The Laughing Wolf

The only thing I can suppose is that they took this story straight from the national feed and that no one at the station pays much attention to international news, much less the blogsphere. That does not surprise me much, for what I remember at most places was an intense interest in local and big stories that could break your way to a larger station/newspaper/etc. Outside of a specific beat, most reporters and broadcasters are extremely uninformed unless the news happens to fall into a hobby or other area of strong interest for them. On a somewhat mean note, if you really want to see a general assignment reporter freak, try talking science to them.

I hope that the station really will do some digging on this, and maybe learn a bit in the process. Maybe they will learn how this ridiculous story came to be, and why it should die a quick death. Maybe they will learn about blogs and the new media that is fast rendering a lot of traditional media obsolete – or at least held to the standards it professes to uphold. Maybe they will learn that it is sometimes, even in the face of deadlines and other pressures, a good idea to check the national feed.

Who knows. All we can do is hope, and see what happens.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Start with Trent Telenko's piece (yet another good one by Trent) over at Winds of Change, and be sure to read the article at Slate he references as it gives some much needed history for understanding what is going on right now. Another good article with a lot of history is here. Also check out Blogfather Joe Katzman's piece at Winds of Change.

These provide a good start, but you will also want to check out some of the discussion at Jerry Pournelle's place in the mail section. Jerry writes about a lot more than computers, and has the background to be authoritative in quite a few areas. Where he is not an expert, he pulls in readers and others who are such, and the mail is often a very lively exchange. Yes, it takes time to read but is well worth the time.

But these discussion, while quite good, only tell part of the story. You need to go to Warthog Territory to get a much fuller picture of what this remarkable plane can do, has done, and is needed to do now and in the future. You also need to pay particular attention to THIS story, and take a good, hard, and long look at the pictures -- and at the plane, not the pilot.

The fact is, the A-10 has been the true workhorse of the last two wars. To be honest, I have always wanted one of my own because of my belief that there are no old, bold pilots. You can have old, or you can have bold, but rare indeed is the one who is both. The A-10 has about two of everything in case one gets shot off. It is one of the most survivable planes ever developed, taking on man and nature and usually coming out on top.

The Air Force has, from the beginning, been unable and unwilling to live up to its sworn agreements on close-air ground support. Then again, the Air Force has long had some serious problems with its field grade officers and leadership. A family friend who worked for the Air Force blamed a lot of it on it being a young service with far too young leadership when it was formed. According to this friend, they had never grown up and the resultant Air Force reflects that to this day.

This friend pointed out a lot of the follies of this service, from having to go bury "excess" stock needed for maintenance before inspections and then not being allowed to go retrieve same after inspection, to the insistence on smoke and flame from engines, even when eliminating same would increase power and fuel efficiency. Nope, couldn't have that, the brass had to have the visual. It is my personal opinion that the current scandals racking the Air Force Academy, and the craven refusal to admit to and correct same by the Secretary of the Air Force and the top officers under him, reflect this same "frat boy" mentality.

My own experiences have verified a lot of what they said, and I was less than impressed with many of the field grade Air Force officers I had met. While there were some damn good NCOs, and I very much liked the SOW people I had met, it was not until I worked at an Air Force research and testing center that I met some truly good officers. I am very picky about who I would willingly follow into a conflict, and I found several there that I would have followed. I also noticed that most of the really good ones were leaving the Air Force, and see signs that this trend continues to this day.

Okay, they are willing to yet again abandon their responsibilities and sworn duty, that's fine. They are also manifestly unwilling to let the Army assume the role, for purely political reasons, but that is fine too. One way out of this mess is to turn it over to the only other service that does provide fixed-wing close-air support to the troops who are living up to their oaths and doing the work: the Marines. My recommendation is to completely sidestep the whole issue of Air Force vs. Army and give the job to someone who can do it, who is not a part of the current pissing match, and has the integrity -- unlike the Air Force -- to do the job. Give them the job, all the funds currently going to the Air Force for same, and a portion of the current Air Force R&D budget so that they can develop a replacement for the A-10. From everything seen so far in the War on Terror, in Afghanistan to Iraq, the A-10 is the star performer and the true workhorse.

We need it, the troops need it, and the pilots who are not afraid to do the job need it. What is more, they deserve it and the cowardice of the Air Force clearly shows that they can not do it. So, let's cut to the chase and give it to someone who can and will do the job, and do it right. Semper Fi.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Easy. Get a new scope. Now, I could not come close to affording the scope I really wanted, but in talking with my local gun pusher as a part of research, I was introduced to a new option: Docter scopes.

Docter is the former Zeiss-Jena of the former East Germany. The name says it all, and they do have the tradition, the experience, and the experience of doing well on the cheap. That seems to have been a requirement under any communist regime, but they have taken that limitation and run with it to produce some truly excellent scopes at very reasonable prices.

Now, I researched things on the net, talked to people, and then did the best test possible: I went and compared several scopes side-by-side in front of the gun pusher’s. While doing such won’t tell you diddly about accuracy, it will let you do a good evaluation of the optics. Odds are, that if the optics are good, the accuracy will be as well.

Hands-down, the Docter was the best scope. It even beat the Leopuld scopes in clarity, resolution, and brightness. Throw in that the Docter comes with a lot of extra features to “customize” it for the shooter, and it was almost a no-brainer. All of this, plus some testimonials from a variety of shooters, including members of law enforcement, and I took the plunge.

I had originally planned to do this in two parts, and go into all the trials and tribulations of getting it mounted and sighted, but will spare you. What I will do is say that I was using Black Hills 168 grain boat-tailed hollow point bullets, and worked my way up to 200 yards.

This picture is of my final five round group, put into a 5.5-inch Birchwood Casey Shoot N C target that was affixed to the head of a standard B-27 target. It was shot bench rest at 200 yards, and according to measurements made at the weapons pusher, it was less than a one inch grouping. Enough said, or shown in this case.

The shooter still has a long way to go, but the scope and the rifle are right on track. Send to the ammunition and gun fund on the right so I can get better.

-30-

« ...howl's done

This is an important distinction, and not just in terms of the book. In work, in intelligence matters, and often in life itself, it is important to distinguish between a person and the job they do. Someone can be a nice person, but absolutely lousy in their work. You can and will see it almost anywhere with more than about five people working.

Col. Patterson makes this important distinction, and it forms the “line” in his book. He makes a clear distinction between a person who cheated at golf, lied, played around, yet could still make one like him as a person. Then there was the President, in whom such character flaws were magnified and new problems show up as a result.

