Holla Atchya! My name is David Wallace Bennett and I have recently been invited to comment on Our Political Ramblings, an invitation I accepted with glee. You may find my posts and comments to be a bit jocular at times, but hopefully I'll have something of value to add, on occasion. I grew up in Massachusetts and currently attend school in Utah.
I have been thinking heavily about the War in Afghanistan this week (I have been pondering the past seven days, not thinking exclusively about the happenings of the war that transpired during this week, peradventure you were confused) and I have been reading the New York Times, specifically in regards to President Obama's speech. While my opinions are still in the developmental phase (likened unto dough that has yet to rise, but is still malleable)- I do have some thoughts.
#1) The war in Afghanistan will not be won militaristically. Like the Gadianton Robbers of olden days (are you people LDS?) the Taliban may die out only to return again. Their extreme ideas and intense hatred will just resurface after the US declares the 'Mission Accomplished.' They are not like the Tamil Tigers with a finite location and limited members. I agree that we can weaken their forces and destroy their top commanders, but unlike Nazi Germany they cannot be entirely annihilated.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
More Thoughts of the day
In response to some previous conservative quotes, here are a couple of liberal ones I enjoyed.
1st, from Dave Barry, a humor-based newspaper columnist.
The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club.
2nd, from JFK, no introduction needed:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." [September 14, 1960]
3rd and last, Winston Churchill:
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
And so Jeff and Devin I've concluded you either have no heart, or just aged right past your 20's. Just kidding guys.
1st, from Dave Barry, a humor-based newspaper columnist.
The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club.
2nd, from JFK, no introduction needed:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." [September 14, 1960]
3rd and last, Winston Churchill:
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
And so Jeff and Devin I've concluded you either have no heart, or just aged right past your 20's. Just kidding guys.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Thoughts of the Day
Again, brought to you by my one of my favorite economists and social commentators, Thomas Sowell. These should spark some interesting and lively debate. Note: they are intentionally random and are not meant to be read together in context. Comment on them individually if you'd like.
"Sometimes we seem like people on a pleasure boat drifting down the Niagara river, unaware that there are waterfalls up ahead. I don't know what people think is going to happen when a nation that already sponsors international terrorism has nuclear bombs to give to terrorists around the world."
"Internationally, the law of the jungle ultimately prevails, despite pious talk about "the international community" and "world opinion," or the pompous and corrupt farce of the United Nations."
"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about "fairness" and "social justice," what is your "fair share" of what someone else has worked for?"
"Sometimes we seem like people on a pleasure boat drifting down the Niagara river, unaware that there are waterfalls up ahead. I don't know what people think is going to happen when a nation that already sponsors international terrorism has nuclear bombs to give to terrorists around the world."
"Internationally, the law of the jungle ultimately prevails, despite pious talk about "the international community" and "world opinion," or the pompous and corrupt farce of the United Nations."
"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about "fairness" and "social justice," what is your "fair share" of what someone else has worked for?"
Friday, November 27, 2009
Top 3 Political Turkeys
In honor of Thanksgiving, I thought it would be fun for everyone to list their top 3 political turkeys of 2009. So in the comments, list 3 people (or groups), and why they made your "political turkey" list. Here's my top three (or 4), in ascending order:
3. Mark Sanford/Sarah Palin
What? 2 Republicans made Devin's list? Yes folks, that's right. Gov. Mark Sanford is a no-brainer. His political star burned out just about as quick as it caught fire. While lying to his staff earlier this summer about going on a supposed hike on the Appalachian trail, Sanford really was meeting up with his Argentine "soul mate." Sanford walked out on his wife, his four sons, and his state. Sadly, it seems like sex scandals are the only bipartisan phenomena in politics these days.
While she has stayed true to her husband and family, Palin makes my list for quitting right in the middle of her term and for her incredibly embarrassing exit press conference. I think this move will come back to haunt her if she decides to throw her hat in the ring for 2012. I like Palin, but she needs to spend less time selling books, magazine covers, doing interviews, and playing the victim, and more time sharpening her political teeth - something a governor of a state does.
2. Nancy Pelosi
Ah yes, Queen Nancy, Speaker of the House. She makes the list for breaking her promise to post huge spending initiatives online like the so-called stimulus package and now the health care reform bill at least 72 hours before voting to give not only the public time to read it, but those who actually vote on it as well! She also makes the list for accusing the CIA of lying to her and actually getting away with that kind of an accusation with no consequences or investigations. I wouldn't be surprised if she made Joe Biden's list for jumping up and down like a jack-in-the-box everytime Obama delivers a "prime time" speech either!
