Are You Remembering What I Remember?

Looking at current war disbelievers, I fear this country has such a short memory that it will end up back where it started, i.e., a fledgling nation struggling to be free from tyrannical rule. American pioneers and founders knew it was worth the hardship and loss of life because we mutually new that death here, though hard for those left behind, meant life eternal for those in the righteous cause of freedom.

At this memorial day , I remember... heroes. Hope is remembering great people by loving and sharing stories of real heroes with our young, about what the heroes left behind, a legacy of thought, word, and deed. The top of the list for me Dad, Lt. in the US Navy, WWII. Lord, let me leave a legacy such as his: traditional American heart, a family man, love of Jesus, and courage to speak out and tell the truth.

Legacy applies to all great heroes, those who stood up for freedom! Top of the list of heroes of today are our brave soldiers born in the USA; bottom of the list - political pseudo-leaders who defame American military and honor evil in thought ,word, and deed!

We rarely see the masterful things our soldiers accomplish but we certainly get massive amounts of media attention to their "job" - fighting evil, the undeniable force whose only mission is to seek, to kill, and destroy unless heroes remain committed to vigilantly seeking, killing, and destroying evil at its beginning moments. I honor the ongoing legacy of today's soldiers with prayer and sending as many emails, pictures, and movie clips displaying the good they are doing that I possibly can.

From the beginning of time freedom has been bought by lives lost; we must remember. I tenderly remember and take comfort and glorious remembering for the memorial days, events, and monuments The United States of America sets aside for us to continue honoring our legacy of focused, passionate heroes.

We must remember! Freedom is not a willy nilly ride; it does not mean that we allow evil lovers to illegally break-in to our country, manipulate and mock our judicial system, or infiltrate our neighbors! We are a merciful people, not a welcome mat for evil; we need to commemorate our freedom fighters and remember the difference in good and evil. Evil thrives when good folks do nothing.

Today is creating the legacy for all our tomorrows.
death

Al Gore for President

In my small way I have been supporting Hillary Clinton for American President. All of four articles on my blog show my personal vote. As can be seen the American Presidency is not at the top of my list of priorities. The lack of enthusiasm is probably due to the fact that the Americans showed such bad judgement during the last two elections. I love the American people, they are a great nation. I just have no time for their current Pres. He is guilty of crimes against humanity.

I do have one little good thing to say about Bush. It's rare I know. He sticks with his friends through thick and thin. The fact that his friends, such as Wolfowitz and Holsinger the new Surgeon General by the looks of things, are not the right type of friends to have, is not so good. Wolfowitz had to resign from the World Bank due to irregularities and Holsinger has been accused of incompetence and neglect that led to deaths of patients.

One therefore looks to the next American elections in the hope of finding a leader with the ability to speak well and a smidgen of general knowledge, have some ethics in terms of not going to war on a country under false pretenses and working with the rest of the world on global warming issues, amongst a whole bunch of other issues obviously. No President of a global power is only going to be faced with a few hugely important issues.

My personal vote, and would have been two elections ago, would have been for Al Gore. It was a pity that Clinton's little dalliances with Ms I kept my stained dress as an investment, hurt Gore as much as it did. I also think that Gore's heart wasn't actually in it. I never saw him sparkle during his campaign speeches or debates. He seemed 'heavy'. It was a huge surprise to see this amazing speaker then on the award winning documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth'.

At least Al Gore was against the war in Iraq before the war, and not as the current candidates for Democratic nomination who are suddenly all sprouting forth against it. They should have spoken up as Al Gore did at the time. Gore's recently published book 'The Assault on Reason' sounds like it will be worth getting. His argument is that the media has managed to stifle democratic processes and he is hopeful that the internet, especially within the blogosphere, will continue to support strong democratic debate.

It seems unlikely that Al Gore will change his mind and run for president. This is a great pity as I think he would have a good chance of finally making it. And the United States will be the better for it. According to the article in the Washington Post, it could be that he won't stand because he is clearly enjoying himself these days and that's probably why he won't run for president. Maybe if enough people actually encourage him, it might still happen.

A Successful Iraqi Exit Strategy

Jimmy Carter was right. George W. Bush has been the worst president! Who the hell invades a country and just brings democracy? When you go to a friend's house for dinner, you bring a bottle of wine, some dessert, right? You don't go to your friends and say, "Hi, we didn't bring anything, but we were thinking that the pork chops should be divided evenly and let's take a vote on whether we eat the salad before or after the main course."

If I were president I would have brought brownies for the Sunnis. And not just any old brownies, the good ones with huge walnut chunks and maybe with some caramel spread on top. The Shi'ites would have gotten chocolate chip cookies like only Americans know how to make them. And I may have even put a Hershey's kiss on top of each cookie. How can anyone hate you when you've given them a kiss?

Now everybody loves us, except maybe the Kurds. I forgot about the Kurds. They get to have a little sampling of both. Let's face it, the Kurds have had a rough century; they could use two desserts.