Surprisingly, the book is quite fair to the person, while damning in the strongest possible terms of the President. Patterson’s first-hand account shows clearly how and were many problems we face today originated, and how the President failed in his sworn duty to his country on many occasions. What is more, Col. Patterson offers proof on several instances, and names names of those who can verify what is in the book. Given that none of the people named have, to my knowledge, come forth to dispute it – and believe me they would and the talk shows would have been all over it – it serves as a partial confirmation of his account.

As for me, I believe what is here because of some things of which I am aware that went on in the Clinton White House. Once I can get some confirmation/re-confirmation, I may well post same. But that is another story for another day.

For anyone who wants to do an objective analysis of the Clinton presidency, this book is a must read. For anyone who wants to read “the dirt” then this is a must read. If you are a Clinton supporter for whom no fact will ever diminish your blind support, then you can skip it. If you are a Clinton supporter who wants to know from whence the next blow may fall, you really should read it.

There were no real surprises in the book, merely confirmation of a lot that had already floated around. The true surprise of the book was the professional tone taken and the fact that the author did the right, if hard, thing of differentiating between the person and the office. It is a useful and important distinction, and that alone makes it a good read.

-30-

« ...howl's done

But Bob Hope did not just sit on his laurels, nor did he go and do things for avarice and self-aggrandizement. He took some of that money that he had earned and then invested, and gave back to the world. One fine example is a small little medical center near Palm Springs named for a president who was also a friend. Word is that he quietly and without fanfare was a benefactor to many worthy causes.

He also did for our troops, starting before WWII and continuing through GWI. He did not condescend to do such, for he did not look down on the soldiers as inferior or political pawns. Bob Hope genuinely respected the troops, and the sacrifices they made. He felt it an honor to be with them, and of the many awards he has earned, earned I say, the one that appears to have meant the most to him was being made an honorary veteran – the only person ever so honored.

The biographies and special are in full force this weekend, and it is only right. He loved the troops and did right by them. So much so that they insisted he become one of them, and when they had the power and the opportunity they made it happen. So honor this man, this entertainer, this troop who did so much for so many. Heroes do come in many forms, and bear many weapons, and Bob Hope used his mind and his quick wit to support many, and most especially those on the sharp end.

In so doing, he set a standard for those that follow. A standard worthy of a Nelson, a Patton, a Murphy; for each of these set the bar in their area of expertise. Those who would follow, those who would entertain us, there is your mark.

Thank you, Mr. Hope. Thank you for laughter, thank you for joy, thank you for the women and the reminder of what they were fighting for. Thank you for the comfort you gave those who were wounded, and most of all to those that would die. Thank you for being there, and giving your all.

-30-

« ...howl's done

J.J. was one of those special people you read about and so rarely meet. At conventions, around town when we lived in the same place, and whenever he met up with a friend, you heard “How are you doing?!” With him, it was no mere polite nothing, it was a serious question that you would spend five minutes or five hours answering, for he honestly wanted to know.

The sense of humor was great, and conversations with J.J. tended to be filled with laughter, because even the worst situation had some bit of humor in it that he would bring out. He was truly the ambassador of the bright side, and his keen mind was also great at figuring out how to deal with any situation in the best manner possible. Not merely the best in terms of ease, but in terms of long-term planning and on, for lack of a better word, the moral plane as well.

I have no idea how often J.J. went to church, or even really what church he belong to, but to know J.J. was to appreciate someone who was truly good. There is still out there somewhere a tape that embarrassed him in many ways, and delighted him no end, that shows him as a faustian satan, and he was perfect in the role. We all had fun teasing him about it, because it was so against type.

If the cause was just, you could bet on finding him there. He was a tireless advocate for judging people as individuals, of combating racism, and of combating sexism. Not surprising in some ways, as he had caught both sides of the coin. He was black, in the South, and I am sure caught some things from whites. Some of the worst racism he experienced, however, came from blacks. His father was a lawyer of note, nationally, and there was a great deal of “reverse” racism because his father was light enough to pass for white in some quarters. J.J. was not, but he still got called names for having a “white” father. The result was he hated racism in any form and fought it with a passion.

He shrugged a lot of stuff off, and did what he could to make things better for all. In his profession he had gained an national reputation for videography. When people like Jesse Jackson, in the days before the curtain had been pulled back on that creature, came to town they contacted J.J. about videography. He was great, and taught me a quick trick or two.

As with most such tales, his was a life that ended far too soon. There was a string of robberies in the area where he lived, with a female pretending to be in distress, getting a lone male to stop to render assistance, and then being set upon by henchmen who were hiding nearby. They would make the people strip, steal their money and wallets, and then steal their car. Most people, being naked, would cower or run.

J.J. was not most people. If they had truly needed help, all they would have had to do was ask and they would have gotten the shirt of his back. Instead, they used force and stole. J.J. was a true White Knight and a warrior, but luck went against him that night. One of them had a club or something that caught him just right on the head in the several-on-one scuffle, and he died a few days later of the resulting brain injury.

They caught the woman, who as far as I know never did give up her accomplices. Rumor also had it that she was so strung out that the DTs and such did not start for more than a week after her capture. I worked to keep her in prison when she first came up for parole, for she never did express any regret, remorse, or show any signs of positive growth. I never did hear when she came back up for a new hearing, though I was supposed to have been notified.

One thing J.J. and I did agree on was that people could grow, change, become better, and make up for past mistakes, no matter how horrible. Having survived the robberies and murder of my friend, had this creature ever shown such an effort, I would have had no problems with her getting a second chance, for that is what J.J. would have wanted. Since she did not make even a token effort of which I was aware, they could have fried her for all I cared. She had the second chance, the opportunity denied others, and did not take it.

His funeral was good, and he got in a couple more parting shots leavened with a sense of humor. I had a hard time not laughing aloud in delight when a piper played. The crowd, white and black, all jumped. J.J. would have loved it.

My gentle friend, I do miss you and I wish you had taken my advice to be more careful, to be armed, and all that stuff we cheerfully argued about. You did a lot of good, and I have seen some of the seeds you planted sprout. Enjoy where you are, and don’t laugh at us too much.

I’ve got it. I don’t know if it really is true, not really being able to get to know this person this weekend, but I think I see it now. The man this weekend struck me as a bit of a teddy bear. That and the eyes are what brought J.J. to mind. My thanks to you and fate for so doing, so that I can share J.J. once again with the wider world.

-30-

« ...howl's done

I have been involved in communications on a professional basis for more than 20 years. My involvement truly began much earlier than that. My first “newspaper,” really a blog, was a mimeographed thing done in the seventh grade, and I wrote bad poetry, stories, and song lyrics, and reported stories, up until college.

Communications was not what I had in mind for a career. An early inspiration for me was Scotty on Star Trek, who could fix anything, figure things out, drank Scotch, and always pulled things out in the nick of time. I also admired a number of scientists and science-figures, and learned to appreciate things that had a lot of good “skull sweat” in them. The drawback was that my math skills suck, and two years of engineering school convinced me my future lay elsewhere.

Creative writing has always been a love in my life, and I decided to bow out of the engineering war and beat a strategic retreat to writing. I switched schools, and, as written elsewhere, ended up at Columbia College Chicago. They had originated the creative writing program Iowa made famous, so I decided to give them a try.

While in line for the creative writing program during registration, I met up with Darryl Feldmeir who took me aside and basically asked “What are you doing over there when you are already a working journalist?” I had been doing journalism, radio and print, for fun and spending money while in college, and had even used it as a means to get into the first Shuttle launches. It was there that I met the friend and mentor who got me into journalism as a career, and I will get you back for that D2. You and your little cat too.

Darryl’s argument, which included the fact he could graduate me in a much shorter time, won out and I learned the best of the Chicago school of journalism. I also ended up doing a photographic internship at Playboy on a dare from Darryl.

Though I still wanted to do creative writing, there was a matter of paying the bills, so I wrote stories, took photos, and did whatever else I could. The result was getting a story placed in a major national daily, ending up as correspondent-at-large for a magazine focusing on space, and doing some photography in the process. The summation of all of this was learning how to do things right, how to do them right within sometimes severe space constraints, and how to do it right and fast. If you have to have someone who can write well, write it fast, and write a lot, get someone with daily newspaper experience. I also got to be part of some larger “features” and learned, again, how major stories are handled. No Pulitzers here for me, but I have learned from and worked with some award-winners,

One thing to bear in mind with all this is that at the time I was getting started, the average starting reporter made less than $8,000.00 a year. The drill in print was start at a weekly, move up to a small daily, then up to a major, etc. This can be slow, you are broke most of the time, and it is not easy as there are/were a lot more grads than jobs. Though I was working, mostly freelance, it was not lucrative. If I had a dime for every editor who told me the public was not interested in science, I would be a rich man.

PR work, on the other hand, paid much better – twice or more better. So, I found myself going to work as a contract employee at a major military aerospace research and testing center. It was fun, it was horrible, and I learned a lot. I then went back and got my MS in Communications, print-editorial, was inducted into Kappa Tau Alpha, the national journalism honorary, and moved on out. I should also mention that I am a member of at least one professional journalism/communications organization, the New York Academy of Sciences, and a lifetime member of the National Eagle Scout Association.

Since that time, I have twice worked for NASA on a contract basis doing science communications and business development related to commercial space activities, continued to do freelance journalism and PR/business development, been published in a variety of international magazines, journals, and other publications, done work in disaster preparedness and emergency operations, and written some truly horrid Great-American-Stories and -Novels. While I have never done too much television, despite having gotten basic training in what is now ENG from the Philips Company in Norway while still in high school, I have had the chance to do some videography and photography, and jumped in as much as I could.

The NASA work has been in many ways the most fun, and most frustrating, of all that I have done. Frustrating can wait, the fun was true fun for a science geek. I got to work on stories about everything from protein crystallography and structure-based (rational) drug design to gamma-ray astronomy. The work on commercial activities was great, and I even – sometimes – got to take part in things, handle hardware, and more. The net result was that I have gotten a wonderful foundation in biotechnology, materials science, and combustion science.

Though I have never taught journalism as a professor, I have taught basic science at a small university, served as a graduate research slave, er, assistant and assisted with classes in basic journalism, and have lectured on writing and communications. On the academic side, other than my degrees, the highlight has to have been being the prime author of an invited paper, and co-author on two others, at a conference in Japan last year.

While I have never had the privilege of serving my country in uniform, along the way I have earned military expert ratings in rifle and pistol shooting – and that was not through ROTC. I have flown on everything from slicks to C-130s, and even have a familiarization checkride in a B-24 Liberator in my logbook. I also ended up doing some rather extensive work on Soviet space and military activities, and did my thesis on observers of same. I am a pilot and turned down a chance to go into the Air Force since it would have entailed becoming a navigator in a Buff, and that was an anathema to someone who feels themselves to be a fighter pilot (aren’t we all). Besides, as the late, great, Martin Caidin put it, there are no fighter pilots down in hell, so I went elsewhere so as to avoid the risk of going down below. That’s my story and I am sticking to it. Being a bit crazy, I also have jumped out of planes and will admit I loved it. Tearing up my knee working on a friend’s motorcycle, alas, put a stop to that. That injury and its physical therapy, came back to haunt me last year doing some mountain climbing and I am now having to undo some of the therapy and do a whole new set. Grumble. That and a recurring shoulder injury have also taken me away from Aikido, which I love.

So there you have it. A fair bit of print experience, a small amount of radio journalism and DJ experience, and a very small amount of TV experience. A lot of fun along the way that has taken me around the world. I have been so lucky in so many ways, especially for someone the doctors did not think would survive childhood. You now have some background, so you can decide on what to believe, or not believe, in my postings. Enjoy.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Someone with a stronger stomach than mine needs to transcribe his half-baked bilious screed and give it the fisking for which it so richly calls. I listened to the audio of the entire speech, and have no plans to listen to that drivel again.

If I were the university, I would demand my money back. After all, there is a reasonable expectation that the speaker will at least acknowledge the audience and not simply be condescending as hell to them. If someone had paid me $5,000.00 for 18 minutes of work, I would have acknowledged them, tried to give them a good speech, and been willing to shake every graduates hand as they came across that stage. If nothing else, it is called courtesy.

If I were a parent, I would be asking the president of the college to personally reimburse me for every dime I spent on that fiasco, from cap and gown rental to travel costs. Said president failed the test of leadership at every turn, and leadership carries with it responsibilities. To you I say, step up to the plate and be a leader, or step aside.

