A Healthy Alternative to Work

After reading the comments posted on my blog questioning John Kerry's status as a hero, I realized that it's currently against the rules to say anything derogatory about soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines. People qualified their anti-Iraq-war stances by saying "... but I DO support our troops!"

I've been in the Army for two years now, and I guess at this point I feel exempt from that particular social convention. Being a soldier, I feel perfectly qualified to say that some soldiers -- maybe even a significant number -- aren't wonderful people, and some could even be classified as morons, idiots, sadists and ignorant piles of human excrement.

We Army-types spend a lot of time ripping on other services, too -- I'm just going to assume that this pretty much applies to servicemembers in general. We're all dirtbags.

Whenever I hear that "American Soldier" song by Toby Keith I roll my eyes. It's a nice idea, but I've yet to meet anyone who fits the image... it might bring a tear or two to the eyes of the folks back home, but it really doesn't bear out.

Now that I've got that out of the way, I figure it's time to provide a little guide to Army jargon. Here we go!

In the Army, things that are good can be described as "high-speed" or "squared away." If the thing is extra-good, you can say it's "high-speed, low-drag."

"Squared away" can also be used in its verb form, as in "to square something away," or "I squared him away."

Bad things are described as "ate up," "tore up," or "assed up." Extremely bad things are "tore up from the floor up."

People who are not Airborne-qualified are referred to by people who are Airborne-qualified as "legs." Airborne-qualified personnel also use the word "airborne" to describe a good thing or address a "squared-away" person, as in "Hey there, Airborne."

A rifle or pistol is never referred to as a "gun" (that would be a "tore up" thing to do). They are always referred to as weapons.

For some reason I haven't figured out yet, the word "including" is almost absent from the Army vocabulary. Instead, "squared-away" people say "to include." I hate when I have to edit this out of stories, and it bugs me when people say it (i.e. "Bring your field gear, to include rucksack, sleeping bag, etc."). It's a pet peeve, I guess.

I'm pretty sure the word "Roger" is supposed to mean "I understood what you just said," but it's also used, inexplicably, to mean "Yes." This is another pet peeve of mine.

By far the best word in the Army dictionary is "Hooah." Generally, it means everything except "No." There are a lot of common usages, which include:
"Yes."
"Very Army-like."
"Big."
"High-speed." (See above.)
"I agree."
"I understand what you just said."
"I will comply with the instructions you just gave me."
"Yay!"
"You can say that again."
"High-tech."
"Capable of killing a lot of people." (As in, "a hooah tank")
"I'm motivated."
"I'm very motivated." (When asked to repeat it)

The list goes on. As you can see, it's a very versatile word. Different people pronounce it differently, too:
"Hoo-ah"
"Hoo"
"Hoo-wah"

Anyway -- I have to cut this off here, because I need to get back to getting the hell out of here.

-30-

I got major bonus points for the article on the 50th Multi-Role Boat Company. Some are for the reference to Darius the Great's crossing the Bosporus using a bridge made of 600 boats (see Herodotus), and another is for including the name of the MK-2 bridge erection boat as many times as possible.

What I didn't mention is that Darius' invasion led to disaster for the Persians. Heh.

Anyway -- here are some photos I took during the weekend out at the Imjin River bridge site:

=http://img8.photobucket.com/a...

Two engineers adjust the hydraulic ramp on one end of a raft made of floating bridge sections. The rafts are used to take a security force to the opposite side of the river to clear it of any enemies.

=http://img8.photobucket.com/a...

These are tracks from the Republic of Korea Army's 105th Mechanized Infantry Division. They were the first of around 230 vehicles to travel across the bridge Sunday.

=http://img8.photobucket.com/a...

These guys are fishing something out of the water. It got dropped off a truck, and apparently it sank. Right after I took this photo, a structure on the boat tipped over and almost knocked one of these dudes into the drink.

Anyway, I'm off to Camp Mobile to clear. More when I get a chance.

-30-

I had a really hard time working up any motivation at all to do my last story for The Indianhead. It was another bit on the 50th Multi-Role Bridging Company, who go out to the field every month and build a floating bridge across the Imjin River. It was great the first time I saw it (see archives, I've got a photo from that story in there someplace), but after a while it gets pretty old, and all I wanted to do was crawl into a warm Humvee and sleep.

All I've really got to do now is the scavenger hunt known as "clearing." You run around to all these different installations and offices and get their stamp of approval saying you don't owe them money, and once all the spaces are full, you get to move on to the Lightning Round -- or, get on a plane at Osan. Whatever.

I've got to say that I was surprised by the impact the reference to Ernest Borgnine in my last post made. Someone's starting a cult, apparently... for the record, I want nothing to do with it.

Anyway, it's really late here and I want to go to bed. I'll post more when I can, but I won't be around for a while...

-30-

This one sure got a response, huh? I haven't done any of that research I talked about yet, but for what it's worth, here's where I'm at on the Pledge of Allegiance:

Separation of Church and State aside, I guess the main issue with the Pledge of Allegiance is whether or not the U.S. government is going to make people say the word "God" every once in a while. It can't, of course, and the case can be made from several different sides.

If and when the phrase "Under God" is removed from the Pledge, no one should get all that worked up. As [url=http://juniperflux.tblog.com]juniperflux[/url] pointed out, the Pledge isn't a historical document, and the phrase itself only dates back to 1958. If it represents any part of American culture, it's a very small part, and one we can probably get along fine without.

More importantly, monotheists shouldn't have to depend on a federal "oath of fealty" to an American symbol to have their specific religion verified or given credibility. Religion exists outside the state, and whether or not our culture was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals, it isn't fair to alienate the members of our society who are atheist, satanist, or Ernest Borgnine-ist.*

That being said, I think there are causes much more worthwhile than fighting for the removal of every "God" reference from our rather large library of federal documents. I suppose there are those folks who get worked up when they pull out a dollar bill to pay for their vegan chocolate shake and see the words "In God We Trust," and as far as I'm concerned, they can have their fun trying to get it erased.

LiveJournaler [url=http://www.livejournal.com/us...]contemplateone[/url]'s comments got me to thinking about the usefulness of the Pledge of Allegiance at all. If we're going to call part of it into question, we might as well apply our logic to the whole thing, right? We can't coerce people into saying God, and, by extension, we can't really coerce people into pledging their allegiance to the country.

Furthermore, the Pledge doesn't stand alone as the sole reference to God in our country's literature. Check out the Oath of Enlistment, below (the option to omit the part about God is offered to those making the oath). This California dad's going to have his work cut out for him -- and the Supreme Court -- if they decide to actually apply the idea across the board.