I can't stay forever making cookies and brownies. I have other countries to feed and will need to car pool my daughter to her ballet and soccer games. So here's our exit strategy. The Sunnis love their brownies and the Shia love their cookies. So we do a little reversal and give the Sunnis (who love the brownies) the recipe to make the cookies (and perhaps ask Hershey's to send a few million kisses wholesale) and give to the Shia (who love the cookies) the recipe to make brownies. Now, next Thursday when the Sunnis want their brownies, they're going to have to ask the Sunnis to make it for them. Of course, they'll agree to do it since their going to want the Shias to make them their cookies.

We have created interdependence. And we have finally brought some good desserts to a region that has suffered far too long from some pretty boring desserts all made with honey. What if you don't like honey? You can't have baba ghanoush or hummus for dessert!

Now I've still forgotten the Kurds. O.K. we will give them the recipe for both so that if the Shias are busy one weekend, the Kurds can make the brownies. But the Kurds can't have any ovens, because if they have ovens and both recipes, they're going to want to be an independent country.

You know how around Christmas time you melt some chocolate and then spread crushed candy canes over it? I think the Iranians would love that. Maybe even enough to give up their nuclear program.

The Un-Fairness Doctrine

If you were to ask a stranger on the street to name the top talk radio personalities in the country, you would inevitably receive an answer that included the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. The problem with all of them, according to some Democrats, is that they only represent one side of the political spectrum. And, of course, it's not the side the Democrats prefer the public to hear.

So, in order to level the playing field, many on the left are calling for the return of the so-called Fairness Doctrine to give opposing viewpoints an equal opportunity to be heard by listening audiences. The problem with the Fairness Doctrine, though, is that it's not really what it claims to be-fair.

There's little doubt about the assertion that most talk radio programs lean toward conservatism. But there's a reason for the ever-growing popularity of the Limbaughs and the Hannitys of the airwaves: it's called the marketplace. Simply put, successful radio programs are the ones that attract advertisers. Period. Limbaugh is the top-rated radio personality in the country because a large segment of the public likes what he has to say. Therefore, they tune in to his show. Advertisers then buy time during his program to pitch their products and services to his audience. If nobody was listening, the advertisers would take their business elsewhere and the Rush Limbaugh show would be but a distant memory. Case in point: Air America.

Leftists like Al Franken tried desperately to make their challenge to conservative talk radio dominance work. But they failed. They failed because their message did not resonate with a large enough segment of the radio listening population to attract the advertisers necessary to fund the programming. Talk radio is just like any other product. You make it attractive to an audience and it sells. If you can't do that, you're out of business.

Having failed at radio in the free marketplace, Democrats now want to impose their political ideology and viewpoints on a listening public that has already, for the most part, rejected their opinions. Prominent Democrats like Senator Byron Dorgan and Representative Dennis Kucinich want radio stations to make comparable time available for opposing opinions, regardless of whether or not that programming is profitable to the host stations. Having failed to sell you their message, they now want to force you to listen to it through congressional action.

Now, I've had a few people tell me that equal time would ensure that both sides of an issue were presented, thus enabling the listening audience to develop a better informed opinion about a given topic. That's ridiculous. People who listen to the radio listen to programming that appeals to them. They listen because they like what they hear. What do you suppose a listener will do if he or she disagrees with or dislikes what is on the radio? Odds are that the listener will tune in another program or just stop listening altogether.

The return of the Fairness Doctrine would be nothing more than another government infringement on our ability as citizens to exercise individual choice. By telling us what we will listen to on the radio, Democrats take away our ability to choose what we will listen to on the radio. Democrats who demand equal time under the Fairness Doctrine are keenly aware that they fail at talk radio when it comes to the free exchange of ideas. That is why the leftist agenda must be force-fed to the talk radio listening public, and that is why guys like Dorgan and Kucinich want to use the Fairness Doctrine to take away your ability to tune them out.

U.S. Senate to vote on whether to cut off money for Iraq war in 2008

WASHINGTON: The Senate is expected to vote as early as this week on whether to cut off money for the Iraq war next year, as well as on a softer measure calling for U.S. troops to leave by October.

Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday the two measures would be offered as amendments to a water projects funding bill being debated this week. While the Senate had planned to take up Iraq legislation this week, Reid had previously been unclear what specifics members would consider.

The first amendment, backed by Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold, would require that combat operations end by March 31, 2008, by cutting off money after that date.

The second measure would provide more than $120 billion (€88.5 billion) to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as various domestic projects. It would call for troops to begin leaving Iraq by Oct. 1, but allow the president to waive that requirement.

Passage of the $120 billion (€88.5 billion) in war spending would not allow the Senate to begin negotiating with the House of Representatives and send President George W. Bush a bill by the end of the month, said Rodell Mollineau, a Reid spokesman. Nevertheless, he added, "these are important votes. This will give members an opportunity to debate these issues and have up-or-down votes on these."




Today in Americas

The House last week approved, 221-205, legislation that would fund the war in two-month installments, giving Congress a chance to cut off money for the war after July. The House measure was considered unlikely to survive in the Senate, where Democrats wanted to fund the war through September.

"On our side of the aisle, Democrats believe they should do something very, very close to what was done in the bill that was sent to the president to be vetoed," said Reid.

