosecution.

Until then, the fact remains that PFC Manning broke the law. Assange, by way of espionage, broke the law. They deserve what they get.

I agree with the likes of Ron Paul that we shouldn’t necessarily shut down the vehicles for whistleblowing, but we do need to enforce what is actually whistleblowing vs. what is merely tabloid gossip that endangers trust and relationships with our allies.

Yemen – Our Next Afghanistan?

Naughty naughty, Yemen! Seems like those Al Qaeda whackos there are busy little bees, and that we were closer to disaster a few days ago than what was originally let on. Not only did authorities pull cartridge bombs off those UPS flights, one of them had 17 minutes left before it detonated, according to the CBC.

“…they found the bombs wired to cellphones and hidden in the toner cartridges of computer printers.

The communication cards had been removed and the phones could not receive calls, officials said, making it likely the terrorists intended the alarm or timer functions to detonate the bombs, U.S. officials have said.”

Now, I’m hoping this is a little bit of misdirection for the dimwits over there who actually believe what they read. Hopefully, those phones COULD receive calls but their detonator mechanisms were what were removed. That way if/when someone called they could capture and trace the number? Of course, we won’t know the details or the results of any investigation here for a very long time, but I have faith in our authorities that they’re at least one step ahead of these thugs.

To the U.S., Canadian, and British anti-terrorism units, congratulations and an ongoing “Thank you” are in order. Your efforts are still underappreciated right now, in my opinion (too many people in the West underhandedly support these actions out of their belief through their defense of the terrorists’ supposed ‘right to be mad’).

To Yemen, you’d better be careful! You’re close to giving the US another excuse to invade a country. If you can’t do more to smoke these guys out in your own country as they plan first-strikes against innocent civilians of other countries, it won’t be long before you’ll likely become our next Afghanistan, and you’ll have only yourselves to blame.

(Side note: Thoughts of 24, Season 6, Episode “6:00pm – 7:00pm” come to mind here.)

Ground Zero Mosque – How About This For A Solution? – UPDATED

I’ve been following the story of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque, and although I had my initial reactions I have held off on a “formal” opinion until I had a chance to learn more and hear more sides of the issue.

After much reading and discussion, here’s what I see as the issues:

1) We need to honor and respect the victims and families of 9/11, and its heroes.

2) We need to respect the right to religious freedom granted by the Constitution.

3) Some see this as a “slap in the face” to the victims, and a monument to the perpetrators of 9/11. Considering that the head Imam pushing for the Mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is not without his anti-American controversy (he had said on 60 Minutes that American policies were an accessory to the crime of 9/11), I believe their talking points are legitimate.

4) Certain Jewish and Muslim groups – groups who would otherwise be considered adversaries (or even enemies) – view this as an opportunity to help reconcile their differences and move together towards peace. They see it as an opportunity for the Islamic faith to be better understood by Americans, and of course is supported by the many Americans who are Muslim. I believe their points are legitimate as well.

So how do we address all these issues at once? I believe building neither a 9/11 Monument nor a Mosque can do so on its own. My suggestion, therefore, is this: why not build a Mosque and a Temple/Synagogue/Church/Memorial together?

Sound crazy? We’ve seen similar before. If the people in support of this are so about peace, then why not build a place of worship where all religions can come together and do so peacefully? How profound of a statement of peace would it make that we find Jews and Muslims praying together under the same roof? How profound of a statement would it be to see Muslims, Christians, and Jews honoring the memory of the 9/11 victims and heroes at the very place where the divisiveness between these religions was so horribly symbolized? What statement of religious freedom and American Exceptionalism would this show the world? If we see two seemingly opposite groups praying together in Syria, why can we not do it here, and do it even better?

If the supporters of the Ground Zero Mosque say they are all about remembering the 9/11 victims, religious freedom, tolerance, and peace not just here but throughout the world I say prove it. Build a multi-faith memorial where members of all faiths can pray together and mourn together, and you will have set many things in motion towards everything you say you stand for. If any of these groups oppose, however, then their true colors will be shown.

Your thoughts?

**** UPDATE 1 ****
Just heard that Gregg Guttfield of Fox’s “Red Eye” program is proposing a Muslim Gay Bar near the 9/11 site. Rumor has it the name of it would be “You Mecca Me Hot”. Brilliant!

**** UPDATE 2 ****
David Frum thinks the whole thing is a publicity stunt. Read here…