fargingbastige's blog

It appears that General (Retired) Wesley K. Clark has opened mouth and inserted foot.  I'm not going to question or debate his military service or politics here, rather I'm offering my opinion of what many of these "experts", especially the retired military type, should do.  General (Ret.) Clark suggests that McCain's time in the military he didn't have considerable "command" time and thus he's not as strong as many think he is.  However, what about Obama's "command time"?  That argument doesn't hold water.

Clark further mentioned something to the effect that "driving an airplane and getting shot down doesn't qualify one for president".  I agree with that statement.  That act alone doesn't really qualify anyone for anything.  It's the way that McCain conducted himself while being held as a POW for seven years or so that speaks volumes of his character.  No amount of military service qualifies an individual for the Office of the President of the United States of America.  The military does give one an opportunity to gain valuable leadership experience.  That experience can be developed and could possibly prepare one to be president.  But it's not - and should never be - a requirement.

I call them the "Arm Chair Generals", although I'm quite certain that I'm not the only one that coined the phrase and can most assuredly not take credit for it.  It equates to the "Monday Morning Quarterback".  While I still believe that retired generals can speak in generalities (no pun intended) about values, leadership, etc., I would suggest that they not act is if they are still in the chain of command and know more about what is going on in current operations that those actually on the ground.

General (Ret.) Clark was involved with the NATO campaign in Kosovo, an entirely different operation that what is going on in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran or the Horn of Africa.  I would bet that he would try to "fight the last war", as that is where his experience lies.  General (Ret.) Colin Powell suggested that General (now Retired) Tommy Franks didn't have enough troops to take Baghdad.  I'm not debating tactics here, but the bottom line was that General Franks did, in fact, have enough troops to take Baghdad.  The lack of troops on the ground was compensated for with huge advances in precision munitions delivered from varying weapons platforms; muntions and platforms that were not available in Desert Storm when General Powell and General Schwarzkopf were running the war.

I guess General (Ret.) Clark is as entitled to his opinion as we are ours, however, I believe that he should qualify his statements as "his opinion" and not as "fact".  And the Arm Chair Generals should stick to talking about things that don't change such as leadership and values.

I just feel compelled to make a post regarding the subject above.  It seems sometimes like the more progress we make, the further we slip.  Whether it's Obama-Clinton-McCain, Larry Langford and the City of Birmingham, Bettye Fine Collins and Sheila Smoot, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or David Duke, we cannot seem to get over it all and get along as people.  There's alot of finger pointing about discrimination and reverse discrimination.  Pretty soon we'll have double-super-discrimination.  And it goes on and on.

None of this is unique to the South, the United States or black and white/African-American/Caucasian.  It has always been an issue any place in the world.

Who's a racist?  What does a racist look like?  Is a racist someone who flys the Confederate Battle Flag because there is a long, proud family tradition that traces it roots back to the War Between the States?  Is a racist someone who organizes, implements and conducts a pagent that excludes a certain race because they are promoting their heritage?  I would suggest that it could be both - or it could be neither.  It's up to the individual.

I responded to a post earlier today and I'll now expand upon that.  I had a military assignment a few years ago that allowed me a truly great opportunity to work everyday, side-by-side with the indigenous popluation of that country.  I had interaction daily with members of government, local population and military in that country.  Essentially there were three different ethnic groups from the same country and same religion.  One group, 'A' was the most predominent in terms of population followed by 'B' and finally 'C' as the vast minority.  Each group distrusted the other and claimed the other groups didn't treat them fairly.  As an outsider looking in, it was apparent that there was some evidence to substantiate that claim on all accounts.  Group 'A' thought that 'C' was the lowest forms of life in the country and refused to give them some of the better jobs with more responsibility.  Group 'C' distrusted everything that 'A' did and did everything possible to undermine what 'A' - or 'B' did.  'B' was pretty much in the middle and took stuff from both groups on both ends.  It was an ugly mess.

The interesting thing was that I felt incredibly hypocritical as I tried to get these people to unify against a common evil and trust each other.  Fortunatley the majority of them did not know the details of the struggles in our own country.  Still, for me to stand there and try to get people to get over their differences based on thousands of years of this mindset was tough.  And now, after all these years, we - Americans - are dealing with the same things.

I'd like to think, despite historical evidence, that we can one day get along as Americans and treat everyone equally and fairly.  That must be an incredible naive view, but how truly great could this country be if we could accomplish just that?  I'm not giving up.  I'm committed.

Often we all strive to do something (good); anything in this case, let's say, "make widgets".  Often we try and despite our best efforts, we are not be able to achieve that objective.  How does one know when it is God trying to intervene on behalf of the individual and save him or her from themselves because quite possibly they are not ready for it?  How does one know when it is simply the devil sabotaging the good intentions and ambition to do something good?

I know the simple answer is "listen to God"; I've heard that.  As a matter of fact, that's all I've heard.  Maybe some of the more spiritually mature people have forgotten what it's like to be young in their walk with God.  Maybe they think it's a stupid question and that if I was "right with God", I'd know already. 

I just want to know:  Is it God saving someone or the devil sabotaging them?

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court that individuals  - INDIVIDUALS - do have the right to keep and bear arms will probabaly ignite much debate and controversy.  So, I might as well add my fuel to the fire.

Lower courts have time and again ruled against the Second Amendment and most legal scholars have chosen to interpret that amendment in a very liberal way - that it only provides a militia and does not allow individual citizens to own guns.  However, after the Supreme Court ruling, it is clear that it is, in fact, the right of each of us, as individuals, to own guns.  

An armed citizenry is a free citizenry.  The first thing an oppressive government does is disarm its citizens.  Thankfully we do not live in a country with an oppressive government.  Let's keep it that way.

It is simply not possible to ban guns and expect every gun to suddenly disappear.  The same can be said for any number of things.  Once atomic energy was "invented", we couldn't just take it back.  Bad people do bad things with guns.  The operative word is people.  It's cliche', I know, "guns don't kill people, people do" - but it is also the truth.  A drunk driver's car doesn't kill someone at an intersection - the driver did.  The same logic applies in this case.  The action of the human involved is the determining factor.

Thankfully the Supreme Court got this one right.

Senator and assumed presidential candidate Barak Obama recently proclaimed that if we started drilling off shore for oil right now it would be 2017 before we could reap the beneifts of such drilling.  His point was, why bother, we'd be 8 years away from having any of it. 

Given that rationale, why do anything?  Why go to college in hopes of getting a good job?  I mean it'll take four years to finish.  It takes even longer to be a doctor.  Why would anyone bother?

A guy once met with a guidance counselor about going to college.  As he was 35 years old, he told the counselor that he'd be 39 when he graduated.  The counselor, in turn, asked the man how old he would be in four years if he didn't go. 

The point is we're not going to use any less petroleum-based products than we do now.  It makes no difference how much we conserve, recycle, save, whatever...  The bottom line is that the population continues to increase and our demand on petroleum will continue to increase as well.  Why should we demand that the Saudis increase oil production?  Why don't we get off our environmental high horse and do something ourselves?

An Iranian government spokesman said earlier this week that if the West continues to provoke Iran, that the country could develop nuclear weapons.  Iran has long claimed that any nuclear activities conducted in their country have been geared toward electricity and not weapons oriented.

The spokesman, a member of Iran's parliament, didn't say outright that Iran might build a weapon if attacked, but the vague comment was a suggestion at a threat it might do so.

My point(s):

1. Iran is itching to get more involved in the fight than it already is.  If anyone thinks they're not actively engaged in the fight in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, they are sadly mistaken.

2. Electricity?  Yeah, right.  Probably so, but definitely weapons as well.

3. We possess enough firepower to turn Iran into glass (heat+sand=glass).  Would we do it?  We can debate that one; I'll leave it to the arm chair generals.  But, if we did, who would be left to create such weapons?

Iran is a coiled rattlesnake right now; more dangerous than the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s.

Anything that I say here is sure to draw the ire of many Tide fans...  This comes on the heels of Jimmy Johns' arrest for drugs. 

But, what gives?  I thought Saban was the answer to all the teams woes.  I thought that he would instill pride and discipline in a program that was suffering from lack of leadership.  I've lost count of the number of Tide players arrested and/or detained for infractions of varying magnitudes.

I know many will say something to the affect of "he can't be there all the time" and "he can't help what they're doing in their own time".  I say baloney.  If he had truly instlled pride and discipline into the team, they'd want to do the right thing even when no one was watching.  Apparently in this case, someone was watching.

I was one to give Saban the benefit of the doubt.  Things take time.  He's had over a year and thus far has not, in my opinion, made very much - if any - positive impact on the team.  I guess he has the team preparing for their future as pro football players.

A Tehran newspaper has been shut down by Iranian government officials, as reported by the official IRNA news agency on Sunday.  Apparently, the paper published a story critical of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's stance on Israel.  Ahmadinejad, one of the masterminds and leaders of the seizure of the US Embassy in 1979, consequently claims that the holocaust was a "myth".

We have people, Americans, who believe that we can sit down and have civilized dialog with this government.  I would suggest that it is virtually impossible to have a conversation with someone who will not admit a historical fact.  Millions of people were killed in this atrocity called the holocaust; to deny that it happened is absurd.

