World's Dumbest Bumper Sticker

I saw an amazingly stupid bumper sticker last Friday, the 13th (co-incidence?) but I know not everyone will agree with me.

You see, one of my peeves about the current socio-political climate in America is this weird idea that liberals are smarter than conservatives. There was a recent article about this very topic, and I get what the point is, even while I think it misses the point in some ways as well. I agree that radical ideas start with "intellectual" folks that are usually liberal-minded (in a modern, 2009 sense, for you that hold on to early 20th Century political definitions) and that over time, some become absorbed into the mainstream, like the idea that it's not okay to just shoot your dog. Once a radical idea, now most of us seem to get that it's not okay, right?

However, there are those radical (liberal?) ideas that are foisted upon the teeming masses with the intent to marginalize their opponents and mainstream ideas/behaviors that are not mainstream. These can be to the detriment of society, like, gosh, I dunno, communism? Socialism? Fascism? Radical ideas (from each according to their ability, to each according to their need) aren't always the good ideas, that's why man purses will never take hold. Or, I hope, a single-payer, government-run health care system in America, but I digress.

What I really find frustrating is the intellectuals that just aren't that smart. You know, the ones that get the subtlety of everything yet don't really get anything. All the while condemning the heathen masses and their simplistic, black and white views on everything.

The bumper sticker read: "What we really need is a Department of Peace!" Now this seems soooooo profound, for about 7 seconds. First, I asked myself: is there currently a Department of War? I just googled it, and the answer is "no," not since 1949, really, when the Department of Defense took over. Second, then, since your stupid bumper sticker is now a little stupider, is "do you think that the opposite of "Defense" is "Peace?" If so, you are approaching monumental idiocy.

Ok, this took me very little time to work out, and as I had some drive time left, I asked the tough question: Ok, let's play along, and accept your (stupid, ridiculous, simplistic, puerile) premise: what, exactly, would this Peace Department look like? How would it be structured to go about Peace-ing the country, and would it attempt to Peace other countries as well? If so, how would that be accomplished? Seriously, who would you hire to head this Department? What would they do all day?

I get how Defending a country works, even from nebulous terrorists like those hiding in caves, but how does one Peace a country? It took me approximately 37 seconds to come up with these last few questions for the driver of the well-kept Buick sporting this idiocy, why didn't he take the time before attaching this gluey platitude to his rear end?

This did leave more questions: if we have a Dept. of Peace, how do we define Peace? Is it when no one wants to kill Americans in our borders or internationally? Is it when there is an absence of conflict? (Good luck on that, by the way, if history is any guide). Is it when we no longer have the need for any military forces? If so, how do we achieve that?

If Peace is the absence of conflict, it'll never happen: conflict is a part of the natural state of things, and peace is clearly the aberration. This notion that harmony exists in the natural world (without evil human influence) is a joke: forms of stasis, sure, but harmony? Never. Every episode of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, or Marty Stouffer's Wild America tells the same tale: survival is a struggle up and down the food chain, eat or be eaten. Surely even the most dyed-in-the-wool liberal gets that, right? Didn't Darwin teach us anything?

Peace can only be achieved in a few ways. One, of course, is to surrender. The Islamic fascist terrorists would be happy if we surrendered and accepted their terms, and peace would result, right? We aren't talking about an aggressor that will compromise, so if negotiation and diplomacy are your plans, know that the only way to achieve peace is converting to Islam and surrendering. Not an option?

veteran's day

I've told this many times, more than my Dad did, probably. He never told this to me, or any of his kids, to my knowledge, but it got back to us nonetheless (one of the hazards of him being a tavern owner: bar stories got re-told).

When Gordon was 15, he wanted to serve his country. He believed in the cause and probably needed the money and experience, but he was too young, so he did exactly what anyone would have done: "borrowed" his older brother's SSN and enlisted in the Army. (He also lied about his age at 10 so he could sell newspapers to help out the family's finances: you had to be 12, I believe. Walked downtown from Mt. Auburn to do it, too). It worked, and his Mother worked to get him out, but by the time she was successful, he'd completed basic training. He'd also turned 16, old enough to join the Merchant Marines! Off he went into the Pacific.

The stories are vague: evading a U-boat on the Euphrates, spending a few days in the water after a ship wasn't as fortunate, ending up recuperating in Egypt (his big regret was not getting to see the Pyramids when there) and while waiting for transportation home (resources were involved in some big offensive) he was injured by shrapnel while watching a firefight from a Venetian rooftop. By the time the boat got him home he was healed and 17, old enough for the Army, and re-enlist he did, skipping basic as he'd already done it, and was back to post-treaty Germany.

The one story I got out of the horse's mouth was when I was in the hospital recovering from my spleenectomy (4th grade sledding accident, if you must know) and he asked a nurse with a unique, but typically Cincinnati German last name if she was related to a war buddy of his: it was her father-in-law. He then regaled us (to entertain me, no doubt) with a story of their wartime experience as MPs at a military hospital in Germany. Seems the locals showed their gratitude by donating kegs of beer to the soldiers, but they had nothing to drink the beer out of, so they grabbed the closest things that resembled steins: handles? check. Vessel? check. You might be be guessing what in a hospital has a handle, can hold liquid, and is handy, indeed, pretty much one for every bed? Yep, they scrubbed the bed urinal thingys and drank the beer from those. Now you understand the picture!

