On the Way!

2007-03-13T16:50:00.000-04:00

2007-03-13T16:48:00.000-04:00

2007-03-13T16:43:00.000-04:00

2007-03-13T16:41:00.000-04:00

2007-03-13T16:40:00.000-04:00

2007-03-13T16:39:00.000-04:00

2007-03-13T16:36:00.000-04:00

Strange World

2006-12-12T15:10:00.000-05:00

The photo below is from November, 1970. It was taken in a Hootch in Dong Ha Combat Base in Vietnam. The three people in the picture, from the left, are CPT Gary Rumberg, CPT Doug Wheeler, and me. We were all graduates of the Marshall University ROTC program, the same year and were all three stationed together in Dong Ha, and all physically together when we heard the news about the Marshall plane crash.

2006-12-12T15:04:00.000-05:00

Captains Three

Boiling Blood Pressure

2006-08-09T13:19:00.000-04:00

I 've REALLY got to be more careful about what books I buy. My blood pressure is normally pretty good, but some of the books I read, get my blood boiling and who knows what that does to the old BP!

The latest one is "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast, a winner of the George Orwell Courage in Journalism award for his BBC investigations. Palast is also the author of a NY Times Bestseller: "The Best Democrasy Money Can Buy." What I find interesting about his writing is that, as a non-citizen of the U.S., he has no personal stake in the issues facing us politically. In fact, he notes that in the 2004 election, "I don't care which rich, white kid won the election."

But, unlike many Americans of both political stripes, Palast doesn't just spout opinions. He documents what he says and prints the documentation along side of his stories.

Palast notes that in early 2001, a member of the transition team (a former Reagan defense offical) said his only real problem with Bill Clinton was his obsession with Osama bin Laden. He quotes and provides documents that CIA and FBI and DIA were all told to back off of the investigations of bin Laden and al Quaeda for fear of offending the Saudi's. None of this is saying the 9/11 could have been prevented, but for God's sake, we'll never know what might have happened if the investigations had proceeded.

Osama's Mission Accomplished

And his comments about what drives bin Laden are equally damning. To quote from the book: "On Thursday, May 1, 2003, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln.... the scene was so exiting that the media had failed to notice that the War on Terror had ended on the previous Tuesday.

"On that day, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld quietly acknowledged that he was withdrawing America's armed forces from Saudi Arabia."

What does Ossama want? The al Quaeda Web site spells out their mission statement: "DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST THE AMERICNS OCCUPYING THE LAND OF THE TWO HOLY PLACES - EXPEL THE INFIDELS FROM THE ARAB PENINSULA"

Palast says the "two holy places" are Mecca and Medina, and their "land" is Saudia Arabia.

"Bin Laden issued his demand on August 23, 1996; and on April 29, 2003, the Tuesday before the President was chauffered by fighter jet onto the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, Mr. Bush gave bin Laden exactly what he wanted: U.S. troops sent packing from the Land of the Holy Places."

Why has the U.S. not been attacked again? Maybe it isnt because of the bloated Department of Homeland Security. Maybe it is simply that al Quaeda's mission has been accomplished without fanfare.

There is more to this story.... much more.... and I'm not going to sit here and copy the whole book. It is well written; it is well documented; and it points the finger of justice directly at the current Administration. I'm only a little way into the book. Later chapters deal with the 2004 election ("Kerry won, get over it!") and plan to steal the 2008 election. It is all in detail and it is all documented.

It is well worth the money ($25.95 at Border's), if you do'n't have serious medical problems which might be aggravated by the elevation of your heart rate and blood pressure.

America's Dirty Little Secret

2006-07-08T16:44:00.000-04:00

We like to think of ourselves as one of the most prominant democrasies on earth. Our President has made it his personal mission to spread our style of democracy around the world, beginning with Iraq. And yet, a bad taste remains in our mouth following the 2000 and 2004 elections. Not only conspiracy theorists, but many normal average Americans, have the vague notion that these elections for President were somehow "stolen."

Those on the winning side, unable to "walk a mile in the other man's shoes and trying to understand why we feel this way, tell us "Bush won. Get over it." They of course ignore that they wouldn't have gotten over it if the results had been exactly opposite.

But we now have proof that none of us elected the President. He was elected by a category of voter called "uncounted." In a report by the U.S. Census Bureau issued seven months after the 2004 election, a footnote, buried in the report, notes that more than three million votes were not counted in the election. They were reported as spoiled.... over voting, under voting, illegible... shades of Florida in 2000.

The "spoiled" ballots in Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico and Arizona alone would have given Kerry the victory.

Now, please understand, I don't think there is a nickel's worth of difference between the two parties. I doubt there would be that much difference in the way things are going, given the Republican stranglehold on the Congress. Its just the principle of the thing, damn it.

We preach democrasy to the world as if it were a religion. We started a war in Iraq, theoretically, to spread it. (That's certainly the only excuse left to the President... all his other reasons have been proven false.) And, yet, we can't keep it straight in our own country.

Our policy makers don't seem to understand that our system of government works only so long as the people believe in it. Take away their faith in the way it works and you've got the makings of a revolution. There are already rumors of plots afoot to steal the 2008 election. Should it be another close election with disputed results, I fear for my country.

Meanwhile, the American people go forward, as always, blissfully ignorant of the facts that their birthright is being denied them. And that is America's Dirty Little Secret.

Pardon me.......

2006-06-25T17:48:00.000-04:00

The purpose of the American Legion is to foster patriotism and to work to ensure that veterans recieve all the benefits to which they are entitled. It has other purposes, too, but those two will do for a start.

I just received my latest copy of American Legion Magazine.... pardon me, while I throw up.

I'm almost 60. I have lived thru the Korean War (although I only vaguely remember it) and fought in Vietnam. I have clear memories of our other conflicts in between and since. I remember well how divided my country was during Vietnam and I remember how the public confused the soldier with the war. I remember our troops coming home and being spat upon. I will work hard to insure that doesn't happen again.

But, the American Legion is once again confusing patriotism with blind faith in a President. That blind faith is what got us into trouble in Vietnam and its happening again. The "America, love it or leave it!" B.S. is coming thru, again, loud and clear. The Legion Commanders seem determined to make those of us who oppose what is happening, who believe we are better than we are behaving at Gitmo, who belive that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home before more of them die is a senseless conflict... into anti-patriotic, leftist, anti-American, Communist dupes.