1. Barack Hussein Obama
Mmmm, mmmm, mmmmm. My reasons for putting him #1 on this list are well-documented on this blog. You name it, anything from the endless campaign promises broken (I don't feel that betrayed - I didn't vote for him), to cramming unpopular policies down our throats, to tripling the national deficit, to incessantly hijacking the airwaves and tv channels, to repeatedly bowing to foreign rulers, to nationalizing the auto industry, to leaving out troops and generals hanging on Afghanistan, to arguing with dictionaries about definitions, to perpetuating the "too big to fail" lie, and the list goes on and on. While there have been some decisions he's made that I'm ok with, they have been very few and far between. 2012 can't come soon enough!
Happy Thanksgiving everybody.
3. Mark Sanford/Sarah Palin
What? 2 Republicans made Devin's list? Yes folks, that's right. Gov. Mark Sanford is a no-brainer. His political star burned out just about as quick as it caught fire. While lying to his staff earlier this summer about going on a supposed hike on the Appalachian trail, Sanford really was meeting up with his Argentine "soul mate." Sanford walked out on his wife, his four sons, and his state. Sadly, it seems like sex scandals are the only bipartisan phenomena in politics these days.
While she has stayed true to her husband and family, Palin makes my list for quitting right in the middle of her term and for her incredibly embarrassing exit press conference. I think this move will come back to haunt her if she decides to throw her hat in the ring for 2012. I like Palin, but she needs to spend less time selling books, magazine covers, doing interviews, and playing the victim, and more time sharpening her political teeth - something a governor of a state does.
2. Nancy Pelosi
Ah yes, Queen Nancy, Speaker of the House. She makes the list for breaking her promise to post huge spending initiatives online like the so-called stimulus package and now the health care reform bill at least 72 hours before voting to give not only the public time to read it, but those who actually vote on it as well! She also makes the list for accusing the CIA of lying to her and actually getting away with that kind of an accusation with no consequences or investigations. I wouldn't be surprised if she made Joe Biden's list for jumping up and down like a jack-in-the-box everytime Obama delivers a "prime time" speech either!
1. Barack Hussein Obama
Mmmm, mmmm, mmmmm. My reasons for putting him #1 on this list are well-documented on this blog. You name it, anything from the endless campaign promises broken (I don't feel that betrayed - I didn't vote for him), to cramming unpopular policies down our throats, to tripling the national deficit, to incessantly hijacking the airwaves and tv channels, to repeatedly bowing to foreign rulers, to nationalizing the auto industry, to leaving out troops and generals hanging on Afghanistan, to arguing with dictionaries about definitions, to perpetuating the "too big to fail" lie, and the list goes on and on. While there have been some decisions he's made that I'm ok with, they have been very few and far between. 2012 can't come soon enough!
Happy Thanksgiving everybody.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Why All the Craziness?
This was old but I thought it was an interesting interview.
So what do you guys think? Are all the so-called "tea-baggers" right to be afraid of "losing their country" or is it just extremist conspiracy theories from "divisive" figures?
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 2 | ||||
| ||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 3 | ||||
| ||||
So what do you guys think? Are all the so-called "tea-baggers" right to be afraid of "losing their country" or is it just extremist conspiracy theories from "divisive" figures?
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Alice Holder
I can't help myself.
1. Holder wants KSM tried in Federal District Court
2. To restore our image in the world as just and fair and open
3. By affording KSM the rights of any criminal defendant in an Article III court
4. Including the presumption of innocence
5. But without even the possible risk of an acquittal
6. Because the evidence is so strong and the prosecutors so wonderful that
7. "Failure is not an option."
Way to achieve your goal, Holder!
The world probably already loves our Wonderland justice:
"Sentence first. Verdict later."
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Eric Holder Gets Owned
The Congressional hot seat completely melted the Attorney General Eric Holder today. Asked to defend his moronic, unprecedented, nonsensical, and reckless decision to try the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) in a NY federal court as if he were a garden-variety criminal, Holder uh, well, he umm, uh, well, watch for yourself:
Andy McCarthy, a former U.S. Attorney who knows a thing or two about this topic (he successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheik in the aftermath of the WTC bombings) responded to Holder's performance in front of the Committee today:
"What made the United States most vulnerable in the Nineties was our enemies' perception that they were at war and we were not. They gave us bombs and death, we gave them rights. That encouraged them to attack us more often and more audaciously — which is exactly what they did. If we are at war, and the Attorney General said this morning that we are, we have to treat it like a war. Pressed by Sen. Graham, the AG could not name a single time when, during war, we captured an enemy combatant outside the U.S. and brought him into the United States for a civilian trial — vesting him with all the rights of an American citizen. That's because that hasn't happened. That's not how you treat wartime enemies.