He finished High School, stayed in for a while, and started a family, then law school, but didn't finish as he got a good job offer and the rest is his story, just not this one. I salute you, Gordon P. on this and every Veteran's Day, because now I know what it means, and I'm sorry I didn't get it when I was younger.

Fort Hood shooter and the President's lack of ability to "comprehend"

Alright, I am sooooooooo sick of my intelligence being insulted. As more than one pundit, critic, observer, etc. (but none on ABC, BS, or CBS, I bet) has put it, uhm, Mr. President, Mr. "this incomprehensible act," uhm, HE SHOUTED ALLAHUH AKBAR AND HAD CLEARLY STATED HIS ISLAMIC JIHADISTIC POSITIONS OVER AND OVER AGAIN!

Sorry, I didn't mean to shout, but holy hell, is this ridiculous. Just shut up if you can't say the obvious: he was a militant Islamic fascist in our military, a frickin' Major, for Pete's sake! Too afraid to insult Islam that you can't state the obvious? And quit bashing America ("divisive times, blah blah, uhm, blah") when you should be emoting with families of murdered HEROES yo, robotic flack. I'm a little worked up about this.

The photo credits, as one should always cite your sources: EPA/TANNEN MAURY http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/features/article_1512576.php/In-Pictures-Obama-Fort-Hood-Shooting-Memorial-Service?page=5

Gore makes money, too!

Wow, I must admit I never thought the New York Times would run a piece like this: Al Gore is making money off green investments. And he was soooooooooooooo indignant when questioned about this on Capitol Hill earlier this year (which, I see, the article took the time to mention). Now, it's okay to make money on it?

It is, it's just the conflict of interest that bothers some of us: working as a lobbyist to make legislative changes that will make him lots and lots of money.

Ronald Reagan 1964

Watch this speech.

I only recently read Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative and like that book, this speech explains clearly why conservatism is what it is: fair, democratic, compassionate and uplifting of humanity in ways that modern liberalism will never be. Ever. My favorite part is the simple declaration that human history has mostly been people living under dictatorial systems, and we must not fall back into that! This great American Experiment is the anomaly, not the norm, and as in the classic Benjamin Franklin anecdote, (As Franklin emerged from Independence Hall the final day of the convention, he was asked by a woman, “Mr. Franklin what have you given us?” He responded, “A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”) we must work to keep it. Conservativism does.

More low temperature records being set!

Germany's coldest October temperature on record.

Of course, extreme lows are a part of climate change, right?

Death of Journalism

Well, plenty more indications that journalism is dying and why. Funny enough, this knowledge is accompanied by a prominent "journalist" writing a piece stating that Journalism is too important to die, or be for profit. That's right, folks, newspapers, news, should be 401-c non-profit. That's enough to prove the guy's a nutroot.

Funny enough, there are examples of news organizations making money. That, of course, is immaterial to the argument. Fox News is the devil, after all, even if Britt Hume and Chris Wallace have more jouranlistic gravitas than, say, all the ex-Clinton hacks on the major networks (can you say Stephanopoulos?).

The major media got punk'd over the Chamber of Commerce's fake support of Cap & Trade, and were busted on it. They lied about Rush Limbaugh for the express purpose of derailing his Rams investment opportunity and slammed their fellow Juan Williams for pointing out the lie. I love Charles Krauthammer's take: CNN fact-checked a SNL skit, but not the Limbaugh false quotes.

Welcome to the end of American journalism, let's hope its replacement actually does its job so it can stay around.

Nobel Prize? Really?

The Nobel Peace Prize has been a joke, a travesty, a mockery of the intent for so many years, it comes as no real surprise that the current winner is someone who appears to have accomplished only one thing that could possible put him anywhere near contention: winning one election (the Senate doesn't count as he got private divorce records released about his opponent so the last minute replacement Republican candidate, Alan Keyes, had no time to mount a real campaign, or any real chance).

My first real notice of this was when I discovered that Le Duc Tho, who co-led the North Vietnamese Military, was a winner (he refused, as his country wasn't communist yet, oops, I mean "wasn't at peace.") Of course, as an American, it struck me funny that the loser of the Cold War, Mikhail Gorbachev, won it in 1990, and that Yasser Arafat co-winning in 1994 with two men (and their country) he spent his entire life trying to wipe from the Earth is a joke.

2001 was a banner year for the Nobel award: The UN and its Secretary General, Kofi Annan. Guess the oil-for-food scandal didn't get in the way of the peacemaking. Obviously, given my political and philosophical stance, it's no surprise that I laughed at both Jimmy Carter and Al Gore's wins.

Sandwiched in between these are many that really have worked for peace, often by working for democracy in horrible, despotic situations at great personal sacrifice, like several of those that lost to our current President. Hmmm.

This is a different joke that those crazy choices above, though. It's an insult to those that have truly worked for Peace all their lives, those that have died for the cause, no matter even if sometimes it was horribly misguided and skewed from a leftish, utopian-hoping unrealistic perspective. So I say, shame on the Nobel Peace Prize committee. Shame on you.