Basically, I'm pretty apathetic about the whole thing. Like I said, where I stand in terms of the existence of God has nothing to do with whether the word "God" appears in our Pledge of Allegiance or our currency. If the word offends someone's atheistic sensibilities, well, let's get it taken care of. But let's also realize that there are things that are much more offensive and much more important than a three-letter word spoken at the beginning of class.

-30-

*To my knowledge, there are no groups who currently hold Ernest Borgnine as their diety.

I'm going to have to do some serious research on the background of the separation of Church and State before I post extensively on this issue, but for now, I'm baffled that the word "God" is causing such a ruckus all of a sudden.

Initially, it seems to me that in the name of general religious tolerance, people are enforcing specific religious intolerance, where "free practice" is only free as long as it's nonexistent. We started out at "freedom of religion," and all of a sudden we're not allowed to say "God" in public. There are few intermediary steps I'm missing, so feel free to fill me in.

The father behind this case (which, it shouldn't surprise anyone, is taking place in California) is professedly atheist. He certainly is taking his atheism pretty religiously when he says that it offends his atheist sensibilities to mention God in a public classroom. But who knows?

At this point, I guess the state has no option but to take the phrase out. It seems pretty petty to make such a big deal out of a reference to something you don't believe exists, but if this guy's determined to bring his daughter up as a good agnostic, who's to stand in his way?

It all seems really stupid to me. Someone tell me why this is so important, please.

-30-

Thanks to my good old friend Meg, here are links to some important articles:

[url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...]Bombs found on French railway[/url]

[url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...]Commission investigates pre-9/11 intelligence holdings[/url]

The first article talks about more bad news for France. I think Chirac is learning that his veto at the U.N. last year didn't win him any important friends in the psychotic international terrorist community. The bomb threats, in some cases, are linked to France's national policy of banning Islamic headscarves in schools. More on this as it develops, I guess.

Now for that pre-9/11 issue. History, of course, is going to be shaped by revisionists who have their own interests in mind. This whole issue seems to me to have been boiled down to a radically over-simplified sound-bite. The issue needs to be put into context. How many terrorist threats did we receive daily? How many could be connected with known terrorist organizations? And what, given the rabid backlash against the Patriot Act, could anyone in power have done about such a threat?

After all the carping about how the Bush administration has run rough-shod over civil liberties (Tom Ridge reads your email!), now the shoe is on the other foot and folks are wondering why they weren't run rough-shod over earlier. Chalk it up to the election-year blame game, where fingers get pointed faster than MAC-10s at a crack deal gone bad.

I learned recently that I have earned two brand-new medals. One is the Korean Defense Service Medal, which I got just for coming over here. The other is the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, which I apparently earned for serving 30 consecutive days in the military. Wow, and I've never even fired a shot in anger!

This reminded me of good old John "Like me because I'm not Bush" Kerry's claims to valor in the Vietnam War. Apparently, his "decorated war hero" status is mostly based on the three Purple Hearts he received as a Navy captain.

After three Purple Hearts, anyone serving in Vietnam could request a hardship curtailment and go home. Kerry (and you can't really blame him, he was drafted, too) did just this after eight months on the Vietnam rivers.

What doesn't come up in most conversations about this is the fact that none of the injuries he suffered were serious in any way. In fact, he was taken off duty for a day and a half for one, which was the most serious. Kerry was treated and released to normal duty after both of the others. Really what his injuries amount to is a couple nicks from grenade or RPG shrapnel... but he got his million-dollar wound and headed home. What a hero, huh?

Now, if he'd volunteered for the service, and maybe if he'd done multiple tours in Vietnam, well, maybe his war record would mean more to me. I don't care much about the two medals they're giving me just for being here, and Kerry served only the time he absolutely had to. It's not that he did anything wrong, but he certainly doesn't merit the "hero" label.

Ok, so I've rambled through several topics already today. Your comments are always welcome... communist pinkos included.

-30-

I, ____________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
-- Oath of Enlistment, United States Armed Forces

It's a tough lump to swallow, but part of the job description for members of the United States' (or any country, really) military is to be willing to die for their country. The military is part of the government's executive branch, and therefore, acts according to the will of the president -- the commander-in-chief.

Now, I'm acutely aware of this, because before I knew anything else about the Army, I stood in a small room in the Syracuse federal building and took that same oath.

While sitting inertly at the company building last night on a guard shift, I watched Oliver Stone's Platoon, and came to a realization about our present anti-war movement. Charlie Sheen's character says at the end of the movie, as he's being evacuated on a Huey, that he and the other survivors of Vietnam had a responsibility to teach the rest of the world about the horrors of war. Well, they did, and they did thier job too well, it seems.

My -- perhaps, our -- generation has never experienced anything even remotely resembling the Vietnam war. The conflict lasted years and cost the lives of thousands, most of whom were drafted into compulsory military service. By the end, the populace had grown weary and resentful, and all vision of the war's original purpose had disappeared.

The feeling persists today. The fact that a standing army is essential to any democracy may register dully in the majority of people's minds, but the reason it's necessary seems lost on most. Circumstances arise in which military conflict is necessary, and in these conflicts, soldiers on both sides are likely to die.

I mentioned before that while I feel terrible for the families of the 560 soldiers and marines who have died in our current war, the fact that they've died is hardly an argument against the war.

Another issue that's been raised recently is the quality of troops' equipment. It's been alleged that Bush lied in saying he'd provide his soldiers with the best equipment, and the fact that soldiers in Iraq have had to shell out money for their own ballistic armor is offered as proof positive.

First off, we already have the best equipment. The Abrams tank has no peer. The Apache is unmatched by any other helicopter in the world. While Army chow is the butt of many jokes and funny cadences, you have to admit, it's pretty damn good.

It's a long and difficult process to integrate new equipment into the military. Each piece has to be designed, tested, developed, and fielded. Then doctrine has to be created on how to use it and on how to train troops to use and maintain it. You can't just say, "Today we will upgrade all our body armor to such-and-such," and have it happen immediately.

Admittedly, this is one of the military's faults, but it's being corrected. The Army was slow to abandon the mounted cavalry tactics of Custer and friends, and we're still using ancient artillery doctrine. But developments are being made, and over the next few years, expect to see some radical changes in the look, size and loadout of the United States' military.

I'm wrapping this up quick because I still have work to do and I'd like to get out of here at a decent hour. Meanwhile, I tried my own hand at banner-design. Whatcha think?

-30-

Thanks to user [url=http://falseexistense.tblog.c...]falseexistense[/url], I now have a custom header! Thanks, buddy!

I haven't gotten the chance to read much about it, but Israeli helicopters apparently fired missiles at Sheikh Admed Yassin, the leader of the terrorist group Hamas, as he was leaving a mosque. He and, I believe, six others were killed.