I read the Legion magazine and find only opinions which support President Bush's position. It blindly supports what he says, even in the face of evidence that he is wrong. It is following the party line that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and that Iraq had WMDs... even in the face of convincing evidence that both are untrue. And it is trying hard to marginalize those of us who, having fought for our country, believe that, this time, we're wrong.

Blindly following what the President of the United States tells us is not an example of patriotism. It is, at best, Jingoism. I belong to both the American Legion and the VFW. But I have tired of picking up the Legion's magazine and seeing how it ignores both reality and the fact that many of its members are not in support of this war. I am astounded that it can ignore how public sentiment, including that of Vietnam War heroes, in support of a President who, at best, was mislead by CIA, or, at worse, deliberately lied to the American public.

Does anyone really think the American people would have supported a war in Iraq with the sole purpose of "regime change?" Of course they wouldn't have. Some other excuse had to be made and, in this case, it was that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to our security. Now, in the face of evidence that both Iran and North Korea do pose a clear and present danger, it is going to be extremely difficult to convince the American people of a need to fight them. Real dangers are going to go unfought.. because we were lied to. And the American Legion needs to take note of that fact.

They do no one any favors by marginalizing those of their members who oppose the war in Iraq. They only make certain that more American servicemen and women will die to no purpose. And that, my friends, is sickening. I am making it a point to round file American Legion Magazine until this war is over. I don't need their help in throwing up.

Speaking out.

2006-04-25T13:10:00.000-04:00

Many of you reading this know that I've been down with a broken hip since January and haven't been much in the mood to sit at a computer. That explains two things: the length of time since I've posted and the length of this post.

Speaking out.

There has been something of a furor, recently, about five retired flag officers (generals or admirals) of the U.S. Military speaking out about the planning of the Iraq War and the arrogance and swagger evinced by SecDef Donald Rumsfeld. (For whatever it is worth, Rummy served in the U.S. Navy (one of the few officials in the White House group that ever bothered to put on a uniform for real. Still, it is my opinion that, as a military officer, I wouldn't have wanted to serve under him and don't believe he could find his ass with both hands and a map.) reaching the rank of Captain.

Former Marine Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, the right-wing advocate of Iran-Contra under the Reagan administration, who apparently sees nothing wrong with his speaking out, is particularly incensed and seems to feel that these officers speaking out is somehow treasonous and, at the very least, a cabal of senior military officials determined to bring down the administration and destroying all that is right and good.

Let us leave aside, for now, the fact that U.S. Military officers, especially senior ones, tend to be conservative by nature and every one of them I ever met was a dyed in the wool Republican.

If these officers speaking out were currently on active duty, I might be somewhat concerned, as some seem to be now, about the concept of civilian control of the military. Active duty military personnel may bitch to one another about how things are being done.... but they seldom go public with those concerns. On the other hand, these officers have served this country for 20 - 30 years, putting their own lives on the line for much of that time, unlike our current President or most of his staff.

Frankly, I am hard pressed to think of anyone who has more right to speak up about the policies which led us into an unjustified war in an unprepared, arrogant manner, than these men. They certainly know more about what happened than most of us on the outside lookiing in, including LTC North. And they have certainly earned their right to speak out. That's more than can be said for most of those who are incensed by their doing so. I'd though that North would understand that..... and I suspect that if these same men had come out supporting Bush, North would have had nothing but praise.

As usual, in politics, it is a matter of whose ox is being gored.

If any veterans are reading this, I urge you, no matter what stand you take on the war, to use your rights.

SPEAK OUT! Now while you still can.

The Law

2006-03-11T13:19:00.000-05:00

They call it "The Law of Unintended Consequences." By which they mean that any action you take may have unforseen results.

And the United States is seeing its fair share right now in the Middle East.

Iran and Iraq were, for many years, deadly enemies. They held the balance of power in the Middle East, with Iraq's minority Sunni Muslims holding power there and the Shitte Muslims holding power in Iran. And so long as that balance obtained, it is unlikely that we would be facing either an Iraq or an Iran with Weapons of Mass Destruction (no matter what GWB thought).

Iran would have been terrified of Saddam having nuclear weapons for fear he would use them on Iran. Iraq (read Saddam) would never have tolerated a nuclear armed Iran.

But now, we've taken Iraq and Saddam out of the picture. Iraq will not be capable of defending itself against an outside attack for years..... and maybe never if a civil war breaks out as seems likely.

But you only have to look back a few years to what George W. Bush and his crew of Merry Men had to say before we took Saddam down to understand that they never considered that law of unintended consquences. Iran now looks to become a nuclear power and we lack the military strength to do anything much about it.

There is a song, I don't recall the author, that describes the current situation perfectly:

Serpent's Song

There's a price for too much arrogance;
A price for too much greed;
And in complacent ignorance;
You've sewed the whirlwind's seed.

I'm so tired

2006-03-03T13:55:00.000-05:00

The purpose of terrorism is to terroize. So, many years ago, said a fellow named Lenin. You may have heard the name.

The purpose of that terror is to make the target people accept changes in their lives which they would otherwise not accept. Anything to make themselves "safe." Is there a single person who reads my words who belives the people of this country would have accepted the changes in our civil liberties known as the "Patriot Act" if it had not been proceeded by the terror known as 9-11?

bin Ladin has won. He set out to terrorize us. He did it. We have bcome a nation, not of free individuals, but of sheep who accept without question that Uncle knows best and that we should just shut up and listen.

My concerns about the "Port Security" issue of our ports being run by a company owned by the government of the UAE is not that there is a big question of security. It isn't even the possible loss of U.S. jobs. It is that, as usual, our government is acting in secret..... concealing what they are doing from the eyes of the public and from CONGRESS! And, when questioned about it, Bush says we shouldn't "worry about security." We are supposed to accept that he knows all, sees all, understands all, and will act in our best interests... whether we like it or not.

We are no longer free. Write a nasty blog about Bush.... the FBI shows up on your door. Pay off a large credit card debt..... it won't be credited until Homeland Security approves. Make negative comments about Bush as a teacher..... get pulled from your classroom.

