Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
How Much Does It Cost The Federal Government For a Presidential Election
How much does it cost the federal government for a presidential election? Much of the costs for the election are born by the candidates. Some more of the cost is paid for by the political parties themselves. And the individual states bear a large portion of the costs since they have to purchase and pay for all of the voting machines and the support systems for them.
After due thought, all other things being relatively equal from election to election, Soap Box ravings has come to the conclusion that this election is going to be the most expensive one ever for the federal government. In fact it appears that it will be about 150 Billion dollars more in new costs than any previous election which is the estimated cost of the "cookie" that mother government wants to feed selected citizens of this country.
Soap Box Ravings can't help but wonder what costs Nancy Pelosi, the most ethical speaker of the hose ever, and her fellow party members are going to cut since they campaigned on making sure they balanced the books.
They are not the only ones feeding at the trough. It appears to be a stampede led by President Bush. It seems like every politician in Washington, DC wants to be remembered for passing out "free cookies" to the citizens of this country.
After due thought, all other things being relatively equal from election to election, Soap Box ravings has come to the conclusion that this election is going to be the most expensive one ever for the federal government. In fact it appears that it will be about 150 Billion dollars more in new costs than any previous election which is the estimated cost of the "cookie" that mother government wants to feed selected citizens of this country.
Soap Box Ravings can't help but wonder what costs Nancy Pelosi, the most ethical speaker of the hose ever, and her fellow party members are going to cut since they campaigned on making sure they balanced the books.
They are not the only ones feeding at the trough. It appears to be a stampede led by President Bush. It seems like every politician in Washington, DC wants to be remembered for passing out "free cookies" to the citizens of this country.
Nuff Said Bout This
The Associated Press reported on 26 January, 2008 that Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion.
Saddam did not expect a U.S. invasion and deliberately kept the world guessing about his weapons program, although he already had gotten rid of it.
The full article is available at: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,160823,00.html?wh=news
Soap Box Ravings would file this information under the heading of "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" with subheadings under "You reap what you sow." In law enforcement this is sometimes known as "suicide by LEO."
Soap Box Ravings can not help but wonder if U. S. President's had a history of reacting quickly and firmly to world situations would Saddam have played this game. For example in the "walk softly and carry a big stick" era of Teddy Roosevelt it is hard to imagine that Saddam would have played that game. And now we have the leader if Iran, Mahmūd Ahmadinejād, pulling our chain to see how we measure up.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
When Republicans Act Like Democrats
From The Patriot Post:
“We’re all Keynesians now." So famously declared Richard Nixon back in 1971, in what we thought was a different economic era. But after [recent events], we’re not sure what decade we’re in. With Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and President Bush both endorsing temporary tax cuts and more federal spending as ‘fiscal stimulus,’ an inflation-adjusted version of Jimmy Carter’s $50 rebate can’t be far behind. Appearing before Congress, Mr. Bernanke told Democrats what he thought they wanted to hear. The former academic economist blessed a ‘fiscal stimulus package,’ as long as it is ‘explicitly temporary.’ How new federal spending can be ‘temporary,’ he didn't say, as if a dollar collected in taxes or borrowed and then spent can be recalled. The ‘temporary’ line was thus a dagger aimed directly at the heart of Mr. Bush’s desire to make his tax cuts permanent. The Fed chief did aver that, ‘Again, I’m not taking a view one way or the other on the desirability of those long-term tax cuts being made permanent.’ But of course refusing to endorse something is itself a point of view—a point Democrats were already joyfully repeating... Instead, Mr. Bernanke embraced the explicit Keynesian notion that the government should write checks to ‘low and moderate income people,’ who will spend it quickly and thus lift consumer demand... We’re all for putting more money in the hands of the poor and moderate earners, especially via stronger economic growth that will give them better paying jobs. But the $250 or $500 one-time rebate check they may now receive has to come from somewhere. The feds will pay for it either by taxing or borrowing from someone else, and those people will have that much less to spend or invest themselves. We are thus supposed to believe it is ‘stimulating’ to take money from one pocket and hand it to another.” —The Wall Street Journal
Soap Box Ravings remains in awe and feels that even more amazing bullshit awaits us. There is an old saying that a fool and his money are soon parted. So we spend millions of dollars and the only benefit is many of the low wage earners now have a high definition television.
Soap Box Ravings can't help but wonder if the federal government for example started to repair or maybe even increase the interstate highway system that we would reduce unemployment, get money rolling through the economy and the low income wage earners may decrease in this country. Or the federal government could hire folks to repair and or improve the National Parks System.
Spending money to create jobs would eventually result in more folks paying taxes. Just handing out money will not help anyone.
