Archive for January, 2007

Pitiful Politics cost lives and Liberty

January 8, 2007

“Military success on the ground now demands that we expand the rules of engagement to allow our troops to shoot more of the jihadists, disarm the militias, train even more Iraqis troops to take over security more quickly, and seal the Syrian and Iranian borders. This solution, of course, is easier said than done. The military must use more force against those who are destroying Iraqi democracy at precisely the time the American public has become exasperated with both the length and human cost of the war. Imagine this war as a sort of grotesque race. The jihadists and sectarians win if they can kill enough Americans to demoralize us enough that we flee before Iraqis and Afghans stabilize their newfound freedom. They lose if they can’t. Prosperity, security and liberty are the death knell to radical Islam. It’s that elemental.” —Victor Davis Hanson

The above from “The Patriot Post” Patriot Vol. 07 No. 02 

Why is it that the leftist elites cannot understand such simple things? Pelosi et al, all say that they are not in favor of surrender in Iraq. Yet? They constantly place our troops in an un-winnable meat grinder situation. I say turn the troops loose. Get rid of un-realistic Rules of Engagement that get our people killed, while at the same time insuring defeat. The Republican leadership is guilty of doing the same things, so this is not a partisan thing. Many years ago there was a story written in a national magazine. Life Magazine possibly; called  “The Politics of Defeat” or something much the same. Different war, same ideology.


January 8, 2007

The following is from the Independence Institutes Newsletter. The positions are doomed to failure though. Why? because it would neuter the Teachers Unions and actually make educators accountable for the product (students) that they produce. I also have trouble with categorizing the students into a curriculum at an age when most care more about hormone driven issues than academics.

Tasked With Overhauling Edueation in Colorado? :

Romanoff Task Force Should Hear from Wide Range of Voices

By Ben DeGrow

Jan 5th 2007
Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff has focused his sights on a long-term overhaul of the state’s public education system. Yet any serious conversation to transform K-12 education in Colorado should include more than the list of usual interest group suspects.

The Speaker’s inspiration is the new report Tough Choices or Tough Times, a product of the distinguished leaders and experts on the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. The report is a comprehensive blueprint to redesign public education to equip coming generations of Americans for the 21st Century’s rapidly changing economy.

Indeed, some of the proposals present the hope of positive change. The report calls for major modifications in subject standards, testing, teacher recruitment and compensation, and school funding and management. Yet such massive reforms certainly would encounter serious obstacles, not all of which should necessarily be moved.

Among those in Colorado with the most to lose would be the 178 school district boards. The current system is built around district control of locally-elected tax revenues, while the state constitution protects local control of curriculum. Tough Choices or Tough Times says all funding should be redirected through the state and that schools should be operated by various outside contractors-including teacher-run limited liability corporations.

Overlooked, however, were the findings of a 1997 Heartland Institute report by Dr. Caroline Hoxby, which showed a greater share of school funding from statewide revenue produces poorer academic results. Colorado has shifted more of the school funding burden to the state level in recent years, but following the commission’s prescription would be a far more drastic policy change with possible negative consequences.

These consequences could be overcome, or even reversed, through the competitive power of greater educational choice. “[P]arents and students could choose among all the available contract schools,” says the commission’s executive summary.

The call to change school management forms one of 10 interlocking proposals in the report. Significant among them is the honest and refreshing admission that the overhaul must be accomplished with current financial resources. “We can get where we must go only by fixing the system itself,” says the executive summary.

The commission says some savings will be found by establishing a State Board exam after the 10th grade, which will set students’ course either for an advanced academic curriculum, community college, or vocational training.

Further savings would come from realigning incentives to draw the brightest and best into the teaching profession. According to the commission, costly pensions for teachers should be replaced with something comparable to the best private sector retirement packages, freeing enough funds to offer the average teacher $45,000 in his first year. A statewide salary schedule would include incentives for performance or for choosing to teach in needy schools.

Besides the change in teacher pay, the commission also calls for states to use cost savings to provide high-quality, universal preschool, and to attach extra funding directly to students diagnosed with disabilities or special learning needs.

The report estimates $60 billion a year could be redirected to the three areas. Figured proportionally, Colorado’s annual share of the redistribution would be more than $900 million.

Romanoff wasted no time putting Colorado at the forefront of the reform conversation. The Denver Post reported that he wants to assemble “a task force of educators and parents” to create a plan for our state. The Speaker’s stated interest in such a bold project merits him some applause. Yet any discussions to transform Colorado’s school system should comprise a broad cross section of those interested in education.

Non-union teachers-more than a quarter of those in Colorado’s public schools-should be represented at the table. So should the most creative principals and leading educational entrepreneurs who have worked to offer kids and families new opportunities.

Moms and dads outside the PTA power structure, and other concerned taxpayers, should be welcomed aboard. The task force should take time to hear from struggling parents, many in poorer communities, who are dissatisfied with their children’s current educational opportunities.

Finally, the discussion should include CEOs, small business owners, and other private employers who hire the end products of the current school system. On the front lines of economic trends, they can offer invaluable input.

The task force created to debate the future shape of Colorado’s education system should not be confined to the narrow interest groups who typically dominate education policy conversations. A wider range of voices is needed to help shape how public schools can best serve this state’s citizens for the next generation.

Summary: Education task force needs to sort through suggested reforms from a new national report.