The latest, which you may not of heard of before today, is the anti-torture law written by John McCain which forbids torturing detainees. A detainee at Gitmo has filed a law suit alleging he was tortured. The State Department response is that, while the law forbidding torture may apply to Cuba, the detainees have no way to enforce it, because the same law severely limits their access to U.S. Courts. So the government says we can torture all we want there, even if it it is illegal, nothing can be done so neah, neah, neah.

59 years on this earth. 38 years of voting. 20 + years in the U.S. Army. 1 year in Vietnam. Who knows how many years of paying taxes. Do I have a direct say in how those taxes are spent? No, I don't. My money is used to suborn torture. The torture done in Gitmo is done in my (and your) name and I have no say in it. Our rights are taken away in my (and your) name and I have no say in it. A war into which we were misled is fought in my (your) name and I have no say in it.

We are limited to voting for Senators and Congressmen with the hope that they will do what we want. Byrd has already proven HE doesn't care what we think. Our other Senator and our Congressmen are stragely silent on important matters.

The politics of our contry have become the politics of anger and vitrubiation. I'm tired of being drawn into "type-casting" those who disagree with my beliefs. I'm tired of being type-cast. In fact, let's face it, I'm just plain tired.

Tony, Spencer, and the NWS

2006-02-12T15:12:00.000-05:00

The question for the weekend is...............

Are Tony, Spencer, and the National Weather Service (along with countless other weather forecasting folks) in cahoots with the grocery businesses?

Think about it. Every time someone forecasts a dusting of snow, everyone in the Tri-State area immediately crams into the nearest grocery store to stock up on food, kerosene and snow shovels, etc. This winter has been a little slower than ususal for the grocery business.... January is reported to have been the warmest on record.

So, this weekend, all the weather folks were promising 6"+ of snow. And the grocery stores were packed. And, looking out my front window on this fine Sunday afternoon, I can see the concrete of my driveway. Admittedly, the trees, etc. are pretty well covered but there is no sign that anyone is having any problems driving.

So, how about it Tony? Was this a ploy to get everyone to go shopping and help the grocery stores' bottom line? Or are we seeing another example of Chaos Theory, a.k.a. "The Butterfly Effect"?

SIGH!

2006-01-31T14:38:00.000-05:00

Those of us who value freedom; those of us who value privacy; those of us who value the checks and balances provided for in our Constitution; those of us who believe that ideology has no place in the court; those of us who believe that the President of the United States in not above the Rule of Law: those of us who are truly the silent majority of this country..................

Today lost a battle which will change the face of America beyond recognition for a period far beyond our life-times.

We have been beaten by those we expected to support anyone George W. Bush put up for the Supreme Court. But more importantly, we have been betrayed by those who should know better. At his age, Senator Byrd will not have to live with the consequences of his betrayal. Unfortunately, most of us will.

It is truly a sad day in America.

A Republican WOLF in Democrat SHEEP clothing?

2006-01-30T12:35:00.000-05:00

I got an e-mail recently from the "Friends of Robert C. Byrd" asking for my support of Senator Byrd's re-election especially in view of the fact that the Republican candidate is, according to them, a wealthy man who can spend his own money to get elected.

It is well known that I "lean" Democrat. I'm probably more of an "Independent" but the WV Primary system doesn't lend itself to being without a party. Nevertheless, I find that in most matters, excepting National Defense, the Democratic Party's expressed beliefs and core values come closest to matching mine. I don't quite trust Republicans, even though my parents were of that party, because they seem to favor big business and show little or no concern about the individual, especially the poor one.

Robert C. Byrd proposes himself as a Democrat and, for all of me, he is one. I personally think he should form a "Constitutionalist Party" but that's an issue for another day.

I seldom take the time to write my Senators or my Representative. Since I'm not a wealthy contributor to their campaigns, I have never expected them to pay much attention. But, since the first election of George W. Bush, I have taken the time to email both Senators Byrd and Rockerfeller on at least three occasions.

The first: their vote on the nomination of John Ashcroft as Attorney General. I expressed deep concern over his political record and suggested he was not the right man for the job. I received answers from both Senators: Rockefeller saying he understood my concerns and would take them under consideration when he made his decision; Byrd essentially said that Ashcroft was a former Senator, therefore to be trusted to do the right thing. Rockefeller voted no; Byrd voted Yea.

We all know how well that turned out.

The second: their vote on the nomination of John Roberts as Chief Justice. I expressed concerns about Robert's judicial philosophy and the likely-hood he would take the court back to the 50's. I didn't get written answers from either. Both voted to confirm.

Only time will tell how that one turns out.

The third: Sam Alito for Supreme Court Justice. I've written both Senators. I've heard from neither. The vote is fast approaching. Rockefeller is undecided. Byrd is one of two Democrats to openly support Alito.

We'll have to wait and see.

But the reason behind this rant is that I feel betrayed by the senior Senator from WV. He has been great in steering money to us. He has drawn national attention to important issues such as mine safety. But in my mind, there can be no more important issue than the confirmation of Presidential nominations, especially to the Supreme Court. The President, in his 8 years in office, can influence the direction of this country for many years. Roberts and Alito will almost certainly be around until 2020. The balance of power in this country will be shifted no matter who is elected to Congress or the Presidency.

Vote for Robert C. Byrd for re-election? Not unless I see some satisfactory evidence that he is, truly, a supporter of the things I care about. I've voted for him every time he's run since I could first vote in 1968. I may well not cast a ballot on the Senate race this year.

Show me the money

2006-01-23T12:58:00.000-05:00

It has been suggested, as it was during Vietnam Era, that if we don't agree with the policies of our government, we should just move elsewhere. This usually took the form of "America, love it or leave it." During that time, the usual answer was "America, change it or lose it."

Everyone has a right to their opinion, I guess, unless someone in power disagrees with those who do not. At that point, the ones in power tend to suggest it is unpatriotic to oppose them and we should all shut up or just leave.

I deeply resent, as someone who has placed his body and his life "between his loved home and the war's desolation" (from the National Anthem for those unpatriotic enough to not recognize the source) to have people who have never worn their country's uniform or who have been unwilling, even in uniform, to put themselves in harm's way, tell me that if I don't like what my President has done, I should just leave.

