Did Harry Reid have to drive himself to the office? Did Al Qaeda receive their rockets? Were assault rifles sent to the Mexican drug cartels? Would the laws of physics prevail? Would water boil? These are a few of the things that troubled my sleep last night. Well, the government shut down and amazingly the sun still rose in the sky this morning. Looking towards the sky, I saw birds on the wing and all seemed right with the world.

Imagine my surprise when I turned on the television and it worked. Every part of the system from the broadcast studies to my receiver at home via the cable network worked. Even more amazingly, there were no reports of mass hysteria and riots. Then, after firing up my computer, I discovered that the Internet was working and I was able to post this message of joy.

Of course, as soon as I checked my email, there was a message from the White House. “The government was shut down.” I was beginning to doubt it since the world hadn't yet spun off its axis. Furthermore, the White House staff proclaimed, “It's the fault of the Republicans.” Now I knew. All was right in the world.

My wife was concerned about our Social Security checks. Those comprise a significant portion of our monthly income. Joyfully she announced that benefits would be paid despite the government shutdown. Also, the Post Office would still be in operation to deliver them. How? Aren't they operating at a loss? How can they continue without the government borrowing more money to keep their doors open and the mail trucks rolling?

So, what does it mean that the government is shut down? I guess we'll have to wait and see. It better be something really bad or people may discover that they're just as happy without it.

When I completed life guard training, the instructor lathered himself in baby oil and thrashed about in the pool while we attempted to “save” him. Each of us was thwarted in our efforts until we got wise and simply tread water out of his reach until he tired. We were then able to approach him from behind and grasp him over the shoulder and across the chest, then swim with him to the edge of the pool. I imagine that being interviewed by Piers Morgan is much like that test.

The man won't allow anyone to answer with a contrary view. He shouts over his guests with straw-man arguments. What's that? When you speak for someone else, placing absurd comments in their mouth, and then rebutting them as ridiculous. That's a straw-man argument. It's a popular tool of propagandists.

So, why do people agree to be interviewed on his show? He simply preaches to his choir while the guest sits by chastised by Piers' superior intellect and moral position. Even if the interviewee wins the debate, his audience still agrees with Piers. That's why they watch him.

Which brings me to the more important question: Why do I waste my time talking about him? I'm only expanding his audience. Fortunately, the number of people who watch his show is ridiculously small. Most episodes draw fewer than 100,000 viewers which hardly registers on anyone's poll.

I suppose that we are drawn to Piers for the same reason that we watch a parade of American Nazis. We are assured that all is right with the world when we are reminded just how few are drawn to radical causes. So, keep it up Piers. Your failure makes me smile.

If the following sounds disrespectful I have achieved my purpose. The person currently serving as President of the United States has no claim on my respect. I am merely glad that I completed my military service long before he became the Commander-in-Chief. 

I listened carefully to the President's speech regarding Syria and remain unconvinced that he knows what is going on or what to do about it.

Strategic bombing such as he proposes in retaliation for Syria's purported use of chemical weapons, has never worked, not once in all of history. Only Reagan's tactical strike targeting Muammar Gaddafi personally achieved its intended goal. Only if the Administration can produce compelling evidence of Assad's complicity in an actual violation of International Law would I support such a limited attack.

Moreover, the proposal to take control of Syria's remaining chemical weapons is totally impractical, thus further demonstrating the President's lack of experience and competency. Such weapons are dispersed over more than 50 military installations in Syria, most in the middle of active combat zones. How could any personnel arrive their safely with the equipment needed to secure or destroy those weapons? No, the President is merely grasping the tail end of a poor idea advanced by others to extricate himself from the diplomatic mess that he's gotten himself into.

The greatest damage of this event is that the President has surrendered world leadership to a sociopath in Moscow. What little prestige he had remaining is now lost forever. He should play golf and leave governing to the adults. 

The following came to me by way of an email from a family relation and I couldn't find any reasonable way of passing it on except by reprinting it in my weblog. It is attributed to John Cleese and the narrative sounds like his. I hope that the copyright owner will be forgiving. I included the attribution that came with it, but cannot verify it.

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved.”

Soon though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even “A Bit Cross.” The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the Blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance.” The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from “Pissed Off” to “Let’s get the Bastards.” They don’t have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender.” The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France ‘s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing.” Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides.”

The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.” They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbour” and “Lose.”
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels .

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from “No worries” to “She’ll be right.” Two more escalation levels remain: “Crikey! I think we’ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!” and “The barbie is cancelled.” So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.

A final thought – ” Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC”.



HT © 2009-2013 · 21WIRE MEDIA · ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WORLDWIDE

Chairman Mao wrote the book on guerrilla warfare. He advised insurgents to lose themselves among the population like fish swim in the sea, indistinguishable from any others. It proved to be an excellent strategy. However, today's conflicts require a different strategy for small nations to resist larger ones. Regardless of which state is in the right, small states now adhere to a new mentor, one who successfully flummoxed stronger opponents in the ring – Muhammad Ali.

