There are college classes that are entitled, believe it or not, Critical Thinking - As in Critical Thinking 101. It is ridiculous that anyone and I mean anyone can even think about setting foot on a college campus unless they have acquired at least some degree the talent of "critical thinking." You either have it or you don't and some professor yammering on about the need to "consider your sources," "look at all angles of an issue" etc. etc. is not of any use whatsoever. This is the problem we have when one considers the current political climate. People, for the most part, jump on a bandwagon and do not take the time or even indeed have the capacity to look at things from all sides before making an intelligent decision. This human trait is why such "news" agencies as FOX and MSNBC have such viewership. So called "journalists" do not, for the most part, bother with honest reporting. That is a damn shame and has almost killed the legitimate profession.
The other day President Obama called for people to at least take a look at some sources that they would not normally consider. To go "outside the box" if you will. He encouraged people to check out FOX news (I believe) and also to look at the "Huffington Post." Basically he was just trying to get people to look at all sides. I agree with that perspective and have been doing just that for years. They call it critical thinking.
As a case in point I consider myself a right leaning Centrist. I have truthfully been leaning a bit more right in the recent past wholly due to the leftist extremeism that is currently in vogue. I do however try to find my news from the most reliable source and when that is not available (and it often is not), I try to get my information by reading what those on the right and the left have to say. For instance, one of my favorite blogs is "On My Mind" written by a man named Bill from SoCal. His perspective is what I would call central with a leftward lean. It is a very good blog and Bill has some very good perspectives. When I really want to be entertained by some hardcore Marxism I check out "Brilliant at Breakfast." This is a good blog that references some very hard left journalistic work. I almost think that when there is another terrorist assault the webmistress of this site hopes and prays that it is some lone wolf militia type that perpetrates it. Just so she can shrilly say "See? I told you so." Don't believe me? Check out her latest blog post concerning the Mohammedan that was arrested in the Times Square bomb scare. It is crazy as hell. She is crazy as hell.
If I want to take a look at some alternative economic news and perspective I will check out Mish's blog. That will sure get you wondering if the official drivel coming out of Washington is bogus propaganda.
The point is for anyone who tries to keep up with the insanity of daily life needs to look at things from more than just one perspective. Anyone who does not is a dolt. A fucking dolt if I may say so.
Showing posts with label Brilliant at Breakfast. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brilliant at Breakfast. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Cheney a "War Criminal?" I Doubt It
Well Jill over at "Brilliant at Breakfast" is at it again. She has been beating the drums and blowing the horns about Dick Cheney being a "war criminal" for quite some time. Apparently water boarding and other forms of "enhanced interrogation" seem to hold some kind of problem for her and her many readers. Of course "enhanced interrogation" is nothing more than code for torture which Cheney apparently supports. So do I. If anything prevents another attack on our soil then anything goes. Al Qaeda operatives and their ilk are not uniformed soldiers of any nation and are nothing more than terrorists. They therefore, in my opinion, do not have rights under the Geneva Convention and certainly should not have any rights in the civilian American Justice System. Now if drugs can be used in obtaining information about terrorist activities and plans then so much the better. Torture would then not be a viable option. I would support that as long as the end result was the same - The execution of the terrorist operative as soon as it is determined that any and all useful information has been extracted.
Now back to Cheney - Jill and her ilk can argue that the man is a "war criminal" until the cows come home. That is a ridiculous notion. Why? Only the winner in any military contest gets to decide who is a war criminal and who is not. The loser gets to accuse the winning party of war crimes but only the winner gets to prosecute the losing party for said "crimes." An interesting example would be Heinz Guderian insinuating that the American and English Air Force committed war crimes by the continual bombing of civilian targets toward the end of WWII. He states so quite succinctly in his memoir "Panzer Leader." He may in fact have a point, but as Germany was on the losing end of WWII they were not in any position to actually prosecute those responsible for the bombing on any charges. Again the winner gets to pick. Now of course those Mohammedans that oppose the U.S. and our allies will be quick to blow the "war crimes" trumpet to no avail. Jill and her ilk perpetuating the notion that Cheney is a "war criminal" borders on treason. They, as American citizens, can certainly have their opinions, but to publicly accuse those responsible for defending our nation by necessary means of war crimes has pretty much crossed the line in my book. At the very most Cheney can be accused of nothing more than being an old blow hard incompetent. Incompetent? Of course!! Where is Bin Laden and why does the Taliban, Pasdaran, etc. etc. even still exists at this point? War Criminal? No! Blustery old fool? Absolutely.
