fargingbastige's blog

A recent Fox News (network) website story suggests that a .40 cal Glock ha skilled a person.  I can tell you that beyond a shadow of a doubt that the .40 cal Glock - not any other firearm - will killa person.  An individual wielding the Glock killed a person.  The perpetrator is not a firearm, rather it is a person.  To insinuate that a firearm will kill someone is like saying that a pencil misspells words.

I'm trying to understand the validity of what Obama's intent is for Iraq and the War on Terror.  He has stated, although often caveated with exceptions, that he will pull our troops out of Iraq within 16 months.  A rather ambitious plan, but OK, let's run with it.  He further states that additional soldiers are needed in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.  I will certainly not agrue that point - it's clear and I agree.  But what about the terrorists and Al-Qaeda in Iraq?  Obama says they wouldn't be there if Bush and McCain had not invaded Iraq.  Does that make Al-Qaeda any less of a threat or any less dangerous?  Do we just leave and let 'em have it?  Will they be "good little boys and play nice" if we just walk away? 

I'll concede that the Iraqi army has made great strides in their ability, but I realize that they are not a stand-alone force at this point.  Good and getting better, yes; but they are not ready to deal with Al-Qaeda on their own across the entire country.  They do not yet have that capability.  Same with the Afghan National Army - they've made tremedous strides in the training and operational capability, but they're still not ready to take on the Taliban alone.

Obama has stated that the 16-month time table is dependant on many factors.  While McCain (or Bush for that matter) has not mentioned some arbitrary number of months for a withdrawal of forces, both have made it clear that conditions on the ground will determine when we withdraw.  What's the big difference bewteen the parties?  Obama say, "16 months, unless... if... and... but...".  McCain says, "when conditions warrant".

Obama further says that if Al-Qaeda starts to establish bases in Iraq, we may have to re-deploy troops back to Iraq.  What!?  Al-Qaeda is in Iraq.  They have some type of bases from which they are operating.  So, let me again try to understand.  We leave Iraq (and Al-Qeada) in 16 months and send additional troops to Afghanistan, but may have to go back to Iraq if he determines that Al-Qeada is a threat.

My feeble little mind is just trying to see the wisdom and logic in such a plan.

So, the tougher curfew law passesd.  Great.  So what's the plan to enforce it?  Seems to me that the city can't adequately enforce the laws that are already on the books, so how does addding another law that most likely cannot be adequately enforced help anyone?

Here's the info on Take Back Our Highways from the Fox6 website: BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (WBRC-TV MyFoxAL.com)  --  State Troopers who are taking part in the "Take Back Our Highways" blitz are reporting positive numbers.

Here are the numbers that troopers are reporting for 8/18/08:

SPEEDING - 108

FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY - 6

IMPROPER LANE CHANGE - 8

SEATBELT/CHILD RESTRAINT - 45

INSURANCE VIOLATIONS - 32

DRIVER LICENSE VIOLATIONS - 14

OTHER TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS - 23

 

WARNINGS (ALL OFFENSES) - 45

MOTORIST ASSISTS - 16 Despite the State Troopers' represenative stating that they were not targeting people going a couple of miles over the speed limit, the vast majority of tickets have been for speeding.  I'd like to see a breakdown on how fast the speeders were going.  I'm just speculating, but I'd be willing to bet there were a fair amount of them that got caught, just like me - doing a 2 miles per hour over the speed limit. The law should be enforced every day - not just during some blitz every 6 months or year.  And of course they're reporting "positve numbers" - they have to look successful or else why bother?

Can they really be serious about bringing back such a ridiculous law?  I cannot recall a more ignored and broken traffic law.  The problem is that I do 57 MPH in a 55 MPH zone and I get busted, but that's another blog.

Proponents claim it will save gas and supposedly considering bringing the law back is a response to the high gas prices of late.  You want to know something?  If someone thinks that 55 MPH will save them money on gas, they have every right in the US to drive 55 MPH and save their money.  I would respectfully ask that anyone wishing to do so, please remain in the right-hand lane as long as the speed limit is above 55 MPH.