“We’re all Keynesians now." So famously declared Richard Nixon back in 1971, in what we thought was a different economic era. But after [recent events], we’re not sure what decade we’re in. With Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and President Bush both endorsing temporary tax cuts and more federal spending as ‘fiscal stimulus,’ an inflation-adjusted version of Jimmy Carter’s $50 rebate can’t be far behind. Appearing before Congress, Mr. Bernanke told Democrats what he thought they wanted to hear. The former academic economist blessed a ‘fiscal stimulus package,’ as long as it is ‘explicitly temporary.’ How new federal spending can be ‘temporary,’ he didn't say, as if a dollar collected in taxes or borrowed and then spent can be recalled. The ‘temporary’ line was thus a dagger aimed directly at the heart of Mr. Bush’s desire to make his tax cuts permanent. The Fed chief did aver that, ‘Again, I’m not taking a view one way or the other on the desirability of those long-term tax cuts being made permanent.’ But of course refusing to endorse something is itself a point of view—a point Democrats were already joyfully repeating... Instead, Mr. Bernanke embraced the explicit Keynesian notion that the government should write checks to ‘low and moderate income people,’ who will spend it quickly and thus lift consumer demand... We’re all for putting more money in the hands of the poor and moderate earners, especially via stronger economic growth that will give them better paying jobs. But the $250 or $500 one-time rebate check they may now receive has to come from somewhere. The feds will pay for it either by taxing or borrowing from someone else, and those people will have that much less to spend or invest themselves. We are thus supposed to believe it is ‘stimulating’ to take money from one pocket and hand it to another.” —The Wall Street Journal
Soap Box Ravings remains in awe and feels that even more amazing bullshit awaits us. There is an old saying that a fool and his money are soon parted. So we spend millions of dollars and the only benefit is many of the low wage earners now have a high definition television.
Soap Box Ravings can't help but wonder if the federal government for example started to repair or maybe even increase the interstate highway system that we would reduce unemployment, get money rolling through the economy and the low income wage earners may decrease in this country. Or the federal government could hire folks to repair and or improve the National Parks System.
Spending money to create jobs would eventually result in more folks paying taxes. Just handing out money will not help anyone.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Pick Up Your Head And You Can See The Future Coming At You
The whole story is at US Concealed Carry: www.uscca.us/news/newsletter/burglars-have-rights-terminal-stupidity/
In an article titled "Burglars have rights too, says [British] Attorney General," Melissa Kite and Andrew Alderson discuss the rights of British householders and their governments defense of the rights of burglars.
The British Prime Minister had pledged to look again at British law with a view to giving homeowners more rights to protect themselves.
Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, said that criminals must also have the right to protection from violence.
Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, denied that a change in the law, which currently gives homeowners the right to use “reasonable force” when tackling intruders, would encourage burglars to become more aggressive.
Sir John - in favour of the Right to Fight Back campaign said: “I am convinced that enabling householders to use whatever force is necessary will discourage burglars.
Lord Goldsmith, said “We must protect victims and law abiding citizens; but we have to recognize that others have some rights as well. They don’t lose all rights because they’re engaged in criminal conduct.”
Sir John spoke of his regret about the repercussions over the verdict on Tony Martin, the farmer who shot dead one burglar and seriously injured another during a break-in at his farm in August 1999.
There was a public outcry when Martin was found guilty at Norwich Crown Court and sentenced to life in prison. The charge and sentence were later reduced to five years for manslaughter.
Sir John did not suggest that the jury had reached the wrong verdict, but added: “The Tony Martin case is unfortunate because it has skewed the debate [on the public’s right to protect their home]. But it is a fact that burglars have acted with greater confidence since the Tony Martin verdict and that has to be a matter of regret.”
Lord Goldsmith, however, warned of the dangers of using the Martin case to make bad law: “There are very few cases that have given rise to this problem. Besides Tony Martin, there’s only one I know about."
Soap Box Ravings says Tony Martin plus one equals two. It really sucks to be them. This is the condition a lot of folks in this country would like us to be in and I am disregarding the burglars and others who commit the crimes. I am only talking of our "Gun Free Zone" neighbors.
In an article titled "Burglars have rights too, says [British] Attorney General," Melissa Kite and Andrew Alderson discuss the rights of British householders and their governments defense of the rights of burglars.
The British Prime Minister had pledged to look again at British law with a view to giving homeowners more rights to protect themselves.
Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, said that criminals must also have the right to protection from violence.
Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, denied that a change in the law, which currently gives homeowners the right to use “reasonable force” when tackling intruders, would encourage burglars to become more aggressive.
Sir John - in favour of the Right to Fight Back campaign said: “I am convinced that enabling householders to use whatever force is necessary will discourage burglars.
Lord Goldsmith, said “We must protect victims and law abiding citizens; but we have to recognize that others have some rights as well. They don’t lose all rights because they’re engaged in criminal conduct.”
Sir John spoke of his regret about the repercussions over the verdict on Tony Martin, the farmer who shot dead one burglar and seriously injured another during a break-in at his farm in August 1999.
There was a public outcry when Martin was found guilty at Norwich Crown Court and sentenced to life in prison. The charge and sentence were later reduced to five years for manslaughter.
Sir John did not suggest that the jury had reached the wrong verdict, but added: “The Tony Martin case is unfortunate because it has skewed the debate [on the public’s right to protect their home]. But it is a fact that burglars have acted with greater confidence since the Tony Martin verdict and that has to be a matter of regret.”