To the one faculty member quoted in any story as being upset with the booing and such, and to the local paper I say: Get over it. Where was your moral outrage when speakers at university events around the country were being booed, chanted out, blocked, and worse simply because they held a different viewpoint? Where was that keen sense of right when people were blocked from speaking simply because they were conservative, libertarian, or some other stripe that the radicals were so scared of that they would not even allow them to be heard? Got to remember, them memes is dangerous things and might actually infect someone with the concept of thinking for themselves.

Graduation is not such an event, it is a ceremony where the speaker is paid to address the audience. Not only are they to provide a given number of minutes of speech, there is a reasonable expectation that the person will craft something at least reasonably appropriate. That was not met, and it is clear that he did not expect the revolting peasants to expect such of someone like him.

To the students, parents, and faculty who objected I would say that you were within your rights on your special day, and of a speaker for whom you paid, to be upset. You wanted and expected more. My only suggestion is that the actions, while a pale shadow of what has been done by the so-called left, are not the best way to deal with it in the future. Me, I would have walked out and begun proceedings to collect my money from those responsible. Those that stood and turned their backs did take the high road, one not followed by the speaker or those like him. You are to be applauded for it.

What happened was a disgrace, but the students and families bear no shame from it. They wanted and expected more, and should have had it. They, not the university, paid for it and as customers they deserved far better. What fault there is here truly lies with the speaker and with the president of the university. Both should be ashamed of themselves. From the reaction of Hedges to the events as quoted in various news sources, I can only end with one line.

You sir, are an arrogant, unrepentant, ass.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Two things came to mind yesterday as the story unfolded. First, this is a building in which finals were scheduled for the next day. Now, not to speak ill of the students or faculty at the Yale Law School, but I do remember bomb threats, stink bombs, and such being used to great affect during these times when I was coming along. There is no evidence released to date to support this, but a certain degree of suspicion did cross my mind given all the circumstances.

Second, far too many people think such things either funny or a way to make a point. Just think back to all the fake anthrax letters sent as jokes or worse in the wake of the bio attacks. Some group of idiots, I mean dedicated and concerned political activists (cough, choke, wheeze), have also used such means to point out vulnerability, the evils of this or that, or whatever other concern of the moment their pointy little heads feels is not getting enough attention at the moment.

Now, my personal opinion is all those jokers who sent the sugar/baking powder/whatever letters for any reason, and the cretins who used such for political aims, are just as guilty of terrorism as those who blow things up. They waste time, resources, and more, and deserve to be shot just like any other terrorist. If nothing else, it is a much needed dose of chlorine in the gene pool.

The truth of what is going on will come out in time. One fact remains fairly clear from what is known so far: this is not an incident to be given too much concern. If it was “real” terrorists, they are incompetent and a group of cranky Brownies can be diverted from taking France and sent in to round them up. If it is a group of home-grown idiots playing at terrorism, then they can be tracked down as well.

Whichever and whomever it is, they do need to be found and dealt with as strongly and swiftly as possible. Let the finals begin.

-30-

« ...howl's done

The events of recent weeks hardly point to a reformed, renewed, and resurgent Al-Qaeda. I agree with my Blogfather that the best one-line summation so far is from Little Tiny Lies where he wrote on May 17, “Al Qaeda, Already on Thin Ice, Begins to Tapdance.” Many others have pointed out in great detail that the attacks smack far more of desperation and limited resources than anything else.

We were promised massive attacks if we invaded Iraq. Been there, done that, and essentially nothing. Now, to be fair this could be that like Saddam and most of the rest of the world, Al-Qaeda expected a long campaign and came late to the ball. We have been promised all sorts of things now since we truly began fighting back against terror, and have yet to reap the whirlwind promised.

Does this mean we won’t get hit? No. We will, and that is almost a statistical certainty. Where we will get hit and how we will get hit are the questions. Did any biological or radiological weapons reach the U.S.? What improvised munitions may terrorist have devised? These are only questions that time will answer.

The true fact of the matter is, that you and I are going to determine in large measure what happens. Pulling off anything major will take time, effort, and exposure on the part of terrorists. Be alert, maintain situational awareness, and if something out of the ordinary shows up deal with it.

There is talk this morning on Fox, which I have not yet been able to confirm, of a taxi driver arrested on terrorism-related charges. From the chatter, it appears that this driver was buying night vision equipment, other gear, and attempted to obtain “enough explosives to blow up a mountain.” Now, not every terrorist or would-be terrorist is going to be this obvious and deserving of immediate entry into the dumb crook hall of fame/shame, but there will be signs.

What will help prevent or minimize the type of attack and damage done will be individual citizens spotting things out of the ordinary and reporting them. Don’t be PC, don’t excuse or explain away things just because it might be profiling, and don’t actively collude with them on any level.

The odds are that anything that happens here will be limited, most likely bombing or such. It will not be fun and there will be death, destruction, and more. Not to minimize it, but simply look at it in terms of normal life. The bombings of late killed and injured fewer people than traffic normally accounts for in a day or two. Look at all the causes of death, from obesity to drowning, and then compare.

This is cold comfort for any who are directly affected, and I do not mean to demean or diminish their loss. The fact remains, however, that the actions of late are not statistically, strategically, or tactically significant.

The rational preparedness guidelines I have published (Here, Here, Here, and Here) are a good start to being prepared without going overboard. The best thing all of us can do in the days ahead is Be Prepared and maintain our situational awareness. If something doesn’t feel right, leave and then analyze why. When you figure it out, then report it. Better a few false alarms than to let something big go by.

Remember also that if something starts, the rules have changed. Being passive, not making eye contact, and such will do nothing but ensure your death and the death of those around you. Hostages are not an interest now, and they will kill you. Don’t do anything stupid, but don’t be a fool either.

With common sense, rational preparedness, and a willingness to assume the full duties of a Citizen we can and will get through whatever comes.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Such things were Western Imperialism, the path of the white, middle-class male, and as such to be denigrated. They represented moral absolutes, and in the age of cultural relativism that was not allowed since it would imply, infer, or flat out state that some values were better than others.

Well, excuse me, some are. If someone gives their word, it should mean something. It does not mean that if it causes them any inconvenience that they are automatically given an out. Much of what is civilization, and most especially this country, came about because people of honor gave their word and then gave of their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to keep that word. It used to be one of the marks of being a true Gentleman or Lady that they would die if necessary to keep their word.

Integrity was part and parcel of it. That others would do right, shoot straight, and such with you on an agreement was part and parcel of life. You could trust your partner not to cheat you, or stab you in the back for temporary gain. If someone breached this unspoken law, their “name” was ruined when word got around. Others would not do business with them or for them.

Even today, you see attacks on this in The Media and elsewhere. These concepts, and others, that make up what is lumped all together as morality are still held in contempt by many. If someone is human and fails in one, then that means that they failed all, and since all are failed none can be considered.

Bushwah! The true test of being a gentlebeing is ones willingness to try. To rise above it all and do what is right whenever and wherever possible. When one slips on a matter, it is not the slip that is to be judged, but the efforts made to overcome and rectify that slip. By those efforts do you judge a person.

Some time back, I was strongly urged by a mentor to take off my resume the fact that I was an Eagle Scout with several other awards. It would hurt me, date me, and show me to be something to be feared. I left it on, for it is my reverse litmus test. If anyone is not willing to hire me because of those honors and what they show – including the fact that I am willing to work long, hard, and overcome obstacles to get a job done – then I have no interest in working for them.

Does this mean I am a paragon of moral virtue? No. I am what the Christians call a sinner, and somewhat proud of it. Love those sins of the flesh… Be that as it may, I like to think my word means something, that I will do right by those around me, and try to do right as I see and understand it at the time. No more can a single individual do.

Before anyone starts, yes, I do support the Boy Scouts. I disagree with them strongly on some issues. I would rather have an openly gay leader involved than a closet paedophile or an abusive twit of a martinet who adds mental abuse to the mixture. My take is to judge the person, the colour of their soul, and not the label or such.

For whatever faults they have as a private organization, Boy Scouts have done and do a heck of a lot of good. They take in children, teach them values, self-reliance, teamwork, and a lot more. Those that come out through the program are, for the majority, better people for having done so.

Nor are they all goody two shoes. It was in the Scouts that I first was exposed to Playboy, Hustler, and other delights. I even had a patrol leader who had frozen daiquiris for breakfast, though the SOB never did tell the rest of us how he got the crushed ice out into the middle of the woods on that trip. Through such things, one learns that absolutism and zealotry are things to be feared as well.

Important life lessons, and a way to learn that honor and integrity are not easy taskmasters, nor is one’s word to be given lightly. Those are lessons that need to come back, and it is good to see such getting positive play in at least one small portion of The Media.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Graduation speeches are to acknowledge the students and their hard work, to provide context and guidance in the days to come, and to congratulate them. Hedges is not the first to fail miserably at this, but seems genuinely shocked that anyone would object.

Let’s see. It is one of the top days in my life, as I have just spent four years working and struggling to earn a degree. My parents have put life savings into this effort, and maybe even I worked and scraped to get myself through. What do I want to hear? Maybe congratulations, maybe that the hard work will pay off, maybe some good advice on the days ahead, and some perspective on history and the future. Maybe some reference to current events and how we can and will shape such.

Then, along comes this person who, in the midst of great public support for the war and America in general, begins to attack my country, the people who run it, and by inference me. Who never references my classmates and myself, and instead focuses entirely on proselytizing their beliefs and pushing a book they have written. Yes, I think I would be upset too.

In fact, I know I was. When I earned my undergraduate degree, Norman Lear was the guest speaker and his speech was all gloom, doom, and how the country was going to the Republicans and there was no hope for us. I apologized to my parents for the scene, since they had traveled a long distance and at considerable expense to what was supposed to be a joyous and uplifting occasion. The only saving grace for the entire evening was when one of the female graduates bounced/pranced across the stage with a white bunny tail affixed to the appropriate spot on her gown.

So I can understand how these students and parents felt. They were being ignored, denigrated, and insulted. According to reports, including this one at Fox, some left, including one of the top graduates who left the stage in tears at the arrogant and disrespectful display by Mr. Hedges. Others stood up and turned their backs. Yet others booed, and others cut power more than once to the microphone. To correct one thing, however, I would point out that in the video no one climbed onto the speakers podium as claimed by a quote attributed to Mr. Hedges. Some took to the stage, but I never saw anyone try to get up onto the speaker’s podium.

What makes so many members of the media this arrogant? That they feel that they have both the right and the duty to push their pet beliefs and hobby horses even in a situation where such is clearly inappropriate?

I refer to it as The Fuhrer Syndrome. What it really boils down to is that such people don’t just feel they know more and better than the masses, it is that they KNOW so. That they should be put in charge of the world because if they were in that position, all would be right because they know what should be done for the good of all. The unspoken assumptions in such beliefs is that they should be in charge because they are better and smarter than the common trash on the street.

Such people do not really see others as real. They see them as dense impediments, who do not truly think or consider the finer points of important topics of the day. These are not equals or a public to whom they have a simple duty to report to in a fair and balanced manner. These are people to be controlled, because since they disagree with the positions held it is clear that they are not truly thinking. Therefore, they need to be controlled and lead by those who are capable of such. Such as themselves, who should really be in loco parentis for the great unwashed masses.

Mr. Hedges has been given a lesson, though I have sincere and severe doubts it will take. For that to happen, he will have to acknowledge that some or all of his actions of the day were wrong, and his responses to date indicate a bit that he feels that the people were wrong.

For me, I will close by saying that graduating students, and their parents and families, deserve better. They deserve a speaker who will acknowledge them, offer them entry to the world as peers and not subjects, and will focus on them and not on the speaker’s ego and dogmatic beliefs.

-30-

« ...howl's done

It was a given that The Media, which is anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment to a point that passes mere bias, would go on the offensive. They have done so, and for now they are not getting their way.

The New York Times, that redoubtable (or is that thoroughly doubtable?) bastion of truth and honest reporting, led the way with a misleading editorial. There are other words to describe it as well, but I will not bother.

Instead, I am going to refer you to another blog. Go read The Bitch Girls and enjoy. It is a fisking of this piece of editorial malfeasance that is worthy of an award. It also deserves to be spread out far and wide as an antidote to what the Times is trying to spread. I wish I could remember who introduced me to their site, and this piece, but my thanks to them.

Nor has that bastion of journalistic diligence and ethics CNN been far behind. The good news here is that they got called on it immediately, loudly, and even on their one of their own shows. They tried to shut Wayne LaPierre up and not let him speak, but he did anyway and stuck to his guns, as it were.

Regular readers know that de-programmed CNN off my televisions and VCRs a while back. So, I have to admit that I am going to go here from other media reports and transcripts at CNN.

It seems that Miami Bureau Chief John Zarella did a Dateline with a shooting demo. It seems that they deliberately and willfully mislead the public by showing an e-ville ™ banned weapon destroying some cinder blocks, and then showing an unscathed cinder block that was fired at with a legal weapon.