Well, it should be obvious to those who have read other posts in this Blog that I strongly disagree with what my President is doing. The invasion of Iraq, based on faulty intelligence and an overwhelming sense of "might makes right", for instance. The constant character assassination of those who question his conduct. The poorly excused invasion of privacy by wiretapping and the now infamous demand for Google's records. And, worst, the blind following of these things by people who can do no better than to parrot the words of some right-wing demi-God.

Maybe the time has come to leave it. But, if you folks are going to suggest I leave so that you can turn my country into something its founders would never recognize, surely YOU should pay for that exodus. Because it isn't that I want to go, it is that YOU want me to go.

OK, fine. You are spending billions on an unnecessary war; surely you can find the money to provide each of us who you want to go with a stake..... say $10 million each..... to pay for transportation and so that we won't become a burden on the place to which we relocate. Remember, it is your idea, not mine, that I should leave.

So, I will. Just as soon as you show me the money. Until then, I am a citizen of this country and have as much right to critisize President Bush and you have to support him... and I don't have to resort to typical Republican character assassination to do it.

Does no one understand?

2006-01-14T12:29:00.000-05:00

I wondered how long it would take.

The Washington Post reported today that a "right-wing" website, part of Cybercast News Service, questions the circumstances under which Representative John Murtha (D-PA) won his two Purple Hearts in Vietnam, inferring he did not deserve them. Murtha, as you will recall, is a conservative Democrat who has always supported the Bush administration on the Iraq War (and other military isues) but was turned on by them as being another Michael Moore.

The latest issue shows total ignorance of military regulations and the rules for the award of decorations, including the Purple Heart. The award of the Purple Heart does not specify the severity of the injuries incurred by the receipient... only that the injuries are a result of enemy action. Allegedly, Murtha's wounds were on his face and did not require medical evacuation to the rear. Modest, as most true soldiers are, Mutha reportedly had a conversation in the 1980's with a former member of the House (Don Bailey [D-PA]) who had won the Silver Star and three Bronze Stars. During this conversation, Murtha allegedly said, "Hey, I didn't do anything like you did; I just got a little scratch on the face."

Probably a true report. But, so what? Murtha earned his Purple Hearts and is entitled to wear them with pride and honor.

I came home from Vietnam in 1972 with a Bronze Star for "Meritorious Achievement In Ground Operations Against Hostile Forces." Its still hanging on my wall, signed by Secretary of the Army Stanley Reasor and BG John Hill (Commanding General of the 1st Brigade of the 5th Mechanized Infantry). My father asked what I did to earn it and I told him "nothing special." He refused to believe that, but as far as I'm concerned, its true. And, like Representative Murtha, I'm entitled to wear it with pride and honor. And, like Murtha, I have no obligation to explain to anyone the facts behind the awards.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that Marine Corps. records show Murtha was awarded the Purple Heart for injuries suffered due to hostile action near Da Nang, Vietnam. According to those records, one of the injuries was on the right cheek and the other above the left eye. He is, by military regulations, entitled to the Purple Heart for each of those wounds.

But, in attacks similar in nature to those by the "Swiftboat Veterans" against John Kerry, the TRUTH of an issue isn't important. What is important is to denigrate the service of anyone who believes differently than they. As I pointed out in a previous post, we have a President of the United States who hid behind an Air National Guard Uniform and who refused to be considered for overseas service; a Vice-President who has never worn his country's uniform; and a Speaker of the House who has never seen the need to serve in our country's military. Those are FACTS. Murtha, who always supported Bush earned his Purple Hearts and his Bronze Star. That is a FACT.

Adolf Hitler once was supposed to have remarked, "if you tell a big enough lie, no one will dare disbelieve you." Apparently, someone in the Bush White House has been reading Mein Kamph and is taking a page from Hitler's ideas. The TRUTH of an issue doesn't matter. Only that you can attack your opponent and distract the public from the issues. And what is truly sad is that many of those who believe Bush can do no wrong will now pick up on this issue and attempt to distract the people from the issues of Iraq.

It is now January, 2006. For the next 10 months, we can expect to hear this type of attack against every Democratic candidate running for office. Its the way things are now being done by the GOP. And it casts a cloud over every honest patriotic person who runs for office under their banner. Because they are letting their party be used this way.

Does no one understand how this Administration works?

Just what does it take........?

2005-12-17T16:28:00.000-05:00

In view of his successor, I have been unwilling to use the word "Impeachment" with regard to George W. Bush. I have always believed that Cheney would be a worse choice. But will someone please explain to me just what it takes to remove a President from office?

Not lying to the American people about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Not lying to the American people abou how we'd be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people. Not lying about how Iraqi oil would pay for the reconstruction of the country, once we destroyed it.

Violating the first, fourth, and fifth ammendments to the Constitution apprently won't do it. Holding American citizens without due process won't do it. Secretly listening to telphone calls and monitoring emails of Amerian citizens you suspect without oversite from the courts won't do it.

So, someone, tell me, what "high crimes and misdeameanors" does a President have to commit to be removed from office? He can be a former crack-head, former alcholic, military coward (who should have caught a general courts martial for his ailure to follow orders and his contract with the Air Force), but none of those things are grounds for removal from office.

If the situation were reversed, every Republican in the country would be screaming for the head of a Democrat who did these things............ but of course, a Republican can do no wrong. No, no, to be impeached, you only have to be a Democrat and have sex in the White House.

You tell me.................. which is worse. Lying about having sex or lying about a war which has cost 2000 + American soldiers their lives.

It is time, long past time, in fact, for some Republican to develop some back bone and tell Bush it is time to stop playing at being king or dictator and to become what he swore an oath to be... President of the United States and all the legal obligaions that means. Republicans have to stand up and stop tis run away with our civil rights. Bush has got to go and he's got to go now while we still have something resembling a country left to defend.

Ohio License Plates

2005-12-06T12:52:00.000-05:00

Like many residents of WV counties which border Ohio, I resent the Hell out of people who live in WV but register their cars in Ohio to avoid: (a) taxes; (b) annual inspections; and (c) proof of insurance. It is, obviously, difficult to tell who is a legitmate Ohio driver and wo is one of the cheaters.

