Both Puerile and Sophomoric

Today Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke to members of the military at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan in the wake of  the killing of 16 innocent Afghan citizens by a US soldier.

The soldiers he spoke to had been disarmed by Major General Mark Gurganus.  After the meeting someone in the press  asked why the change in policy.  Brave MJ Gurganus would not admit that either he or someone who had his ear made any recommendations based on the killings last week, but instead weaseled that he wanted US troops to be unarmed like their Afghan counterparts at the meeting.

Hmm, that's sure believeable Sir. I'm sure that everyone told to surrender his arms bought it 100%. After all, we wouldn't want to appear we were unfair and not let some boys have guns when others in the room didn't. Full equality for all, that's what we want to show. Besides, they were on a military base and all of those nasty guns just are so unnecessary. And you know, one guy goes insane - it's more prudent to take all threats away from everyone so the Secretary can feel less like he's in an area where there's unpleasantness going on.

And all would have been just the epitome of political correctness, but one of the locals failed to hear the speech to play nice and stole a truck on the base. He wrecked the vehicle and it burst into flames.

 Defense officials said Mr. Panetta’s plane had been diverted away from the truck, which ended up in the ditch off the ramp, an area where Mr. Panetta’s plane had been expected to park. The Pentagon press secretary, George Little, said he did not know whether the truck reached the ramp parking area “while we were landing or before or slightly after.

Mr. Panetta’s aides did not disclose the crash until nearly 10 hours later, well after Mr. Panetta had arrived in Kabul from his day in the south, and at least an hour after the British media began reporting it. It was not clear if the aides would have made the disclosure had word not leaked out. - New York Times

So our Generals have so little faith in our soldiers they start disarming them when the big boss is around and try to sugarcoat the story with a pathetic explanation.  The big boss ditches the story about a breach in security with a stolen vehicle in close proximity and time to where his plane lands until after the Brits report it.  And the President kinda sorta "generally supports" the military.  And the New York Times actually reports the story (after the Times.co.uk blazes the trail).

It's a good thing that our warriors don't share the same playground rule mentality of their rear-echelon masters or else they'd be stuck in a hellhole where we're hated, battling an enemy our President refuses to correctly name, with rules of engagement that could have been developed by Code Pink.  On second thought, strike that.

Original Article

Today Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke to members of the military at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan in the wake of  the killing of 16 innocent Afghan citizens by a US soldier.

The soldiers he spoke to had been disarmed by Major General Mark Gurganus.  After the meeting someone in the press  asked why the change in policy.  Brave MJ Gurganus would not admit that either he or someone who had his ear made any recommendations based on the killings last week, but instead weaseled that he wanted US troops to be unarmed like their Afghan counterparts at the meeting.

Hmm, that's sure believeable Sir. I'm sure that everyone told to surrender his arms bought it 100%. After all, we wouldn't want to appear we were unfair and not let some boys have guns when others in the room didn't. Full equality for all, that's what we want to show. Besides, they were on a military base and all of those nasty guns just are so unnecessary. And you know, one guy goes insane - it's more prudent to take all threats away from everyone so the Secretary can feel less like he's in an area where there's unpleasantness going on.

And all would have been just the epitome of political correctness, but one of the locals failed to hear the speech to play nice and stole a truck on the base. He wrecked the vehicle and it burst into flames.

 Defense officials said Mr. Panetta’s plane had been diverted away from the truck, which ended up in the ditch off the ramp, an area where Mr. Panetta’s plane had been expected to park. The Pentagon press secretary, George Little, said he did not know whether the truck reached the ramp parking area “while we were landing or before or slightly after.

Mr. Panetta’s aides did not disclose the crash until nearly 10 hours later, well after Mr. Panetta had arrived in Kabul from his day in the south, and at least an hour after the British media began reporting it. It was not clear if the aides would have made the disclosure had word not leaked out. - New York Times

So our Generals have so little faith in our soldiers they start disarming them when the big boss is around and try to sugarcoat the story with a pathetic explanation.  The big boss ditches the story about a breach in security with a stolen vehicle in close proximity and time to where his plane lands until after the Brits report it.  And the President kinda sorta "generally supports" the military.  And the New York Times actually reports the story (after the Times.co.uk blazes the trail).

It's a good thing that our warriors don't share the same playground rule mentality of their rear-echelon masters or else we'd be stuck in a hellhole where we're hated, battling an enemy our President refuses to correctly name, with rules of engagement that could have been developed by Code Pink.  On second thought, strike that.

Original Article

Today Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke to members of the military at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan in the wake of  the killing of 16 innocent Afghan citizens by a US soldier.