All well and fine, except that the helpful folk at the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, who collaborated with this chicanery, were not aiming at the block. So, it would appear that the nice and legal weapon would not hurt a fly, much less a cinder block while the e-ville ™ assault weapon was a powerhouse.

Additional problems include the fact that the assault weapon in question was not banned under the so-called Assault Weapon Ban, and that more weapons may have been misrepresented.

Just a reminder, but so-called assault weapons are not more powerful than legally available guns. They are not unlimited powerhouses. The only difference between them are the scary-looking things like grips, stocks, and flash suppressors.

When caught, CNN at first denied with some vigor that there was any problem. Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit provided this link, along with a link to a story that shows at least some backpeddling.

The problem for me is that backpeddling is all they are doing. Real reporters are fired for much less, as the LA Times did with a "mere" photographer not all that long ago for altering an image during the liberation of Iraq. Real reporters are held accountable for their actions, and I do not accept the ignorance theory being used to excuse this. If this were the first time something like this had happened, it might be different, but CNN is not a virgin on this matter. If they want to retain any claim to doing journalism, heads need to roll. If they don’t, well, I think you can draw your own conclusion.

Expect to see a lot more of this in the days ahead. The Media and those in the political extremes that share its views are out to not merely get the ban renewed, but expanded. They want to ban all private ownership of guns, just like England. England is so safe now that you can’t even defend yourself if attacked, and if you are attacked and killed it is not the hooligan doing it, it was the crime.

Truth will not be their weapon of choice, and tricks fair and foul will be used. If you have not gotten Dr. Lott’s book “The Bias Against Guns” then do so now. There are many subtle and interesting ways in which the so-called debate will be controlled and spun, and this book does a great job of pointing them out. The fact that it does so with verifiable citations is all the better.

What can you do? Call The Media and their minions on it when they err. Some things will be ignorance, willful or otherwise, and the only way for someone to learn is to point out mistakes to them. When it is something else, pointing out inaccuracies with facts and citations does a great deal, especially if you and some of your friends are persistent. Also remember to be polite and civil, no matter what. They love to point to ravening statements or shots to discredit those who dare disagree with them, and to threats, so don’t give them any ammunition.

This law is not yet dead, and its non-renewal is not the given many are preaching. Only each of you can make sure that it does indeed get a stake in the heart and exposed to the harsh sunlight of fact.

-30-

« ...howl's done

It was, as I expected, so well done. Just like the show has been from day one. Great writing, even better acting, and production values that rock. Giles’ line from the very first episode, “The Earth is doomed” came back and was updated. All the little lines from across the seasons came home to roost, most especially the Tara-Willow exchange about people with bumpy faces doing things, the right thing, for the wrong reason.

Characters faced death, and even worse they faced life. Scary thing, that. Characters grew, and in growing changed for the better. Redemption was there through change, through growth, through life itself. What better metaphor and gift could you all have given.

The details I will leave out for now, lest some hapless visitor be spoiled. Those who would willingly do such are scum, and I try not to be such.

To you, Mr. Whedon, to the cast and crew who set a standard, my thanks for the enjoyment, the thought, and the growth. Thanks for letting me, all of us, come along for the ride.

-30-

« ...howl's done

I did not get slapped. The guys behind the counter just laughed at my antics, and she, she just stayed there cool and aloof. She, of course, was not a person but a rifle. A real LONG rifle, just the type I have been dreaming of since getting back into long-gun shooting. She was an an ArmaLite AR 50, a .50 caliber BMG.

Just the thing for long-distance match shooting. Just the thing to finish putting my shoulder out of commission, but I didn’t care. It is the same thing that drives men to do foolish things in bed, even knowing that the resultant heart attack will kill them. It is lust, pure and simple.

Now, I am a Barrett fan as you can tell from my links. Even so, I have to admit that this is a nice weapon. Well designed, sleek, and more. I would love to try one on the range and compare it to the gold standard. ArmaLite, Barrett, if you read this and want to play, just let me know.

The AR 50 has one significant advantage over the Barrett: price. The basic Barrett I want is going to run me about $6.500.00 without some of the goodies. The AR 50 is less than $3,000.00. May have to get off my rear and try for some extra work here soon so as to go play. We will just have to see.

I resisted temptation yesterday. I did not trade in and up as I did not get the deal I wanted. Also, I found out that I can get and install most of the additional features of the “advanced model” on my current one, for a heck of a lot less. Besides, I was distracted. That is the true problem with lust: it distracts you. I am now very distracted, and most everything else will have to wait.

-30-

« ...howl's done

I like the choice taken by my parents (and me). Simple graveside service, short and sweet. Say whatever needs to be said to comfort the living, for they are the reason for the funeral, and get on with things. We did this with both my parents per their wishes, and it worked well. Now, Mom wanted some preaching and got it, but it was limited as was also her request. For Dad, we pretty much went with a military service.

For me, I don’t much care in some ways. The rotting hunk of meat that was my shell has no further meaning. Let it go because I am gone. I do not call myself a Christian, but if having some religious figure brings my survivors comfort, then let them talk a bit and comfort the living. One note to keep in mind however, that came about because of a few truly awful funerals attended in the past: anyone getting up and doing a recruitment pitch for their particular sect of a particular religion, or going into a believe-as-I-tell-you-to-without-thought-and-blindly-follow-or-you-will-burn-burn-burn type thing will be shot off the podium. I have asked some friends to take care of this for me, the hole is deep enough for two, so I just don’t see a problem here.

My idea on speakers are some friends and others who know me, who will get up and say the good and the bad, not tell too many lies about me, and set the stage for remembering the life. Orson Scott Card coined the phrase “Speaker for the Dead” for such a person or persons, and I do like the concept.

Then, do as my family has always done. Go home, bring out the food and drink, and relax. Talk about the deceased, remember the good times, tell stories, introduce the younger generations of a large, scattered, occasionally dysfunctional family to the older members. Let the older and middle generations take turns embarrassing each other by telling those wonderful stories we all know about one another. Tell them the stuff so that they can go “Daddy did WHAT?” and look at their parents with new respect and additional ammunition for the negotiating process. Who knows, maybe they will even take the leap of logic and figure out that Mommy or Daddy are so strict is because of what they did as a kid.