For some, time is more important than saving a few coins on gas.  Why should they suffer the arbitrary 55 MPH speed limit?

And why 55 MPH?  Is that some sort of magical number?  Can one save that much more at 55 MPH vs. 60 MPH?  If 55 MPH is so great, wouldn't 50 MPH just save that much more gas?

Some further argue that 55 MPH saves lives on the highway.  They cite the fact that there were fewer accidents when we had the 55 MPH speed limit.  I would suggest that we had fewer accidents then because we had fewer drivers and the the accidents are proportional to the number of drivers on the road, rather than arbitrary number posted on a sign.  More drivers = more potential accidents.  Fewer drivers = fewer potential accidents.  It's the law of probability or some such thing.  I'm not a mathmatician, but I'm fairly practical.

I have taken the time to listen to Bronner's Plan, including the Q&A after his presentation.  My impression is this:  it makes good business sense to follow his guidance.  Absolutely nothing can be gained by continuing down the same slippery slope.  Every day that the commission tries to figure out how to avoid bankruptcy, the deeper in debt they go.  It will not get any better.  Any thing the commission attempts outside what Bronner has laid out is like putting a band-aid on a severed limb.  It won't work and it won't stop the bleeding.

I have a couple of other impressions: 

The commissioners, past and present, involved in this fiasco should go to jail for fraud, waste and abuse of public funds.  The brokers that sold them the current plan/program should go to jail.  Both parties should pay back what they've swindled.

Mary Moore is ridiculous.  She did not listen, as she claimed.  Had she done so, there would have been no question.  Classic case of someone just trying to grandstand and get in the last word.

Bowman should have known the answer to the question that he asked.  If the commission has studied this whole deal, as they claim they have, he should have known that no one in their right mind would assume that amount of debt/liability.  That's basic stuff - even for a knucklehead like me.

Bettye Fine-Collins looked about as thrilled as I did when I had four wisdom teeth extracted in the same day.  I know she thinks she's got it all figured out.  She's lost her mind.

The bottom line is this:  Someone has offered options that will remedy the situation without causing rate increases to customers and avoid incurring any additional debt to the county.  The commission has only offered ways to try to save their own skin and pass along the cost to customers while racking up additional debt by the truck load.

 

First, we heard that some of the fireworks that we saw during the opening ceremony were digitally enhanced.  They were fake.  It was a lie.  Now, we've heard that the Chinese Olympic organizers had a stand-in girl to lip synch "Ode to the Motherland" because the actual singer was too ugly to be on television and in front of the crowd.  That, too, was fake - a lie.  A Chinese spokesperson said that they were sure the audience would understand because they wanted to project the best possible image of China.  So, here we have a country attempting to promote its best image amidst lie after lie, while spending (if I remember correctly) ten times what was spent on the opening ceremony of the previous games in Athens and chalking up untold numbers of human rights violations.  How do we trust and respect such a society?

I am constantly asked about what I think of any given military-related item in the news.  Some ask because they merely know that I serve the military in some capacity (they really have no idea what I really do or have done), some ask because they have a general knowledge of my background and some ask because they know that I have had a really unique oportunity in the military and want my assessment.  As always, I make every attempt to caveat that I am not currently "on-the-ground" and that the situation is fluid, additionally I make every attempt to avoid what I called the "arm-chair general" in a previous blog.  However, I didn't get where I am by not having an opinion, thus I offer this:

There has been much said lately in the media of the eventual troop withdrawal from Iraq in light of Obama's run for president and his visit this weekend to the region - Iraq, Afghanistan and a few other stops.  There has been quite a bit of talk about repositioning some troops originally slated for Iraq to Afghanistan in light of the recent increase in violence in that country.  A lot was previously debated about the surge last year in Iraq.  Prior to that a lot was made of whether we had enough forces in place to take Baghdad or whether we went in short-handed.

