Moving

I'm currently en route from Alaska to Arizona. It really amazes me how much hotel rooms cost.

Having Trouble Staying Awake?

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm

Little thoughts to keep you up at night. I really wish I'd stop seeing shit the commies said they wanted to do forty years ago that's going on as we speak.
I remember when "Commie" used to be a bad word. Now it seems a whole hell of a lot of folks are asking "What's wrong with socialism?"
Well, nothing... if you don't particularly like keeping the money you work for. The best example of why socialism is a bad idea, of course, is the anecdote of the liberal girl with Democrat parents who asks a wealthy man to donate to the poor. The wealthy man says "Well, why don't you come down to my house and clean my yard? I'll give you five dollars, and then you can give that five dollars to the beggar at Wal-Mart."
Little girl replies, "Well, why don't you have the beggar come clean your yard?"
It's simply human nature. We're selfish creatures. If we weren't, we would've gone extinct by now. In other news, I was awarded an MOVSM (That's Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal) today along with my PCS award (AAM, standard for junior enlisted). The difference between charity and collectivism is that charity is given freely, collectivism requires force. I really wish people would realize this. If more folks rubbed some neurons together, this country wouldn't be circling the drain.

Generation Me

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/fashion/17BFF.html

I found that link on Dennis Prager's site, and made the mistake of following it. What the holy heavenly fuck, are these people that demented? Best friends are unhealthy?
Reminds me of how my father used to say that they were child psychologists only because they were too honest to be pet therapists. Looks like a few more parents need to clue in to the con-job. Dennis Prager's got some good ideas in his head, if ya ask me.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/11/i-don-t.html

This girl gets the facts, and then draws the entirely *wrong* conclusion from them. No small surprise considering it comes from Newsweek.

I see these two things being related. Kids these days don't seem to value anything other than their own damn selves.

"Yes! This is my generation! We are self-entitled! All of us think we were truly destined to be great! And our moms and dads definitely help us out financially more than either child or parent would like. But we are also headstrong. We dream big. We don't give up. We embrace new technology. We hope. We don't say "no." We're EXCITED to live. We want to travel the world, see new cultures, break down barriers and change this world. And maybe it's just me being a product of this generation, but I know we will. So to answer the question: we're both hardy with just a hint of delusion (which trust me, comes in handy in this day in age).

-adrienne"

Some random post on a comment thread that I thought illustrated the situation quite nicely.

I call bullshit. There's a whole lot of quit in kids these days. A whole hell of a lot. I work with some of the finest men this generation has had to offer, and I remain unimpressed. Someone tried arguing that this equipped kids for the world they're inheriting. I instead say that if the world we inherit remains, that if civilization survives, it will *not* be because of the majority of this generation. Spoiled, self-entitled, headstrong, and delusional punks do not have it in them to weather the islamofacist, econazi, collectivist storm that's intensifying as we speak. Hardy my left nut. We're the generation that passes up work and lives off of our parents rent-free. We're the generation trained by our parents. We're the generation that, if things continue unchecked, will see the end of American-brand capitalism and the end of the Republic as we knew it. Any questions?

Best Friends are Unhealthy... In Crazy Land

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/fashion/17BFF.html

Seriously?

Jesus on Non-Violence

Yeah, I'll be lazy and post something an acquaintance sent me. She didn't want credit, on account of having found it on a public board and thinking that this is something that ought to be spread around more. I agree.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:38:45 RSV)

On Not Resisting Evil- Jesus counceled against retaliation, not against submission. Jesus never submitted, he resisted and actively fought against the evils he saw. His message was to not let evil dictate the terms of your opposition, don't let your enemy turn you into the very thing you hate. Which is why he counseled to love your enemies and pray for your persecutors.

Turn the other cheek -Luke 5:39, Matt 5:29, and Did 1:4 is often translated incorrectly. The misunderstanding arises out of the *nature* of the blow (slap). Most people think of a blow with the fist. But a right-handed blow would strike the left cheeck. A left hook would hit the right cheek of the victim. However, in Jesus' time the left hand was never used publicly. It was a punishable crime to even gesture with it in some areas. The only way to strike someone's right cheek with the right hand is with the back of the hand. This is not a blow to cause injury, but rather a symbolic act intended to humiliate. It was always administered from a superior to inferior, master to slave, man to woman, parent to child, Roman to Jew. The message was "get back in your place, submit to authority. You are my inferior and as such are scum."

Jesus assumes those listening are accustomed to such treatment...thus "If anyone slaps you..." In effect Jesus is advising: Don't take this kind of treatment anymore. Turn the other cheek. (role play it if it helps...) It is an act of defiance. It is now impossible with the other cheek presented to repeat the backhand blow. If it didn't work the first time to put the intended victim in his/her place, it won't ever work, because the power is symbolic. The master will dare not use his fist because only equals fight with fists and that is the last thing the master wants for the inferior to believe he is equal.
By turning the other cheek the victim is saying, "I am a human being and will not be treated this way." It is not the way to avoid punishment. It is not the way of submission.

Giving Cloak- people in Jesus' day only wore an inner garment (chiton) and an outer garment (himation). When poor people wanted/needed to take out a loan they often mortgage they very coats on their backs. The creditor was allowed to keep the garment by day but was required to return it at night so the person would not freeze. When a person fell behind on his loan due to the exorbitant interest (up to 250%!) he was often taken to court. It is to this situation that Jesus is speaking (and he is speaking to the debtors not the creditors). By offering not only the outer garment but also the inner garment Jesus is suggesting the debtor strip naked--in the courtroom! Nakedness was very taboo in Israel and the shame belonged to the viewing party. What shame the creditor would feel having the tables turned on him exposing the whole economic structure.

Second Mile- Roman legions were allowed to conscript civilians (which often meant Jews) to carry their gear. But the law stipulated a limit of 1 mile. By refusing to give back the gear and walking the 2 mile the Jew puts the Roman soldier in the unenviable position of being noticed by their Centurion who was at liberty to impose any punishment he saw fit. So this has nothing to do with extending yourself out of goodness. It is about not allowing yourself to be taken advantage of but instead to turn the tables on the persectors.

Jesus is not giving legalistic rhetoric in response to unfair situations instead he is offering ideas for his followers to think on and then provide their own creative responses to break the cycle of humiliation. To shake the foundations of oppression with humor and even ridicule.

This knowledge was imparted to me by Walter Wink, a noted seminarian at Auburn Theological Seminary in NYC. I'm not claiming that bombing is non-violent. I am not claiming that Bush believes that bombing is non-violent. I am claiming that Jesus advocated ACTIVE resistance via non-violence not submission. FRC-Just because you haven't heard anything like it doesn't make it wrong...do some research on the laws of Rome...and aren't most forms of non-violent protest by their vary nature acts of defiance ala MLK, Ghandi, and gasp, Jesus?!"

My job can best be described as making sure that someone who turns the other cheek can reasonably expect to survive doing so.

It's Not the First Time I've Said This...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062200813_pf.html

Now, I'm not the good General's biggest fan. I have serious doubts as to whether or not he's actually had boots on the ground at any point in the recent past, as he seems hell-bent on reducing the lethality of our engagements... for our enemies. He's the guy who handed out the order about not going into areas where they could reasonably expect to take contact. That kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it? General Petraeus he is not, and it's made even worse by his civilian commander. General McChrystal is trying to apply a strategy that worked in Iraq to a whole different ballgame. Petraeus's strategy in Iraq worked because we had the insurgents whupped. We haven't whupped the Afghani resistance yet, so we haven't established in their minds that we're Big Billy Badass. Until we do that, any peaceful overtures will be seen as attempts at surrender.

But this Administration? Holy heavenly God, America, what were you thinking? These people seem to be even more dedicated to losing Afghanistan than the Taliban is to winning it! They shouldn't be demanding apologies, they should be straightening up their acts. Like I say whenever someone complains about me going on about one of my many triggers, "I'll quit saying it when it quits being true." How long did Obama sit on McChrystal's request for more troops? How many men died because Obama couldn't make a decision recommended him by the expert *he* appointed? How many men have died because the American civilians - that's you, every damn one of you who voted for the Dhimmicrats - demanded that we fight this war like civilized men and not kill any of those precious, precious civilians?

Here's a little secret I'm going to let you all in on. There is no such thing as an "Innocent Civilian" in Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other Middle Eastern pisshole. Honest. There's only degrees of guilt. You say how horrible it is for children to die, and it is. Even so, the little ones grow up to be the big ones - that is, if they aren't used as suicide bombs first - and the big ones kill Westerners whenever they get it in their heads to do so. I say it's horrible that American children die because of these people. We Westerners respect discipline and restraint. Middle Easterners respect strength. By restraining ourselves so unnecessarily, we're actually working against our goals. We are not fighting civilized men. We're fighting barbarians. It's long past time for us to take the kid gloves off and go after them with the full might of the American military.

Father's Day

I know, it was actually yesterday. My father doesn't read this blog, and I think he might have a heart attack if I remembered something like Father's Day, Mother's Day, somebody's birthday, Christmas, etc.

It wasn't until I got out into the world that I really came to understand just how great a father I had. Sure, he has his faults. Everyone does. He's still a good man. Growing up, though, there were times I hated him for the things he did.