Lord Goldsmith, however, warned of the dangers of using the Martin case to make bad law: “There are very few cases that have given rise to this problem. Besides Tony Martin, there’s only one I know about."
Soap Box Ravings says Tony Martin plus one equals two. It really sucks to be them. This is the condition a lot of folks in this country would like us to be in and I am disregarding the burglars and others who commit the crimes. I am only talking of our "Gun Free Zone" neighbors.
Freedom Of Speech Carries Certain Responsibilities
From The Patriot Post, 01-18-08, http://patriotpost.us/
’Non Compos Mentis’: Deep-fried radio
A public radio station in Utah is under fire this week after the “Fair Game with Faith Salie” program ran a skit called “Huck and the Eucharist,” which mocked Mike Huckabee’s “family recipe.” The particularly offensive part of the transcript talked about deep-frying the Eucharist, which Catholics consider to be the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Part of the transcript read, “Try this Huckabee family favorite. Deep-Fried Body of Christ—boring holy wafers no more. Take one Eucharist. Preferably post transubstantiation. Deep-fry in fat, not vegetable oil, ladies, until crispy. Serve piping hot.” Of course, the uproar was immediate and Faith Salie issued an apology several days later, but it should have been obvious that the skit was over the top before being aired. Note also that this was public radio. In other words, this skit was brought to you by the $393 million in taxpayer money that went to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for fiscal 2008. As Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, pointed out, “It would have been regarded as positively intolerant if it had been written about blacks, Jews or Muslims.” In that case, no doubt Ms. Salie would be unemployed.
’Non Compos Mentis’: Deep-fried radio
A public radio station in Utah is under fire this week after the “Fair Game with Faith Salie” program ran a skit called “Huck and the Eucharist,” which mocked Mike Huckabee’s “family recipe.” The particularly offensive part of the transcript talked about deep-frying the Eucharist, which Catholics consider to be the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Part of the transcript read, “Try this Huckabee family favorite. Deep-Fried Body of Christ—boring holy wafers no more. Take one Eucharist. Preferably post transubstantiation. Deep-fry in fat, not vegetable oil, ladies, until crispy. Serve piping hot.” Of course, the uproar was immediate and Faith Salie issued an apology several days later, but it should have been obvious that the skit was over the top before being aired. Note also that this was public radio. In other words, this skit was brought to you by the $393 million in taxpayer money that went to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for fiscal 2008. As Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, pointed out, “It would have been regarded as positively intolerant if it had been written about blacks, Jews or Muslims.” In that case, no doubt Ms. Salie would be unemployed.
Wind Off Nantucket
From The Patriot Post, 01-18,08, http://patriotpost.us/
To a liberal, no sacrifice is too great for someone else to bear, unless you are one of the elite such as Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy:
One of Ted Kennedy’s most hated projects is about to come to fruition: The wind farm in Nantucket Sound off the Massachusetts coast. The U.S. Minerals Management Service declared that the 130 turbines could be built by Cape Wind at a cost of more than $1 billion, to be operational by 2011. The president of Cape Wind, Jim Gordon, said, “Any rational observer will understand that this project is not going to produce a negative environmental impact... This report validates that this is the right project in the right place at the right time.” Well, no one ever accused Ted Kennedy of being a rational observer. On the contrary, Kennedy suffers from NIMBYS—Not In My Back Yard Syndrome—and was vehemently opposed to this environmentally friendly solution for energy because the turbines would be (barely) visible from Kennedy’s Hyannis compound. Pity, that. On the whole, we find the whole fight between Kennedy and one of the Democrats’ most important constituent groups, environmentalists, quite amusing.
To a liberal, no sacrifice is too great for someone else to bear, unless you are one of the elite such as Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy:
One of Ted Kennedy’s most hated projects is about to come to fruition: The wind farm in Nantucket Sound off the Massachusetts coast. The U.S. Minerals Management Service declared that the 130 turbines could be built by Cape Wind at a cost of more than $1 billion, to be operational by 2011. The president of Cape Wind, Jim Gordon, said, “Any rational observer will understand that this project is not going to produce a negative environmental impact... This report validates that this is the right project in the right place at the right time.” Well, no one ever accused Ted Kennedy of being a rational observer. On the contrary, Kennedy suffers from NIMBYS—Not In My Back Yard Syndrome—and was vehemently opposed to this environmentally friendly solution for energy because the turbines would be (barely) visible from Kennedy’s Hyannis compound. Pity, that. On the whole, we find the whole fight between Kennedy and one of the Democrats’ most important constituent groups, environmentalists, quite amusing.
Should Profs Pack Pistols?
My comments are referring to an article entitled, "Should Profs Pack Pistols?Virginia Tech Massacre Brings Campus Safety Duel To The Fore" By Pete Delea, 01-18-08. The complete article may be found at: www.dnronline.com/news_details.php?AID=14449&CHID=
After the Virgina Tech shootings many colleges have beefed up their security and communications procedures. Legislators, including some in Virginia, are proposing legislation to allow faculty members to carry weapons on state college campuses as long as they meet state requierements for concealed carry.