Now back to Cheney - Jill and her ilk can argue that the man is a "war criminal" until the cows come home. That is a ridiculous notion. Why? Only the winner in any military contest gets to decide who is a war criminal and who is not. The loser gets to accuse the winning party of war crimes but only the winner gets to prosecute the losing party for said "crimes." An interesting example would be Heinz Guderian insinuating that the American and English Air Force committed war crimes by the continual bombing of civilian targets toward the end of WWII. He states so quite succinctly in his memoir "Panzer Leader." He may in fact have a point, but as Germany was on the losing end of WWII they were not in any position to actually prosecute those responsible for the bombing on any charges. Again the winner gets to pick. Now of course those Mohammedans that oppose the U.S. and our allies will be quick to blow the "war crimes" trumpet to no avail. Jill and her ilk perpetuating the notion that Cheney is a "war criminal" borders on treason. They, as American citizens, can certainly have their opinions, but to publicly accuse those responsible for defending our nation by necessary means of war crimes has pretty much crossed the line in my book. At the very most Cheney can be accused of nothing more than being an old blow hard incompetent. Incompetent? Of course!! Where is Bin Laden and why does the Taliban, Pasdaran, etc. etc. even still exists at this point? War Criminal? No! Blustery old fool? Absolutely.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
What Do You Call Such Folk?
I have (for the most part) refrained from writing about contemporary issues of any real importance during the college football season and am hesitant to pontificate on an issue right now that my "blood is up." I would much rather focus on the big game tonight pitting Oregon and Oregon State; the Civil War I believe they call it in the great NW. This one is for the Roses.I am almost just as interested in the outcome of the Arkansas State/Western Kentucky match up. Will the Hilltoppers (what a great name) pull one out of the hat to gain their first win of the season. Will the Indians, sorry I mean the Red Wolves, cap off their disappointing season with a victory. We will know tonight. I am not real interested in Tiger Woods apparently getting himself a little strange, but it is kind of funny. What does interest me is the fate of our troops in harms way in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Persian Gulf, etc. etc. I am also interested and appalled at some of the attitudes of American citizens toward those same service people. I will try to refrain from using insultingly foul language when I get to that point in my diatribe.
The President of the United States has apparently authorized a troop build up in Afghanistan, but I fear that it will not be enough. Think about it. 30,000 troops would not even begin to fill up by half a good many stadiums in major college football. That is not a lot of people. If the troops authorized are combat troops, and allowed to fight properly, then perhaps they will be able to get the job done. What job? Killing the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I did not say converting them or capturing them to be tried as "battlefield suspects." I said killing them. As many as possible by whatever means necessary. Does that bother you? Sorry. Battlefield suspects? Does that phrase bother you? I actually heard a television "journalist" calling these vermin that. Have you ever heard of such a thing? Taliban and Al Qaeda forces, along with Hamas, etc. etc. do not even qualify as legal prisoners of war in my book. What a crazy time we live in.
Michael Moore has predictably said that President Obama is straying from his base and that we should pull out of Muslim lands. That is predictable as I just now stated. President Obama has probably learned by now that his so called "base" is seen by the vast majority of the people in this nation as childish fools. Putting his eggs in their basket is a sure way to lose any minute hope he may have of being elected to a second term. Now that is all well and good, but what is bothersome about Moore and his ilk is this. Do they not remember people jumping to their deaths from the Twin Towers to escape being burned alive? What a choice they faced! Does Moore and his type not want revenge (yes I said it) on those responsible for their deaths and those that supported the guilty? Apparently not. I wonder what Moore's attitude would be if it was one of his loved ones that faced the choice between burning or leaping to their death. Mr. Moore you might be an idiot and you most certainly are a pussy. I knew I would have to use that word at some point. Nothing else would do.
Now we come to Chris Mathews. Did he not call West Point enemy country? He did and the evidence is readily available. Now the question remains - Did Mathews mean that the military was the enemy or just that they are perhaps the political enemy of Obama? If he only meant that the armed forces are the political enemy of the President, then he chose his words stupidly. That is not too hard to imagine as Mathews is a stupid man. If he meant that the military is the enemy of this country then he goes far beyond stupid. Either way Mr. Mathews is a fool and a pussy to boot. There's that word again.