I definitely can't say I'm sorry that they croaked this toad, who was the mastermind behind scores of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks, but it's going to have dire ramifications for Israel. Hamas and most of Palestine will use it as an excuse to accuse Israel of impeding the peace process, as well as a rallying cry to encourage future acts of terrorism, and the rest of the world will distance themselves even further from the Israeli cause.

It's a bad situation all around, but I would like to say one thing to the Israeli helicopter pilots:

"Nice shot!"

-30-

After three days in the field, I got back to Camp Red Cloud tired, filthy and sunburned. I had had a great time, and the guys in the squad I was with made me an honorary member of 3rd Platoon, 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment. They were based out of Fort Lewis and the 25th Infantry Division, and came to Korea to take part in the division exercise "Foal Eagle."

Got some pretty cool photos out there:

=http://img8.photobucket.com/a...

This is the Stryker vehicle. It's outfitted with a MK-19 automatic grenade launcher, which can be remotely controlled from inside, and seats a three-man crew and a nine-man infantry rifle squad. We rode around in these all weekend, and got tossed around like RVs in a tornado back in the crew compartment when they drove the thing over the wonderfully bumpy terrain of Twin Bridges training area.

=http://img8.photobucket.com/a...

This is one of many concealed bunkers in the hills around Twin Bridges. These things are all over the place, and some date back to the Korean War.

=http://img8.photobucket.com/a...

When the Strykers stopped, the squad inside would dismount and pull local security. These guys are set up in a fighting line along a berm.

=http://img8.photobucket.com/a...

This soldier is on top of Hill 226, which overlooks the Southern Bowl of Twin Bridges. Below, you can see the battalion's Tactical Operations Center, or TOC.

=http://img8.photobucket.com/a...

Here are a couple M1A1 Abrams tanks in a hide in an engagement area off the Southern Bowl.

=http://img8.photobucket.com/a...

And here is The Author, holding a borrowed M4 rifle and attached M203 grenade launcher.

Hope you like the photos! I'm working on the story now.

-30-

I'm scheduled to head out with the 2ID Stryker Platoon tomorrow morning and embed for three days. Should be interesting, and it'll be one of the last stories I do for The Indianhead.

Major P asked me yesterday while we driving if I was going to miss 2ID and Korea.

I decided to be politic. "I don't know yet, Ma'am... I haven't left yet."

Whatever. What I really meant was "HELL NO."

17 days and counting.

-30-

One option that I think eludes bloggers like [url=http://samadams.tblog.com]SamAdams[/url] is the idea that maybe we are doing to right thing.

Before I start, I'll say that I'm notifying Sam via private message that I'm responding to his blog in my own, so you can't get me there. He has plenty of opportunity to respond.

From what I've read of his blog, Sam refuses to define his terms, back up his arguments, or look into the other side.

Referring to the Bush administration as "The Court of the Mad King George" may be entertaining, but it's fruitless in terms of constructive argument. The vast majority of his subject lines include the phrases "Neo-fascist, neo-Nazi, neo-con" without ever justifying the use of such terminology.

Well, to do Sam a favor, here are some definitions:

Fascism
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

The United States, nor the Bush administration, qualify as Fascist. If you want an example of a Fascist state, check out Iraq, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Libya, North Korea... there's a list, check it out. See [url=http://www.odci.gov/cia/publi...]The CIA World Factbook.[/url] Check out GDPs and Income per Capita in these countries.

As far as the accusation that we're waging a war against Islam, let's just nip that one in the bud. The practice of religion is, in the United States, guaranteed by the Constitution, as long as it does not interfere with anyone else's. When a religious sect makes it its business to murder proponents of another, just on the virtue of their membership to a particular religion or ethnicity, they forfeit that right to free practice.

I'm a huge Cat Stevens fan. I think that the pillars of Islam, as written in the Koran, are ideals that everyone should emulate. But when these teachings are twisted into suicidal, genocidal, world-conquistadorial slogans, they lost both their purpose and credibility. In fact, when these teachings gain murderous and totalitarian attributes, they waive their rights to be treated as religion and should instead be thought of as dangerous, rebellious and fascist ideologies.

Where is the right of the individual more extolled than in the U.S.?

Severe economic and social regimentation. Do we want to talk about this one? Let me know, and I'll waste my time defending this issue later.

Bush is disqualified as a dictator on the virtue of his being elected and campaigning for a second term.

Forcible suppression of opposition? Well, [url=http://samadams.tblog.com]SamAdams[/url] hasn't been forcibly shut up yet, so I guess that's score one for the good guys.

Another point I'd like to make: Sam places the blood of "560" U.S. soldiers on the hands of George Bush. Wow. Talk about ignorance of history. It reminds me of the arm-chair generals who said we were in a "quagmire" when the 3rd Infantry Division stopped for two days outside Baghdad. Being a soldier myself, I'm very sorry for the families of all those servicemembers who have died in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I'd like to mention the fact that in terms of war, the number 560 is incredibly low. Here's a homework assignment: look up the number of servicemembers killed in action in the following wars:

World War I
World War II
Korean War (find out how it ends, while you're at it)
Vietnam

I'm going to close here because this is getting extraordinarily long. However, before I go, similar accusations were levelled against Franklin Delano Roosevelt prior to our engagement in World War II.

---

In personal news, I'll be embedded with the division's Stryker platoon for the weekend. I'll try to post some gripping photos once I'm back Monday.

-30-

Well, I decided to look into shows going on around home to see if there was a concert I could hit while I'm on leave (which starts April 5). Turns out, Fountains of Wayne are playing at the Landmark Theater in Syracuse on the 19th, and tickets are $15. I'm going, and I'm going to see if I can coerce my dad into going too.

-30-

[b]PARIS, France (CNN) -- French police have opened an investigation after a Paris newspaper published a letter from a Muslim group threatening the French people.[/b] [url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD...]See the rest of the article.[/url]

The letter was signed with the name of Movsar Barayev, leader of the Chechen rebel group who took the Moscow theater hostage in 2002. He was killed when Russian special forces stormed the theater.

French President Jaques Chirac has promised better counter-terrorism intelligence cooperation within the European Union in the wake of the terrorist bombings in Spain.

Maybe Chirac will step up counter-terror efforts in his country. No telling, really. If he really does spearhead an effort to integrate European intelligence, we can bet on one thing -- he will definitely not cooperate with the United States.

Remember when we were going to put together that missile defense system a few years ago, and how the European Union went bat-shit over the fact that it was going to be better than theirs? Our fearless-then-President, of course, backed right down and cut back the program.

I really wish I could cite some stuff at this point, but I’m really exhausted from a month of constant night guard duty, so I’m just going to go out on a limb and make some comments on my own.