Across the country, many police officers have concerns on colleges abilities to protect students.
In Virginia, James Madison University is another college whose policies prevent anyone, staff or student from carrying guns on campus and officials want to keep it that way. JMU feels that their 36 member police department, which reviewed their polices after Virginia Tech, is adequate.
Soap Box Ravings points out that when you take a 36 person force, subtract management and then divide the bodies to cover the campus 24/7 there really is not many officers available at any given moment. SBR feels that Virginia Tech also felt their police department and procedures were adequate before the shootings.
JMU did install a new speaker system, upgrade their mass e-mailing capabilities to allow officials to send out 20,000 e-mails in a few minutes, and implement a new cell phone alert system to reach students, faculty and staff.
Soap Box Ravings says lets look at a scenario:
A pistol is pulled in a lecture hall and shooting starts. People in the area have to realize what is actually happening and call for assistance. Many 911 calls are made, the locations of the caller vary and each caller is trying to explain what they are hearing, the shooting and screaming they hear and where it is coming from. Almost immediastely the 911 operator is overwhelmed by the volume of information. All this information has to be forwarded to someone to input into e-mail and to initiate the cell phone calling procedures. If their info is not accurate people may be directed into the shooter or help may be directed away from the shooter.
By the way, Fire-Rescue does not enter a shooting scene until police have ensured the scene is safe for them.
Since the police have no idea how many shooters are involved, they have to stage themselves and prepare to enter the scene with backup to ensure officer safety. A 36 member police department is marginal in this situation if it happened when they are all at work. I can almost guarantee a 36 man department does not have 36 officers trained to work together in concert in the midst of a shooting spree. It is more likely that when the next largets department, for example the Sheriff's Office arrives, wil take over the sxcene and use their own officers to enter. Available JMU officers would most likely be used for scene confinement.
How many minutes do you guess have passed since the pistol was drawn and the first shot was fired; before police are staged and ready to enter the scene.
You pick the number of minutes. During those minutes, how many shots can be fired from a semiautomatic pistol? How much blood can a wounded person lose during this period of time. How much of the "Golden Hour" (a limited time period that a physician has to restore life functions quickly to a trauma patient. If that window of opportunity is missed, fatal brain damage or irreversible shock will occur.)
Many bureaucrats and administrators show more concern that arriving officers may accidently shoot the "Responding Citizen" when they arrive. Therefore they believe that those under fire should just wait for help to come and save them. To see how ridiculous that is ask yourself what you should do if the campus building is on fire. Is a "Responding Citizen" allowed to help put out the fire or do they all sit in the classroom and wait for direction from the Fire Department.
State concealed weapons permits are not handed out willy-nilly in any states except New Hampshire and Alaska. They don't hand them out willy-nilly, they allow everyone with no permit required to carry a concealed firearm except those prohibited by law.
After the Virgina Tech shootings many colleges have beefed up their security and communications procedures. Legislators, including some in Virginia, are proposing legislation to allow faculty members to carry weapons on state college campuses as long as they meet state requierements for concealed carry.
Across the country, many police officers have concerns on colleges abilities to protect students.
In Virginia, James Madison University is another college whose policies prevent anyone, staff or student from carrying guns on campus and officials want to keep it that way. JMU feels that their 36 member police department, which reviewed their polices after Virginia Tech, is adequate.
Soap Box Ravings points out that when you take a 36 person force, subtract management and then divide the bodies to cover the campus 24/7 there really is not many officers available at any given moment. SBR feels that Virginia Tech also felt their police department and procedures were adequate before the shootings.
JMU did install a new speaker system, upgrade their mass e-mailing capabilities to allow officials to send out 20,000 e-mails in a few minutes, and implement a new cell phone alert system to reach students, faculty and staff.
Soap Box Ravings says lets look at a scenario:
A pistol is pulled in a lecture hall and shooting starts. People in the area have to realize what is actually happening and call for assistance. Many 911 calls are made, the locations of the caller vary and each caller is trying to explain what they are hearing, the shooting and screaming they hear and where it is coming from. Almost immediastely the 911 operator is overwhelmed by the volume of information. All this information has to be forwarded to someone to input into e-mail and to initiate the cell phone calling procedures. If their info is not accurate people may be directed into the shooter or help may be directed away from the shooter.
By the way, Fire-Rescue does not enter a shooting scene until police have ensured the scene is safe for them.
Since the police have no idea how many shooters are involved, they have to stage themselves and prepare to enter the scene with backup to ensure officer safety. A 36 member police department is marginal in this situation if it happened when they are all at work. I can almost guarantee a 36 man department does not have 36 officers trained to work together in concert in the midst of a shooting spree. It is more likely that when the next largets department, for example the Sheriff's Office arrives, wil take over the sxcene and use their own officers to enter. Available JMU officers would most likely be used for scene confinement.