The soldiers he spoke to had been disarmed by Major General Mark Gurganus.  After the meeting someone in the press  asked why the change in policy.  Brave MJ Gurganus would not admit that either he or someone who had his ear made any recommendations based on the killings last week, but instead weaseled that he wanted US troops to be unarmed like their Afghan counterparts at the meeting.

Hmm, that's sure believeable Sir.

Today Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke to members of the military at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan in the wake of the killing of 16 innocent Afghan citizens by a US soldier. The soldiers he spoke to had been disarmed by Major General Mark Gurganus. After the meeting someone in the press asked why the change in policy. Brave MJ Gurganus would not admit that either he or someone who had his ear made any recommendations based on, but instead weaseled that he wanted US troops to be unarmed like their Afghan counterparts at the meeting. Hmm, that's sure believeable Sir. I'm sure that everyone told to surrender his arms bought it 100%. After all, we wouldn't want to appear we were unfair and not let some boys have guns when others in the room didn't. Full equality for all, that's what we want to show. Besides, they were on a military base and all of those nasty guns just are so unnecessary. And you know, one guy goes insane - it's more prudent to take all threats away from everyone so the Secretary can feel less like he's in an area where there's unpleasantness going on. And all would have been just the epitome of political correctness, but one of the locals failed to hear the speech to play nice and stole a truck on the base. He wrecked the vehicle and it burst into flames. Defense officials said Mr. Panetta’s plane had been diverted away from the truck, which ended up in the ditch off the ramp, an area where Mr. Panetta’s plane had been expected to park. The Pentagon press secretary, George Little, said he did not know whether the truck reached the ramp parking area “while we were landing or before or slightly after. Mr. Panetta’s aides did not disclose the crash until nearly 10 hours later, well after Mr. Panetta had arrived in Kabul from his day in the south, and at least an hour after the British media began reporting it. It was not clear if the aides would have made the disclosure had word not leaked out. - New York Times So our Generals have so little faith in our soldiers they start disarming them when the big boss is around and try to sugarcoat the story with a pathetic explanation. The big boss ditches the story about a breach in security with a stolen vehicle in close proximity and time to where his plane lands until after the Brits report it. And the President kinda sorta "generally supports" the military. And the New York Times actually reports the story (after the Times.co.uk blazes the trail). It's a good thing that our warriors don't share the same playground rule mentality of their rear-echelon masters or else we'd be stuck in a hellhole where we're hated, battling an enemy our President refuses to correctly name, with rules of engagement that could have been developed by Code Pink. On second thought, strike that.ir.  I'm sure that everyone told to surrender his arms bought it 100%.  After all, we wouldn't want to appear we were unfair and not let some boys have guns when others in the room didn't.  Full equality for all, that's what we want to show.  Besides, they were on a military base and all of those nasty guns just are so unnecessary.  And you know, one guy goes insane - it's more prudent to take all threats away from everyone so the Secretary can feel less like he's in an area where there's unpleasantness going on.

And all would have been just the epitome of political correctness, but one of the locals failed to hear the speech to play nice and stole a truck on the base.  He wrecked the vehicle and it burst into flames.

 Defense officials said Mr. Panetta’s plane had been diverted away from the truck, which ended up in the ditch off the ramp, an area where Mr. Panetta’s plane had been expected to park. The Pentagon press secretary, George Little, said he did not know whether the truck reached the ramp parking area “while we were landing or before or slightly after.

Mr. Panetta’s aides did not disclose the crash until nearly 10 hours later, well after Mr. Panetta had arrived in Kabul from his day in the south, and at least an hour after the British media began reporting it. It was not clear if the aides would have made the disclosure had word not leaked out. - New York Times

So our Generals have so little faith in our soldiers they start disarming them when the big boss is around and try to sugarcoat the story with a pathetic explanation.  The big boss ditches the story about a breach in security with a stolen vehicle in close proximity and time to where his plane lands until after the Brits report it.  And the President kinda sorta "generally supports" the military.  And the New York Times actually reports the story (after the Times.co.uk blazes the trail).

It's a good thing that our warriors don't share the same playground rule mentality of their rear-echelon masters or else we'd be stuck in a hellhole where we're hated, battling an enemy our President refuses to correctly name, with rules of engagement that could have been developed by Code Pink.  On second thought, strike that.

Original Article

Today Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke to members of the military at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan in the wake of  the killing of 16 innocent Afghan citizens by a US soldier.