The idea behind the EU is to create a rival to the United States – or at least that’s what France is pushing for. We can expect approximately zero help from them, at best, and at worst, active interference in international intelligence.

Europe, of course, isn’t coming from any kind of moral or ethical high ground when she rails against the United States. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: Europe, and particularly France, hates and fears America because of America’s ability to do what they cannot.

In terms of international relations, the U.S. quit annexing other territories after we made it to California and bought Alaska from the Russians for something like five bucks and a bottle of Stoli's.

European countries, however, have only recently (say, 50 years or so ago) quit eying their borders with dreams of expansion.

Furthermore, ethnic hatreds are, from my experience, pretty deep-set in Europe, including the United Kingdom. It's not just political tension, either (like the long-standing Northern Ireland/England feud). Outright anti-semitism in Europe had only been dormant for about 50 years when the Nazis showed up, and now, 50 years later, it's making a bit of a comeback.

It's a different, post-Cold War, post 9/11 world now, so they tell us, and things work differently now. And I guess this is true in some ways. But old habits and hatreds die hard, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the European Union. The French have been upset that their kids are drinking Coke and listening to the Offspring for a while now, and they're interested in keeping us from getting any more influential and powerful. Culturally, I can understand this -- but let's get real. What's more important - keeping "email" out of the French dictionary or protecting the citizens of both countries?

Of course, when terrorism comes knocking at their door (as it tentatively has), France will definitely want to get on the anti-terrorism train -- but it'll have to be a different train than ours.

-30-

N.B. Sorry this one isn't as strong an argument. Like I said, I'm pretty tired. But rant anyway, I love comments. Even from you pinkos out there ;)

Wow, comments piled up quick on both the Spanish election and Bush ad campaign. Note to self: do a complete and thorough job of thinking before posting on something controversial.

I picked up the latest copy of Foreign Affairs Magazine last night. I haven't gotten a chance to read it, but rest assured it'll inspire comments on Taiwan, Russia, and the "Israeli Fence."

Meanwhile, I figured I'd throw up some photos of my friends and me "having fun" in Korea.

=http://img8.photobucket.com/a...

Here is Sgt. K (left) and Mac, sitting -- er, squatting -- down for a nice meal at the Traditional Korean Village near Seoul.

=http://img8.photobucket.com/a...

And here's Mr. Yu, Hu Son, 2nd Infantry Division photographer, and yours truly, on the job during a heavy snowfall last week. I'm wearing an Army "neck gaiter," which I like to call a Head Sock. The Nikon camera I'm carrying is known in the office as "The Big One," and we consider it a matter of course to take it with us whenever we're going someplace where we need to be respected as actual journalists. People won't pay attention to you if you have a dinky camera.

Time to put another Indianhead to bed. Adios.

-30-

EDIT: Mr. Yu, it should be mentioned, is the self-titled "Rice Paddy Daddy," and he is out of control.

So the tBLOG blackout really put my weblog addiction into high relief yesterday. I tried multiple times at probably five different machines, and each time uttered a string of unprintable profanity when I got that "Back in 30 Minutes" message.

So the Spaniards went and elected themselves a socialist after the horrible 3/11 terror attack. Now that the strike has been (sort of) linked to al Qaeda, I imagine they're sitting in their caves somewhere patting themselves on the back at a mission accomplished. But according to [url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD...]CNN.com[/url], a full 90 percent of Spaniards opposed the current prime minister's "staunch support" of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, and probably would have voted against him anyway. So why bomb the train?

My guess is they don't need a whole lot of motivation. As Dennis Miller noted, "There are no al-Kindas."

The prime-minister elect, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, has promised to bring the 1,300 Spanish troops deployed to Iraq home by June 30, and that may be a secondary goal. With the current rotation of U.S. Army divisions into Iraq, I'm not sure how heavily we were depending on Spanish support -- probably not a lot -- but it's nice to have help.

The real reason behind the bombings, of course, wasn't nearly as specific as turning the tables of the election. The idea is to inspire fear and horror onto a population whose government has aligned itself (however unpopularly) with the U.S.

In other news -- Bush is under attack for his usage of 9/11 footage in his campaign ads. This whole controversy is asinine. While it's perfectly all right for networks to use their footage of the attack as teaser spots to get ratings, families of the victims suddenly feel "cheapened" when it's used by the administration who weathered that storm in order to gain votes. It just goes to show that certain people will get themselves worked up over anything if they're out of relevant stuff to complain about.

---

I got a birthday parcel from my family yesterday. They got me some clothes, one of which is a phony "vintage" t-shirt advertising "Slacker's Parachute Rigging and Ripcord Repair." It shows a '50s-style cartoon guy gleefully falling out of an airplane. The slogan is "Here's Hop'n it'll Open!" My buddy Mac, who is airborne-qualified, didn't think it was too funny.

The best present, however, was inside the card. Dad got me a certificate for a week-long car rental while I'm home. I get to choose between a Chevy Malibu, Dodge Stratus and Pontiac Grand-Am. Road trip! Any suggestions?

-30-

It's refreshing to think that I only have two more to go till I'm home. Not much is going on here, I'm at the office, correcting the paper, and listening to a little Fountains of Wayne.

I wondered for a while where the band got their name, and then, while watching The Sopranos (third season), I saw that Tony visits a garden monument shop on the New Jersey turnpike called, guess what, "Fountains of Wayne." Mystery solved, I guess...

---

My younger brother Jake called today. He wanted my "expert" advice on whether he should get back together with his ex-girlfriend, who he broke up with last August when he started college. He says he thinks about her all the time, and has to walk out of movies that feature couples.

At first, I told him to get over it and move on. He's a strapping young freshman and the drummer for a punk band, and I figured he'd have plenty of opportunities in the near future.

He said he still thinks about her all the time, and has blurted out her name at inopportune times.

"That's bad," I said.

"I know, I can't get her out of my head." said Jake.

Eventually I told him to weigh the pros and cons of giving up the fantastic freedom of being a single male freshman to pursue a highschool sweetheart who he's already broken up with once.

To be honest, I'm really not sure why he wanted my advice. Aside from the fact that he's bound to do whatever he was going to do regardless of what I tell him, my track record in the area isn't stellar. I'm just not good at these relationship things. Every time I ever got serious with girl in college, my deeply-set phobia of settling down to a hum-drum life in the suburbs would go off and eventually we'd be at each others' throats. I've been happily single for about three years now.

I suppose one of these days I'll wind up with someone or other and discard the random hookup scene. For now though, I can't stand the idea of any more accountability than I already have, so romantic nights staring at the stars will have to wait.

-30-

Well, I checked Hot Blogs this evening and found out that I'm now #55... a number made special by Group X and their cartoon, [url=http://www.albinoblacksheep.c...]"Schfifty Five."[/url] I encourage one and all to check it out.

