
![]() | |
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
|
Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! October 4, 2008 These are not the Happy thoughts you're looking forBy GreyhawkThis point has weighed on my mind since I first heard that Chuck Schumer "inadvertently" launched a bank run back in July. It does remind one of their attitude on the Iraq war: every set back was gleefully trumpeted and every minor advance was dismissed. They never much cared how their rhetoric or votes might embolden the enemy or unnerve our ally. The sole consideration was domestic political gain. If they didn’t want to lose they certainly gave every indication it was low on their list of priorities. Bashing the President, rallying their base and positioning themselves for the next election was clearly more critical.Harry Reid's (no doubt also inadvertent) shock to the insurance industry doesn't ease my concern one bit. Nor does the actual cornerstone tactic expressed by Schumer and Reid back in 2007, when they confidently predicted they could accomplish their goals because Republicans lacked sufficient political courage to take them on: Democrats know they might lose this month's showdown with President Bush on legislation to pull troops out of Iraq. But with 2008 elections in mind, majority Democrats says it is only a matter of time before they will get their way. Senior Democrats are calculating that if they keep the pressure on, eventually more Republicans will jump ship and challenge the president - or lose their seats to Democratic contenders.Now, of course, the war isn't an issue - after all, we all knew all along our boys could get 'er done. It's the economy, stupid. Update: More happy thoughts, featuring Joe Biden and his traveling mouth. Posted by Greyhawk / October 4, 2008 3:35 PM | Permalink 10 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
![]() Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com ![]() Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
FWIW: Spell checker suggests "Schumer" should be "Schemer", but I left it as is.
This whole thing is stinking like a great big set up. Pelosi, Reid and Schumer are all smart, experienced people who don't make these kinds of rookie mistakes "on accident". Getting the market to dump a trillion dollars in one day after giving the OK for Dem committee chairs to vote "no" last Monday does nothing but help one of the presidential candidates. Plus, they got to pass another $150 billion of junk that wouldn't pass any other way.
Don't forget this -- Obama (and his helpers) are short the market and economy. At the moment, they've got leverage that they are going to use to help him get elected. Get ready for 50% inflation to pay for all this fun.
Some of us will pay more than others for this debacle. All you gotta do is look at the Electoral College breakout to figure out who is "entitled" to freeload and who pays the bills.
I have been seeing speculation for years that the shit would hit the fan when the baby boomers started retiring. It may not be the cause of our current mess, but I suspect there's some relationship. Here's the thing about inflation - it's good for people with fixed-interest debt and somewhat-indexed income. Hold onto your job and take advantage of matching contributions until this settles down and your retirement will be a lot less likely to involve dwelling in a refrigerator box.
So what I'm reading into this is that the Dems, by virtue of a few carefully placed words, have the power to win/lose wars and topple our economy.
Now that's power.
Why wouldn't that be attractive? Might vs. right is an old contest, and might has usually won.
Repubs are behind the eight ball, and don't seem all that uncomfortable there. Where's the muscle? What's the message for those of us who can actually connect some of these dots? Be nice and roll over?
The primary reason the Democrats failed to completely destroy Iraq and the US military in 2007 (mere months after gaining control of congress by promising to do just that) wasn't their Republican opposition. The Dems made the same fundamental mistake McCarthy did decades ago - he thought he could bet against the US Army and win. Years later, Democrats probably mistakenly believe McCarthy's failure was attempting to take on communists, an historical mis-read that could explain their position in 2007.
That might be worthy of a much longer post, but for one illustration here's a description of a September 12, 2006 meeting between Representative John Murtha and Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker from Bob Woodward's book The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008. On that day, Schoomaker had called on the congressman (and ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee) to discuss the Army's budget:
In America, at least for now - betting against the Army is a losing proposition. But betting against Republicans isn't - the GOP has failed to gain anything on the domestic political front from gains in Iraq. One could blame the media for that, but I think the pols themselves share the responsibility. Throughout the turn around there they tried desperately to make anything else the focus of voter attention (see "illegal immigration" for one example) out of fear of failure. One might even surmise that while the Dems were betting against success, the Republicans weren't willing to bet against them.I'm not sure who the Democrats are betting against on economic issues, though. I hope whoever it is they've got the same fortitude and determination as the American Soldier.
In the midst of an economic crisis, that so many people think now's a good time to hand the country over to a socialist collectivist Marxist with mixed feelings about his country and a wife (First Lady) who hates it more than loves it, is a disappointment.
Republicans really are the Spineless Party.
We are SO screwed -- even if McCain/Palin manage to win.
At Republican rallies, the crowd breaks into chants of “U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!”
At Democratic rallies, the crowd breaks into chants of “O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!”