As for music, forget that canned dirge bushwah! Get some real music there. Personally, I think it would be a good use of my estate funds to have Heather Alexander, Seven Nations, or Loreena McKennitt play live. Being of Scottish heritage, I even like the thought of having Amazing Grace played at the graveside. To each his own.

Have good food and drink. With my family, the food is a given. Lots of finger food, meats, and more almost all homemade. There is water, tea, and soda for those who don’t drink alcohol. For those that do, I have requested good stuff be served. No blended stuff, just real single-malt Scotch; good bourbon; good rum; good vodka; and whatever else someone would like. Let it be a party.

For it really should be. We cry and we mourn for ourselves at these events. We feel for those who have lost, for now, their loved one and we share that loss. That is natural and it is right to an extent. But all too often, we loose sight of what is important and the ritual gets turned into a self-absorbed pity fest. In bad cases, such goes on even after the funeral for months or years. Don’t fall into that trap and don’t play into it with others.

Celebrate the life. Tell the stories, bring the generations together, have fun, and share the laughter as well as the tears. Let the laughter far outweigh the tears, unless they be tears of laughter. Send the departed off to whatever truly awaits them with love, joy, and laughter. No better send-off can we give those we truly love.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Today, I have watched people pass such processions, cut in and through them with reckless disregard, and even yell at the people in them. It is simply another symptom of the self-centered cesspit into which we as a society have sunk.

Robert Heinlein and others have pointed out over the years that manners are the oil that lubricates the mechanics of society. It greases the skids so that things go smoothly and function well. Eliminate manners and you eliminate the smooth function of society, and such is part and parcel of the decline we see. Rude behavior is not punished but is instead rewarded, and with reward escalates. Such escalations carry a heavier and heavier price for us all.

I see the eyes rolling now: “This idiot is saying that increasing crime is because of bad manners.” Well, yes, I am.

Does this mean that I think any kid who fails to say please, thank you, yes ma’am, no sir and such is going to be the next Ted Bundy? No. Take a few moments, though, and think the process through.

Manners and etiquette were developed as a social oil, that works by treating people as individuals who deserved respect as individuals. If someone was rude or improper, they were corrected and/or taught as individuals. If it continued, they were ostracized or dealt with otherwise as individuals.

When you met a stranger, you were courteous and observed the formalities and by doing so you were saying without words “I do not know you, but until you prove otherwise I say you are a good person deserving of respect.” You were saying they were a good and honorable person, and would be treated as such. The courtesies exchanged worked on several levels, from the unspoken to encouraging the smooth flow of human traffic.

You were also clearly saying “I mean you no harm.” The handshake came about as a way to demonstrate that you did not have a weapon in your strong hand, hidden to plunge into the person you were meeting. Manners and etiquette continued this process, though few stop to think about all that is being said by these actions and words.

In the 60s, the assault on manners hit its stride and began hammering at this process. Rather than being a way of showing respect and peaceful intent, this process of peace was turned into an assault by verbal chicanery. You demeaned women, you disenfranchised the handicapped, it was a slap in the face of insert-group-of-your-choice here. Respect and peaceful intentions became an assault, and the resultant abandonment of courtesy does have a price.

We no longer have uniform ways throughout society as a whole to demonstrate to others that we will treat them as worthy individuals unless and until they prove otherwise. We no longer have a means of demonstrating that we come in peace. The result is that meetings outside of specific groups are often tense, because individual groupings of society have evolved their own rules and codes and anyone not following them is a stranger and therefore an enemy and/or fair game. This can be clearly seen not only in ethnic groupings, but in sub-groupings like gangs.

We have also eliminated a way of demonstrating that respect is a thing earned, not demanded. The social niceties were not merely ways of regulating conversation and interactions, but a way of determining the stature of a person, and how much – if any – respect they deserved. Today, we have groups demanding respect. Instant, huge, and unquestioning respect and if you fail to give what that societal sub-group sees as respect, there are often catastrophic results. “He disrespected me” is an all to familiar and depressing reason given for shootings, stabbings, and the like.

Nevermind that the person may well have been a stranger and did not know those ways. True manners and etiquette taught how to deal with such, to educate and bring people into your society. Today, with the grease removed, individuals are not shown consideration, respect, or given a chance to show who and what they are. Indeed, in many sub-groups they are nothing more than targets because they are different. Instead of this being treated as the social abomination it is, we are told that we must embrace this as an example of cultural diversity and give it respect. Of course, this only applies to politically desirable sub-groups, and not to others.

Quite frankly, it applies to all of them and they should be burnt out lock, stock, and barrel. I don’t care what race or creed the group preaching hatred is, for it simply is wrong. But that is a subject for another day.

There is hope, however, because “we” as individuals can decide to change this. Society is an artificial construct, made up of individuals. If each of us begins to use manners and etiquette again, the tide will turn. There are a number of societal sub-groups that are taking up the task. Renaissance Fairs and those associated with them use an older form of manners and etiquette, and it spills over into their daily lives. The SCA does the same, and so too do many BDSM groups. Say whatever you want about these groups, they do practice manners and etiquette and encourage others to do the same.

As an individual, I choose to use manners and etiquette. I admit also that I sometimes have fun with it. The first time I lived in Chicago I had a lot of fun going down the street, nodding, and such to the people I met. In some cases I had people put objects between them and me, “Look out Martha, he acknowledged us, he’s gonna jump us!” In other cases, the courtesy was returned, and in yet others conversations were started and acquaintances made.

The funeral was several states away, and was in a rural area. The stopping was almost universal, as was the removal of hats. I see this sometimes even in the fairly large (for the region) city where I currently reside. As long as I see it, I know there is hope. Even when there is no hope, I will continue to wage my fight of courtesy for I refuse to surrender to the darkness.

-30-

« ...howl's done

No, I have not continued to write about it for two main reasons (all puns intended). First, I would need to go spend time in Maine, a lot of time doing a lot of digging, relationship building, and more. This requires sponsorship, which I don’t have and don’t anticipate getting (Hi media outlet. I need to go live in Maine for 3-6 months to do one story. Pay my way for this and give me credentials. SFX: Slamming doors).

Second, the families asked that it be dropped. They have to live in these communities, some of those involved have ways of making their lives, and the lives of their children, hell if it gets pushed. They also want the chance to take care of local problems locally, and make the hell go back the other way without outsiders involved. Were I still a reporter rather than reformed, I would probably be digging and the heck with the consequences. Since I am reformed, I think that this is their individual choice to make and I have decided to honor that.