In international news, Spain is still reeling from the bomb attack on the Madrid metro. I'm waiting for them to come out with an investigative report on the incident, until then, I'll withhold comment.

South Korean President Roh was impeached yesterday. The opposition cited illegal campaign fund raising. KATUSA soldiers I've talked to generally feel that the opposition has been looking for a way to oust this guy for a while, and the charges are just an excuse. Popular opinion in South Korea is that the opposition has far more illegal funding than Roh.

Angry protests ([url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...]see article[/url]) have us restricted to our area up here in Uijongbu. Apparently no one's supposed to be heading down to Seoul for a while.

I'm on guard duty tonight though, so I wasn't going anywhere anyway. We'll see what happens.

-30-

At the moment, I'm sitting in Jones the Mechanic's room, drinking beer and listening to '80s metal, including Damn Yankees, Extreme, and Winger.

I'm not sure what it is about the stuff that draws me to it, but every so often it's great to listen to a thumping, stadium-rocking tune by Warrant or Poison.

The thing is, it was a lot better when we were mass-producing stuff like this than it is now, when we've got more New Kids on the Block knockoffs around than you can shake a drum machine at.

Back home, there's this place called The Third Rail. It used to be a train station, when trains still ran through the one-horse town known as Cortland, but now it's a punk bar where local bands get up on stage and scream their lungs out. There's a guy at the door who looks exactly like the coliseum manager in Gladiator, complete with those weird, pomaded eyebrows twisted into points.

I'm not much of a mosher, but watching it take place is amazing. It smells like spilled beer, sweat, sound equipment, and it hits your ears like a live power cable.

I'm just rambling tonight. It's after 4 and it's about time to hit the sack. I'll try to find some photos to put up over the weekend. Meantime, thanks for making me #67 on Hot Blogs!

-30-

The Department of the Army recently announced that it was abandoning the development of the Commanche attack aircraft. Here's [url=http://www.theonion.com]The Onion's[/url] take on why:

=http://img8.photobucket.com/a...

-30-

My good tblog friend [url=http://juniperflux.tblog.com/...]juniperflux[/url] pointed this out to me in the comments section of my last entry:

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4...]Spain bombings could be work of Muslim militants[/url]

I don't have a lot of time to respond, but if the Internet kicks back in at the office I'll get more of a chance to put something together.

These were commuters on a train. Killing them isn't a form of warfare, it's terrorism, pure and simple.

"We don't hate people who want to kill us anymore? Did I miss a meeting?" -- Dennis Miller


It's a depressing subject, I know. But a couple other bloggers have mentioned this in comments sections and I thought I'd throw in my take on this.

The argument, such as it is, defends suicide bombers (specifically, Palestinian suicide bombers) along these lines: since the Palestinians are not equipped with the latest and greatest in military equipment (as our clients, the Israelis, are), we should at least respect the bravery involved in using one's own body as a weapon in warfare.

This might make some sense if suicide bombs were used the way conventional weapons of war were. We send cruise missiles to destroy headquarters buildings, cars with key enemy leaders, and training camps. On a tighter budget, maybe it would be justifiable to send people to their deaths by having them suicide bomb facilities like these.

However, unless I'm gravely mistaken, suicide bombs are not typically used against tactical military targets. Just after I left Israel and Palestine a couple years ago (I had been there on a ten-day tour), I watched a TV news report of the fallout from a suicide bomb that had detonated inside a bus full of commuters -- mostly college students and children. A week later, another one exploded in a crowded nightclub in Tel Aviv, just two blocks away from where my friends and I had been lounging on the Mediterranean beach.

There are two different concepts of war at work here. One is Western civilization's, which normally works around the framework of NATO and the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions dictate the size of the bullets that are authorized, what types of rounds can be used, the uniforms that must be worn, and, perhaps most importantly, who can be considered an enemy combatant. Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."

Violation of this or any of the Geneva Conventions is punishable by military tribunal.

Now, the other idea of war is much older than the Geneva Conventions, which were signed in 1949. The idea is that the death of any member of an enemy race or religion is valuable, and should be sought after by any means. Take a wild guess at who I'm talking about here. This is the stance taken up by radical Islamism, and by many Palestinians.

You don't have to take my word for it, though. Even in the States, fatwas are issued that condone the jihad against "Zionist-Crusaders."

Take a moment, if you will, to consider the ramifications of this. If you are a Christian, a Jew, or an American, this means that you are a target.

Children, civilians, medics, teachers, the elderly, chaplains -- all of these are valid targets in the eyes of extremists.

This is inexcusable. If decrying this practice offends someone's sense of culture, well, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take the side of the unsuspecting people who got blown up on the bus while they were riding to school. If there's bravery involved in detonating a bomb inside a nightclub full of dancing, unarmed young people, it's lost on me.

In much the same way, the bravery involved in piloting a plane full of terrified passengers into the World Trade Center is also lost on me.

-30-

I guess it's pretty natural for people to expect a lot out of someone who's done a lot of posting about current events and politics. Comparative material is produced by people whose job it is to research, reflect, compare, contrast, and distill all the information they can get their eyes on. They've usually been in the journalism business for a very long time and speak from years of experience.

I am not one of these people. My job is to get up in the morning at 0530, go to formation, participate in Physical Training for an hour, eat, go to the office and follow the orders my bosses give me. I'm the "editor" of the Indianhead, the 2nd Infantry Division's bi-weekly newspaper.

Editor, in this case, is a misleading word. I'm only an editor inasmuch as I correct other soldiers' stories and do the majority of the paper layout. The reason I have this prestigious position is because I came in with a bachelor's degree in journalism, which in the civilian sector is only a prerequisite for a lowly staff writer.

This blog here is online and shows up in neat, vertical columns. I'm not sure how you happened to find it, or why you're reading it again if you're coming back for more. For me, this is an opportunity to vent, but more importantly, a good exercise in expressing ideas in print.

Writing is something I really love to do, and it's about the only thing I've found that I'm any good at. Whether or not my arguments in here are well-constructed, I think I can reasonably say that my sentences are. I'd love to spend more time looking up facts and quotations on these subjects because they genuinely concern me, but let's face it: I do this at work and one of my five bosses could walk in at any time and tell me to get off my ass and get some work done.

Anyway, the point here is that I'm not a paid or respected columnist. If you read my blog, whether you like it or hate it, thanks, your comments are appreciated. These are just my two cents.

-30-

Edit: I've been accused of several things since I've "gone political," including not having relevant points, being jingoistic, ignorant of history, ignorant of Important American Documents, warmongering, and being generally disagreeable. A principle of journalism is that you can get people to read something by either a) confirming their already-held opinions or b) pissing them off. Apparently it's true. I'm now #98 on "Hot Blogs." Thanks!

