Yes, my approval rating is at 100%. Or rather, my disapproval rating is 0% - no one has complained about any of my ideas on national defense. If you haven't read it, I wrote a long discourse (evidently too long for others to read) on what I think presidential candidates should do regarding national defense.
I received an email this morning that said that, not only had my approval rating increased, I am now on the first page of google. When you google my name, my blog is the fourth hit. This is a TREMENDOUS improvement!! And I owe it all to my constituents (both of you).
I promise to get back onto this presidential platform soon. My job is such that in January or February I spend a week or two closing out the last year and then starting up the new year. This year, the process hit earlier and it's been the past week and coming week. Hopefully, work can die back down next week.
Thanks again. Remember, I'm Randy Barnett, and I approved this message.
P.S. Not sure why this person "googled" me this morning. Maybe she's checking up on me.... Does that mean I should check up on her??
Monday, January 14, 2008
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
I approved this message - National Defense
As I've been promising, I am laying out what I think are critical issues for the presidency of the US. As this thread gets closer to the actual facts, it gets more serious. None of the issues are as serious as national defense.
On 9/11/2001, the United States was attacked without provocation. There are some politicians who believe we brought this on ourselves. They are wrong and should be immediately discredited, if not charged with treason. Looking back, this should be a "Pearl Harbor event". We were attacked on US soil, but there were several smaller attacks that should have been wake-up calls. This happened before 12/07/41, but then as now, they weren't recognizable for what they were. Now in the light of 911, the events are seen as a prelude.
911 should also be a "Pearl Harbor event" in that it should propel us into the Global War on Terror. That phrase has gone out of style, but that's what it is. There are terrorists everywhere who are attacking us and our way of life. Only by being proactive, can we take the war to them.
My biggest fear is for the next 911. Whether biological, nuclear, or tactical weapons are used, if we do nothing, another attack will be coming. I suspect a series of smaller attacks, hit a shopping mall at Christmas, hit a random school, would get as much attention as the first 911. The next president needs to be ready.
Part of this can be addressed with laws around the Patriot Act. There are also laws regarding FISA - the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act. These laws allow the US government to spy on people like you & me when they suspect National Security is at risk. Some of the provisions of these laws are up for renewal. There should be no question about their requirements. Some would argue that they un-necessarily spy on US citizens. I would argue against that. Not a single case has been brought forward that would indicate anyone's rights have been violated.
In addition to the Global War on Terror, the next president needs to address the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan. First to Afghanistan. It's evident to me that the reason the Soviet Union failed in Afg is due to our under-cover support. When that war was over, a vacuum was left in the political makeup of the country. The US failed to step in and fill that vacuum or support any strong government, and the Taliban were allowed to rule. The result was a breeding ground for terrorists.
Now the same thing is ready to happen in Iraq. With Saddam Hussein out of power, we can either rebuild the government or we can let it fall to chaos and another Taliban-type rule. If we abandon either of these countries, we can count on terrorists breeding like mosquitos in a swamp.
The rebuilding of these two countries and the positioning of troops must continue. The troops must not be brought home until the job is complete, which may be several years.
Also in the area of national defense is our response in other areas of the world. However, as already seen in Libya, our response in Iraq and Afg. will have an effect on leaders elsewhere. Our response should be the same, if these countries promote terrorism, we should work to rebuild the country, either politically or militarily.
Part of this applies to one of our allies, Saudi Arabia. The Sauds have long enjoyed our support, yet some of the biggest mosquitos (terrorists) have been bred in their country. The schools teach an anti-American curriculum and the children grow up hating us. With all the money we spend on oil, we should demand a better supplier.
Which brings me to the last subject in the area of national defense, oil. Our nation's economic dependence on oil is a contributing factor to the current dilemma. Only by developing nuclear energy, solar energy and wind energy (I sound like a tree hugger) can we remove this dependence. However, doing so will lessen the economic lifestyle of our middle eastern neighbors and is likely to cause more unrest. We must work with the governments of the affected countries to lessen their dependence on our hard earned cash. Just like an addict on heroin, simply cutting the US cash-addicts off cold turkey will cause withdrawl pains and they may lash out at us, causing increased terrorist activities.
This has been a long post, I appreciate your reading it in entirety. I truly believe that national defense is the single greatest issue facing the next president.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
P.S. Why didn't someone correct my previous posts where I said "I endorsed this message"?