Generals, like any other leaders, will always debate the tactics of others.  One general thinks we need a half-million people with a heavy armor force to take an objective and another believes that we can do it with increased firepower and precision munitions.  That was the case with the initial push into Baghdad in the spring of 2003 - we went in with more devastaing firepower than was available in Desert Storm and more precision guided munitions that could strike very specific targets eliminating the need for large barrages that covered vast areas.  Precision weapons can be a double-edged sword.  They do limit collateral damage by striking pin-point targets, but they fail to leave the impression of defeat in the eyes of the enemy and populace because they were so impressively accuarate.  Our enemies must perceive defeat - that is lacking with precision weapons.

I would suggest that we did have enough troops to take Baghdad.  We did take Baghdad successfully with very light casualities (any are tragic, but in purely military terms, we took very few casualities).  The issue is that we lacked the follow-on forces required to secure Baghdad.  That is a separate operation entirely - and one for which we had no real plan.  White House and Pentagon claims to the contrary, I am not convinced that we had a solid plan for what to do after we took Baghdad.  It showed.  There was widespread looting and crimianl activity.  Desite our presence people still did not feel secure.  We didn't have enough soldiers (or Marines) to "put a cop on every corner".  Stability comes from presence and we simply didn't have the troops to do it.

We were finally able to begin to get it right with the continued escalation of forces.  That escalaltion left many Americans with the idea that we'd somehow lost the fight.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  We owe it to the soldiers on the ground that thought creatively and innovatively enough to hold on until a plan did emerge.  The Surge was a great piece of the operation.  Some in our congress were for it and some opposed it.  A lot of it was split down party lines, thereby making a political issue rather than the operational and tactical issue that it truly was.  No one seemed to have the interest of the operation or soldiers at heart, but their party and political career.  That is a travesty and disservice to our troops.  Put that petty stuff aside and look at what the guys on the ground need to do their mission.

The surge was a success.  I don't care how you slice it, the Surge worked and continues to work today.  The nay-sayers point to the fact that the Iraqi government is not as far along as they should be and the parliamnet still needs a lot of work - both true to some degree.  However, that is not the military's job - that is the job of the civilian authority advisors to the Iraqi government.  The military provides the conditions in which thy can begin to establish the government after initially establshing some type of law and order.  Point to the fact that we have self-serving bureacratic politicians attempting to eastablish a civilian government in the aftermath of decades of corruption and brutality and you'll begin to understand why the Iraqi government is somewhat lacking in it's performance to date.

Lately it has been mentioned that "combat brigades" will be leaving Iraq.  There are a lot more soldiers (Marines, etc.) in Iraq outside the construct of the combat brigade.  There are lots of support personnel without which nothing would move or fight that will remain, as will the advisors to the Iraqi army and security forces.  If you think these are anything other than combat troops, you are seriously mistaken and owe it to yourself to research what American military advisors do in combat.  Hint:  they do not sit behind a big desk in an air-conditioned office and dispense advice like some sort of military "Oz" - as in "The Wizard of".

On to Afghanistan.  That entire operation was never intended to be a heavy-handed approach.  Alexander the Great was among the earliest to demonstrate that the heavy-handed approach was ill-suited to that environemnt, the Bristish further demonstrated that in the 1800s and the Soviets validated it in a costy - in terms of men and materiel - operation and occupation from 1979 to 1989.  Our attempt was to avoid that - and it worked - and we need to continue a rather small footprint in Afghanistan otherwise we run the risk of being an unwelcome invading force.  True or not, perception is reality - just ask media oulet Al Jezeera.  Some additional US forces in Afghanistan would be desirable right now - a Surge so to speak.  We do not need to ask the coalition to contribute.  Outside of the Australians and British, the rest of the coalition does not ontribute much to the fight.  We need fighters and combat advisors for the Afghan Army and National Police.  The bulk of the fighting is being conducted with US forces fighting alongside the Afghan National Army and Bristish and Austarlian soldiers.  The rest of the coalition is interested in mine clearance and humanitarian assistance and the like - not fighting.