Andy McCarthy, a former U.S. Attorney who knows a thing or two about this topic (he successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheik in the aftermath of the WTC bombings) responded to Holder's performance in front of the Committee today:
"What made the United States most vulnerable in the Nineties was our enemies' perception that they were at war and we were not. They gave us bombs and death, we gave them rights. That encouraged them to attack us more often and more audaciously — which is exactly what they did. If we are at war, and the Attorney General said this morning that we are, we have to treat it like a war. Pressed by Sen. Graham, the AG could not name a single time when, during war, we captured an enemy combatant outside the U.S. and brought him into the United States for a civilian trial — vesting him with all the rights of an American citizen. That's because that hasn't happened. That's not how you treat wartime enemies.
Further, if we are going to have military commissions at all (and Holder says we will continue to have them), it makes no sense to transfer the worst war criminals to the civilian system. Doing so tells the enemy that they will get more rights if they mass-murder civilians."
This decision is wrong on so many levels, and I would invite anyone who reads this who thinks this is a smart move to try and do a better job defending it than the AG himself did today.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Stimulus Fantasy Land
I had to laugh (to keep from crying) when I saw the title of this ABC News article: "Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts that Don't Exist." Everyone knows that the administration is falling all over itself trying to further the facade that the "stimulus" package has created or saved tens of thousands of jobs, a position that becomes harder to defend now that the unemployment rate has surpassed 10% and continues to climb. Unsurprisingly, it is well-documented that the numbers on recovery.org for jobs "created or saved" have been wildly inflated and over-exaggerated. But the government has one-upped itself, citing these 'created or saved' stats (borderline fantasy in their own right) in fantasy congressional districts to drum up support for the failed spendulus package on recovery.org.
This has rubbed powerful democrats on the Hill the wrong way. Rep. David Obey, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, had this to say: "The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes."
You want to know the saddest part of this whole story? A taxpayer-funded grant of $18 million was given to fund recovery.org. I'm thrilled to know taxpayer dollars are being spent to perpetuate "waste, fraud, and abuse." And we want these guys to run our health care system?
This has rubbed powerful democrats on the Hill the wrong way. Rep. David Obey, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, had this to say: "The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes."You want to know the saddest part of this whole story? A taxpayer-funded grant of $18 million was given to fund recovery.org. I'm thrilled to know taxpayer dollars are being spent to perpetuate "waste, fraud, and abuse." And we want these guys to run our health care system?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
On Hasan, Conclusions, and Political Correctness
For those who have been living in a cave: Last Thursday, a Muslim-American named Major Nidal Malik Hasan *allegedly* stood up on a desk at Fort Hood, TX, bowed his head, said "Allah Akbar" ("God is great" in Arabic), before firing off more than 100 rounds, murdering 12 soldiers, 1 civilian, and sending 28 others to the hospital. The emerging details of this tragic terrorist act, largely reported by the British press, have been difficult for me to swallow . . .
It's been reported that Hasan reached out to Al-Qaeda recruiters as many as 20 times; vociferously opposed the war; had close contact with a radical Anti-American cleric who has since praised Hasan as a hero; saw the current war not as one on terror, but a war on Islam; and gave radical Power Point lectures (at Walter Reed Hospital for crying out loud!) urging the audience to "fight those who do not believe in Allah;" that the "infidels should have boiling oil poured down their throats," and then "be lit on fire," and the list of red flags continues.
As shocking as these facts may seem, I am even more shocked to hear the mainstream media sympathize with Hasan and apologize for his actions - apparently hoping to ward off the inevitable anti-Muslim backlash from "the Right Wing hate machine." MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked: "so he tried to contact Al Qaeda - is that the point at which you say 'ok, this guy's dangerous?' It's not a crime to contact Al Qeada is it?" Others have said that it's "tragic" the Hasan was a Muslim. You hear that he was just a "stressed-out nut job" who was not a religious fanatic. Major news outlets initially did not even want to report Hasan's name. Janet Napolitano, the DHS Secretary, has promised to devote resources to "prevent [Muslims] from being painted with a broad brush."
Ironically, President Obama warned all of us to "not jump to conclusions." Hmmmm, sounds like "do as I say, not as I do." Didn't he hastily conclude that the Cambridge Police Dept. "acted stupidly" when a white cop arrested his black, elitist, college professor friend, and then had to awkwardly patch things up with the beer summit fiasco? Isn't that what he did immediately after the recent murder of the abortion doctor in Kansas, when he said "I am shocked and outraged at the murder of Doctor Tiller." The fact is this: Obama has no problems "jumping to conclusions" if an abortion doctor gets murdered, or an elite African-American Harvard Prof falls victim to what he concludes is racial profiling, but if a Muslim jihadist commits an act of terrorism, gunning down 13 people at an American Army Base, he is reticent, not wanting us to connect the dots. Coincidence?