The soldiers he spoke to had been disarmed by Major General Mark Gurganus.  After the meeting someone in the press  asked why the change in policy.  Brave MJ Gurganus would not admit that either he or someone who had his ear made any recommendations based on the killings last week, but instead weaseled that he wanted US troops to be unarmed like their Afghan counterparts at the meeting.

Hmm, that's sure believeable SToday Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke to members of the military at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan in the wake of the killing of 16 innocent Afghan citizens by a US soldier. The soldiers he spoke to had been disarmed by Major General Mark Gurganus. After the meeting someone in the press asked why the change in policy. Brave MJ Gurganus would not admit that either he or someone who had his ear made any recommendations based on, but instead weaseled that he wanted US troops to be unarmed like their Afghan counterparts at the meeting. Hmm, that's sure believeable Sir. I'm sure that everyone told to surrender his arms bought it 100%. After all, we wouldn't want to appear we were unfair and not let some boys have guns when others in the room didn't. Full equality for all, that's what we want to show. Besides, they were on a military base and all of those nasty guns just are so unnecessary. And you know, one guy goes insane - it's more prudent to take all threats away from everyone so the Secretary can feel less like he's in an area where there's unpleasantness going on. And all would have been just the epitome of political correctness, but one of the locals failed to hear the speech to play nice and stole a truck on the base. He wrecked the vehicle and it burst into flames. Defense officials said Mr. Panetta’s plane had been diverted away from the truck, which ended up in the ditch off the ramp, an area where Mr. Panetta’s plane had been expected to park. The Pentagon press secretary, George Little, said he did not know whether the truck reached the ramp parking area “while we were landing or before or slightly after. Mr. Panetta’s aides did not disclose the crash until nearly 10 hours later, well after Mr. Panetta had arrived in Kabul from his day in the south, and at least an hour after the British media began reporting it. It was not clear if the aides would have made the disclosure had word not leake d out. - New York Times So our Generals have so little faith in our soldiers they start disarming them when the big boss is around and try to sugarcoat the story with a pathetic explanation. The big boss ditches the story about a breach in security with a stolen vehicle in close proximity and time to where his plane lands until after the Brits report it. And the President kinda sorta "generally supports" the military. And the New York Times actually reports the story (after the Times.co.uk blazes the trail). It's a good thing that our warriors don't share the same playground rule mentality of their rear-echelon masters or else we'd be stuck in a hellhole where we're hated, battling an enemy our President refuses to correctly name, with rules of engagement that could have been developed by Code Pink. On second thought, strike that.ir.  I'm sure that everyone told to surrender his arms bought it 100%.  After all, we wouldn't want to appear we were unfair and not let some boy s have guns when others in the room didn't.  Full equality for all, that's what we want to show.  Besides, they were on a military base and all of those nasty guns just are so unnecessary.  And you know, one guy goes insane - it's more prudent to take all threats away from everyone so the Secretary can feel less like he's in an area where there's unpleasantness going on.

And all would have been just the epitome of political correctness, but one of the locals failed to hear the speech to play nice and stole a truck on the base.  He wrecked the vehicle and it burst into flames.

 Defense officials said Mr. Panetta’s plane had been diverted away from the truck, which ended up in the ditch off the ramp, an area where Mr. Panetta’s plane had been expected to park. The Pentagon press secretary, George Little, said he did not know whether the truck reached the ramp parking area “while we were landing or before or slightly after.

Mr. Panetta’s aides did not disclose the crash until nearly 10 hours later, well after Mr. Panetta had arrived in Kabul from his day in the south, and at least an hour after the British media began reporting it. It was not clear if the aides would have made the disclosure had word not leaked out. - New York Times

So our Generals have so little faith in our soldiers they start disarming them when the big boss is around and try to sugarcoat the story with a pathetic explanation.  The big boss ditches the story about a breach in security with a stolen vehicle in close proximity and time to where his plane lands until after the Brits report it.  And the President kinda sorta "generally supports" the military.  And the New York Times actually reports the story (after the Times.co.uk blazes the trail).

It's a good thing that our warriors don't share the same playground rule mentality of their rear-echelon masters or else we'd be stuck in a hellhole where we're hated, battling an enemy our President refuses to correctly name, with rules of engagement that could have been developed by Code Pink.  On second thought, strike that.

Original Article

Today Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke to members of the military at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan in the wake of  the killing of 16 innocent Afghan citizens by a US soldier.

The soldiers he spoke to had been disarmed by Major General Mark Gurganus.  After the meeting someone in the press  asked why the change in policy.  Brave MJ Gurganus would not admit that either he or someone who had his ear made any recommendations based on, but instead weaseled that he wanted US troops to be unarmed like their Afghan counterparts at the meeting.

