- “A woman drove me to drink and I didn’t even have the decency to thank her.”-W.C. Fields
- “No soldier can fight unless he is properly fed on beef and beer.”-John Churchill, First Duke of Marlborough
- “Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in beer.”-Dave Barry
- “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”-Benjamin Franklin
- “I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts, and beer.”-Abraham Lincoln
- “I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer.-Homer Simpson
- “”I feel sorry for people who don’t drink. When they wake up in the morning, that’s as good as they’re going to feel all day.”-Frank Sinatra
- “I decided to stop drinking with creeps. I decided to drink only with friends. I’ve lost 30 pounds.”-Ernest Hemingway
- “A quart of ale is a dish for a king.”-William Shakespeare
- “Make sure that the beer – four pints a week – goes to the troops under fire before any of the parties in the rear get a drop.”-Winston Churchill to his Secretary of War, 1944
Let us consider the following:
Stanley McChrystal is brought in to save a collapsing Afghan war effort. General McKiernan, the former man in charge and a man with 30 years of service to his country, is unceremoniously dumped.
McChrystal was supposed to represent the new administration’s fresh start.
McChrystal wants how many troops? We absolutely love Counter Insurgency, with its false promises (they’re false because they’re misinterpreted; watch how many Taliban get smoked under Patraeus–lots and lots) of winning the war by merely ordering our troops to smile while on patrol. Yes, yes, CI. But how many soldiers on the ground? 80,000 seems so…warlike.
No, General, you’ll get less than half what you say you need, and you’ll like it. We really only put you in place to show our fresh perspective to Americans. Out with the old, in with the new. And, just to keep you honest, we’re setting a timeline. 18 months.
In other words, General, we want you to do the impossible. And if you begin to falter, you’re such an easy political target. You’re a military guy afterall, and the Dems are in power. We know what that means, don’t we? We’ll make it look as if you stole those 4 stars you’re wearing. Sure we’ll throw you a couple of bones, talk about your brave service and sacrifice, then we’ll showboat for the media, tell them who’s in charge. Us. Well, us and the media.
Never mind that ambassador Karl Eickenberry was undermining McChrystal from the beginning. Eickenberry’s a civilian. He does what he wants. And he works for the State Department, the favorite department of the Dems.
Hey, we don’t care that the civilians weren’t working as a team with the military. It’s up to the military to work as a team with the civilians. We let McChrystal come up with a strategy and then threw in some civilians who wanted to do everything differently, sure. That’s not the point.
This is how things should be right here. Watch this video. This guy in the black suit knew who the boss was. He was a REAL soldier.
OK, I’m back. It’s no longer the thin-skinned, confused Democrat talking. It’s me, Magus. See, I agree with almost everything Karl Eikenberry had to say. But just who is it that’s not promoting team work? How should McChrystal feel if Eikenberry is sending classified letters to the White House explaining why McChrystal’s tactics are wrong? It’s been a patchwork war. We want Counter Insurgency, then we take away the tools needed for CI: time and lots of soldiers. CI wouldn’t be my choice, because Afghanistan is not important enough for the investment. But if I was a 4-Star, and the President said make it happen, I’d say Ok, now give me a decade and 100,000 troops.
We set McChrystal up for failure. The media is predictably piling on, like they do every time someone’s down, trying to make McChrystal look like an idiot. He was misused. He should have been directing Spec Ops to kill our enemies. Instead, we made a killer into a constable. Then we gave him half the cops he asked for.
Here Paul McCartney delivers his support for Obama and admonition for President Obama’s critics:
Of course, Sir Paul also insinuated that President Bush didn’t know what a library was. Mrs. Bush is a librarian….
Here, Sir Paul can be a seen in a very private moment, defending another intellectual giant: Britney Spears:
Paul, my advise to you? Let it be.
For some reason, I’m fascinated with the ideas of pessimism and positivism. But I believe, after deliberation, that I’ve misapplied the terms. I used to think liberals were the pessimists and conservatives, such as myself, were optimists. Liberals sat around whining and running away in war. They encouraged children to dress Emo. They believe that industry was out to pollute our precious Earth and keep the poor in the ghettos. And that all races are exactly the same, sans a few differences in skin shade. That women and men, too, are identical in their thinking and capabilities. There is no God because there is pain. Yada, yada, yada.
Then I thought a little more.
Why do liberals believe such things? It’s because they are the optimists. They believe that all races are the same because it is Right and it is Good that it should be so. And though they’re willing to see injustice when it proves to them that God doesn’t exist, they aren’t willing to concede when an unjust, cold and chaotic universe may have assigned the two sexes very different ways of doing business. And don’t even talk about racial or gender superiority. That wouldn’t be very optimistic. Because equality is Good and it’s the way things should be.
Terrorists, you ask? To a liberal, the jihadist who’s strapped some bombs to his rib cage and walks to the street corner where a dozen children are playing, just needs a good talking to. He needs to go to college or something. Needs some clean clothes and a shower.