Am I saying Obama is a Muslim terrorist? NO. Are all Muslims violent jihadists, hell-bent on killing innocent Americans? OF COURSE NOT. Do I have problems with peaceful Muslims serving in our military? NOPE. It is no secret that Obama is desperately trying to "repair" U.S. - Muslim relations, so I'm not the least bit surprised at his handling of the Fort Hood massacre. To his credit, I did appreciate his comments at the memorial service, "No just and loving God looks at these acts with approval." Well said, but notice that he is just implicitly admitting that these acts were indeed religiously motivated.
The main point I wanted to drive home is about political correctness. In a post-911 America, Muslims need not be wrongly targeted, profiled, or linked to terrorism. However, this does NOT mean that people at the Pentagon, FBI, or any other intelligence agency should simply look the other way, cross their fingers, knock on wood, and indulge a Muslim American who is simultaneously serving as an Army psychiatrist and ACTIVELY REACHING OUT TO AL-QAEDA!! It seems that fear of being politically incorrect or facing a frivolous lawsuit kept the higher-ups from discharging this ticking time bomb, even though they apparently knew about the red flags. 13 people are now dead. All I'm saying is that protecting American lives should trump political correctness. Talk about a double tragedy. Unbelievable. . . but hey, I don't want to "jump to any conclusions."
It's been reported that Hasan reached out to Al-Qaeda recruiters as many as 20 times; vociferously opposed the war; had close contact with a radical Anti-American cleric who has since praised Hasan as a hero; saw the current war not as one on terror, but a war on Islam; and gave radical Power Point lectures (at Walter Reed Hospital for crying out loud!) urging the audience to "fight those who do not believe in Allah;" that the "infidels should have boiling oil poured down their throats," and then "be lit on fire," and the list of red flags continues.
As shocking as these facts may seem, I am even more shocked to hear the mainstream media sympathize with Hasan and apologize for his actions - apparently hoping to ward off the inevitable anti-Muslim backlash from "the Right Wing hate machine." MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked: "so he tried to contact Al Qaeda - is that the point at which you say 'ok, this guy's dangerous?' It's not a crime to contact Al Qeada is it?" Others have said that it's "tragic" the Hasan was a Muslim. You hear that he was just a "stressed-out nut job" who was not a religious fanatic. Major news outlets initially did not even want to report Hasan's name. Janet Napolitano, the DHS Secretary, has promised to devote resources to "prevent [Muslims] from being painted with a broad brush."
Ironically, President Obama warned all of us to "not jump to conclusions." Hmmmm, sounds like "do as I say, not as I do." Didn't he hastily conclude that the Cambridge Police Dept. "acted stupidly" when a white cop arrested his black, elitist, college professor friend, and then had to awkwardly patch things up with the beer summit fiasco? Isn't that what he did immediately after the recent murder of the abortion doctor in Kansas, when he said "I am shocked and outraged at the murder of Doctor Tiller." The fact is this: Obama has no problems "jumping to conclusions" if an abortion doctor gets murdered, or an elite African-American Harvard Prof falls victim to what he concludes is racial profiling, but if a Muslim jihadist commits an act of terrorism, gunning down 13 people at an American Army Base, he is reticent, not wanting us to connect the dots. Coincidence?
Am I saying Obama is a Muslim terrorist? NO. Are all Muslims violent jihadists, hell-bent on killing innocent Americans? OF COURSE NOT. Do I have problems with peaceful Muslims serving in our military? NOPE. It is no secret that Obama is desperately trying to "repair" U.S. - Muslim relations, so I'm not the least bit surprised at his handling of the Fort Hood massacre. To his credit, I did appreciate his comments at the memorial service, "No just and loving God looks at these acts with approval." Well said, but notice that he is just implicitly admitting that these acts were indeed religiously motivated.
The main point I wanted to drive home is about political correctness. In a post-911 America, Muslims need not be wrongly targeted, profiled, or linked to terrorism. However, this does NOT mean that people at the Pentagon, FBI, or any other intelligence agency should simply look the other way, cross their fingers, knock on wood, and indulge a Muslim American who is simultaneously serving as an Army psychiatrist and ACTIVELY REACHING OUT TO AL-QAEDA!! It seems that fear of being politically incorrect or facing a frivolous lawsuit kept the higher-ups from discharging this ticking time bomb, even though they apparently knew about the red flags. 13 people are now dead. All I'm saying is that protecting American lives should trump political correctness. Talk about a double tragedy. Unbelievable. . . but hey, I don't want to "jump to any conclusions."
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