Additionally, we keep hearing that Pakistan is an ally in our fight and against the Taliban, Al Quada - terrorists.  I'd suggest that its lip service only.  They simply are not capapble of running the type of operation that it takes in the tribal border region to adequately eliminate terrorists.  If they are such good allies, they would allow the US the freedom of action needed by allowing cross-border operations to eradicate the terrorists.  That's how we'll stop it.  As long as terrorists can cross into Afghanistan, strike and kill US and Afghan forces, then retrograde back into a safehaven in Pakistan to rearm and refit for the next operation, we'll have a tough time of it and it'll take a longer that it otherwise would.  Oh, we'll win - if we stick it out - it'll just take a while.

Terrorists win by not losing.  It's that simple.  All they have to do is hang on long enough for us to quit.  Then they win because they didn't lose.  We lose because we beat ourselves. 

If you've made it this far (I don't expect that many will), I hope to have offered some insight into the current combat climate as I see it.  Hopefully, you now have more questions than answers.  My intent was to offer insight and answer a few questions along the way, but spur the kind of thinking about what we're engaged in that many simply do not take the time to.  

I have long been a proponent for sticking it out in Iraq to ensure security for what has been built there since 2003.  Now, it appears, the talk of a time table for withdrawal is coming from the Iraqis instead of some Americans. 

Does this change the way we should look at the situation?  Does this potentially give us an earlier than anticipated out?  What happens if we do come to a mutually agreeable time table to with draw American troops?

Whether it's kids fighting at Patton Creek as seen on YouTube, a 16-year-old involved in a night club shooting or a couple of kids burning churches, we have a problem in this country and this community with youth violence and vadalism. 

How and why does this happen?  What's the solution?

I've been taught not to offer an issue or a challenge without a proposed solution, so...

What has happened is the lack of parenting.  Parents have tried to become friends with thier kids.  Or worse yet, parents have just become lazy with regards to parenting.  It's far easier to throw some cash to the kids and tell them to leave you alone.  It's far easier to just let them "do their thing" because "kids will be kids".  Kids - youth - need a parents.  They need guidance and direction.  They need praise for doing things right and correction for doing things wrong.  And yes, for some of you out there, there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong".  The punishment must fit the infraction.  Parents need to be hard, but fair.  No negotiating. 

Kids need love.  Love is more than "I love you", but that's a part of it.  Love is more than a hug, but that's part of it.  Love is caring enough to enforce the standards of the household with respect to right and wrong.  Love is enforcing a curfew.  Love is taking care of your kids - and doing things that the kids may not like or agree with.  Parenting is tough.  Too many people have elected to shy away from the duty and responsibility that it takes to be a parent and raise kids to be respectful of others and become productive members of society.

People these days hire out the grass-cutting to a lawn service.  I (and my siblings) was (were) my parents' lawn service.  People hire a maid to clean the house.  I and my siblings were the maids.  We cleaned not only our own stuff, but the rest of the place.  We cut the grass and raked the leaves.  We brought in firewood in the winter.  And we still did our homework and played whatever sports that we enjoyed.  Yeah, my mom and dad did their share of chores, too.  Mom cooked and cleaned - she led by example.  Pop worked in the yard and kept the cars running and the house maintained - he led by example.  We had standards in the house and they were enforced.

On any given Saturday when I was in high school, I was too doggone tired to go out and just "hang out" - much less fight and cause a ruccus.  But I felt good knowing that I had contributed to the functioning of our home.  I don't feel slighted or some such nonsense as "I never had a childhood"; rather I am thankful that my folks took their respeonsibility seriously  - they loved me and took care of me by leading and teaching.

Now, I'm doing the same things with my kids.  Kids can make a bed.  Kids can wash dishes, take out the trash and recycling, sweep, mop - any number of things.  They can work and contribute at home and church.  They get a sense of accomplishment out it.

What's the problem?  Failure to be a parent and be responsible.  What's the solution?  Step up and take the job seriosuly.  Be a parent.  Enforce standards.  Love your kids. 

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.

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.

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.