Further, to shut down a media outlet because they are critical of you, regardless of your position, is demonstrative of the fact that you are insecure with who you are and what you are doing.  The most absurd thing is to think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cares anything at all about what we say.

The man is evil.  That's not a religiously biased statement, nor is it an ethnically biased statement.  It is my opinion based on his actions.  I'd submit that there's enough evidence to qualify it as a fact.

It is said that Candidate Obama is consulting with a number of former Clinton Administration and Cabinet  members and officials as well as 40 retired generals and admirals. 

On the former Clinton Administration members:  has not Obama been chastising McCain for "campaigning for Bush's third term"?  Does not the sound like Obama campaigning for (Bill) Clinton's third term?  Where is all the "change" in that?

On consulting with retired generals and admirals:  there is no doubt that these officers who have served our country have a wealth of knowledge and experience that may be beneficial.  However, an element of caution is required here.  As with all people - human nature, if you will - we base our beliefs quite often on our experience.  Ask General George S. Patton what to do in Iraq and he'll give you the massed armor formation answer because that's what he did in WWII to beat the Germans in Africa.  Ask General Colin Powell (and for the record, I admire General Powell) and he will tell you that we didn't have enough troops to take Baghdad because Schawrzkopf had over twice as many when he did it in Desert Storm.

What I'm saying is that we can't afford to "fight the last war".  What I'm saying is that the tactics, techniques and procedures required to fight in contemporary conflicts require constant refinement and the ability to adapt faster than ever before.  What worked last year, may not work this year (month, day, etc.).  The enemy that we fight has a vote in this thing and he's not just sitting back and taking it.

So, is Obama really for change or just Bill Clinton's third term?

How about this?  Two women wearing traditional Muslim headscarves were asked to move from behind Candidate Obama in a recent engagement in Detroit.  They were asked to move so that they would not be in any of the photos.  So much for diversity.  One was told to move because of the "political climate" and the other was told to move because no one wearing any kind of headgear was allowed to sit behind the podium.  Obama later issued an apologetic statement. 

Politics as usual, say what you want, do what you want and then just issue a half-hearted apology for it.  I'm sure that Obama is doing everything possible to distance himself from any Muslim connection or appearance of anything Muslim.  I'd be doing the same thing if I was him; he'd be stupid not to.  Likewise, had those women been in the photos, they'd have been circulated like crazy on the internet with all kinds of outlandish stories stating why they were there - and they'd have all most likely been false.

Both candidates need to get to the core of what they intend to do.  So far all I've seen is a bunch of smoke and mirrors, staging events and photo ops, and grade-school-level petty garbage directed toward each other.  When are we ever going to get to the issues and let the candidates debate them in an open forum, rather than some canned-speech thing? 

Honesty and integrity have all but disappeared from our lives.

I cannot help but think about terrorism given that we are in the midst of electing a new president for our country and commander-in-chief for our military.  Candidate Obama speaks of late about "failed policy" in dealing with world affairs.  I think the failed policies were in effect prior to the current administration and that the current president has actually developed and implemented a very robust and successful foreign policy. 

Let's recall the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 - I realize that many of the readers of the blog may not have even been born in 1983, but it was among the first incidents of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism with which the US had to deal.  Remember the truck bomb that detonated in the basement of the World Trade Center in 1993 - another strike against us from terrorists with the goal of detroying our country and our way of life.  That same year was the incidents in Mogadishu made famous by the book (and subsequently movie) "Black Hawk Down".  It is suspected that that entire operation was planned and executed by Osama Bin Laden-trained terrorists.  The Khobar Towers were bombed in 1996; once again, Americans targeted by terrorists.  The USS Cole was bombed in Yemen in 2000, leading up to the 11 September 2001 World Trade Center and Pentgon attack.  I would suggest that this entire string of incidents started with the Iran Hostage episode in 1979.  Yes, friends, almost thirty years of being bullied by terrorists.

So the WMD never materialized in the vast quantities that our government thought in Iraq.  Does that mean that the Hussein regime was innocent of any wrong-doing?  Did he not use WMD on thousands of his own countrymen?  The vast majority of decision makers in our country (republicans and democrats alike) and our allies believed that Iraq had these weapons - and would use them.  We had flawed intelligence.  We realize that now.  I would submit that that was yet another part of the previous failed foreign policy dating back to the Carter Administration, but most certainly after the fall of the Berlin Wall.  With the collapse of the Soviet Union and that huge threat, our country basically all but abandoned our Human Intelligence (HUMINT) in favor of other methods; signal, etc. 