How many minutes do you guess have passed since the pistol was drawn and the first shot was fired; before police are staged and ready to enter the scene.
You pick the number of minutes. During those minutes, how many shots can be fired from a semiautomatic pistol? How much blood can a wounded person lose during this period of time. How much of the "Golden Hour" (a limited time period that a physician has to restore life functions quickly to a trauma patient. If that window of opportunity is missed, fatal brain damage or irreversible shock will occur.)
Many bureaucrats and administrators show more concern that arriving officers may accidently shoot the "Responding Citizen" when they arrive. Therefore they believe that those under fire should just wait for help to come and save them. To see how ridiculous that is ask yourself what you should do if the campus building is on fire. Is a "Responding Citizen" allowed to help put out the fire or do they all sit in the classroom and wait for direction from the Fire Department.
State concealed weapons permits are not handed out willy-nilly in any states except New Hampshire and Alaska. They don't hand them out willy-nilly, they allow everyone with no permit required to carry a concealed firearm except those prohibited by law.
Police: Tiger Attack Victim "Taunted" Tiger
Soap Box Ravings has to wonder if the word "Taunting" is even in a tigers vocabulary. When food of any type exhibits itself to a tiger, is the food "taunting" the tiger. This is a tiger, DUHHH!
Did the attendant that was mauled earlier while feeding that same tiger "Taunt" the tiger?
Regardless of what those kids did to "Taunt" the tiger' except for actually entering the tigers lair, the zoo should have ensured the cage was secure. And the more viciousness the tiger had exhibited previously, the more secure the cage should have been.
Soap Box Ravings can't help but believe that any wild animal, and particularly tigers, can't help evaluate each "meal" that passes their cage on two or more legs. Regardless of the behavior exhibited by the injured members of the public, the zoo was responsible for the security of the tiger.
Did the attendant that was mauled earlier while feeding that same tiger "Taunt" the tiger?
Regardless of what those kids did to "Taunt" the tiger' except for actually entering the tigers lair, the zoo should have ensured the cage was secure. And the more viciousness the tiger had exhibited previously, the more secure the cage should have been.
Soap Box Ravings can't help but believe that any wild animal, and particularly tigers, can't help evaluate each "meal" that passes their cage on two or more legs. Regardless of the behavior exhibited by the injured members of the public, the zoo was responsible for the security of the tiger.
Monday, January 14, 2008
BOHICA
Soap Box Ravings received this via e-mail today: Ralph Peters is a retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel, novelist and essayist.
NAVAL ERROR IN THE GULF
by Ralph Peters
January 8, 2008 -- EARLY Sunday morning, the US Navy lost its nerve and guaranteed that American sailors will die at Iranian hands in the future.
As three of our warships passed through the Straits of Hormuz, five small Iranian patrol craft rushed them. As the Revolutionary Guard boats neared our vessels, an Iranian officer broadcast a threat to our ships, claiming they'd soon explode.
The Iranians tossed boxes into the water. Mines? Just in case, our ships took evasive action.
The Iranians kept on coming, closing to a distance of 200 meters - about two football fields. Supposedly, our Navy was ready to open fire but didn't shoot because the Iranians turned away at the moment the order was given.
We should've sunk every one of them.
Not because we're warmongers. But because the Iranians had made threats, verbal and physical, that amounted to acts of war. When will we learn that resolute action taken early saves vast amounts of blood and treasure later?
Oh, from Washington's perspective we did the right thing by "exercising restraint." But Washington's perspective doesn't amount to a gum wrapper in a gutter. What matters is what the Iranians think.
They now believe that the Bush administration, our military and the entire United States are afraid of them.
It goes back to the politicized and irresponsible recent National Intelligence Estimate that insisted the Iranians had abandoned their nuclear-weapons program years ago.
They didn't. They're pursuing enriched uranium as fast as they can. That's what you need for bombs. At most, Tehran ordered its weaponeering efforts to parade rest - until it has the ingredients it needs, after which building bombs won't take long at all.
Forget Washington's trust-fund-twit view of all this:
Here's how the train of thought rolled down the tracks in Tehran:
"The Americans have told the world we don't want nuclear weapons, even though they know we do want them. That can only mean that America is afraid to confront us, that their weak, defeated president needs an excuse to back down.
"We can push these cowardly Americans now. They've had enough in Iraq. Their spirits are broken. Their next president will run away like a gazelle pursued by a lion.
"Even their military is frightened of us. On Sunday, America's might bowed down to us. They are frightened and godless, and the time has come to push them."
Sunday's incident wasn't a one-off event improvised by the local yokels after a long Saturday night at the hookah bar. It was blessed and carefully planned in Tehran and had practical as well as political goals.
At the tactical level, the Revolutionary Guards' naval arm was testing our responses:
How soon do the American weapons radars activate?
At what range do the lasers begin to track targets?
How close can a small vessel get to a major American warship?
How do the Americans respond to possible mines?
Can we use phony mines to steer them into real ones?
How long does it take an American commander to make a decision?
Above all: Does an American commander have the courage to make a decision on his own? When he doesn't have time to deflect responsibility onto his superiors?
And it wasn't just some madrassa dropout with salt spray on his glasses scribbling notes on the lead Iranian boat. On shore, the Iranians would've had all their intelligence facilities tuned in to map our electronic profile as our ships prepared to defend themselves. Rent-a-Russian military experts would've been onhand to assist with the newest gear purchased from Moscow.
The Iranians may even have had an escalation plan, in case we opened fire. President Ahmedinejad and his posse may seem contemptible to Washington, but the Iranians think several moves ahead of us: We play checkers, they play chess.
On Sunday, the Iranians tested us. We failed. They'll probe us again. And every time we fail to react decisively, we raise the number of future US casualties.
Remember the USS Cole?
You bet the Iranians do. They plan to better that attack by an order of magnitude.
For almost 70 years, we've deployed the finest navy in the history of the world. But it looks increasingly as if we've gone from "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" to "Will this interfere with my next promotion?"
Ralph Peters' latest book is "Wars of Blood and Faith."
Soap Box Ravings is in complete agreement with LTC Peter's assessment of this situation. This is the way our country now appears to do business. a parallel to this happens on a daily basis in law enforcement across this country. Politicians, Chief's of Police and senior management to often worry more about their future than they do about the "Rule Of Law." It's not only in the US Navy or the military.
On the other hand, Soap Box Ravings is a firm believer in the saying "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Someone will have to pay the tab sooner or later.
NAVAL ERROR IN THE GULF
by Ralph Peters
January 8, 2008 -- EARLY Sunday morning, the US Navy lost its nerve and guaranteed that American sailors will die at Iranian hands in the future.
As three of our warships passed through the Straits of Hormuz, five small Iranian patrol craft rushed them. As the Revolutionary Guard boats neared our vessels, an Iranian officer broadcast a threat to our ships, claiming they'd soon explode.
The Iranians tossed boxes into the water. Mines? Just in case, our ships took evasive action.
The Iranians kept on coming, closing to a distance of 200 meters - about two football fields. Supposedly, our Navy was ready to open fire but didn't shoot because the Iranians turned away at the moment the order was given.
We should've sunk every one of them.
Not because we're warmongers. But because the Iranians had made threats, verbal and physical, that amounted to acts of war. When will we learn that resolute action taken early saves vast amounts of blood and treasure later?
Oh, from Washington's perspective we did the right thing by "exercising restraint." But Washington's perspective doesn't amount to a gum wrapper in a gutter. What matters is what the Iranians think.
They now believe that the Bush administration, our military and the entire United States are afraid of them.
It goes back to the politicized and irresponsible recent National Intelligence Estimate that insisted the Iranians had abandoned their nuclear-weapons program years ago.
They didn't. They're pursuing enriched uranium as fast as they can. That's what you need for bombs. At most, Tehran ordered its weaponeering efforts to parade rest - until it has the ingredients it needs, after which building bombs won't take long at all.
Forget Washington's trust-fund-twit view of all this:
Here's how the train of thought rolled down the tracks in Tehran:
"The Americans have told the world we don't want nuclear weapons, even though they know we do want them. That can only mean that America is afraid to confront us, that their weak, defeated president needs an excuse to back down.
"We can push these cowardly Americans now. They've had enough in Iraq. Their spirits are broken. Their next president will run away like a gazelle pursued by a lion.
"Even their military is frightened of us. On Sunday, America's might bowed down to us. They are frightened and godless, and the time has come to push them."
Sunday's incident wasn't a one-off event improvised by the local yokels after a long Saturday night at the hookah bar. It was blessed and carefully planned in Tehran and had practical as well as political goals.
At the tactical level, the Revolutionary Guards' naval arm was testing our responses:
How soon do the American weapons radars activate?
At what range do the lasers begin to track targets?
How close can a small vessel get to a major American warship?
How do the Americans respond to possible mines?
Can we use phony mines to steer them into real ones?
How long does it take an American commander to make a decision?
Above all: Does an American commander have the courage to make a decision on his own? When he doesn't have time to deflect responsibility onto his superiors?
And it wasn't just some madrassa dropout with salt spray on his glasses scribbling notes on the lead Iranian boat. On shore, the Iranians would've had all their intelligence facilities tuned in to map our electronic profile as our ships prepared to defend themselves. Rent-a-Russian military experts would've been onhand to assist with the newest gear purchased from Moscow.
The Iranians may even have had an escalation plan, in case we opened fire. President Ahmedinejad and his posse may seem contemptible to Washington, but the Iranians think several moves ahead of us: We play checkers, they play chess.
On Sunday, the Iranians tested us. We failed. They'll probe us again. And every time we fail to react decisively, we raise the number of future US casualties.
Remember the USS Cole?
You bet the Iranians do. They plan to better that attack by an order of magnitude.
For almost 70 years, we've deployed the finest navy in the history of the world. But it looks increasingly as if we've gone from "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" to "Will this interfere with my next promotion?"