All stand in awe of Rope-a-Dope. The United States will deliver its punches, massive punches. When it's tired, its stamina drained, the Syrians will crawl out of their holes and resume killing each other just as happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, and so many other places.

Strategic bombing has never gained victory in any conflict. No amount of bombs brought Germany to its knees. In fact, Germany's industrial output rose during the heaviest of allied night and day bombing. Nuclear bombs, arguably the ultimate strategic weapons, failed to defeat Japan. Leaders of the Japanese Imperial armed forces were tempted to continue prosecuting the war even after atomic devices were detonated over two of their major cities. Likewise, strategic bombing of North Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and other small nations accomplished nothing. Dumb bombs. Carpet bombing. Smart bombs. Cruise missiles. Hellfire missiles launched from drones. All may temporarily demoralize an enemy and limit their ability to fight, but only an infantryman armed with a rifle can occupy and dominate enemy territory.

As the debate to win the support of Congress and the American public for bombing Syria advances, keep in mind these three tests: Is it militarily necessary? What is the military value of the proposed targets? Although nonmilitary facilities and personnel will be affected, will their losses be acceptable? Yes, the answers to every one of these questions is subjective. Although a consensus may be achieved, any decision will not be unanimous. However, we must all be prepared to accept the consequences.

Moreover, don't set your expectations too high. Like I said, strategic bombing has never accomplished anything by itself. All the enemy has to do is take a break (just as Ali rested against the ropes) while the United States flails away with its might fists until it tires itself out.

I found the following cautionary tale posted on Facebook by a family member. Whether or not the events described actually happened isn't important. I'm sharing it because it's true...

I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the coming implementation of the health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued:

They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard a young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick.” 

A young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market wouldn't work for health care.” 

Another said, "The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate.” 

At this, I had more than enough. I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. “Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?” 

They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.
“I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?” 

They looked at each other in astonishment. “Why would you do something like that?” asked a young man, “There isn’t anything for free in this world.”
They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point. 

“I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money whatsoever. Anyone interested?” 

In unison, a resounding “Yeah” fills the room.

“Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money-free bargain.” 

I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust. 

“I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules.” 

Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces. 

The perky young woman asked, “What are the rules?” 

I smiled and said, “I don’t know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you.” 

They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, “What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man.” 

I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. “I am serious, this is a legitimate offer.” 

They gaped at me for a moment. “I’ll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?” boasted the youngest among them. 

“Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?” I asked. 

The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table. “Oh yeah! Where do I sign up?” 

I took a napkin and wrote, “I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction.”

I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature. 

“Where are the keys to my new house?” he asked in a mocking tone of voice. 

All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.

“Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere to from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys.” 

I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumbfounded.

“Are you out of your mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?” the young man appeared irritated. 

“You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement.” 

The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people. 

“You can shove that stupid deal up your a** old man. I want no part of it!” exclaimed the now infuriated young man. 

'You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends. You cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master.” 

At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.

After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent. 

“What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn, and for that which you did not earn, you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it to you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away. Therefore, it is not freedom at all.” 

With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. “This is the nature of your new health care legislation.”
I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation -- and was surprised by applause. 

The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, “Thank you, Sir. These kids don’t understand Liberty .” 

He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, “You earned this one. It is an honor to pick up the tab.” 

I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country.

Once upon a time, we had choices worth making. Truman or Dewey. Eisenhower or Stevenson. Kennedy or Nixon. Johnson or Goldwater. The lines were distinct. The parties were well differentiated. Then something happened. The lines blurred. Both major parties abandoned their principles and values, and focused on building collations of voters, promising to champion groups with agendas so diverse that a promise to one is as good as a threat to another. As a result, many voters abstain out of dismay and those who attend the polls hold their noses as they cast their ballots.

I began to suspect that the problem begins long before election day. Someone appears to be making choices for us, deciding which choices we will have. This past Monday, I went in search of them. I attended a county-wide central party committee meeting.

I wasn't alone. There were many first-time attendees there. It seems that I'm not the only one beginning to suspect that there's a problem that needs fixing. We were welcomed with warm smiles and firm handshakes by the party stalwarts. Two party hopefuls pitched appeals for party support in next year's elections.

The first candidate was a likely young man determined to be the next secretary of state for California. Not only did he make a good appearance and speak well, but also he had a compelling story to tell. Remember the City of Bell, California? That's the one where five of six elected officials were convicted of multiple counts of misappropriating funds and paying themselves huge salaries while raising taxes on residents. The City Manager was also convicted and became the face of government run amok. Interestingly, the candidate I listened to was hired as a consultant to turn the city around, and he did. Magnificently. Bell now has an excellent credit rating and one of the most transparent budgeting processes in municipal government. This candidate focused on engaging the public in the city's decision-making process. Citizens who used to refer to their city hall as “The Kremlin” now participate regularly in self-governance. He accomplished all this during a time while other California cities are following Detroit into bankruptcy courts.