But I've noticed something which should give pause to those who do cheat.

It appears that putting an Ohio license plate on a car immediately turns the driver into an idiot.

Yesterday, I made a trip to Scott Depot to see a doctor. I saw numerous cars with Ohio plates, as you always do when traveling the Interstate. 90 percent of these cars committed one or more illegal acts. Not one of them gave a turn signal when changing lanes on the Interstate or while turning in town. I was damned near run off the road by one (in a Cadillac, which is a whole different story [I sometimes think Cadillac owners belong to their own special circle of Hell]) who had to be doing at least 100 mph in a 55 zone and who swerved across lanes of traffic without regard to other cars. I got behind several of them driving in the fast lane at 50 mph in a 70 mph zone.

Please notice that I am not blaming Ohio drivers for this..... it just seems to be a function of the license plate, regardless of where the driver lives. If I were running the State of Ohio, I'd be seriously thinking about trying to change the situation to make it less attractive for WV residents to tag their cars in Ohio... it is ruining their reputation.

Why is anyone surprised?

2005-11-19T13:45:00.000-05:00

The current administration has always treated those who disagree with it with contempt and scorn. A President of the United States who "served" as a National Guard pilot, who essentially failed in his duties and refused service overseas; a Vice-President who has never worn his country's uniform; a Speaker-of-the-House who has never seen a need to serve.... these "men" have seen fit to attack the patriotism of many combat veterans.

John McCain, a POW in Vietnam, during a campaign for the Presidency.

Max Cleland, a disabled veteran of Vietnam in Georgia.

John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, during the campaign for the Presidency.

And, now, Jack Murtha, a former Marine Drill-Instructor, winner of two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star for Valor in Vietnam; a man who served his country honorably and with courage; a man who has consistently supported this adminstration during the Iraq War; a man who dared to announce, after much soul searching, that the time has come to begin to draw down our forces from a war which is taking the lives of our service men and women for no good reason.... this hero was yesterday branded a coward by Jean Schmidt (R-OH) for daring to make such a suggestion.

This action is being described by some as "Swift-Boating," a reference to the infamous "Swift-Boat Campaign" of the 2004 elections.

How dare anyone suggest that we've spent enough lives in Iraq? How dare anyone suggest that we were mislead into this war? How dare anyone question the President?

Why is anyone even vaguely surprised at the attack on Jack Murtha? I'm surprised it took as long as it did. This administration makes the Nixon adminstration look like the pinicle of government. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Peer Pressure and Public Prayer

2005-11-11T14:44:00.000-05:00

I am facinated by those who insist that school-lead prayer is a good thing and that those who don't want to particpate don't have to do so. And I wonder if those people remember anything about what life was like when they were in school.

Let me start by saying I see nothing wrong, whatever, with any student, at any time, saying a soft prayer. As long as there are math tests, there will be prayer in school.

But, while it is one thing for an adult to refuse to participate in public prayer, it is quite another for a child. Children want (and need) to belong to the group. A child who refused to participate in public prayer would be ostrasized. And it is tough enough already to be part of anything.

As a late developer, I know what it was like to be 5' 6" as a senior in high school. Not big enough to participate in sports, not smart enough to be a nerd, not "handsome" enough to be a hit with the girls.

I was thinking of the lyrics of "At Seventeen" by Janis Ian. Remember?

"To those of us who knew the pain
Of Valentines that never came
And those whose names were never called
When choosing sides for basketball
It was long ago and far away
The world was younger than today
When dreams were all they gave for free
To ugly duckling girls like me."

Again children want and need to belong. Forcing them to make a choice at their age between fitting in with the group by praying to something in which they don't believe or not participating and being outed, seems to me to be most unfair.

And, besides, isn't it the folks who are pushing public prayer who also want to forbid schools from teaching morality and sex education saying that is the job of the parents and churches? Of course it is. But they only feel that way when it is their ox which is being gored. Hypocrisy.

Perplexity

2005-11-08T14:08:00.000-05:00

Is that a word?

Anyway, I have to confess that I am, once again, perplexed. Let me explain.

In a speech in Panama City on Nov. 7th, President Bush said that his administration would continue to agressively battle terrorism in sometimes unconventional but always legal ways. He said we are at war with an enemy "that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again. And so, you bet, we'll aggresively puruse them, but we'll do so under the law." He also asserted, "We do not torture!"

Now, this speech comes after efforts by Vice President Cheney to lobby law makers to exempt the CIA from an amendment that would ban torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners. And, just weeks ago, Bush, himself, threatened to veto the Department of Defense spending bill if it contained an amendment proposed by Senastor John McCain to outlaw torture.

So, if we do not torture, as Bush claims, then why this unwarranted concern about laws prohibiting the practice? The only reasonable conclusion is that Bush has once again lied about the facts and that we do, in fact, torture people to obtain information.

And what is truly sad about that, beyond the loss of the moral high ground that America has always enjoyed, is that things learned under torture are, at best, unreliable. I spent part of my tour in Vietnam as an Intelligence Officer. It is well documented that people under torture will tell you anything you want to hear just to make it stop.

During World War II, the most effective man the German's had interrogating our POWs was successful because he treated them like human beings. He saw to it their wounds were dressed and offered them hot food and coffee. After the war, some of those questioned by him sponsored him to become an American citizen.

The U.S. military knows what works and what doesn't. They aren't the ones opposing the amendment to ban torture. It is folks like Dick Cheney and George Bush who, as usual, want to ignore the experts, just as they did going into Iraq.

It is time for every moderate in this country to jam the White House phone lines and demand that the administration stop its opposition to the McCain ammendment.

Codex Alimentarius

2005-11-05T17:13:00.000-05:00

What I'm about to write about is going to sound a little like a right-wing diatribe against the United Nations. It isn't. Its about a move within the UN and the U.S. Government to take away your rights to certain vitamin and mineral supplements and to allow the use of proven deadly pesticides on your food supply.

The move, if left unchallenged, will allow the UN to regulate how much and what kind of medicines are available. For instance, Vitamin C would be outlawed, except in miniscule amounts, even with a doctor's prescription.