Ralph Peters' latest book is "Wars of Blood and Faith."
Soap Box Ravings is in complete agreement with LTC Peter's assessment of this situation. This is the way our country now appears to do business. a parallel to this happens on a daily basis in law enforcement across this country. Politicians, Chief's of Police and senior management to often worry more about their future than they do about the "Rule Of Law." It's not only in the US Navy or the military.
On the other hand, Soap Box Ravings is a firm believer in the saying "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Someone will have to pay the tab sooner or later.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
The Master Speaks
On Monday, January 10, 2008 Bill Clinton accused Barack Obama of fudging his early position on the Iraq war, and then said, "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."
Soap Box Ravings believes that if anyone in this country could recognize a fairy tale it would be Bill Clinton. However, Soap Box Ravings is amazed that Bill Clinton would give credit to anyone with a bigger fairy tale than some of those the world witnessed when under Bill Clinton's leadership.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Here Is Some Excellent Training
Reported on Officer.com
North Carolina Campus Shooting Drill 'Real as it Gets'
January 8th, 2008 (See http://www.officer.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=39649 for the complete article)
The training exercise was conducted at UNC-Greensboro. It was set up to be as real as possible.
Shots rang out, a hooded gunman was seen and another gunman took hostages.
More than 120 law enforcement officers and 85 role-players took part in a full-scale active shooter exercise.
The exercise, which had been planned before the mass shooting at Virginia Tech, was finally put into effect. The exercise was conducted while the students were on a holiday break.
Soap Box Ravings congratulates the University of North Carolina for their use of this type of training exercise. This is exactly the type of training that should be conducted in various schools, shopping malls, airports, churches and anywhere else large groups of people are found. OUTSTANDING
North Carolina Campus Shooting Drill 'Real as it Gets'
January 8th, 2008 (See http://www.officer.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=39649 for the complete article)
The training exercise was conducted at UNC-Greensboro. It was set up to be as real as possible.
Shots rang out, a hooded gunman was seen and another gunman took hostages.
More than 120 law enforcement officers and 85 role-players took part in a full-scale active shooter exercise.
The exercise, which had been planned before the mass shooting at Virginia Tech, was finally put into effect. The exercise was conducted while the students were on a holiday break.
Soap Box Ravings congratulates the University of North Carolina for their use of this type of training exercise. This is exactly the type of training that should be conducted in various schools, shopping malls, airports, churches and anywhere else large groups of people are found. OUTSTANDING
Two Opposing Columns From The Roanoke Times, You Decide
August 31, 2006
Unarmed and vulnerable
Bradford B. Wiles
Wiles, of New Castle, is a graduate student at Virginia Tech.
On Aug. 21 at about 9:20 a.m., my graduate-level class was evacuated from the Squires Student Center. We were interrupted in class and not informed of anything other than the following words: "You need to get out of the building."
Upon exiting the classroom, we were met at the doors leading outside by two armor-clad policemen with fully automatic weapons, plus their side arms. Once outside, there were several more officers with either fully automatic rifles and pump shotguns, and policemen running down the street, pistols drawn.
It was at this time that I realized that I had no viable means of protecting myself.
Please realize that I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech's student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime.
I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. In light of this, there are a few things I wish to point out.
First, I never want to have my safety fully in the hands of anyone else, including the police.
Second, I considered bringing my gun with me to campus, but did not due to the obvious risk of losing my graduate career, which is ridiculous because had I been shot and killed, there would have been no graduate career for me anyway.
Third, and most important, I am trained and able to carry a concealed handgun almost anywhere in Virginia and other states that have reciprocity with Virginia, but cannot carry where I spend more time than anywhere else because, somehow, I become a threat to others when I cross from the town of Blacksburg onto Virginia Tech's campus.
Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness.
That feeling of helplessness has been difficult to reconcile because I knew I would have been safer with a proper means to defend myself.
I would also like to point out that when I mentioned to a professor that I would feel safer with my gun, this is what she said to me, "I would feel safer if you had your gun."
The policy that forbids students who are legally licensed to carry in Virginia needs to be changed.
I am qualified and capable of carrying a concealed handgun and urge you to work with me to allow my most basic right of self-defense, and eliminate my entrusting my safety and the safety of my classmates to the government.
This incident makes it clear that it is time that Virginia Tech and the Commonwealth of Virginia let me take responsibility for my safety.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Imagine if students were armed
Larry Hincker
Hincker is the associate vice president for university relations at Virginia Tech.
After the fear, and dare I say, panic from the events of Aug. 21, it is absolutely mind-boggling to see the opinions of Bradford Wiles ("Unarmed and vulnerable," Aug. 31).
I once worked for an out-of-touch manager who gave rather absurd directions. My colleagues and I would do as directed and dubbed it "malicious compliance," knowing the task to be inane and the manager's foibles would soon be apparent.
The editors of this page must have printed this commentary if for no other reason than malicious compliance. Surely, they scratched their heads saying, "I can't believe he really wants to say that."