I'm trying to upload all my favorite photos from my stint here in Korea to [url=http://www.photobucket.com]PhotoBucket.com[/url] before I leave. Here are some highlights:

=http://img8.photobucket.com/a...

These guys are dismounting from the Army's new Stryker vehicle. 2ID has a Stryker team based out of Fort Lewis, Wash., who are currently deployed to Iraq.

=http://img8.photobucket.com/a...

Ok, here's an Abrams tank firing during the final table for gunnery qualification. Hopefully you can see the smoke trail the round left as it travelled down range. I'm pretty happy about this photo.

=http://img8.photobucket.com/a...

And here are some engineers from the 50th Multi-Role Bridge Company putting together an Improved Ribbon Bridge on the Imjin River. They do this all the time. It was cool the first time I saw it.

-30-

I wouldn't say I'm a huge fan, but I sure do like the stuff the Barenaked Ladies come up with. They've got to be the most cheerfully twisted groups out there:

When she was three
Her Barbies always did it on the first date
Now she's with me
So there's never any need for them to demonstrate.

Who else would ever ask a girl to "Be My Yoko Ono"? Or sing about the awkwardness of messing around "In the Car"?

What else could you ask for from a band that got their name in an attempt to draw more people to their shows? I guess it's a Canadian thing.

A friend of mine emailed and said I should write about this Martha Stewart fiasco that’s been so heavily reported on by the news. Truth is, I have a very weak grasp of what the term “insider trading” means, why it’s a federal offense, and what actually happened that made Stewart such a horrible person, that it would be pretty ignorant of me to try and talk about why I think justice was or wasn’t served in her case. However, I will say that it sure looks like she took the fall and was an easy target since she was rich and famous.

However, one aspect of the case that has bugged me is the fact that it’s been so doggedly and tirelessly followed by the American press. The People vs. Martha Stewart or whatever is just one example of the morbid, voyeuristic fascination we collectively have with celebrities.

When you turn on the news – if you can really call it that – you’ll be treated to the latest details in the Michael Jackson case, or the resultant fallout from the Jennifer Lopez/Ben Affleck fling. The lines between hard-hitting news and the squalid details of the lives of the rich and famous have all but disappeared.

Lots of people will blame this on the media themselves. It’s easy to think that there is a puppet master somewhere in the upper echelons of the telecommunications industry gleefully pulling the strings in order to expose the American public to more atrocities, more naked butts on “NYPD Blue” and more bad language on prime time.

This just isn’t true. TV networks base their programming entirely on ratings, which they get from several companies who perform the equivalent of readership surveys on a supposedly representative piece of the cable-watching public. Any offensive or salacious programming you find on TV is really just the networks providing what their viewers respond most positively to. They play what you seem to want to watch.

I know that’s how the system works, but I have a hard time making the jump from there to “Entertainment Tonight.” I don’t know about you all, but that program represents completely the part of American society I hate and despise. “True Hollywood Scandals!” “Who’s had Plastic Surgery?!” Seeing this stuff passed off as news makes me almost physically ill.

Back in school I took a bunch of journalism classes, and one of the “elements of news” is supposedly “Oddity.” Something that’s strange will attract readers’ attention. I guess that explains why Michael Jackson is still showing up.

The thing is, there were six other elements of news, and they seem to be under-represented these days. I swear, if I hear another word about (keeping it in the family) Janet Jackson’s left boob and its attached pull-tab, I’m going to give up.

What’s the solution to this problem? There isn’t one. People will continue to watch Rikki Lake and ET. While insurrectionists are having shoot-outs with the provisional government in some backwater country, Americans will watch the Video Music Awards and the Real World. However, you can’t blame the media. Blame those kids that hang out on TRL with Carson Daly.

-30-

I suppose you'd never guess it from the stuff I post in here, but I always thought of myself as liberal.

I guess it comes down to how you define the terms (as it always does!). Classically speaking, the word "liberal" meant a person who, during the French Revolution, favored a change in government. There were three groups of liberals: the conservatives, the centrists, and the socialists.

Conservative liberals wanted a new government, but thought that existing systems that worked should be kept in place (the church, certain government branches and concepts, for example.)

Centrists basically just wanted a change in the government.

The socialists, of course, wanted a radically new government, without trade or currency, or any apparent vestiges of Adam Smith (they were French, what can I say).

Keep in mind that these were all versions of your basic college-activist, Latin-Quarter-dwelling Parisian university student.

These definitions have taken on new meanings in the minds of modern-day society, but you'll get a different answer depending on who you ask.

To your average hard-line conservative, a "liberal" is someone who spends their time hugging bunnies and trying to figure out how to get more graphic sex education into public kindergartens.

To your average latte-sipping leftist, a "conservative" would be a suit-wearing power-mad robber-baron, bent on defiling the environment with oil pipelines and finding new ways to get handguns into the hands of our children.

I try hard to separate myself from all this, because neither definition is much in the interest of public debate. But as much as I'd like to think of myself as progressive and current, I can't help but find my ideas on foreign policy slipping snugly into the square hole designated "Conservative."

If, by conservative, you mean "not a pussy," then yeah, I guess that's what I am. To me, a hard-line foreign policy is the only thing that remotely makes sense. I just don't understand why we should tie ourselves up into knots over why the EU was upset over our missile-defense technology. I understand they resent our affluence and power, but GEEZ!

Basically, I'm not too concerned over what Kofi Annan and the United Nations have to say about -- well, pretty much anything. They've demonstrated time and again over the last couple decades that they've ceased to be the global forum for figuring out how to actually accomplish anything. For example, the former chairman of the UN's committee on international human rights was the ambassador from Libya.

And when certain folks defend the act of suicide bombing as a credible means of waging war, I can't help but jump ship and head for the opposite side. I wonder sometimes if people are really thinking through their positions to their logical conclusions.

Anyway, it's after 5 and I'm ready to head home. I just figured I'd throw something a little more light-hearted into this whole mess I've gotten myself into by getting going on this politics thing. Now that I've started, I can't seem to stop. Plus, it makes for more comments on my blog, which is always validating -- even if some of you only post because you're pissed off.

And it's fun, I have to admit. Being in the Army, I have to do something every once in a while to remind myself that I have a functioning brain.

Cheers.

-30-

I went out to cover the Cav's gunnery Table XII exercise the other day. It's a big combined-arms deal where they incorporate every element of the squadron (Cavalry uses the word "squadron" instead of "battalion") into one big gun-firing shin-dig. The commander gave me a coin -- apparently he was happy with some of the stuff I've done on them. Anyway, here's a nice Mr. Yu photo of some guys firing a mortar.
=http://img8.photobucket.com/a...

Boom!

That's all for now.

-30-

I was getting into a war of words with tblogger [url=http://whynot.tblog.com]WhyNot[/url] over the relationship we should have with the French. After he defended the use of suicide bombings in the Israel/Palestine issue, I wrote him off as someone not worth reading, but I did think a couple points should be made.

First, WhyNot responded to my charge that the French have been patently ungrateful of our kicking the Germans out of their country twice by saying that WE should be grateful to THEM for their role in the American Revolution. Without them, he said, we'd still be a colony of the United Kingdom.

Ok, granted -- the French did come to the rescue 200 years ago when we were fighting for independence. But there's the difference: we WERE fighting for independence, which stands in stark contrast to what the French did when the German army came knocking fifty-odd years ago, which was, to whit, turn around and grab their ankles.

Furthermore, we've shown them a lot more appreciation than they've shown us, at least from my perspective.

France has also been, for the past couple decades, a supplier of missile propellant to Iraq, which may have something to do with their staunch resistance to going in and blowing shit up.

The other thing I've been noticing in blogs that purport to be about current events is the line about "going to war over a lie" and it's like. Which lie is this? I'm not sure. Check out the quotes in my last post, because some leading democrats were in on it, too, including Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Some of these posts are even more conspiracy-theorist than Rush Limbaugh on a OxyContin bender. "The Mad King George" and other phrases are tossed around as if everyone agrees that our president is a dundering buffoon. Well, if you were to look over the record, you'd see that for the most part, this administration has pretty consistently done exactly what it said it was going to do. I think it's been one of the most candid administrations in recent memory.

People are up in arms over the Patriot Act, which in its original form would have "deputized" citizens to call a hotline to report "suspicious, terrorist-like" activity from their neighbors. Folks got really upset over this one. But we're already supposed to call our neighbors in if we think they're stealing cable... which seems like a lesser crime, to me.

Of course, if you're like [url=http://whynot.tblog.com]WhyNot[/url], then you think it's all right for crazed fanatics to strap dynamite to their chests and run into nightclubs. I'm losing hope that this is a rational debate.

-30-

After thinking about therealspartacus' comments over the last post, I figured I should maybe go into the idea of rights -- or at least, how I've come to think of them.

Like I said before, I think there's a distinguishable difference between rights and license. Rights are things we're entitled to, and license is being able to act with impunity. They're different.

There are different kinds of rights, as well. One big distinction is the difference between innate, human rights and civil rights.

Human rights are the ones we gain as persons, those things that every human being is entitled to just by virtue of their humanness. These include (but are not limited to) the right to life and the pursuit of self-betterment.

Civil rights are the ones granted by a state to its people. Rights to things like medical care, unemployment, voting, protection from crime etc. are all granted by the state to its citizens. In exchange for civil rights, citizens pay taxes and, often, forfeit certain other rights. This can clearly be seen by looking at the differences between the rights of people who live in different countries. Civil rights in Pakistan differ greatly from civil rights in, say, Canada.

Ideally, a democracy safeguards the human rights of its citizens. Citizens are able to vote (a civil right) in order to protect their human rights and secure better civil rights.

This matters because of what Hobbes says in Leviathan: that in a state of anarchy, people are either taking power away from others or having their own power taken away by someone else. Submission to the laws and organization of a state -- forfeiture of one's "rights" to take power away from others -- are in exchange for protection from others who want to do the same thing in kind.

The difference between human and civil rights parallels the difference between human ethics and civic ethics. If something is legal, it is, in terms of civics, right, but that does not make it naturally ethical. This point is inarguable if you take human ethics to be constant. Given a certain situation, the right thing for a human person to do will be the same for any person in that situation. Laws, on the other hand, change and are repealed.

When I said that the case for homosexual marriage was inarguable from the Constitution, I meant that the Constitution did not address the issue. Someone could say, "I believe that banning homosexual marriage is unethical" and be correct, but I don't think they could say "Banning homosexual marriage is unconstitutional." If the realspartacus would care to point out where it's provided for in either the Constitution or its amendments, I would be appreciative, and I would stand corrected.

However, I'm pretty sure that there isn't a clause covering homosexual marriage anywhere in the document, based mostly on the fact that certain states (including Virginia) still have sodomy laws on their books. When those laws were ratified, it couldn't have been unconstitutional to do so.

To wrap this up, I think the issue of banning or legalizing homosexual marriage should be worked out as it inevitably will -- through democratic process. When the decision comes down, "The People Have Spoken."

If homosexual marriage eventually is banned or universally legalized, then democracy has done its business. The representative you voted for has cast his or her vote -- don't complain, you voted for them. If you didn't vote, don't complain -- you didn't vote.

Personally, I don't support gay marriage. But I do support democracy. I'll argue against gay marriage on an ethics or philosophy basis, but part and parcel of being an American is that we elect our government and take at least partial responsibility for their decisions.

----

So that was fun. I hope it cleared up any confusion about where I stand on this whole business.

Oh -- found some great quotes I thought I'd share with anyone who finds themself all the way at the bottom of this (rather boring) blog. Here we go:

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Ha ha ha! Wow! Maybe they all were replaced by non-weapons-believing clones? Or maybe the ones who made those statements were clones -- part of a program funded by Haliburton and the Evil Conservative Conspiracy! Put that in your peace pipes and smoke it.

-30-

The combination of caffiene and nicotine sent me into the office bathroom this morning, and to pass the time, I brought in a copy of Stars & Stripes. In it was a commentary piece on President Bush's support of a constitutional amendment that would, if ratified, prohibit persons of the same sex from protracting a marriage license.

It got me to thinking about a pervasive problem about the way people talk about their rights in America today.

A major distinction that has more or less disappeared from the table today is the one between "freedom" and "license." Basically, freedom is the state in which one is able to exercise innate human rights without impingement. License is being granted the ability to do whatever one wants.

The fact that "freedom" is used today to mean "license" has gotten everyone pretty confused. It's allowed for some very ambiguous use of what used to be unambiguous terms.

As an example, people who advocate abortion rights call themselves "Pro-choice." They say, "A woman has a right to choose." This sounds good, because no one would want to say, "A woman does not have the right to choose." But because "choose" is a transitive verb (meaning it takes an object), both phrases are grammatically meaningless. They beg the question, "Choose what?"

Furthermore, the use of right is simply an emotional appeal. While we don't, at first, want to deny anyone their rights, it becomes clear upon reflection that we definitely do not have the "right" to choose a host of things.

For example, I'm not "free to choose" whether or not I'm going to jack someone else's car. If I knew how to do it, I could do it, but I would be punishable under law, right? Think up some other things you don't have the right to choose. Transporting certain weapons across imaginary boundaries between states, for example.

I think what's happened is people have started thinking that they have a right to do anything not expressly forbidden by law. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" meant something very different when it was written two centuries ago.

This is what the argument for gay marriage is predicated upon. San Francisco is arguing that it is in violation of the Constitution to prohibit homosexual marriage, but I don't think Thomas Jefferson had that in mind when he signed it.

I'm not saying we should blindly hold onto the original form of the U.S. Constitution; it needs to be updated and adapted to be able to keep up with the requirements of changing times. But the idea that homosexual marriage is a "constitutional right" is groundless.

Which makes me wonder why President Bush is going to the trouble of making an amendment that expressly bans it. This is a dangerous precedent, because it means that every time someone thinks up a contingency NOT covered by the Constitution, we'll have to let them do it until an amendment is made that makes it against the law. Use your imagination here -- or don't, and just wait and see what the ACLU cooks up as their next action item.

"Land of the free, and the home of the brave..." Should we change the lyrics to "Land of the people who have license to do whatever they want"?

-30-

Naturally, the more I look into this Middle East terrorism issue, the more complicated it becomes. We're not guiltless -- and I've known that -- but our role in promoting unrest there goes beyond mere inaction. Our intelligence communities have actively sought to protect certain governments (Syria being a recent example) from negative reports to higher authorities in order to maintain the agents we've recruited there. The CIA, apparently, relies heavily on indigenous sources thanks to its collective ignorance in languages and cultures. Therefore, they not only work to protect those relationships and the U.S.'s relationship with whatever country, but they also actively work -- with the Department of State -- against any U.S. policy that might piss them off. Wow.

That might sound like conspiracy theory, but it's all documented. The co-author of the book I'm reading is Richard Perle, former Secretary of Defense. He's got a million examples of inter-agency fraud and waste and general corruption, but I'll let you read it yourself if you're so inclined. We all know about how the CIA and FBI bungled intelligence reports about "inordinate numbers of investigable individuals" attending flight school in Arizona prior to Sept. 11.

Most of this stems from the fervent administrative desire not to single anyone out based on ethnicity or religion. I'm going to go ahead and beat the dead horse a little more by saying that it's blinded us to the fact that just about all terrorism is linked with fanatical Islamism.

Truth hurts, but like I've said before.... (see below).

And on to other things. I've got a scant 38 days left in-country. Here is a list, in no particular order, of things I'm looking forward to doing when I get back to the States:

1) Find a pack of real damn cigarettes (Kamel Red Lights) and smoke the hell out of them.

2) Find a six-pack of real damn beer (Labatt's Blue) and drink the hell out of it.

3) Seriously, the big thing is seeing my family again. However, my house is now apparently filled with interesting odors, thanks to two dogs, one cat and a grandparent with continence problems. One's enough, the combination, I'm sure, is lethal.

4) I'll have to hit my favorite downtown bars, of course, which include Murphy's, Ducci's, the Dark Horse and my buddy Ryan's apartment, which qualifies, trust me.

5) Steak.

6) Unmonitored Internet usage.

7) Drive on the highway.

8) I'm definitely making a trip down to Steubenville to visit my brothers and unleashing the power of soju on them and the rest of the Delts. It'll be a gas. I think I might just sit back and watch the results and record them for the permanent record.

What I'm not looking forward to is the 58th time I get asked, "So how was Korea?" I just don't think it's an experience that'll be justly summed up with an, "it was great" or "it was tough." But I suppose people will ask, and I wouldn't blame them if they did -- what else do you say? I guess it's one of those awkward social conventions no one really knows how to deal with, save for the incredibly savvy.

It'll be great to get back. One thing I'm wondering. Korea smelled different when I got here, and I guess now I've gotten used to it. I wonder what America will smell like to someone who's been away for a year...

That's outside my house, of course. I'm pretty sure I already know what the inside will smell like.

-30-

At the absolute bleeding edge of the bleeding heart crowd is the ACLU. Read [url=http://www.nationalreview.com...]this.[/url]

-30-

It is an unfailingly effective applause line for critics of any administration to charge that the president has no vision, that he has no plan for the future.
-- Colin Powell

I'm going to have to take a break from what I think is my usually level-headed, researched method to blow off some coffee-fueled steam.

Some of you people are never going to be happy with anything. You've set yourself so pig-headedly against the current administration that it's not even possible for Bush & Co. to do right. It doesn't matter a whit what kinds of positive things they've done, you'll just summarily ignore them.

"Attack Iraq?" Hell, no! you scream. It's all a lie, they just want oil, and on and on. You've picked the pansy, emotional bandwagon to jump onto, the one that is afraid of offending Middle-East and European sensibilities. You ignore the potentially huge numbers of your fellow countrymen who could die in the terrorist attacks that are being planned [i]right now[/i], and prefer instead to trumpet the cause of civil liberties, pretending that if you don't think about it, the threat of a civilian massacre on our own shores will go away.

You ignore the fact that the Bush administration has increased spending in almost all the areas you continually carp about, including public education. You're so easily swayed by pompous anti-Americans like Michael Moore that you don't bother to look into the cause your hearts are bleeding over. All you want is a picket sign to wave. Well, sorry kids, this isn't the '60s, and this isn't Vietnam. I know the music of the era was great, but we've got to wake up and smell the fucking AK-47 gunsmoke.

Why do you so consistently fall over yourselves to champion the whims of our Machiavellian neighbors in Europe? Why is that we should "respect the cultures" of the most abhorrently intolerant nations in the world, then hamstring ourselves trying to eliminate the slightest hint of intolerance at home? Where the fuck is your train of thought?

You hear the word "Nazi" and you point your green fucking fingers at the White House, when it is the White House that's trying to prevent those who really want to take over the world from doing so.

Oh sure, you want the government to protect you. You want them to make sure you don't have to worry about not having a job, about making sure your kids score highly enough in school, to make sure offensive religious symbolism isn't displayed publicly and to make sure that no one gets too far ahead of the median. What you all want most of all, though, is for laws to be passed that would prevent you or anyone else from feeling bad about yourselves. That's the important thing. That we all have a say -- but only if that say is non-offensive, warm, and fucking fuzzy. And like I said, those confused people who want to blow us up will go away if we close our eyes really, really tight.

Now, I know there are those among you who actually know what you're talking about. I also know that there are flatbed-truck-loads of "conservatives" who couldn't tell their ass from a hole in the ground.

I'll wrap this up. I hope no one takes this post as representative of the rest of my blog. But here's the main point I'm making - You people who bawl and cry about the evils of the government just because someone louder than you told you to impress me about as much as people who call themselves punks and shop at Hot Topic. You're poseurs, and I hold you in contempt.

/rant

-30-