I urge you to look at the following link: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/aboutcodex.shtml

The legislation will go into effect in 2009 if we do nothing to stop it. I urge you to write or call your congressional delegation and sign the petition at the site above.

Your freedom of choice when it comes to medical care would be restricted to conventional methods.

Please take action and feel free to share this information with others.

Thanks.

The end of the world.... as we know it.

2005-10-06T12:22:00.000-04:00

Several years ago, I expressed concern that there will be no Presidential election in 2008. Now, I'm seriously wondering if there will be an election in 2006.

Even as I write this, the stage is being set.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, there was talk of changing federal law (Posse Comitatus) to allow active duty military personnel to perform law enforcement duties within the United States.

President George W. Bush has now managed to get one of his right-wing cronies on the Supreme Court and looks to get his second confimed shortly. The majority of the court will be "Conservative" and likely to give him anything he wants.

Yesterday, Bush announced his concerns over the Avian Flu and said he wants Congress to authorize the use of U.S. troops to enforce "quarantines" to prevent its spread.

It doesn't take much imagination or fear to see the scenario being painted here. Bird flu breaks out in October, 2006. Federal troops, enforcing the quarantine, prevent people from voting. The House and Senate, in which Republican gains are threatened, remain as they are.

And what happens next? Your guess is as good as mine.... but it won't be pretty.

Conspiracy?

2005-10-04T13:53:00.000-04:00

Although I no longer post at the Huntington News forum, I continue to read it for laughs and tears. I'm certain the folks posting there do not represent the average American.... at least, I hope they don't.

But I am always facinated when someone says something and another responds by telling them to "quit drinking kool-aide" or "put on the tin hat." Apparently, civility is dead in this country.

Now let me make it clear that I am something of a conspiracy buff. I love to look a things that have happened and try to figure out if they really happened they way we were told.... like the "lone gunman" question in the Kennedy assassination. I spent an hour last night watching a program on The History Channel about secret societies, like Skull and Bones and the Trilateral Commission, and whether or not they have been involved in vast conspiracies.

I have concluded they probably haven't. I suspect that if they were as all-powerful as some think, programs like that would never have seen the light of day. But maybe that's a conspiracy, too.

In any case, a post was recently made on HNN suggesting that the events of Sept. 11th were not planned and executed by al Queda and bin Laden. The suggestion was that it was a plot by an un-named political party (but we all know who he meant) to cement their hold on power in this country.

It is no secret that I despise George W. Bush and all he stands for. I would love to believe that he was capable of pulling off something like this......... but I can't stretch my mind that far. Still, its an interesting theory and it deserves a better response than "put you tin hat on."

It is merely a further reflection of why I no longer post on that forum. The anonymity allows people to be insulting without fear of reprisal. I labored to change that... and failed. I wonder why? Maybe that, too, was part of a conspiracy?

Genocide?

2005-09-21T17:15:00.000-04:00

I had an interesting thought after lisening to the news the other night. It seems that the Republicans in Congress are, legitimately, worried about the cost of the cleanup and reconstruction of the Gulf Coast after Katrina. Who, they wonder, is going to pay for this?

You've got to give them this.... they're consistent. We are, allegedly, at war in Iraq. Who is paying for it? During a war, we are all supposed to sacrifice. But the only ones sacrificing for the war are the soldiers, their families, and those whose beneifts are being cut to finance it. You know, like the veterans and the low income folks. Ever since Bush came into office, they have been balancing the budget on the backs of those who most need government assistance.

Now, rather than repeal Bush's ill-considered tax cuts or cut corporate welfare or ask those who can best afford it to kick in a little more, the Republicans are talking about cutting the prescription plan for Medicare that was to go into effect this year. Perhaps they realize that most folks on Social Security who need this program are those who were/are low-income. Those who are most likely to be Democrats who wouldn't vote for them in any case. Those who depend solely on Social Security to live are those who were poor working class Americans. The rich... the classic Republicans... don't need Social Security or a prescription program. They're covered.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

genocide.
Main Entry: geno*cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group.

Here, then, is an opportunity. A chance to strike a blow against the poor and the elderly. A chance to help reduce the poplulation of Democrats. Anyone want to take any bets as to which way this goes?

Four-footed children

2005-09-16T18:42:00.000-04:00

I know many of you are pet lovers and are concerned about rescuing four-footed children in the Louisiana/Mississippi area who were victims of Katrina. If you want to help, please visit http://www.noahswish.org/

Thanks.

Military Officers Training vs. George Bush

2005-09-08T17:08:00.000-04:00

I knew the 20 + years I spent in the military and the 4 years in R.O.T.C. would eventually help me write something.

The military is really good at teaching its officers by using "catch phrases" that are easily remembered.

Who can forget the poetry of "General Order # 1: To take charge of this post and all government property in view"? Or "General Order # 2: To walk my post in a military manner, keeping always on the alert and observing everything that takes place within sight or hearing"? Or even "General Order # 9: To call the commander of the relief in any case not covered by instructions"?

They taught us that "Rank Hath Its Privileges" but that "Rank Also Hath Certain Responsibilities."

They taught us that "Responsibility Can NOT be delegated" although authority can be.

And they taught us, which leads to the subject of this post, that "The Commander is responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do."

Apparently, George W. Bush never learned that during his tour as an Air Force fighter pilot. Hell, maybe, with his connections, he never had to learn to be an officer. They probably just pinned the bars on his shoulders and told him to take off.

But it remains a fact. The commander is responsible. Others may be responsible to him, but he has the ultimate responsibility.

In the case of the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, Bush and his allies in and out the White House, like Karl Rove, have forgotten this elemental fact. If there was a failure in responding to the disaster, the responsibility is not the mayor of New Orleans or the Governor of the states involved. It is not the responsibility of the head of F.E.M.A. or even the Secretary of Homeland Security.

It is, and must remain, the responsiblity of George W. Bush. It was HE who appointed the members of the federal government who were supposed to take action. It was HIS job to insure they did theirs. Instead, he did what he did during the events of September 11th. He went away. He dodged his responsibility. He proved, once again, that he is the coward we always knew he was.

Bush's defenders (and they're legion, just look at the forum on Huntington News . Net and see posts by mrmajestk or hulda or others) are so wrapped up in defending him that they cannot see the damage he has caused. They will continue to defend him until something happens that affects them personally. They don't care about the country..... anymore than Bush does.