Have you ever heard of a blog called Brilliant at Breakfast? It is a maddenly "progressive" (whatever that means) blog. Jill, the main contributor and the webmistress I believe is so liberal that it makes my eyes hurt. She is however infinitely more intelligent than either Mathews or Moore and makes a rational case for most of her arguments but she is usually so off base as to be unbelievable. (There is another contributor on her blog that calls himself "Jurassic Pork" and so far he has not posted anything concerning the troop build up. I put him in the same category as Moore, Mathews and Olbermann. He is truly a twit. Oh well, no matter.)Jill in her latest post is comparing Obama to Johnson and apparently comparing the Taliban to the Viet Cong. The inference here is of course that this is an unwinnable war and that Obama is making the same mistake that Johnson made when building up forces in the Vietnam era. There are a couple of things wrong with this scenario. The Viet Cong and NVA had never to my knowledge been responsible for attacking this nation on our home soil. Technically the Taliban has not either, but they sure supported those that did. I submit to Jill that there still is an awful lot of payback owed to those vermin. Jill has also mentioned in earlier writings that our military should not be used to kill "brown men." I assume she means Middle Eastern and Afghan Muslims. I submit to Jill that our military has not killed near enough of them yet. Jill apparently believes the war to be not winnable. I disagree. To my knowledge the Taliban have no commander as brilliant as the Vietnamese General Giap. Giap could be considered perhaps one of the premier military leaders of the second half of the twentieth century. He also had the advantage of jungle terrain to conduct operations. The two wars and the personalities involved can not really honestly be compared. Now it is true that the Soviets were not able to win in Afghanistan in the 80's. This may (or may not) be an anomaly. Soviet troops for the most part were unmotivated conscripts and American and Nato troops are motivated volunteers. Also I would submit that if there was committed political will in the Soviet Union during their "stay" in Afghanistan, then the outcome might have been different. It is also interesting that historically Russian and Soviet troops have been of no real account except when the fighting is on their soil and they have overwhelming manpower superiority. Now, no insurgency can ever be completely destroyed as long as there are those willing to fight, but it can certainly be brought down to very manageable levels with a pragmatic and quite honestly, a justifiably brutal use of military force. Now I must give Jill credit where credit is due. She may be right about the war being unwinnable considering the current political administration. Our troops must be given the tools and the green light to do what is necessary to win. If they are not, and I suspect they will not be, then I guess we should declare victory and bring everybody home. Then all those that died at the hands of the Mohammedans on 911 and the troops that have lost their lives fighting them since will have died in vain and we can all sit back and await the next 911.
The President of the United States has apparently authorized a troop build up in Afghanistan, but I fear that it will not be enough. Think about it. 30,000 troops would not even begin to fill up by half a good many stadiums in major college football. That is not a lot of people. If the troops authorized are combat troops, and allowed to fight properly, then perhaps they will be able to get the job done. What job? Killing the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I did not say converting them or capturing them to be tried as "battlefield suspects." I said killing them. As many as possible by whatever means necessary. Does that bother you? Sorry. Battlefield suspects? Does that phrase bother you? I actually heard a television "journalist" calling these vermin that. Have you ever heard of such a thing? Taliban and Al Qaeda forces, along with Hamas, etc. etc. do not even qualify as legal prisoners of war in my book. What a crazy time we live in.
Michael Moore has predictably said that President Obama is straying from his base and that we should pull out of Muslim lands. That is predictable as I just now stated. President Obama has probably learned by now that his so called "base" is seen by the vast majority of the people in this nation as childish fools. Putting his eggs in their basket is a sure way to lose any minute hope he may have of being elected to a second term. Now that is all well and good, but what is bothersome about Moore and his ilk is this. Do they not remember people jumping to their deaths from the Twin Towers to escape being burned alive? What a choice they faced! Does Moore and his type not want revenge (yes I said it) on those responsible for their deaths and those that supported the guilty? Apparently not. I wonder what Moore's attitude would be if it was one of his loved ones that faced the choice between burning or leaping to their death. Mr. Moore you might be an idiot and you most certainly are a pussy. I knew I would have to use that word at some point. Nothing else would do.
Now we come to Chris Mathews. Did he not call West Point enemy country? He did and the evidence is readily available. Now the question remains - Did Mathews mean that the military was the enemy or just that they are perhaps the political enemy of Obama? If he only meant that the armed forces are the political enemy of the President, then he chose his words stupidly. That is not too hard to imagine as Mathews is a stupid man. If he meant that the military is the enemy of this country then he goes far beyond stupid. Either way Mr. Mathews is a fool and a pussy to boot. There's that word again.