On 9/11/2001, the United States was attacked without provocation. There are some politicians who believe we brought this on ourselves. They are wrong and should be immediately discredited, if not charged with treason. Looking back, this should be a "Pearl Harbor event". We were attacked on US soil, but there were several smaller attacks that should have been wake-up calls. This happened before 12/07/41, but then as now, they weren't recognizable for what they were. Now in the light of 911, the events are seen as a prelude.
911 should also be a "Pearl Harbor event" in that it should propel us into the Global War on Terror. That phrase has gone out of style, but that's what it is. There are terrorists everywhere who are attacking us and our way of life. Only by being proactive, can we take the war to them.
My biggest fear is for the next 911. Whether biological, nuclear, or tactical weapons are used, if we do nothing, another attack will be coming. I suspect a series of smaller attacks, hit a shopping mall at Christmas, hit a random school, would get as much attention as the first 911. The next president needs to be ready.
Part of this can be addressed with laws around the Patriot Act. There are also laws regarding FISA - the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act. These laws allow the US government to spy on people like you & me when they suspect National Security is at risk. Some of the provisions of these laws are up for renewal. There should be no question about their requirements. Some would argue that they un-necessarily spy on US citizens. I would argue against that. Not a single case has been brought forward that would indicate anyone's rights have been violated.
In addition to the Global War on Terror, the next president needs to address the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan. First to Afghanistan. It's evident to me that the reason the Soviet Union failed in Afg is due to our under-cover support. When that war was over, a vacuum was left in the political makeup of the country. The US failed to step in and fill that vacuum or support any strong government, and the Taliban were allowed to rule. The result was a breeding ground for terrorists.
Now the same thing is ready to happen in Iraq. With Saddam Hussein out of power, we can either rebuild the government or we can let it fall to chaos and another Taliban-type rule. If we abandon either of these countries, we can count on terrorists breeding like mosquitos in a swamp.
The rebuilding of these two countries and the positioning of troops must continue. The troops must not be brought home until the job is complete, which may be several years.
Also in the area of national defense is our response in other areas of the world. However, as already seen in Libya, our response in Iraq and Afg. will have an effect on leaders elsewhere. Our response should be the same, if these countries promote terrorism, we should work to rebuild the country, either politically or militarily.
Part of this applies to one of our allies, Saudi Arabia. The Sauds have long enjoyed our support, yet some of the biggest mosquitos (terrorists) have been bred in their country. The schools teach an anti-American curriculum and the children grow up hating us. With all the money we spend on oil, we should demand a better supplier.
Which brings me to the last subject in the area of national defense, oil. Our nation's economic dependence on oil is a contributing factor to the current dilemma. Only by developing nuclear energy, solar energy and wind energy (I sound like a tree hugger) can we remove this dependence. However, doing so will lessen the economic lifestyle of our middle eastern neighbors and is likely to cause more unrest. We must work with the governments of the affected countries to lessen their dependence on our hard earned cash. Just like an addict on heroin, simply cutting the US cash-addicts off cold turkey will cause withdrawl pains and they may lash out at us, causing increased terrorist activities.
This has been a long post, I appreciate your reading it in entirety. I truly believe that national defense is the single greatest issue facing the next president.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
P.S. Why didn't someone correct my previous posts where I said "I endorsed this message"?
Sunday, January 06, 2008
I endorsed this message - Platform building
Last week I announced my candidacy for the president. Then I explained that I was actually just planning to lay out what I thought was important for the candidate I intend to choose.
It seems from all the commercials I'm seeing, that Change is the answer. From the man who claims to have been the first to ask for change, to the lady who says she has the experience to change, all of the candidates, Democratic and Republican, are clamoring for change. Reminds me of the old adage about babies and politicians both needing to be changed often, and for the same reason.
I'm going to begin, not by asking for change, but by laying out my ideas. Before I begin, I want to lay out the areas I think should be addressed. This post won't tell you my opinion on any one topic, but instead will list topics I intend to cover later. They will be somewhat grouped, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.
I should note that I've already appointed someone to be my Secretary of Defense. I am step-related to a former soldier who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He's the most knowledgable person I know in this area.
In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - 9/11 and America's response, the next 9/11, is there a Global War on Terror, the War in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts.
2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration)
3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations (John Adams reference?)
4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending
5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)
What did I leave out? What do you, the voter, want me to address?
Thanks to those who responded earlier, I sincerley hope this gets some attention.
It seems from all the commercials I'm seeing, that Change is the answer. From the man who claims to have been the first to ask for change, to the lady who says she has the experience to change, all of the candidates, Democratic and Republican, are clamoring for change. Reminds me of the old adage about babies and politicians both needing to be changed often, and for the same reason.
I'm going to begin, not by asking for change, but by laying out my ideas. Before I begin, I want to lay out the areas I think should be addressed. This post won't tell you my opinion on any one topic, but instead will list topics I intend to cover later. They will be somewhat grouped, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.
I should note that I've already appointed someone to be my Secretary of Defense. I am step-related to a former soldier who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He's the most knowledgable person I know in this area.
In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - 9/11 and America's response, the next 9/11, is there a Global War on Terror, the War in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts.
2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration)
3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations (John Adams reference?)
4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending
5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)
What did I leave out? What do you, the voter, want me to address?
Thanks to those who responded earlier, I sincerley hope this gets some attention.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
My name is RB, I endorsed this message and I'm running for president
When I turned 35, I announced to all my friends and neighbors that I was running for president. I had examined all of the recent candidates and announcements and decided I was equally qualified.
However, it was not an election year, so I soon bowed out. Now, 14 years later, I'm reannouncing my candidacy.
Since I'm entering the fanfare a little late, I'll plan a slow entrance. I'll start by announcing and deciding my platform. This will help all of my followers (thanks mom) decide which of the current candidates should be elected to hold my place until I'm truly ready. In fact, he or she could revoke the constitutional amendment that placed term limits on the presidency so that once I win the office, I can retain it forever, in the spirit of my senator, Strom Thurmond.
So, over the next several weeks, I'll post my ideas on the presidency and what I believe are important subjects to be covered. Since I'm a formulas and function kind of guy (see my post on functions), I'll also put some sort of priority or weighting with each idea. This way and astute reader could write a simple function for Excel to decide which of the current candidates best fits my model.
Regular readers will know that I've already stated there was one candidate I could NOT vote for, that's Rudy G. See my reasoning here. They may also note that I've suggested Jenna Bush for president (see here), but it's going to be a while before she's eligible. Other than these two items, I haven't decided who I will vote for. I fully expect to make that decision as a part of this exercise.
So be looking for my posts. Tell your friends and neighbors, dogs and cats, dead uncles and aunts to all vote for me (it works in Chicago). Seriously read my posts and comment on them. If you disagree with me, feel free to say so. I reserve the right to flip-flop as often as Clinton and Romney have been accused. After all, one man's flip-flop is another man's shoe.
However, it was not an election year, so I soon bowed out. Now, 14 years later, I'm reannouncing my candidacy.
Since I'm entering the fanfare a little late, I'll plan a slow entrance. I'll start by announcing and deciding my platform. This will help all of my followers (thanks mom) decide which of the current candidates should be elected to hold my place until I'm truly ready. In fact, he or she could revoke the constitutional amendment that placed term limits on the presidency so that once I win the office, I can retain it forever, in the spirit of my senator, Strom Thurmond.
So, over the next several weeks, I'll post my ideas on the presidency and what I believe are important subjects to be covered. Since I'm a formulas and function kind of guy (see my post on functions), I'll also put some sort of priority or weighting with each idea. This way and astute reader could write a simple function for Excel to decide which of the current candidates best fits my model.
Regular readers will know that I've already stated there was one candidate I could NOT vote for, that's Rudy G. See my reasoning here. They may also note that I've suggested Jenna Bush for president (see here), but it's going to be a while before she's eligible. Other than these two items, I haven't decided who I will vote for. I fully expect to make that decision as a part of this exercise.
So be looking for my posts. Tell your friends and neighbors, dogs and cats, dead uncles and aunts to all vote for me (it works in Chicago). Seriously read my posts and comment on them. If you disagree with me, feel free to say so. I reserve the right to flip-flop as often as Clinton and Romney have been accused. After all, one man's flip-flop is another man's shoe.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Happy new Year
I've been working lightly the last two weeks and now it's time to start back in ernest. The holidays were wonderful, even if it ended with a loss at the Chic-Fil-A bowl.
I quit doing New Year's resolutions several years ago. I tried to restart it a few years back, but couldn't get anyone to work with me. It always seems that any day is a good day to start being healthy, saving money and creating whirled peas, why blame it all on New Years.
Happy 2008 to all
I quit doing New Year's resolutions several years ago. I tried to restart it a few years back, but couldn't get anyone to work with me. It always seems that any day is a good day to start being healthy, saving money and creating whirled peas, why blame it all on New Years.
Happy 2008 to all
Monday, December 31, 2007
Do opposites attract?
You've heard it before, opposites attract. I've even seen a few cases where it seemed to be true, my wife & I for one. My daughter & her husband are another. She's a planner, he's free wheeling. She expresses her emotions, he holds them in. As for my wife and I, let's just say we have a strange and wonderful relationship -- I'm strange and she's wonderful.
I heard once a saying (I think from Larry Burkette) that in a marriage if both people are the same, one isn't needed. So what makes a good relationship?
I think you have to have a common background. Some fundamental values that match up. It also helps if you genuinely LIKE each other. I've seen cases where a couple were in love, but didn't like each other. After a while, they tire of each other. I've seen cases where the fundamental values didn't match. When times get tough, they go separate ways. When all that's left is the basics, the basics just don't match.
I've known a couple who were in an arranged marriage. In their culture, this was the norm. When they were young, the parents chose them to be together. They had a choice when they grew older, but they decided if the parents set this up, they would go through with it. Today, they are doing very well with two children. They actually liked each other and they had the same fundamental values.
I also believe it takes a commitment to stay together. Both people have to have the commitment. I've long said it takes two to keep a marriage together, but only one to split it apart. Without a commitment, there are two many times where it would be easy to walk away. Or walk to someone else.
I heard once a saying (I think from Larry Burkette) that in a marriage if both people are the same, one isn't needed. So what makes a good relationship?
I think you have to have a common background. Some fundamental values that match up. It also helps if you genuinely LIKE each other. I've seen cases where a couple were in love, but didn't like each other. After a while, they tire of each other. I've seen cases where the fundamental values didn't match. When times get tough, they go separate ways. When all that's left is the basics, the basics just don't match.
I've known a couple who were in an arranged marriage. In their culture, this was the norm. When they were young, the parents chose them to be together. They had a choice when they grew older, but they decided if the parents set this up, they would go through with it. Today, they are doing very well with two children. They actually liked each other and they had the same fundamental values.
I also believe it takes a commitment to stay together. Both people have to have the commitment. I've long said it takes two to keep a marriage together, but only one to split it apart. Without a commitment, there are two many times where it would be easy to walk away. Or walk to someone else.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Monday, December 24, 2007
How old is that manager?
Lunch today was on the road, at McDonald's. Hey it was good enough for our former president, it's good enough for me.
Anyway, the sign says they are hiring managers, crew members, openers and closers. For the openers and closers, it said they had to be 18.
But there was no disclaimer on the managers. Can they be 16? I know a 16 year old can work there. A lot of the managers ACT 16 (or even less).
How would you interpret the sign? How old does the manager look at your local Mickey D's?
Anyway, the sign says they are hiring managers, crew members, openers and closers. For the openers and closers, it said they had to be 18.
But there was no disclaimer on the managers. Can they be 16? I know a 16 year old can work there. A lot of the managers ACT 16 (or even less).
How would you interpret the sign? How old does the manager look at your local Mickey D's?
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Man shoots iHome
That's what the headlines should have read this morning. I don't know how many times that thing has gone off when my son has been somewhere else. With a sound something like a smoke alarm (but not quite as loud), it's hard to ignore.
It's also hard to figure out how to turn the stupid thing off. Lots of buttons, turn "dials", etc, they just don't seem to work. Then when I get it silenced and return to bed, I begin to drift off again only to realize that I only hit the snooze, not the off button.
I fugure a .45 slug in the top of it should manage to silence it for good. Since I bought the thing, it shouldn't break any laws. And I think it could be considered a mercy killing.
It's also hard to figure out how to turn the stupid thing off. Lots of buttons, turn "dials", etc, they just don't seem to work. Then when I get it silenced and return to bed, I begin to drift off again only to realize that I only hit the snooze, not the off button.
I fugure a .45 slug in the top of it should manage to silence it for good. Since I bought the thing, it shouldn't break any laws. And I think it could be considered a mercy killing.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Ok, I'm offended
I work for a large company, one of the Fortune 500 companies. Today, I received a Holiday message from a Vice President over me. There are three levels of management between us, two between him and the Chairman, President and CEO (all one person).