Reid's strategy is likely to appease party members like Feingold who say they will not vote for legislation that funds the deeply unpopular war without binding language demanding U.S. troops leave. While Reid co-sponsored Feingold's proposal, he has said he would not push it as a caucus position.

"The American people deserve to have the Senate go on record about whether or not it wants to end our misguided mission in Iraq and safely redeploy our brave troops," said Feingold.

However, Feingold's tough anti-war measure is unlikely to pass the Senate, where Democrats hold a narrow majority and several oppose using the budget to end the war.

Robotic Wars of the Future - What about Isaac Asimov's Three Laws for Robotics

The future of human wars is changing and it is obvious to see that unmanned vehicles will continue to invade the battle field and eventually our wars will be fought by robots and not humans. We have all heard the saying; All is Fair in Love and War. Indeed it is amazing how many people believe just that and in the heat of battle ones strict adherence to rules will be challenged more often than not. What about Isaac Asimov's famous Robot Rules? (source: WikiPedia).

The Three Laws of Robotics:

A Robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm

A Robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

A Robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law

*Later a Fourth Law was added (The Zeroth Law):

A Robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

Apparently current military philosophers and thinkers are not the only ones contemplating the future reality and the use of robots in warfare. It appears that Isaac Asimov's rules for robots is totally out the window or perhaps we might say that the future force robots will soon be coming thru an international terrorist window near you?

Have you given much consideration that a potential enemy of the United States might build a bunch of robots to come to America to kill you and your family? Are you ready for the future? Is resistance really futile? I mean we can simply build our own more superior robots to protect us and/or kill our enemies first? What say you?

German Memoirs in Asia - US President Herbert Hoover in the Post-World Wars Era Europe

Philipp Staebler, a first year student of business economics was narrating the difficulties in the reunification of the separated Germanys.

He said after a brief pause "Well, it is difficult for sometime for some people in West Germany, but East Germany is also part of our nation and somehow or other way we will have to bear the burden".
Philip elaborated some stories of the Second World War era, which separated Germany, and many yet unresolved chaos.
When our discussion turned on the rehabilitation of post-war Europe, a German university student referred to one person who left a lasting legacy.
It was none other than Herbert Hoover, an American of German ancestry and was the 31st President of the United States of America (1929-1933). He had taken bold initiatives which saved the lives of millions of Germans and other Europeans in the Second World War that ravaged Europe.

Hoover was born into a Quaker family of distant German and Swiss descent, in Iowa.

He helped millions of starving people by his charismatic negotiations between the opposing parties on relief assistance in post-war Europe.

He exemplified the Efficiency Movement component of the Progressive Era, arguing there were technical solutions to all social and economic problems - a position that was challenged by the Great Depression that began while he was President.

When Belgium faced a food crisis after being invaded by Germany in the fall of 1914, Hoover undertook an unprecedented relief effort as head of the Commission for the Relief of Belgium (CRB). The CRB became, in effect, an independent republic of relief, with its own flag, navy, factories, mills and railroads. Its $12-million-a-month budget was supplied by voluntary donations and government grants.

In an early form of shuttle diplomacy, he crossed the North Sea forty times seeking to persuade the Germans in Berlin to allow food to reach war victims.

After the United States entered the war in April 1917, President Woodrow Wilson appointed Hoover as head of the American Food Administration, with headquarters in Washington, D.C. He succeeded in cutting consumption of food needed overseas and avoided rationing at home. After the end of the war, Hoover, a member of the Supreme Economic Council and head of the American Relief Administration, organized shipments of food for millions of starving people in Central Europe. To this end, he employed a newly formed Quaker organization, the American Friends Service Committee to carry out much of the logistical work in Europe.

He extended aid to famine-stricken Bolshevist Russia in 1921. When a critic inquired why he should help Bolshevist Russia, Hoover retorted, "Twenty million people are starving. Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!"

In June 1931, Hoover issued the Hoover Moratorium that called for a one-year halt in reparations payments by Germany to France and in the payment of Allied war debts to the United States to deal with a very serious banking collapse in Central Europe that threatened to cause a worldwide financial meltdown. The Hoover Moratorium had the effect of temporarily stopping the banking collapse in Europe.

Based on Hoover's previous experience with Germany at the end of World War I, in the winter of 1946 - 47 President Harry S. Truman selected Hoover to do a tour of Germany in order to ascertain the food status of the occupied nation. Hoover toured what was to become West Germany in Field Marshall Herman Goering's old train and produced a number of reports sharply critical of U.S. occupation policy. The economy of Germany had "sunk to the lowest level in a hundred years".

As the Cold War deepened, Hoover expressed reservations about some of the activities of the American Friends Service Committee, which he had previously strongly supported.

He impartially helped not only his distant German relatives of the German Nation but the Russians, and other Europeans as well and showed great human kindness.

Europeans who survived in the Second World War used to praise him that they were still alive because of Hoover's meals. The Belgian city of Leuven named a prominent square after him. In addition, the Finns coined a new word hoover, meaning "to help," to their language in honor of his humanitarian work.