This candidate for the party's nomination went on to outline how he believes that he can use the power of the Secretary of State to repeat his performance and help the state and other counties and municipalities duplicate the success he had in the City of Bell. It sounded reasonable.

The second candidate is a member of the California legislature who has set his sights on being the next governor. He used his experience tilting at windmills in his present office to incite the assembled party faithful to his cause. Unfortunately, he mistook oratory volume for passion. He began by whipping up the crowd with complaints about the social policies of the incumbent. His message may have had its appeal to many among that audience, but I imagine that this approach will invite the opposition to incite their base by focusing on their particular social agendas while ignoring the larger issues of California's economic woes.

Now, which candidate will the party support in the primaries and which will it not? Those are the questions that will be answered long before you or I reach the polls. Personally, I don't think that I can wait that long. Do you?

Let's not compare President Obama to history's infamous dictators. He is neither infamous nor a dictator. Well, not yet. However, it is safe to say that anyone who lived in Germany, China, or the Soviet Empire during the reign of these infamous dictators would never dare make fun of them. Likewise, it isn't safe making fun of President Obama.

No, the rodeo clown who made fun of President Obama wasn't shipped off to some gulag. Well, not yet. However, he did lose his job and that's pretty serious these days when jobs are hard to come by.  

Why did the rodeo clown lose his job? Fear. Therein lies the similarity between Obama and these infamous dictators. They ruled by fear. Fear, it seems, has become a weapon of this Administration. Fear that the government is monitoring what we say and do. Fear that there will be repercussions for those who oppose this Administration politically. Fear that the law will be applied unequally to those who poke fun at the President or criticize him.

It isn't necessary for the President to direct actions against those who disagree or poke fun at him. Responsibility still devolves to him regardless of who takes action on his behalf. That is the nature of leadership. With power comes commensurate responsibility. It's possible that no one ever explained that to the President. Remember, he has never held any position of executive responsibility before becoming President.

Also, don't think that lampooning a sitting President is anything new. Not by a long shot. However, it seems that those who came before President Obama have thicker skins. That's something else that comes with experience.

Do you think that Americans will have learned their lesson? Will they ever again elect someone without any demonstrable qualifications or experience to lead the nation?

Schools and teachers tried their best to destroy my love of learning. It seems that the love of learning is innate in every child. We mimic virtually everything we see and hear others doing. However, it isn't long before our families begin putting restraints on us, forbidding us to imitate only them and certain specified members of the community. Then, when we reach school, teachers begin substituting their judgment of who we should emulate. Never has this been clearer than today. Ever since teachers banded together and adopted an ideology, they have been hell bent on substituting indoctrination for education.

Is it any wonder that employers aren't happy with the lack of skills evinced by graduates?

Or that students are failing their tests?

In fact, teachers and schools that attempt to educate are castigated and ostracized.

I am fortunate that the primary authority figure in my life, my father, was abusive. He taught me that all authority figures were suspect and, thus, I was able to resist the negative influences of the teachers in my life. I selected my own mentors and sought out my own authorities questioning everyone of them, testing their premises, and dismissing anything that was inconsistent with observable facts. Thus, I became an autodidact, a self-taught individual.

It's a hard life, living as an autodidact, unable to trust anyone until they prove themselves. It's a lonely life, but a rewarding one. I only wish I had known that when I started. I was plagued with self-doubt and feared failure at every turn. After all, who was I to set my judgment above that of others? The answer didn't become obvious until much later in life when I looked back and reflected on the balance sheet of my successes and failures. Yes, it's been a good life, full of adventure and learning. An autodidact never stops learning and learning is an adventure. Isn't it sad that so many are dissuaded from it?

Once upon a time we laughed at people who shouted that “The End Is Near”, or marched with signs to that effect. At the very least, we'd walk across the street to keep clear of them. Today, doomsday predictions have became a valuable tool in the growing industry of social engineering. 

I grew up watching westerns. Many of the villains of these morality plays were cattle rustlers. Often, they would sneak up on a sleeping herd and fire their six-shooters into the air to start a stampede. Modern social engineers employ the same tactic. They issue dire warnings about the consequences of our behavior in an effort to stampede the population at large, to redirect them along politically correct paths.

Some of these rustlers of the public weal achieve fame and fortune. Sad. It only encourages others to employ fake science to scare the public. Take, for example, Al Gore. Although the man has a larger “carbon footprint” than a small city, he has won a Nobel Peace Prize and an Academy Award for his exemplary work warning us about Global Warming. Strike that: Global Climate Change. The herd bolts as he shouts from his pulpit even though he is clueless about any scientific subject and the people whose expertise he relies upon have no credentials as climatologists. Please. The man should have appeared in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, with a black hat and a bandanna tied around the lower half of his face.

Even sadder, public wealth has been wasted financing green energy industries. Not one has produced any significant portion of the world's power requirements nor have any shown any potential for the future. However, that matters little. Solving the world's problems is not on their agenda. No, these rustlers are only interested scaring the herd to alter human behavior. As I said, social engineering. In that, they have been a success.