George W. Bush is the President of the United States. He is, therefore, the Commander-in-Chief. And the commander is responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do. Karl Rove would do well to remember that. Stop trying to pass the buck. It stops on Bush's desk.

I wonder.....

2005-09-02T17:57:00.000-04:00

I wonder.......

Did you ever buy one of those cheap "wooden" bookcases? You know, the ones made of particle board with a very thin veneer of what appears to be wood, but is probably paper with a wood grain on it? And, when the veneer chiped, you could see the ugly board underneath?

We now see how thin the veneer of civilization is. Its no surprise, given the very poor response of the government to the storm, that the veneer has been chiped away in New Orleans and Mississippi. And we can see the ugly side of human nature. Murder, rape, assault, looting. The news last night said even the cops in New Orleans are having to loot to find water while they're on duty.

Civilization is breaking down in the area.

Meanwhile, using Katrina as an excuse, the oil companies are raising the price of gasoline and heating oil. To the point where the working poor and even the middle class are finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet. And they wonder why so many Americans use the word "businessman" as an epithet.

And in the aftermath, no one seems to be considering the unemployment spike that is going to result from the loss of all those businesses in the area.

I once said that, if the 2004 election was as crooked as the 2000 one, there would be an armed revolution. Apparently, I was wrong. The American people will tolerate almost anything.

But I look at things happening today and I wonder.

Rising prices, the worst disaster I can remember, worse unemployment, dissatifaction with the war in Iraq.

I think our country is reaching the breaking point.

I remember a song from my youth.

"I see a bad moon rising."

And I fear for my country.

And I wonder.

Gasoline price gouging?

2005-09-01T15:56:00.000-04:00

The other day, we saw the Governor and the Attorney General of WV stand up and say that they would not tolerate gouging on the price of gasoline. That day, the cost of regular unleaded gasoline in Huntington was $2.59/gallon.

The next day, the Governor appeared and thanked the WV gasoline dealers for not gouging.

The next day, the price of regular unleaded gasoline in Huntington was $3.09/gallon.

WSAZ News had a report last night on the issue. They interviewed the head of the WV Retail Gasoline Dealers Association. They questioned the 50 cent per gallon increase in the cost of fuel. His answer, obviously unthinking, was that he had to pay 40 cents per gallon more wholesale for that fuel.

Now. Did his other costs go up? Is he suddenly paying his employees more? He paid 40 cents more per gallon and increased his prices by 50 cents per gallon. A new profit of 10 cents per gallon.

At a time when oil companies are making record profits, they found it necessary to increase the cost of gasoline. They are using the devestation of Katrina as their excuse but much of the fuel for which they have increased their prices is all ready in the storeage tanks. At a time when many Americans are living from hand to mouth, the oil companies are making it more difficult to make ends meet.

The price of gasoline will, eventually, impact on all other goods and services. They will all go up. Inflation will rise. The working poor will soon find it costs them more in gasoline to get to work than they are making at work. Unemployment will skyrocket.

And the rich, as usual, don't give a rat's ass.

I'm troubled.

2005-08-31T18:35:00.000-04:00

I'm troubled.

I'm troubled by my Republican brothers and sisters who somehow can find no fault with anything George W. Bush says or does.

I'm troubled by folks from both sides of the political spectrum who still think we were right to invade Iraq and try to justify it by invoking 9-11.

I'm troubled by those who insist that Americans who are not for George W. Bush are automatically against America.

I'm troubled by my fellow combat veterans who say that Cindy Sheehan is lending aid and comfort to the enemy by insisting that her son died for nothing.

I'm troubled by those who scream that you cannot support our troops without blindly supporting an unjustified war.

And, most of all, I'm troubled by my own feelings about some things.

I vaguely remember Harry Truman as President (I was born in 1946). I remember every one since then very well.

I remember those with whom I agreed and those with whom I disagreed.

I remember those who I liked and those I didn't.

But I respected them all.

Now, though, I've lost all vestiges of respect for my Commander in Chief. I despise him. I have reached the point where, if the man said it is dark at night, I have to disagree with him. His lies have led us into a war which has killed nearly 2,000 American soldiers and Marines.

Clinton lied about sex and the Republicans impeached him. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and no one is talking impeachment. (To be fair, I don't want to talk about impeachment. If Bush has been a terrible President, Dick Cheney would be a disaster!)

Bush's lies have killed and wounded untold numbers of Americans and Iraqis. When Clinton lied no one died.

I understand how hard it is for the average American to admit he/she was wrong. I understand that he/she doesn't want to admit he/she fell for Bush's lies during the campaign and during the run-up to war.

And, today, the Washington Post reports new lows in Bush's approval ratings. The numbers are such that some of those being polled and reporting they disapprove must be Republicans.

But, still, many Republicans insist on running and hiding from the truth. They have called American combat veterans "traitors" because they don't support Bush's war. They have accused the mother of a dead American combat veteran of everything but littering.

I am watching my country being torn apart. It is rapidly approaching the divisions of Vietnam (which I remember well).

And I'm troubled.

Color me confused

2005-08-24T16:38:00.000-04:00

I guess I don't get it. In fact, I know I don't get it. I don't understand how one person can view similar situations and come up with totally different reactions.

President Bush has recently been doing a lot of praising of Ariel Sharon and his pull-out from Gaza. He calls it part of the roadmap to peace. This "peace," of course, is being gained by giving in to the demands of the Hamas terrorists and unilaterally pulling out. Notice that Hamas and the Palestinians have made no promises about their actions toward Israel. Surely, if Bush is sincere in his position that giving into terrorist demands will bring peace, he will now pull U.S. troops out of the Middle-East to achieve peace there, right?

No, no, Grasshopper. You don't understand. Giving in to terrorist demands that we leave Iraq will significantly weaken the United States.

So, let me get this straight.

If Israel pulls out of Gaza in response to terrorist demands, that's a good thing.

If the United States pulls out of Iraq in response to terrorist demands, that's a bad thing.

I don't get it. My head hurts. Color me confused.