That lack of HUMINT puts our operations at a huge disadvantage.  What good is it to be able to read a license plate from outer space if you don't know the guy driving the car?  Wars are won by troops on the ground and no other method can replace it.  Air Power supports and shapes operations, but Soldiers (Marines, Sailors and Airmen) on the ground ultimately win the wars.

Thirty years of terrorist attacks on our country and our people; thankfully we're doing something about it now.  The hard, slow work that will ultimately win the war and help protect the United States of America.

I really love the traffic blog.  I now have a forum to spew forth my views, opinions and experiences as I travel around.

Here's my latest issue:  The intersection of Lakshore Parkway and Wildwood Parkway (in front of Wal-Mart).  What is up with the signal timing and/or the drivers here?  If one is sitting at a red light on Lakeshore headed east (toward I-65) and the light turns green, cars keep coming from the turn lane (going into Wal-Mart) for at least a minute.  Are that many people running a red light?  If so, where are the cops?  They could write six or eight tickets at each light cycle.  It's not isolated; it's all the time.  Or, could it be that the lights need better timing?  All I know is that something is amiss.  For me and other drivers to have to wait (at our green light) while others continue to make the turn is ridiculous.

I'm looking for an answer here - anyone, Bueller, anyone?

I told ya'll I was going to start doing this.  This is what I'm cooking on Saturady evening. 

MARGARITA GAME HENS

Ingredients:

4 Rock Cornish Game Hens

750 ml Margarita Mix

1 cup Cuervo Gold Tequila

Ground Red Pepper – to taste

Course Ground Black Pepper – to taste

Paprika – to taste

1 bunch Fresh Cilantro, chopped

1. Using poultry shears, remove the backbone from each thawed game hen so that they lay flat.

2. Sprinkle hens with Red & Black Pepper and Paprika.  Place in 2-gallon ziplock bag (or shallow   

    plastic bowl.

3. Mix Margarita mix and Tequila.  Pour over hens, add a half-cup fresh chopped Cilantro and

    refrigerate overnight.

4. Prepare charcoal grill with charcoal and Mesquite chunks*.  When coals are medium, place

    hens, breast-side down on grill for 12 minutes.

5. Turn hens with tongs**.  Cook until done – about 10 minutes more.

*   I only cook with charcoal, so I have no idea how this equates to gas grill cooking temperatures.

**  Never use a fork.  It pierces the meat and allows the juices to escape.

Serve with a Spinach Salad (or other salad of choice), Spanish Rice (I use Zatarain’s), Corn on the Cob and Beer (Margaritas, if you prefer).

Serves Four.

Close calls are business as usual on the Birmingham roadways.  Today was a little closer than I typically care for.  The off-ramp from the Red Mountain Expressway to 3rd & 4th Avenue South has the right-of-way at the bottom of the ramp - not the adjacent traffic.  The traffic at the bottom of the ramp has to YIELD to traffic exiting the Expressway.  Except today some guy decided that since he was driving a truck, he didn't have to yield to my motorcycle.  It was close.

I see it almost every day.  Oncoming traffic failing to yield and almost t-boning vehicles exiting the Expressway.  Maybe the intersection needs better markings.  I really think drivers just need to pay attention to what they're doing and pay attention to the traffic control signs & lights that are already in place.

The exit ramp has the right of way at this intersection.

What is it with people that hug the left-hand lane just cruising along oblivious to what's going on around them?  I traveled I-65 from Birmingham to Mobile and back this weekend and I lost count of the number of drivers that refused to move into the right-hand lane to allow faster moving traffic to pass.  The folks that I refer to in the left lane were not even within 5-10 mph of the speed limit (i.e. doing 60 mph in a 70 mph zone in the left-hand lane, forcing drivers going 70-75 mph to maneuver in and out of traffic in the left and right hand lanes to keep their pace).  I am convinced that it is the constant maneuvering of vehicles caused by slow-moving traffic in the left-hand lane that causes the majority of accicents and not speed, directly.

And while I rant, here's another one:  Why on earth do drivers going 70 mph in a 70 mph zone slam on brakes at the sight of a law enforcement vehicle?  They're not breaking the law.  They're doing the speed limit.  I saw it all weekend while logging over 500 miles - and I see it all the time.  And if a law enforcement vehicle is cruising along doing 65 mph in a 70 mph zone on the interstate, it's OK to drive 70 mph to pass him or her.  You're not breaking the law; you're doing the speed limit.  When drivers are afraid to pass a slower moving law enforcement vehicle, it causes a huge jam on the road.

Let's be reasonable and pay attention to what we're doing when we drive.  Think.  Drive.  Obey the law.