Word Count:750

If you experience problems viewing this op-ed, you can find the op-ed on-line at: The Independence Institute


(c) 2007
The Independence Institute
13952 Denver West Parkway, Suite 400
Golden, CO 80401

INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE is a non-profit, non-partisan Colorado think tank. It is governed by a statewide board of trustees and holds a 501(c)(3) tax exemption from the IRS. Its public policy research focuses on economic growth, education reform, local government effectiveness, and Constitutional rights.


January 7, 2007

“Conservatism, like pornography may be difficult to define, after all is said and done. But you will know it when you see it. It revolves around integrity as I see it. Honesty, honor, and addressing the issue of liberty based upon those ideals.
Neither RINO’s nor DINO’s meet the test. Just how many so-called Conservatives hold the same position on the War on Drugs as say William F. Buckley Jr. does? Or on immigration in step with Tom Tancredo? It’s a lot like gun rights, and the difference between the NRA and GOA.

Compromise may be acceptable in some circumstances, but never with Liberty or Freedom IMO. It is, and has been my opinion for quite some time that a new political party needs to be formed. The that new party needs to get to work, and shove the big government laws right back down the throats of those that passed oppression and foulness.

It will hurt the Republicans / Democrats? SO WHAT? ”

trackbacked from

“Conservatism or political conservatism can refer to any of several historically related political philosophies or political ideologies. There are also a number of Conservative political parties in various countries. All of these are primarily (though not necessarily exclusively) identified with the political right.”


The above website has a very detailed discussion concerning conservatism. While I do not intend for my blog entry to be such a work of scholarly distinction I would like to address some salient points.

Todays Conservatism has much to do with tradition, and traditional thinking in these United States. The love of country, belief in individual liberty, defense of Freedom as defined within the “Founding Documents,” and the ability to worship, or not to worship God as seen fit by an individual. Those things are the frameworks of modern American “tradition.”

The “Founders” were heavily influenced by the writings of John S. Mills who is often referenced as the father of modern Libertarianism. (I am using the term Libertarianism here as regards philosophy, not in the manner of the existing political party.) The beliefs in personal integrity, responsibility, and accountability are fundamental within the modern concept called conservatism.

In that note, I submit that both the Republican and Democrat political party’s have failed to serve the American people in securing the inalienable rights that The United States was founded upon. I also submit that when our government commits acts as an oppressor, such as prosecuting sworn agents for doing their sworn duty that we, as citizens need to take a very hard look at those that lead us.


January 5, 2007

I got this from a former Captain that worked in Supply / Support for the 10th Special Forces. Not sure where she got it, but it rings so true! 

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Tell you not to do something stupid when drunk
MILITARY FRIENDS: Will post 360 security so you dont get caught

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Call your parents Mr. and Mrs
MILITARY FRIENDS: Call your parents Drunk as hell and tell them about the fat chick you tried to pick up

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Hope the night out drinking goes smoothly, and hope that no one is late for the ride home.
MILITARY FRIENDS: Know some wild shit will happen, and set up rally points and an E & E route.

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Bail you out of jail and tell you what you did was wrong.
MILITARY FRIENDS: Will be sitting next to you saying, Damn…we fucked up…but hey, that shit was fun as fuck!”

MILITARY FRIENDS: laugh at you and tell you to put some vagasil on your pussy.

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Borrow your stuff for a few days then give it back.
MILITARY FRIENDS: Steal each other’s stuff so often nobody remembers who bought it in the first place.

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Are happy that someone picked up a one night stand and leave them alone.
MILITARY FRIENDS: Will Low Crawl naked into the room with a camera and hope for the tag team.

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Will listen to your relationship problems and hope it works out for you.
MILITARY FRIENDS: Will listen to you over a long hard road march, and will help you straighten it out better than Dr. Phil.

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: know a few things about you.
MILITARY FRIENDS: Could write a book with direct quotes from you.

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Might try to hit on your girl behind your back.
MILITARY FRIENDS: Have spooned with you in the field more than your girl has, and would never even think about doing that.

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Will leave you behind if that’s what the crowd is doing.
MILITARY FRIENDS: Will kick the whole crowds ass that left you.

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Would knock on your door.
MILITARY FRIENDS: Walk right in and say, “I’m home!”

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Will try and talk to the bouncer when you get tossed out of the bar.
MILITARY FRIENDS: Will man up and go after the bouncer for touching you on the way out.

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Will wish you had enough money to go out that night, and are sorry you couldn’t come.
MILITARY FRIENDS: Will share their last dollar with you, drag you along, and try to steal free drinks all night.

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Will take your drink away when they think you’ve had enough.
MILITARY FRIENDS: Will look at you stumbling all over the place and say, “Bitch, you better drink the rest of that shit, you know we don’t waste.. That’s alcohol abuse!!!”

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Want the money they loaned you back next week.
MILITARY FRIENDS: Can’t begin to remember who owes who money after taking care of each other for so long.

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Will say “I can’t handle Tequila anymore”.
MILITARY FRIENDS: Will say “okay just one more” and then 2 minutes later “okay just one more”.

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Will talk shit to the person who talks shit about you.
MILITARY FRIENDS: Will knock them the fuck out!!

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Will tell you “They’d take a bullet for you.”
MILITARY FRIENDS: Will actually take a bullet for you.

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Will ignore this
MILITARY FRIENDS: Will repost this

%d bloggers like this: