I was a member of the military for 10 years including 2 years inactive duty.
CNN Article
I know exactly what it means to make a public statement in uniform. This is something that is taught when you start out in the military in Basic military training.
1) When you are in uniform you are not to make any public statements unless specifically authorized to do so.
2) Any public statemens made while in uniform are to be official communications of the military.
3) You do not have freedom of speech while you are performing your military duty in a public forum.
So General Pace as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would certainly have authorization to make public statements at any time even as high up as he is in the military he is still restricted by the second two 'rules'.
He should have the self-control to not make public statements while in uniform or performing his duty that might be considered military policy when in fact they are not.
He cannot claim that any statements made while serving and making statements publically are his personal views or by implication protecting his 'first amendment' rights to free speech, when in fact free speech does not exist for a military person serving and making public statements.
I'm sure he can appreciate that he wouldn't want his soldiers under him to discover free speech and first amendment protections any time they have a personal opinion about his orders. Nor can he make first amendment statements while in uniform serving his duty and making public statements.
Calls for him to apologize are foolish. You should never apologize for a statement that is a true representation for who you are and he shouldn't apologize for his statement. General Pace; however, should apologize to the military and himself for losing his battle of self-control and making personal statements as a public representative of the military. He knows he did something wrong (even if it isn't what people think he did wrong) and should make amends.
He has revealed his true beliefs that a fairly large percentage of his comrades in arms are people that he dispises and feels are immoral.
If, as one of the major leaders of the military, he believes as he does that gay activities are immoral and criminal then he should be true to himself. He should pursue gay activities just as much as he would pursue any other known criminals in the military. After all, what kind of moral integrity does he have if he'll allow the known immoral and criminal to fight for his country? He has revealed himself as a bigot and hypocrite.
A bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ - so much so that he believes these people who perform sexual practices that are unlike his own are criminal.
He is a hypocrite - a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs - in that he calls the actions of gay people crimes but does nothing to pursue them.
Those that are strong in to military virtues, regardless of their moral beliefs, should no longer want to be lead by a General who lack so much self-control.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Google News Searches
If you like to read then here are my four favorite searches on google news:
1) Anti-Science
2) Science
3) Technology
4) Atheism
Almost always there is something interesting that pops up in these searches. In the future I'll be running these searchs and writing some about the more interesting articles out there.
1) Anti-Science
2) Science
3) Technology
4) Atheism
Almost always there is something interesting that pops up in these searches. In the future I'll be running these searchs and writing some about the more interesting articles out there.
Death Segment 2
This is just going to be a brief post. I know often people will remark that a specific dead person that was close to them helped them through this or that or guided them through something.
I know one thing for sure dead people don't do anything at all. My mother-in-law used to watch my first son anytime we needed her. No spirit can do that if spirits exist.
If spirits cannot be responsible for something simple like watching my 3 year old, how can they be responsible for anything else?
And so... days before my mother-in-laws death my wife became pregnant. My mother-in-law will never know her second grandchild. And who knows, perhaps there will be a third in the future? I can't say. Right now it seems hard enough to deal with two kids and it seems unlikely that any of her siblings will have any children.
I know there are a lot of people that claim that dead people do things. But you don't see dead people doing anything important. You don't see these people that believe in dead people going around doing things depending on these spirits or whatever to go to work for them today because they are sick?
You can believe in spirits or whatever all you want. In the end, what you do is on a daily basis is no different than what a person does that doesn't believe in spirits. The belief in spirits does only one thing for you - gives you a nice fuzzy feeling that the ones you loved in life that have died are somewhere around doing useful things.
I know one thing for sure dead people don't do anything at all. My mother-in-law used to watch my first son anytime we needed her. No spirit can do that if spirits exist.
If spirits cannot be responsible for something simple like watching my 3 year old, how can they be responsible for anything else?
And so... days before my mother-in-laws death my wife became pregnant. My mother-in-law will never know her second grandchild. And who knows, perhaps there will be a third in the future? I can't say. Right now it seems hard enough to deal with two kids and it seems unlikely that any of her siblings will have any children.
I know there are a lot of people that claim that dead people do things. But you don't see dead people doing anything important. You don't see these people that believe in dead people going around doing things depending on these spirits or whatever to go to work for them today because they are sick?
You can believe in spirits or whatever all you want. In the end, what you do is on a daily basis is no different than what a person does that doesn't believe in spirits. The belief in spirits does only one thing for you - gives you a nice fuzzy feeling that the ones you loved in life that have died are somewhere around doing useful things.
Ann Coulter Calls John Edwards a Faggot
Ann Coulter is a very intelligent woman. I think that point needs to be brought out immediately.
So, when she was accused of using the term faggot (which she did) and she claims it was just a school yard insult and not derogatory of John Edwards sexual orientation and to gays in the United States of America, we know she is lying. An intelligent person in front of a conservative convention that is a paid speaker knows exactly what she is saying.
I don't have a problem with her calling John Edwards a faggot in a personal setting. I don't even care if she says it in a public setting, either. She is a publicity hound and will say or do anything that keeps the coin of her speeches valuable.
No, that isn't the problem.
If you watch the clip you'll hear something very important happen and it has nothing to do with Ann Coulter. Listen to the audience of this major political action committee. A PAC that represents around 50% of the nation.
There is an ooooooing sound from the audience. It is like a fight starting up in the cafeteria in elementary school! And then there is a brief Ah!!! As if to say, I can't believe she said that and its exactly what I'd say if I was up there, followed by loud applause.
Then she closes her speech only seconds later - to thunderous applause.
There was a conservative blog out there that was pissed off at Ann Coulter for associating bigotry and anti-gay sentiment with the conservative movement. I don't know who this person is, but they have a sadly misunderstood idea of their own conservative movement. Listen to the audience. That was not the sound of an audience upset by the speaker saying something they did not want to hear. This was an audience that agreed wholeheartedly with what she said, if not exactly how she said it.
Watch the video again and this time concentrate on her facial movements. She isn't sure at first how well the remark was taken, then the audience takes off with it. She smiles, tilts her head coyly and understands that she has hit her mark. The audience was cheering, there were sure to be press discussion about her which would driving up the value of her speaking engagements (and the demand for those engagements).
She is very proud of what she has done and in her remarks later she is not recalcitrant about saying it - instead she lies and states it is just a school-age insult.
She says that you have to go in to rehab if you use the term 'faggot'. Why would you have to go to an rehab for saying something that is just a school-age insult? No, you might need to go to rehab (at least rehab from the public) if you said the word Nigger. If she was taunting at Political Correctness, it seems that her comment itself is proof that it isn't true - that PC would send you to rehab for saying the word 'faggot'. In her own speech just before she says faggot she determines its meaning. It is clear. She means it as a double-insult - one against John Edwards (who among Democratic presidential hopefuls is the most forgettable) and one against the gay community.
So, Ann Coulter makes a statement, some people get upset, some people are very happy. It should be clear that Ann Coulter has done our society a great service. She has shown that one of the largest PACs and motivators behind republicans and conservatives - are hateful and bigoted. That making such statements does not bring global denouncement by the 'good' people in attendence is a treatise to the fact that they are not the good people they want people to think they are.
So, when she was accused of using the term faggot (which she did) and she claims it was just a school yard insult and not derogatory of John Edwards sexual orientation and to gays in the United States of America, we know she is lying. An intelligent person in front of a conservative convention that is a paid speaker knows exactly what she is saying.
I don't have a problem with her calling John Edwards a faggot in a personal setting. I don't even care if she says it in a public setting, either. She is a publicity hound and will say or do anything that keeps the coin of her speeches valuable.
No, that isn't the problem.
If you watch the clip you'll hear something very important happen and it has nothing to do with Ann Coulter. Listen to the audience of this major political action committee. A PAC that represents around 50% of the nation.
There is an ooooooing sound from the audience. It is like a fight starting up in the cafeteria in elementary school! And then there is a brief Ah!!! As if to say, I can't believe she said that and its exactly what I'd say if I was up there, followed by loud applause.
Then she closes her speech only seconds later - to thunderous applause.
There was a conservative blog out there that was pissed off at Ann Coulter for associating bigotry and anti-gay sentiment with the conservative movement. I don't know who this person is, but they have a sadly misunderstood idea of their own conservative movement. Listen to the audience. That was not the sound of an audience upset by the speaker saying something they did not want to hear. This was an audience that agreed wholeheartedly with what she said, if not exactly how she said it.
Watch the video again and this time concentrate on her facial movements. She isn't sure at first how well the remark was taken, then the audience takes off with it. She smiles, tilts her head coyly and understands that she has hit her mark. The audience was cheering, there were sure to be press discussion about her which would driving up the value of her speaking engagements (and the demand for those engagements).
She is very proud of what she has done and in her remarks later she is not recalcitrant about saying it - instead she lies and states it is just a school-age insult.
She says that you have to go in to rehab if you use the term 'faggot'. Why would you have to go to an rehab for saying something that is just a school-age insult? No, you might need to go to rehab (at least rehab from the public) if you said the word Nigger. If she was taunting at Political Correctness, it seems that her comment itself is proof that it isn't true - that PC would send you to rehab for saying the word 'faggot'. In her own speech just before she says faggot she determines its meaning. It is clear. She means it as a double-insult - one against John Edwards (who among Democratic presidential hopefuls is the most forgettable) and one against the gay community.
So, Ann Coulter makes a statement, some people get upset, some people are very happy. It should be clear that Ann Coulter has done our society a great service. She has shown that one of the largest PACs and motivators behind republicans and conservatives - are hateful and bigoted. That making such statements does not bring global denouncement by the 'good' people in attendence is a treatise to the fact that they are not the good people they want people to think they are.
Friday, March 02, 2007
The Conspiracy to dismantle NASA
It seems like years ago that Bush made a statement that we should return to the moon and then go onward to Mars with manned missions.
He did this before the 2004 elections. I thought it was obvious that he wanted to get the votes of the science oriented. NASA is a constant thorn in the side of politicians.