The American Legion

2005-08-23T17:52:00.000-04:00

For seven consecutive years, and more than 10 years overall, I have been proud to be a member of American Legion Post 16 in Huntington, WV. After much consideration and soul searching, my association with the Legion ended today.

Problems within the Post, itself, made the final decision. But I have been leaning this direction for several months. It seems a waste, though, to make a decision of this nature and to not explain why.

The National Commander of the Legion often speaks on matters of importance. When he speaks, it is presumed that his words reflect all of the members. When he speaks on matters of Veteran's Affairs, he probably does.

But when he speaks about political matters, things are no longer quite so clear.

Recently, he spoke about the prisoners at Guantanimo Bay. He compared their being placed in "brace positions" for prolonged periods of time with the efforts of being a waiter. I cannot help but wonder when the last time was that he was required to stand at attention for four hours; or to remain in the "front leaning rest" (the "up" position of a push-up) position for an equal period of time.

Members of the Legion are veterans who served their country in time of war. Many are also quaified for membership in the Veterans of Foreign Wars (meaning they served in a combat zone). But, equally, members of the Legion are from every political spectrum. There are liberals as well as conservatives. There are Democrats as well as Republicans. There are those who support the war in Iraq and those who oppose it.

But when the National Commander speaks, it is with the voice of all of us. And when he speaks on political matters, it is with the voice of every member of the Legion.

But the time has come to make it clear that he has one less voice behind him.

He does not speak for me. And, after today, he never will again.

Is Iraq the same as Vietnam?

2005-08-20T19:22:00.000-04:00

In a comment about another post, Dave Peyton again raised the point that Iraq and Vietnam are similar. Before the invasion, I made the same point in posts on "Huntington News . Net".

Ceertainly, there is no similarity in terrain. And that may be why many people are so willing to dismiss the things that are similar.

In Vietnam, we faced a determined, implacable enemy. We faced an enemy whose level of technology was a fraction of ours. We faced an enemy who did not wear uniforms. We faced an enemy who could easily hide among the populace. We faced an enemy willing to use terror as a weapon. We faced an enemy who used kidnapping, assassination, booby traps and "improvized explosive devices."

Does any of this sound familiar?

In Vietnam, we went in as "liberators" determined to help the people be free. We went in with the idea that conventional military force could easily defeat the poorly equipped guerrillas. We went in with the idea that our overwhelming power would bring the enemy to his knees in a short period of time.

Does any of this sound familiar?

In Vietnam, we went into a war with absolutely no idea who we were going to get out. With no "exit strategy."

Does that sound familiar?

Official pronouncements from our leadership are now taking on the "we don't know quite how or when, but we're gonna get out of here somehow" quality that sounds so much like things we heard from President Johnson and President Nixon.

In his comment, Dave Peyton suggests the time is no far off when we will, pretty much as we did in Vietnam, declare victory and come home. I find that a realistic assessment.... and a sad one. It is sad because, militarily, we did win in Vietnam. Our defeat was in the propaganda war.

This is NOT the fault of our troops. It is not for lack of training or equipment or desire or committment on their part.

It is a simple matter of our going to war unprepared; with no long range planning; with no idea of what we would do "IF"; believing that our powere made us invincible. We went to war with the idea that the people of Iraq would ALL welcome us as liberators and with no plan to deal with the situation if, as it proved, they didn't all welcome us.

We went to war with no plans for dealing with the inevitable destruction of infra-structure, leading to many Iraqi civilians being without basic necessities such as water and electricity.

In doing these things or, more accurately, not planning for them, we have turned Iraq into the finest recruiting tool that al Qaeda ever had. We have provided them with "live fire" training. And the world of the terrorist is Darwinian. Those who survive will be tougher, smarter, and better able to hurt us. We are not safer because of Iraq. In fact, we are in more danger from our failure to apprehend or kill bin Laden.

My Cavalry troopers and the Infantry and the Marines and the Air Force are kicking butt..... but it isn't enough. We aren't winning the "hearts and minds" of the people.

The time has long since come for the people of the United States to demand an accounting from the current administration. I will be accused of feeling as I do because I am not a Republican. So be it. I would demand the same accounting from a Democratic administration which got us into a similar mess.

We lost more than 58,000 men and women in Vietnam over the course of more than 20 years. That was a much higher intensity conflict and the physical number of troops was much higher on both sides than currently in Iraq. We have already sacrificed nearly 2,000 of our soldiers in Iraq. We should be able to see where this is leading. As the song said, "You don't have to be a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing."

60 percent of the country thinks we're on the wrong course. It is time to bring our people home. Home to bands and welcoming parades and their families. It is time to bring them home.

2005-08-17T15:43:00.000-04:00

Rex Bowers - a LONG time ago. July, 1970, Tay Ninh, South Vietnam.

Irony

2005-08-17T14:46:00.000-04:00

A local church, in the Huntington area, annually puts thousands of crosses on their property. Each cross is to remember an aborted fetus.

Several years ago, someone who apparently disagreed with their position on abortion drove a truck through the property one night, damaging and destroying many of the crosses.

Now what's amazing about this was the reaction from both ends of the political spectrum. The "right" was upset that their rights of expression had been stomped. The "left" was equally upset because, believing in freedom of expression, they were concerned that the "right's" freedom of expression had been stomped.

(Fast Forward)

Monday night, someone drove a pickup truck through a display of crosses, each representing an American serviceman or woman killed in action in the Middle East. The display, if you've been asleep, was put up by Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, and a war protestor.

Now what's amazing about this is the reaction from both ends of the political spectrum. The "left" is upset because their rights of expression have been stomped. The "right?" As near as I can tell from news reports, the "right" thinks she got what's coming to her. I even heard mutterings that "it's too bad, she wasn't in the way."

The woman lost her son in a war that she feels was unjust. Apparently, a lot of Americans agree with her, since polls are showing less than 40 percent of Americans support the way President Bush is conducting the war. I'd call that (60% +) a pretty substantial majority.... certainly more than the percentage who wound up voting President Bush into office. Cindy Sheehan has every right (and, to his credit, President Bush has made it clear that he agrees with her right to express her opinion!) to suggest the war is wrong and we should get the troops home.

But it appears parts of the "right" think the right to expression applies only when it is their opinion that is being expressed.

And I call that "Irony."