Have you ever heard of a blog called Brilliant at Breakfast? It is a maddenly "progressive" (whatever that means) blog. Jill, the main contributor and the webmistress I believe is so liberal that it makes my eyes hurt. She is however infinitely more intelligent than either Mathews or Moore and makes a rational case for most of her arguments but she is usually so off base as to be unbelievable. (There is another contributor on her blog that calls himself "Jurassic Pork" and so far he has not posted anything concerning the troop build up. I put him in the same category as Moore, Mathews and Olbermann. He is truly a twit. Oh well, no matter.)Jill in her latest post is comparing Obama to Johnson and apparently comparing the Taliban to the Viet Cong. The inference here is of course that this is an unwinnable war and that Obama is making the same mistake that Johnson made when building up forces in the Vietnam era. There are a couple of things wrong with this scenario. The Viet Cong and NVA had never to my knowledge been responsible for attacking this nation on our home soil. Technically the Taliban has not either, but they sure supported those that did. I submit to Jill that there still is an awful lot of payback owed to those vermin. Jill has also mentioned in earlier writings that our military should not be used to kill "brown men." I assume she means Middle Eastern and Afghan Muslims. I submit to Jill that our military has not killed near enough of them yet. Jill apparently believes the war to be not winnable. I disagree. To my knowledge the Taliban have no commander as brilliant as the Vietnamese General Giap. Giap could be considered perhaps one of the premier military leaders of the second half of the twentieth century. He also had the advantage of jungle terrain to conduct operations. The two wars and the personalities involved can not really honestly be compared. Now it is true that the Soviets were not able to win in Afghanistan in the 80's. This may (or may not) be an anomaly. Soviet troops for the most part were unmotivated conscripts and American and Nato troops are motivated volunteers. Also I would submit that if there was committed political will in the Soviet Union during their "stay" in Afghanistan, then the outcome might have been different. It is also interesting that historically Russian and Soviet troops have been of no real account except when the fighting is on their soil and they have overwhelming manpower superiority. Now, no insurgency can ever be completely destroyed as long as there are those willing to fight, but it can certainly be brought down to very manageable levels with a pragmatic and quite honestly, a justifiably brutal use of military force. Now I must give Jill credit where credit is due. She may be right about the war being unwinnable considering the current political administration. Our troops must be given the tools and the green light to do what is necessary to win. If they are not, and I suspect they will not be, then I guess we should declare victory and bring everybody home. Then all those that died at the hands of the Mohammedans on 911 and the troops that have lost their lives fighting them since will have died in vain and we can all sit back and await the next 911.
Monday, September 21, 2009
A Couple of Noteworthy Blogs
I have been following a blog called Brilliant at Breakfast for some time now and find it to be pretty darn good. It is an infuriatingly left wing blog and the authors are quite out of touch with reality, but that is what makes it interesting. It is professionally done and well written and is so far to the left that it makes for good entertaining reading. I must admit that I do occasionally find some common ground with Jill, the main blogger, on some issues but not too many. Another poster, someone that calls them self "Jurassic Pork" or some such nonsense is quite "bat shit crazy." This is one of the favorite expressions apparently on this blog. I actually wrote something fairly nasty on the comments concerning something that "Jurassic Pork" wrote. I since deleted it. No sense being rude, but it galls me when our troops are compared to the SS, Stazi, etc. That was not amusing. I defend, and have defended, someones right to blather nonsense, but Good Lord man. Oh well, no matter. The blog is recommended reading if for no other reason than the entertainment value it provides. BrilliantatBreakfast.blogspot.com. Check it out and prepared to be wonderfully annoyed.
Another excellent blog I just found yesterday is "On My Mind" done by a man named Bill Hefner. This is another professionally done blog that is very well written. Mr. Hefner is much more liberal than I am and I have been accused of having some liberal tendencies. (I also have been accused of being an anarchist and imperialist and war monger but that is beside the point). I believe Mr. Hefner's blog to be an excellent read. Check him out at billsandiego.blogspot.com. It is quite interesting.
It is interesting that the best blogs are found just trolling around the blogosphere. I would have never found Cielo Gold, Survival Stew, We Can Eat, On My Mind or for that matter, the somewhat insane Brilliant at Breakfast without hitting the "next blog" tab.
It sure is interesting to see what other people have to say.
Another excellent blog I just found yesterday is "On My Mind" done by a man named Bill Hefner. This is another professionally done blog that is very well written. Mr. Hefner is much more liberal than I am and I have been accused of having some liberal tendencies. (I also have been accused of being an anarchist and imperialist and war monger but that is beside the point). I believe Mr. Hefner's blog to be an excellent read. Check him out at billsandiego.blogspot.com. It is quite interesting.
It is interesting that the best blogs are found just trolling around the blogosphere. I would have never found Cielo Gold, Survival Stew, We Can Eat, On My Mind or for that matter, the somewhat insane Brilliant at Breakfast without hitting the "next blog" tab.
It sure is interesting to see what other people have to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)