The greeting said "Season's Greetings", "Happy Kwanza", "Boas Festas", "Happy Hanukkah", "Joyeuses Fetes" and "Feliz Navidad".
Where's the Merry Christmas? They can't argue that they're trying to keep the religous aspect out, Hanukkah is a religous holiday.
So why do they ignore Christmas? I'm offended.
Maybe I should send him a note back to say Merry Christmas.
The greeting said "Season's Greetings", "Happy Kwanza", "Boas Festas", "Happy Hanukkah", "Joyeuses Fetes" and "Feliz Navidad".
Where's the Merry Christmas? They can't argue that they're trying to keep the religous aspect out, Hanukkah is a religous holiday.
So why do they ignore Christmas? I'm offended.
Maybe I should send him a note back to say Merry Christmas.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
War in Iraq
I don't often post about the War in Iraq or the Global War on Terror. Too much like talking about politics.
But I couldn't help but notice a few changes. The British are moving out of Basra, because they are no longer needed. And yesterday, Major General Joseph Fil, a commander of multinational troops in Baghdad told reporters that things had changed in Baghdad.
"The number of attacks against citizens in Baghdad has dropped by almost 80 percent since November, 2006," said Fil.
Now isn't this a good thing? Yes, it's going to take some time and yes the cost has been high. And I predict there will be times of increasing violence. But this is a good thing.
American troops should be pulled out as soon as possible, but we must be careful not to pull out too quickly. We made a mess when we pulled out of Vietnam, we shouldn't repeat one of our past mistakes.
But I couldn't help but notice a few changes. The British are moving out of Basra, because they are no longer needed. And yesterday, Major General Joseph Fil, a commander of multinational troops in Baghdad told reporters that things had changed in Baghdad.
"The number of attacks against citizens in Baghdad has dropped by almost 80 percent since November, 2006," said Fil.
Now isn't this a good thing? Yes, it's going to take some time and yes the cost has been high. And I predict there will be times of increasing violence. But this is a good thing.
American troops should be pulled out as soon as possible, but we must be careful not to pull out too quickly. We made a mess when we pulled out of Vietnam, we shouldn't repeat one of our past mistakes.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow..
No, it's not snowing here in the south. I did see some snow a couple weeks ago when I was up in DC (my plane waited over an hour on de-icing at Dulles Airport).
But I saw a news report this morning about the ice/snow storm that has hit the north east. In Maine, the governer has even asked people to stay inside.
In the south, we get made fun of everytime it snows. We get an inch or so of snow and everything closes down. But in this case, Maine closes down. Oh, they say that we close with an inch of snow, there snow is much worse.
But, I'd be willing to bet that we have about the same number of closures per year as the Maine-ites.
So a word to northerners everywhere, don't poke fun us at when we close down. We want our snow days just as much as you do. We just have to take them when we can, with only an inch of snow.
But I saw a news report this morning about the ice/snow storm that has hit the north east. In Maine, the governer has even asked people to stay inside.
In the south, we get made fun of everytime it snows. We get an inch or so of snow and everything closes down. But in this case, Maine closes down. Oh, they say that we close with an inch of snow, there snow is much worse.
But, I'd be willing to bet that we have about the same number of closures per year as the Maine-ites.
So a word to northerners everywhere, don't poke fun us at when we close down. We want our snow days just as much as you do. We just have to take them when we can, with only an inch of snow.
Friday, December 14, 2007
I am Legend
We went to see this movie tonight. If the showing we were at was representative, it will make a lot of money this weekend.
Overall, it was a good flick. I'm an SF fan, so last-man-on-earth movies are nothing new to me. But, hey, it's got Will Smith, so it ought to be good, right? My wife was terrified at some of the scenes, she nearly came out of her seat. My sister (who hasn't seen it - we talked after the movie) said she thought it was a horror movie. In some ways, it was. But the horror was reasonable horror (what an oxymoron!)
What surprised me the most was the religious references. They were done in good taste, if a little bit hurried and pushed. Even Smith's character declaring there is no God made sense. And religious folks will be glad the way it was all handled.
Overall, a good movie. Made for the big screen, with surround sound and all (there was glass falling behind us in one scene - neat). Spend the $9 (or less for a matinee), don't wait for the DVD. And warn your wife that it could be a little bit bloody and jumpy.
Overall, it was a good flick. I'm an SF fan, so last-man-on-earth movies are nothing new to me. But, hey, it's got Will Smith, so it ought to be good, right? My wife was terrified at some of the scenes, she nearly came out of her seat. My sister (who hasn't seen it - we talked after the movie) said she thought it was a horror movie. In some ways, it was. But the horror was reasonable horror (what an oxymoron!)
What surprised me the most was the religious references. They were done in good taste, if a little bit hurried and pushed. Even Smith's character declaring there is no God made sense. And religious folks will be glad the way it was all handled.
Overall, a good movie. Made for the big screen, with surround sound and all (there was glass falling behind us in one scene - neat). Spend the $9 (or less for a matinee), don't wait for the DVD. And warn your wife that it could be a little bit bloody and jumpy.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Freedomswatch part 2
I got an email tonight that said that NBC has agreed to accept the Freedomswatch ads. (Last Friday I posted a note about the NBC refusal. See my previous post here.)
NBC said "We have reviewed and changed our ad standards guidelines and made the decision that our policy will apply to content only and not to a referenced Web site. Based on these amended standards the Freedom's Watch ad will begin to run as early as Sunday."
See the full article here.
I don't often do petitions, and now I'm wondering about the sanity of signing a petition asking for ads....
NBC said "We have reviewed and changed our ad standards guidelines and made the decision that our policy will apply to content only and not to a referenced Web site. Based on these amended standards the Freedom's Watch ad will begin to run as early as Sunday."
See the full article here.
I don't often do petitions, and now I'm wondering about the sanity of signing a petition asking for ads....
Crossing the Rubicon
I heard a new phrase today and it generated all sorts of mental images. The phrase was crossing the Rubicon, the idea is that you deliberately go past the point of no return. The origination of the phrase is to Julius Caesar's day, where he sent his army across the Rubicon River, starting his invasion of Ancient Rome. Once his people crossed that river, there was no turning back, the war had begun.
I heard the phrase in a commercial for an anti-divorce book or program to be used by couples. The individual said that he and his wife discussed divorced and nearly "crossed the Rubicon".
I know two couples whose marriages are in trouble and this image fits very well. One couple has already crossed the Rubicon, the second is close, if not already past. The image is that they are headed to this point, in some cases with increasing speed and the force behind them continues to push them. At some point, and you could almost draw a line, they have no way out.
An oft used equal phrase is burning bridges and a less used phrase is burning boats. I think it was Cortez who ordered his boats burned when invading Mexico to keep his troops from attempting to retreat.
I heard the phrase in a commercial for an anti-divorce book or program to be used by couples. The individual said that he and his wife discussed divorced and nearly "crossed the Rubicon".
I know two couples whose marriages are in trouble and this image fits very well. One couple has already crossed the Rubicon, the second is close, if not already past. The image is that they are headed to this point, in some cases with increasing speed and the force behind them continues to push them. At some point, and you could almost draw a line, they have no way out.
An oft used equal phrase is burning bridges and a less used phrase is burning boats. I think it was Cortez who ordered his boats burned when invading Mexico to keep his troops from attempting to retreat.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Did Drew Peterson kill his wife?
All over the news, you'll see stories like this one about Drew Peterson in Illinois who is accused of killing his fourth wife. Her body hasn't been found, but they have exhumed his third wife's body and at least one investigator believes he killed her too (I found an interview with wife#2, but gave up finding anything on wife#1, the reports are just too sick). Mr. Peterson thinks wife#4 ran off with another man and just doesn't want to be found.
Now, teleport across the pond to merry old England where it's reported that John Darwin who has been gone over five years and presumed dead. The wreckage of his kayak washed on shore in March 2002 and a coroner pronounced him dead. His wife Anne, collected the life insurance money and recently moved to Panama. Now John has turned himself in claiming amnesia.
So what ties these two stories together? Is Anne Darwin's wife, Drew Peterson's next target? Or did Stacy Peterson, run off with John Darwin? No, nothing so sinister, no great conspiracy. I am just fascinated with the idea that people can run away and never be found. It turns out there are even books written about the idea: "Hide Your Assets & Disappear: A Step-By-Step Guide to Vanishing Without a Trace"
Let's see, didn't I say something a few days ago about moving to the mountains and becoming a hermit? (blog post here) If Santa wanted to bring me a book, maybe the above would be a good one...
Now, teleport across the pond to merry old England where it's reported that John Darwin who has been gone over five years and presumed dead. The wreckage of his kayak washed on shore in March 2002 and a coroner pronounced him dead. His wife Anne, collected the life insurance money and recently moved to Panama. Now John has turned himself in claiming amnesia.
So what ties these two stories together? Is Anne Darwin's wife, Drew Peterson's next target? Or did Stacy Peterson, run off with John Darwin? No, nothing so sinister, no great conspiracy. I am just fascinated with the idea that people can run away and never be found. It turns out there are even books written about the idea: "Hide Your Assets & Disappear: A Step-By-Step Guide to Vanishing Without a Trace"
Let's see, didn't I say something a few days ago about moving to the mountains and becoming a hermit? (blog post here) If Santa wanted to bring me a book, maybe the above would be a good one...
Friday, December 07, 2007
http://www.freedomswatch.org/ - TV ads
NBC refuses to run some ads produced by Freedom's Watch. The reason they give is that the organization depicts it's web address at the end and the web site has some potentially sensitive issues.
Let's be clear. The ads that were requested are NOT politically oriented. They simply say "thank you" to the soldiers. Some also wish the soldiers a merry Christmas. At the end is a link to the freedomswathch.org website. You can view the ads here. If you disagree, please let me know and explain why. If you agree, sign the petition.
The website does show other TV ads which may cause some people to disagree (these are NOT part of the current dispute). Basically, it's an anti MoveOn.org commercial. These ads clearly voice the opinion that the War in Iraq is related to the War on Terror which is related to 9/11. Now some will disagree with that. I will not voice my opinion in this post, because I think it's not relevant.
What is relevant is that NBC, MSNBC and CNBC are refusing to air ads that thank our soldiers. The ads are being shown by CNN and FoxNews.
(F0r the record, being a market-driven philosophy based individual, I believe NBC has the right to refuse any ad. But having the right, doesn't make it right)
Let's be clear. The ads that were requested are NOT politically oriented. They simply say "thank you" to the soldiers. Some also wish the soldiers a merry Christmas. At the end is a link to the freedomswathch.org website. You can view the ads here. If you disagree, please let me know and explain why. If you agree, sign the petition.
The website does show other TV ads which may cause some people to disagree (these are NOT part of the current dispute). Basically, it's an anti MoveOn.org commercial. These ads clearly voice the opinion that the War in Iraq is related to the War on Terror which is related to 9/11. Now some will disagree with that. I will not voice my opinion in this post, because I think it's not relevant.
What is relevant is that NBC, MSNBC and CNBC are refusing to air ads that thank our soldiers. The ads are being shown by CNN and FoxNews.
(F0r the record, being a market-driven philosophy based individual, I believe NBC has the right to refuse any ad. But having the right, doesn't make it right)
Home again, home again...
My two weeks of ridiculous travel is over. I'm home for a while. I do have one out-of-town trip next week, but it's only one night.
It's good to be home.
It's good to be home.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Impeachment
Yesterday when I should have been working, I instead procrastinated and went off on some odd tangents. I wanted to list the presidential candidates (17 of them) and then I saw Dennis Kucinich and beacuse of his funny sounding name ended up looking at news about him. He's proposed an impeachment of VP Cheney. So what does impeachment really mean?
Most of this I knew already and most of my readers will know most of it, but I decided to put it together in one place.
Generally, impeachment is thought of as kicking someone out of office. This is wrong. Impeachment is the process where an official is brought to trial. The impeachment trial can result in conviction or aquittal, conviction means kicking someone out of office.
The impeachment process starts in the House of Representatives (what a fine bunch). Typically, the resolution is sent to the judiciary committee. It may also wind through a couple other committees. A simple majority of those present and voting is enough to proceed.
At this point, control passes to the Senate (another fine bunch). They sit in judgement over the accused. Conviction requires a 2/3 majority vote. Here's the interesting part. If the president is impeached, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. In other cases, the VP presides.
So (in theory), the VP could preside over his own case.
In looking at some of the history of impeachment, it looks like James Madison had a good bit to do with that part of the Constitution. Thanks to him, impeachment can only occur due to "treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors." Incompetence is not impeachable. Jefferson's manual offers some information on impeachment as well (food for another procrastination).
There have been 17 cases of impeachment at the federal level, 13 of these for judges and justices. Of the judges, 7 were removed from office and 2 resigned. One senator was impeached, but he was removed from office by Senate rules before the impeachment proceedings. In 1876, the Secretary of War (now called Secretary of defense) was impeached, he resigned and then was aquitted.
Only twice has a sitting president been impeached. Andrew Johnson (Lincoln's successor) was impeached, but aquitted and Bill Clinton was impeached, but aquitted. Clinton was impeached on two counts: Perjury and Obstruction of justice. Two other counts were attempted, but did not make it to aquital: a second count of perjury and abuse of power. (Next time I procrastinate, I'll research those four charges)
Contrary to popular opinion, Nixon was not impeached. Impeachment proceedings were in process and would likely have resulted in impeachment, but Nixon resigned instead.
There have been 63 resolutions presented for impeachment including resolutions to impeach George Washington, John Tyler, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Nancy Pelosi has implied that impeachment hearings against Bush & Cheney are not going to happen. It appears to this researcher that she just doesn't want her tenure bogged down in the proceedings. Since any vote is likely to be split down party lines, I would agree with her. Of course, I'm not sure there's much progress being made anyway, so I can't see much damage either way.
Most of this I knew already and most of my readers will know most of it, but I decided to put it together in one place.
Generally, impeachment is thought of as kicking someone out of office. This is wrong. Impeachment is the process where an official is brought to trial. The impeachment trial can result in conviction or aquittal, conviction means kicking someone out of office.
The impeachment process starts in the House of Representatives (what a fine bunch). Typically, the resolution is sent to the judiciary committee. It may also wind through a couple other committees. A simple majority of those present and voting is enough to proceed.
At this point, control passes to the Senate (another fine bunch). They sit in judgement over the accused. Conviction requires a 2/3 majority vote. Here's the interesting part. If the president is impeached, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. In other cases, the VP presides.
So (in theory), the VP could preside over his own case.
In looking at some of the history of impeachment, it looks like James Madison had a good bit to do with that part of the Constitution. Thanks to him, impeachment can only occur due to "treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors." Incompetence is not impeachable. Jefferson's manual offers some information on impeachment as well (food for another procrastination).
There have been 17 cases of impeachment at the federal level, 13 of these for judges and justices. Of the judges, 7 were removed from office and 2 resigned. One senator was impeached, but he was removed from office by Senate rules before the impeachment proceedings. In 1876, the Secretary of War (now called Secretary of defense) was impeached, he resigned and then was aquitted.
Only twice has a sitting president been impeached. Andrew Johnson (Lincoln's successor) was impeached, but aquitted and Bill Clinton was impeached, but aquitted. Clinton was impeached on two counts: Perjury and Obstruction of justice. Two other counts were attempted, but did not make it to aquital: a second count of perjury and abuse of power. (Next time I procrastinate, I'll research those four charges)
Contrary to popular opinion, Nixon was not impeached. Impeachment proceedings were in process and would likely have resulted in impeachment, but Nixon resigned instead.
There have been 63 resolutions presented for impeachment including resolutions to impeach George Washington, John Tyler, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Nancy Pelosi has implied that impeachment hearings against Bush & Cheney are not going to happen. It appears to this researcher that she just doesn't want her tenure bogged down in the proceedings. Since any vote is likely to be split down party lines, I would agree with her. Of course, I'm not sure there's much progress being made anyway, so I can't see much damage either way.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Hermit
This time of the year is always difficult for me. I know it should be the happiest time of all. I get to see my family more than normal, everyone is in a good mood and I get to do things that please them.
I think it's tough because of the stress. I want to do things just right and they don't always work. Some family gets hurt or offended, someone else doesn't like what's going on. And they all bring their problems to me.
I get the urge to move up to the mountains and tell them that if they want to see me, come on, but leave their gripes and complaints at home.
If my comments these next few days seem a little snippy, I apologize in advance. Don't complain about it though, you'll only make it worse.
I think it's tough because of the stress. I want to do things just right and they don't always work. Some family gets hurt or offended, someone else doesn't like what's going on. And they all bring their problems to me.
I get the urge to move up to the mountains and tell them that if they want to see me, come on, but leave their gripes and complaints at home.
If my comments these next few days seem a little snippy, I apologize in advance. Don't complain about it though, you'll only make it worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)