Oh, don’t forget about liberal vegetarians. Optimists to the core. How happy a universe it would be if humans were never intended to eat meat! Because the idea of the blood-soaked slaughterhouse is a terrible scene. So it is Good and it is Right that humans who eat meat are Bad.
Nay, it is the conservative–a true conservative–who is the pessimist. But paradoxically–he’s happier than the lib. Study after study proves it. See, I was getting happiness mixed up with optimism, depression confused with pessimism. A true conservative says: “The world sucks, people are gonna betray me, and kittens die every day.” But he’s happy about it. He likes a challenge. Liberals such as Sean Penn say: “Give peace a chance” and then punch out a camera man or shake hands with Hugo Chavez. In an optimist’s world, bad people like Chavez are really good, if you really get to know them.
The paradox is easily answered thus: Conservatives are forearmed. Liberals live with disappointment, which, as any psychologist will tell you, is the root cause of despair. And religious conservatives donate far more money to charities than liberals. Unlike liberals, we accept that money makes the world go around. Libs know it is Right and Good that money should have no power. Alas!
The perfect image of the happy pessimist could be the pilot of the plane about to drop nukes on Russia in: Dr. Strangelove, who merrily rides the bomb to ground-zero.
As he says in the movie, when his crew gets the order to attack:
“Well, boys, I reckon this is it – nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies… I reckon you wouldn’t even be human being if you didn’t have some pretty strong personal feelings about nuclear combat.”
So yea. I’m a pessimist. And I’m happy about it. I know it’s going to rain today. And tomorrow. I’ll just wear a raincoat and stay dry. The libs can go out in tank-tops, meditate to make it stop raining, then fill their prescription for Prozac when their world doesn’t play nice.
One of the first films I disctincly remember seeing as a youth is Logan’s Run. The movie’s based on a novel by the same name, written by William F. Nolan and George Johnson.
The dystopian horror story starts like this:
- “The seeds of the Little War were planted in a restless summer during the mid-1960s, with sit-ins and student demonstrations as youth tested its strength. By the early 1970s over 75 percent of the people living on Earth were under 21 years of age. The population continued to climb — and with it the youth percentage.
- In the 1980s the figure was 79.7 percent.
- In the 1990s, 82.4 percent.
- In the year 2000 — critical mass.”
In order to combat the over population in the year 2116, it is law that people report for execution on the day they turn 21 years old. Sometimes people try to escape this fate and become Runners, and they attempt to make it to a secret coven of others like themselves–a space colony called Sanctuary. The government dispatches professional assassins, known as Sandmen to murder the Runners.
The main character–Logan 3, is himself a Sandman, who over the course of the book, becomes a Runner.
The book also depicts a world where promiscuous sex and drug use are not frowned upon, and yet tobacco is illegal.
Sorry, but I can’t help but see some parrallels with what’s going on with the Global Warming issue. GW is now the great funnel through which all progressive agendas are poured: Population control, anti-meat rhetoric, environmentalism, totem-like worship of animals, anti-industrialism.
Think Logan’s Run can’t happen? I hope not, but how much farther is that dystopian vision from Diane Francis’ idea, as printed in the Canadian Paper: Financial Post?
Yup, you read correctly. Francis proposes a world-wide law preventing people from having more than one child. As she states in ending:
Spoken like a true liberal fascist.
There’s lots of fashionable talk about America falling. Been fashionable since we were born. Chicks dig it.
Charlie Daniels uses his bardic skills to say what I think:
I thought up a pretty good analogy of why the Afghan and Iraq Wars took way too long, and not until we “surged” several times and changed our tactics, did we see real results.
Let’s compare the wars with exercise physiology.
In exercise, two important factors are intensity and duration. As the intensity of your training goes up, the duration must go down. It’s the difference between walking for an hour and sprinting for an hour. You simply can’t do the latter. Too much intensity. Or, you can do 6 repetions of curls with a 50 lb dumbell and your bicep may reach exhaustion. Then try doing pinkie finger curls. You could probably reach 500 and keep going; very little intensity.
And guess what? Intensity trumps duration when it comes to reaping athletic and health benefits. That’s right, Eight, twenty second wind sprints has more hormonal and physiological impact than running five miles. More bang for the buck. As a matter of fact, if you don’t have enough intensity, you’ll see virtually no changes in your physiology.
Same goes for war. Either go hard, or go long. Can’t do both. And if your opponent goes hard when you try to go long, guess who wins? He does.
We tried to fight these wars with too little intensity. We needn’t have begun carpet bombing civilian populations or lighting huts on fire. We did however, need much more closing with and destroying the enemy. We couldn’t take the pain of an intense sprint (read: the pain of CNN reporters interpreting every action as American attrocity), so we’re still doing a funky race-walk. And we looked stupid just like race-walkers do. Our politicians chose to take the most well educated, well equipped, most physically fit infantry in the history of any war (yes–we’re better than the Greatest Generation–our politicians don’t know it, but we do) and make them sing kumbaya.
Only, the Taliban doesn’t know kumbaya. They know how to fight pretty well though.