Wiles tells us that he didn't feel safe with the hundreds of highly trained officers armed with high powered rifles encircling the building and protecting him. He even implies that he needed his sidearm to protect himself against the officers.
On that fateful Monday, campus was understandably on edge. Elvis-type sightings of the escaped prisoner around campus were rampant. People were legitimately concerned about where he might be. And although the police were relatively confident they had the suspect cornered (they were ultimately proved right), the anxiety level elsewhere on campus was very high.
Panic calls from within the Squires Student Center quickly morphed from facts into rumors, including a frantic call alleging a hostage situation. The police had no choice but to move a massive force from the manhunt site to that side of campus to deal with the hostage rumor.
The writer would have us believe that a university campus, with tens of thousands of young people, is safer with everyone packing heat. Imagine the continual fear of students in that scenario. We've seen that fear here, and we don't want to see it again.
Who among us thinks the writer of the commentary would not have been directly in harm's way if he showed himself to those tactical squads while displaying a deadly weapon? Would he even be here today to tell us the story? Contrary to his position, the writer's commentary actually gives credence to the university policy preventing weapons in classrooms.
Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same.
April 16, 2007
On April 16, 2007 a single Virginia Tech student went on a shooting rampage which lead to the deaths of 32 students and staff members.
Unarmed and vulnerable
Bradford B. Wiles
Wiles, of New Castle, is a graduate student at Virginia Tech.
On Aug. 21 at about 9:20 a.m., my graduate-level class was evacuated from the Squires Student Center. We were interrupted in class and not informed of anything other than the following words: "You need to get out of the building."
Upon exiting the classroom, we were met at the doors leading outside by two armor-clad policemen with fully automatic weapons, plus their side arms. Once outside, there were several more officers with either fully automatic rifles and pump shotguns, and policemen running down the street, pistols drawn.
It was at this time that I realized that I had no viable means of protecting myself.
Please realize that I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech's student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime.
I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. In light of this, there are a few things I wish to point out.
First, I never want to have my safety fully in the hands of anyone else, including the police.
Second, I considered bringing my gun with me to campus, but did not due to the obvious risk of losing my graduate career, which is ridiculous because had I been shot and killed, there would have been no graduate career for me anyway.
Third, and most important, I am trained and able to carry a concealed handgun almost anywhere in Virginia and other states that have reciprocity with Virginia, but cannot carry where I spend more time than anywhere else because, somehow, I become a threat to others when I cross from the town of Blacksburg onto Virginia Tech's campus.
Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness.
That feeling of helplessness has been difficult to reconcile because I knew I would have been safer with a proper means to defend myself.
I would also like to point out that when I mentioned to a professor that I would feel safer with my gun, this is what she said to me, "I would feel safer if you had your gun."
The policy that forbids students who are legally licensed to carry in Virginia needs to be changed.
I am qualified and capable of carrying a concealed handgun and urge you to work with me to allow my most basic right of self-defense, and eliminate my entrusting my safety and the safety of my classmates to the government.
This incident makes it clear that it is time that Virginia Tech and the Commonwealth of Virginia let me take responsibility for my safety.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Imagine if students were armed
Larry Hincker
Hincker is the associate vice president for university relations at Virginia Tech.
After the fear, and dare I say, panic from the events of Aug. 21, it is absolutely mind-boggling to see the opinions of Bradford Wiles ("Unarmed and vulnerable," Aug. 31).
I once worked for an out-of-touch manager who gave rather absurd directions. My colleagues and I would do as directed and dubbed it "malicious compliance," knowing the task to be inane and the manager's foibles would soon be apparent.
The editors of this page must have printed this commentary if for no other reason than malicious compliance. Surely, they scratched their heads saying, "I can't believe he really wants to say that."
Wiles tells us that he didn't feel safe with the hundreds of highly trained officers armed with high powered rifles encircling the building and protecting him. He even implies that he needed his sidearm to protect himself against the officers.
On that fateful Monday, campus was understandably on edge. Elvis-type sightings of the escaped prisoner around campus were rampant. People were legitimately concerned about where he might be. And although the police were relatively confident they had the suspect cornered (they were ultimately proved right), the anxiety level elsewhere on campus was very high.
Panic calls from within the Squires Student Center quickly morphed from facts into rumors, including a frantic call alleging a hostage situation. The police had no choice but to move a massive force from the manhunt site to that side of campus to deal with the hostage rumor.
The writer would have us believe that a university campus, with tens of thousands of young people, is safer with everyone packing heat. Imagine the continual fear of students in that scenario. We've seen that fear here, and we don't want to see it again.
Who among us thinks the writer of the commentary would not have been directly in harm's way if he showed himself to those tactical squads while displaying a deadly weapon? Would he even be here today to tell us the story? Contrary to his position, the writer's commentary actually gives credence to the university policy preventing weapons in classrooms.
Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same.
April 16, 2007
On April 16, 2007 a single Virginia Tech student went on a shooting rampage which lead to the deaths of 32 students and staff members.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)