He taught me right from wrong. He taught me that the only way to get something was to work for it, even if he had a hard time suppressing that generous streak of his. He taught me generosity, too. Patience, kindness, and a willingness to open up a can of whup-ass when someone desperately needs it.
Typically that last was on me, applied with a leather belt after I got into a fistfight at school for the umpteenth time.
He taught me duty, honor, respect, and loyalty. My father never served in the military, but he knew those things better than many in uniform. He taught me faith and patriotism. Not the kinds that shout themselves from the street corners and the rooftops at the first hint of a crisis, but the quiet, strong varieties that weather any storm and come out the stronger for it. He taught me the proper way to fold a flag and respect for the flag at an age when most kids were still working on learning to ride bikes. There are grown men in uniform who still don't know how to fold a flag. He taught me the sanctity of marriage, and the importance of spouse and family. Coming from a generation that thought it was cool to question authority and disrespect those who hold it, he taught me to respect my betters and my elders, that there's a difference between someone having to earn my respect and me being disrespectful to them. He didn't teach me these things by telling me them, he taught me by doing them.

I look at some of the other sperm donors my battle-buddies have had. Deadbeats, liberals, drunks, drug addicts, abusers. It seems a good father these days is about as rare as a unicorn, and I can't help but wonder how much better the world would be if there were a million more like him. If I ever do wind up breeding, I hope to be half as good a father as he was.

Support our Students?

A few days back I saw someone on a forum asking why the nineteen-year-old in Afghanistan was more worthy of support than the nineteen-year-old in university. As the forum was one of the many where political and religious debate are discouraged, the topic was quickly shut down after my, ah, response. Let's call him Jack. Jack is from the UK, so there's some cultural differences. As a more moderate type explained to me in private messages after I went after Jack with both barrels, Europe lacks a lot of the "Military Worship" that the US has. He said it's only recently become socially unacceptable to spit on men in uniform.
I think you can imagine my reaction. "Ungrateful pissants" was only the start. I think that might provide fodder for another post, but not today.

I'll go more into my reasoning here, and I'll pull experiences off my own life. I was, as matter of fact, a nineteen-year-old in college and a twenty-year-old in Iraq. I had my twenty-first birthday in a guard tower. The sons of bitches on duty with me, having found out my birthdate from my section chief, sang "Happy Birthday" over the radio. Bastards. I digress.

Let's imagine, if you will, two paths a life may have taken. Picture a nineteen-year-old male, fresh out of high school. We'll call him Tim. Let's pretend this is before the economy tanked, say around '07, so Tim here has actual job prospects. On the one hand, our man Tim could choose to go to college, get a degree and work in some cubicle until he dies of old age. Retirement, as we're beginning to realize, is just not gonna happen. On the other hand, our man Tim could choose to enlist, go to war, and if he comes back he might just come back fucked up in the head.
If he were me, he was fucked up in the head to begin with so it was just drops in the bucket.

Let's say Tim goes to college. He works part-time at some soul-killing minimum-wage job like all college students should, and the most he gets out of it is a real motivation to do well in school so he doesn't have to keep doing that same soul-killing minimum-wage job. He does fairly well in his classes, not quite as well as he did in high school but well enough. When he wraps up his time in college he's twenty-three, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, ready to start a career in whatever field he studied for.
Jack seems to think that our man Tim deserves our support, morally and financially, because Tim is studying art or history or engineering or whatever. I disagree. Tim is studying, and the only real, direct beneficiary of Tim's studying is Tim. Tim's parents might enjoy a more comfortable retirement, if they have one, if he does well, but overall he's really the only person who benefits from his college education.

Let's take a look at the other path, and say that Tim decides to enlist. He joins the Army, signs up for a combat arms MOS. Take your pick, my personal preference was 13B. Sucker that I am, my day-to-day wound up looking more like an 11B. Our man Tim, though, wraps up basic training with about four to six months to train with his unit before he deploys over to Iraq. There's still and insurgency there, and overall Tim has a bad time. He manages to avoid catching any serious injuries, but he sees some stuff of the sort that you just can't unsee. He has some buddies blown up, but doesn't get into any firefights himself. He picks up physical and mental scars, and the deployment changes him in ways most people simply can't understand. When Tim finishes his first four-year contract he's twenty-three, but most people think he's closer to thirty. Some good has come of his time in the Army, he's stronger in mind and fitter in body than he's ever been, but overall he comes away damaged. His job prospects are actually pretty lousy, as many employers don't want to risk hiring a veteran who has the dreaded PTSD. He didn't acquire any job skills in the Army, at least none documented on paper, so the best he can really hope for is that someone he knows is looking to hire somebody. Tim comes to the realization that while civilians will smile to his face and thank him for his service, he can't find too many willing to pull the knife out of his back.
Jack seems to think that this version of Tim isn't particularly worthy of support, being that all he did was go over to some foreign country and pick fights with people Jack's pretty sure would leave us alone if we'd just leave them alone. What Jack doesn't seem to understand is that when Tim joined the Army, he didn't join some mercenary outfit. It's called the service for a reason. Just like policemen and firefighters, servicemen provide a fundamental necessity for modern life. The problem is that we do our job too well, and there are a lot of people in the Free World who take their liberty for granted. There are a lot of people who fail to understand that freedom is not the natural order of things, that it takes a constant, active struggle - both politically and militarily - for a nation to remain free.

Remind me sometime, and I'll have to go into just what freedom is. I've had plenty of time to think on tower guard.