I am a member of an amateur astronomy group - and I said it shortly after his statement - and I'll say it again - it was not only a ploy to get votes but it is a magnificent plan to destroy and dismantle NASA.
NASA then and NASA now does not appear to have the capability to go to the Moon and even less Mars. It was clear that the funds would never be made available for an surge of capabilities necessary to make it to the Moon and Mars again.
Recent articles have stated that there will be a delay in our return to space after the Space shuttle is retired - due to a flat budget for NASA from 2007 to 2008 - which actually amounts to a decrease in funds when you account for inflation.
NASA - will be absorbed by the military in the near future. All it will take now is the public acknowledging NASA as a failure - and it will fail to go to the Moon and Mars, almost certainly... And NASA's budget, capabilities and manpower will all be military.
NASA has already reduced the science it will do in order to make it to the Moon and Mars, soon, it will not be able to do either (and it will be obvious long before the dates come that they planned to get to the Moon and Mars) and NASA will implode like a Black Hole - never to be seen again.
He did this before the 2004 elections. I thought it was obvious that he wanted to get the votes of the science oriented. NASA is a constant thorn in the side of politicians.
I am a member of an amateur astronomy group - and I said it shortly after his statement - and I'll say it again - it was not only a ploy to get votes but it is a magnificent plan to destroy and dismantle NASA.
NASA then and NASA now does not appear to have the capability to go to the Moon and even less Mars. It was clear that the funds would never be made available for an surge of capabilities necessary to make it to the Moon and Mars again.
Recent articles have stated that there will be a delay in our return to space after the Space shuttle is retired - due to a flat budget for NASA from 2007 to 2008 - which actually amounts to a decrease in funds when you account for inflation.
NASA - will be absorbed by the military in the near future. All it will take now is the public acknowledging NASA as a failure - and it will fail to go to the Moon and Mars, almost certainly... And NASA's budget, capabilities and manpower will all be military.
NASA has already reduced the science it will do in order to make it to the Moon and Mars, soon, it will not be able to do either (and it will be obvious long before the dates come that they planned to get to the Moon and Mars) and NASA will implode like a Black Hole - never to be seen again.
Dvorak's opinion on CES
In John C. Dvorak's recent articel "Dear CES: Kick Out the PCs" he appeals that the computer technology should be removed from the CES show - to make a new Computer/technology oriented show and have more room for the Consume electronics that are supposed to be featured at CES.
Well, respectfully, I disagree with my favorite computer topic writer.
I think that he is on the right track though. I think that in a monstrous sized convention as the CES, you need clear segmentation of the different businesses. Even to the point that companies such as Sony should have separate stands in different areas - for TV, Computer, etc segments.
Then, you still have the SAP, IBM, Oracle stands that are there - and not for the typical Electronics Consumer - and you still attract the sheer number of people that CES is known.
Hell, I'd even be up for combining Tech Ed for Microsoft and Tech Ed for SAP in to CES... Then it would be great to bring the family.
Well, respectfully, I disagree with my favorite computer topic writer.
I think that he is on the right track though. I think that in a monstrous sized convention as the CES, you need clear segmentation of the different businesses. Even to the point that companies such as Sony should have separate stands in different areas - for TV, Computer, etc segments.
Then, you still have the SAP, IBM, Oracle stands that are there - and not for the typical Electronics Consumer - and you still attract the sheer number of people that CES is known.
Hell, I'd even be up for combining Tech Ed for Microsoft and Tech Ed for SAP in to CES... Then it would be great to bring the family.
Guacamole
I love guacamole. But it is just painful to buy avocados and wait until they are ripe and make it. But I don't have to deal with that anymore.
Sam's club sells frozen avocados with premixed guacamole mix that you thaw, mix up and eat whenever you want it.
Ahhhh, this is happiness. Too bad everything I really like at Sam's club eventually disappears. So, I went and bought some more.
Sam's club sells frozen avocados with premixed guacamole mix that you thaw, mix up and eat whenever you want it.
Ahhhh, this is happiness. Too bad everything I really like at Sam's club eventually disappears. So, I went and bought some more.
FutureCar series on Discovery Channel
I like this series a lot, but it seems to me that they lack the negative side of the technologies they talk about.
I don't know how major it is, but I remember reading about the Tweel some time ago.
Noise Problems
As indicated in the above Wikipedia article need to be solved to a better than current tires noise level - before these tires could be adopted by regular people. At first these tires are going to be more expensive than regular tires and if they are more expensive people won't buy them unless they outperform their current tires in almost every way.
But I still love the show. I can't wait for the future to arrive. Personally, though, I hope for arcologies without roads (and no cars) more than I hope for really cool cars. Like any American, though, I love cars.
I don't know how major it is, but I remember reading about the Tweel some time ago.
Noise Problems
As indicated in the above Wikipedia article need to be solved to a better than current tires noise level - before these tires could be adopted by regular people. At first these tires are going to be more expensive than regular tires and if they are more expensive people won't buy them unless they outperform their current tires in almost every way.
But I still love the show. I can't wait for the future to arrive. Personally, though, I hope for arcologies without roads (and no cars) more than I hope for really cool cars. Like any American, though, I love cars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)