Hmm, that's sure believeable SToday Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke to members of the military at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan in the wake of the killing of 16 innocent Afghan citizens by a US soldier. The soldiers he spoke to had been disarmed by Major General Mark Gurganus. After the meeting someone in the press asked why the change in policy. Brave MJ Gurganus would not admit that either he or someone who had his ear made any recommendations based on, but instead weaseled that he wanted US troops to be unarmed like their Afghan counterparts at the meeting. Hmm, that's sure believeable Sir. I'm sure that everyone told to surrender his arms bought it 100%. After all, we wouldn't want to appear we were unfair and not let some boys have guns when others in the room didn't. Full equality for all, that's what we want to show. Besides, they were on a military base and all of those nasty guns just are so unnecessary. And you know, one guy goes insane - it's more prudent to take all threats away from everyone so the Secretary can feel less like he's in an area where there's unpleasantness going on. And all would have been just the epitome of political correctness, but one of the locals failed to hear the speech to play nice and stole a truck on the base. He wrecked the vehicle and it burst into flames. Defense officials said Mr. Panetta’s plane had been diverted away from the truck, which ended up in the ditch off the ramp, an area where Mr. Panetta’s plane had been expected to park. The Pentagon press secretary, George Little, said he did not know whether the truck reached the ramp parking area “while we were landing or before or slightly after. Mr. Panetta’s aides did not disclose the crash until nearly 10 hours later, well after Mr. Panetta had arrived in Kabul from his day in the south, and at least an hour after the British media began reporting it. It was not clear if the aides would have made the disclosure had word not leake d out. - New York Times So our Generals have so little faith in our soldiers they start disarming them when the big boss is around and try to sugarcoat the story with a pathetic explanation. The big boss ditches the story about a breach in security with a stolen vehicle in close proximity and time to where his plane lands until after the Brits report it. And the President kinda sorta "generally supports" the military. And the New York Times actually reports the story (after the Times.co.uk blazes the trail). It's a good thing that our warriors don't share the same playground rule mentality of their rear-echelon masters or else we'd be stuck in a hellhole where we're hated, battling an enemy our President refuses to correctly name, with rules of engagement that could have been developed by Code Pink. On second thought, strike that.ir.  I'm sure that everyone told to surrender his arms bought it 100%.  After all, we wouldn't want to appear we were unfair and not let some boy s have guns when others in the room didn't.  Full equality for all, that's what we want to show.  Besides, they were on a military base and all of those nasty guns just are so unnecessary.  And you know, one guy goes insane - it's more prudent to take all threats away from everyone so the Secretary can feel less like he's in an area where there's unpleasantness going on.

And all would have been just the epitome of political correctness, but one of the locals failed to hear the speech to play nice and stole a truck on the base.  He wrecked the vehicle and it burst into flames.

 Defense officials said Mr. Panetta’s plane had been diverted away from the truck, which ended up in the ditch off the ramp, an area where Mr. Panetta’s plane had been expected to park. The Pentagon press secretary, George Little, said he did not know whether the truck reached the ramp parking area “while we were landing or before or slightly after.

Mr. Panetta’s aides did not disclose the crash until nearly 10 hours later, well after Mr. Panetta had arrived in Kabul from his day in the south, and at least an hour after the British media began reporting it. It was not clear if the aides would have made the disclosure had word not leaked out. - New York Times

So our Generals have so little faith in our soldiers they start disarming them when the big boss is around and try to sugarcoat the story with a pathetic explanation.  The big boss ditches the story about a breach in security with a stolen vehicle in close proximity and time to where his plane lands until after the Brits report it.  And the President kinda sorta "generally supports" the military.  And the New York Times actually reports the story (after the Times.co.uk blazes the trail).

It's a good thing that our warriors don't share the same playground rule mentality of their rear-echelon masters or else we'd be stuck in a hellhole where we're hated, battling an enemy our President refuses to correctly name, with rules of engagement that could have been developed by Code Pink.  On second thought, strike that.

Original Article

Every once in a while monkeys fly. Less often, the New York Times publishes something not left of center.

This time they let Vint Cerf, one of the main inventors of the Internet, write an Op Ed. They probably hoped for a squishy plea for free (as in beer) access for all people everywhere in the world. Never mind the costs, taxes on the ricn - quietly defined as anyone who pays taxes - will pay for this gigantic transfer of wealth.

It didn't go as expected. The Op Ed is unequivocal.

But that argument [Internet access as a civil or human right], however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it.

Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation for the civil and human rights that deserve protection â€" without pretending that access itself is such a right.

Original Article

But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that, be committed. -Al Sharpton, MSNBC

Wait, maybe I could have.

Original Article

An organization in Saint Louis called Better Family Life has a bit different idea of promoting family values. One activity that gets quite a bit of press coverage is a government approved program in which people with misdemenor warrants (actually, warrants for failing to appear in court for their original charges) can pay ten dollars, sign up for a class, attend the class, pay $100, and get the FTA warrant absolved along with a new court date.

[caption id="attachment_371" align="aligncenter" width="399" caption="What's not to Like?"][/caption]

This is a popular event with KSDK reporting over 14,000 taking advantage of it last year.  It sounds like a cynical money grab by a lot of Police Departments participating in the program.

People who have failed to bother to show up for their first trial are relieved of $110.  In return they must attend a class (assuming they merely need education in what the words "at your peril" mean on court paperwork) and show up for a new trial date.  They've already failed to show for their first trial, so what are the odds they can show for two events?

Oddly, nobody keeps statistics on that.  This is merely a sanctioned way for the perpetually wanted to kick the can down the road a couple of months before they're wanted on the same old charges, and for the 54 cities, counties, and munis to get some cash.

How about a program that bypasses the ever-needy nonprofit organizations?  Call for an amnesty, have the accused show up at city halls and get new trial dates instead of taken into custody.  Does there really need to be a third party organizing this and a fourth party teaching a course on what a warrant means?

Obviously there does.

Original Article

You've probably had this email forwarded to you a couple of times in the past week or so:

Probably another urban legend, right?

As of July 29, 2011, Snopes hadn't exposed it.  That could mean this is a new prank.

So a quick check of Google led me here.  Low and behold:

Dallas Resident,

Beginning January 1, 2009 the Dallas Police Department will begin enforcing the Uninsured Motorist Ordinance, approved by the Dallas City Council on May 28, 2008. Under this ordinance drivers stopped for a traffic violation who cannot show proof of auto insurance meeting state requirements will be issued a citation and will have his or her vehicle towed at the owner’s expense. The City already tows the vehicles of uninsured motorists involved in traffic accidents.

The new ordinance is in response to the large number of people driving in the City of Dallas without the proper state required auto insurance. These uninsured drivers place an unfair burden on those who comply with state law and maintain auto insurance. The Dallas Police Department currently issues about 75,000 citations a year to motorists with no auto insurance. With the new ordinance, the city anticipates fewer of these citations as more drivers comply with the law to avoid having their vehicles towed.

To find out more about the Uninsured Motorist Ordinance that amended Section 28-4 of the Dallas City Code, please review the ordinance.

If you have any questions about this policy please call 311 (the City of Dallas Customer Service Helpline) or 214-670-5111 when calling outside the City of Dallas.

Comply with state law: contact an automobile insurance provider and obtain auto insurance.  It's the law.

Well, that's good evidence.  The Houston Chronicle confirmed the law.

Gee, actually taking uninsured cars off the streets.   Contrast this with:

• Officer stops and cites motorist
• Motorist ignores citation, continues to drive
• Court issues Failure To Appear warrant
• Motorist fails to appear in court again to answer the charge of failing to appear on their first offense
• Motorist gets stopped by police again, arrested for FTA and driving uninsured vehicle.
• Officer must take motorist to station for booking, taking a cop off the street for about 2-3 hours.
• Motorist either released on bail (how'd he get bail $$ when he can't buy insurance?) or kept in jail until trial, taking up space in jail.

Is it better to let an uninsured driver (and car) go and then put the driver in jail when he's caught later for an offense, or to get the uninsured vehicle off the streets until it's in compliance?

Granted that vehicle may have gotten the saintly downtrodden driver to his job to support his family, but if he's in jail, he sure can't go to work either.  And whoever would drive the uninsured car in the meantime runs exactly the same risk of a useless citation and eventual jailtime.

Good job, Dallas.  I like your style.

Original Article

Time to form a chanting mob and go after whoever said this:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills.  It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

What, our dear leader actually said that? I'll never believe it unless the Progressives at Snopes verify it. Oh, they did. This makes perfect sense to a Leftist. Words have only the meaning we attach to them. There is no "truth", only a hazy relativism that is bent as needed to further a goal. And that goal is to: get re-elected in order to fundamentally transform the US into a "socially just" state.

So despite the 180 degree change, there is no problem in the minds of Progressives. Words are just tools.

And so are folks who believe that.

Original Article