As for the “fake” Pvt. Lynch rescue story, the motivations were a little more complex. There was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, then the reporter came out of the cell where I try to keep it locked up. If the whole thing had been staged, then this was indeed a great story. If the story was false, or another hatchet job by The Media, that too was a good story. So, I began to look things over to see if I could get a pointer to the truth.

Determining the truth of the matter would take a trip to Iraq, time, and a lot of interviews. All of this, again, means getting sponsorships. Unless someone drops about $20k in the bards’ jar, or a major news outlet gives me the job, that isn’t going to happen. But, there was a good bit I could do from here, so I sat down and began digging into it.

No courtroom proof yet, but a story that smells to me like a cod that has been out of the fridge for a week. The story in question has none of the checks and balances, to borrow a phrase from my blogfather, that I would expect to see, which speaks volumes. It is one, of several, stories on which I plan to keep an eye.

So, motivations are complex but often no what one would think. I choose some because a part of me says “no frelling way” and some because I see them and go “oooh shiny!” and see possibilities. Hope this helps.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Which leads to the clueless reporter hypothesis. I have written on this before, on his blog, about the undeclared war between The Media and the military. In many journalistic circles, it is quite fashionable and proper to be willfully ignorant of the military. To go to great lengths to avoid learning anything about them and how they operate. They are the murderous, almost sub-human barbarians, after all, who CHOSE to be soldiers.

That attitude is one reason the embeds were a brilliant stroke. It is doubtful that you truly got too many of that school out with the real front-line troops. Yet, all the embeds – even Ted Koppel – got a much better understanding of the troops, how they operate, and what is and is not done.

Which brings us back to the particular reporter in question. Was he just ignorant of how such things are done? Could he be one of those moronic fools who thinks that you could just slip in a small team like modern ninjas, so that they could check out everything and then just spirit her out?

I find that hard to believe, though I do have to acknowledge it as a possibility. After all, there are those out there who believe that in the midst of a gun battle that someone with a snub-nose revolver (or comparable auto) can get pinpoint accuracy and shoot so as to disable a perpetrator/enemy without killing them or doing lasting damage to their body. There are those who think the special forces really are ninjas who can sneak in, go across ceilings, and move undetected throughout buildings and such even though they are dressed different, talk different, armed, and more. There are also those who believe in the tooth fairy too.

The story, and the way it was put together, just doesn’t add up for me. Not on many levels, and in particular not on the ignorance angle. There appears to have been too much time spent in setting up points, in not-so-subtle innuendo and implication, for this to have been the complete result of ignorance. If this was indeed written in the aftermath of the liberation of the town, it would also imply a certain familiarity with military operations. Even if not, almost everyone on the planet has had some exposure to rescue operations through news, broadcast media, or even popular books.

No, this one comes across as nothing more than a deliberate smear campaign. An attempt to start something that it now appears others may be willing to pick up. The BBC report seems to quote one or two of the same sources, and I would love to know if this guy helped or advised on the BBC program.

This really, to me, is adding up to the big lie. Tell something in the worst way possible, imply or infer that really bad things happened and/or that it was a sham on one or more levels, and trust the doubt to grow. The absence of checks and balances is a clue, but it is just one of many.

No, I am afraid I don’t see much innocent in this. Ignorance may well be part of it, but I don’t think it is simple ignorance of the military and how things are done.

-30-

« ...howl's done

I have no doubt that the kids received all the usual propaganda and were given all the statistics on the number of children killed each year with guns, though I doubt they knew to check to see how many of those children happened to be 19 or so. I sincerely doubt that the fact that some two million times a year guns are used to stop or prevent crimes was ever mentioned. Nope, only the bad, the horrible, the nasty gun, who is bad, bad, bad.

And my tax dollars are going to this tripe. From the posters I saw and read, it was clear that no effort had been made to teach gun or weapon safety, and that of the unholy trinity outlined, that guns got the most play and the most vilification. Gee, we shouldn’t say too much against the gangs, after all, because they are heavily ethnic and that might be cultural relativism if we do.

Now don’t get me wrong. Violence is bad, and I have no use for gangs. I agree that steps should be taken to curb and or prevent such. There is a reason I got my godsons Chance and Calculation into martial arts. There and at home they learn that violence is not a good or acceptable thing. Violence will get you a controlled and measured reaction that will stop the violence in a way that you will not like, and that there are punishments for violence beyond that which comes from being stopped. Give them self-reliance, self-respect, love, attention, and involvement with positive groups, and they won’t want or need to get involved with gangs.

What I object to, very strongly, is the effort at mind control of kids in the guise of education. This was clearly no balanced presentation of facts. There was no evidence in any poster I saw that any effort had been made to teach the kids enough safety so that if they did see or find a gun, that they would not be hurt.

No, it is far easier to vilify an object, as evil and useless. To plant the seeds of right-thought early and often. To show that everyone who has a gun is wrong, dangerous, and/or evil. Never mind that police, sheriffs, and security officers carry guns; never mind that soldiers including those like mommy and daddy carry guns to protect us; and, most of all, never mind the uncounted number of private citizens who do the same.

Yep, get at them young. Terrorize, traumatize, and lie to them now so that they will be good right-thinking citizens later. And they wonder why private schools and home schooling are becoming ever more popular.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Let’s tackle the easy one first. What makes a story news? Simple, it has impact or importance to society as a whole, or at least to the majority of the particular segment of the public that consumes your product, be it a broadcast or a magazine. Importance can be summed up as death, fire, flood, famine, earthquake, or other ravage of nature or man. It means that resources are damaged or lost, that transportation and/or communication are damaged or destroyed, and that the public business – commerce and otherwise – will be disrupted.

Human interest stories were originally done as ways to illustrate pure news. The human touch resonated with the reader, then later with the listener/viewer. They then moved into a full genre of their own, independent of the news of the day, for good and for ill. For the good in that they can bring things to the surface that need to be dealt with, and for the ill in that they allow a great deal of manipulation to take place without a good system of checks and balances. For every Cooke or Blair caught, there are likely many more who use or abuse the system to manipulate towards a particular viewpoint. The system is all too often more lax on human interest than on news. Such stories can also be much harder for blogs and other independent outlets to check out and verify, since changing or hiding identities is a much more common practice with them.

If you are thinking that most of what is passed off as news today really is news, you win! Most of what gets done as news is not news, it is fluff, human interest, and things that are not news but that research has shown to increase and/or retain viewers and readers. What little real news that is given also is presented in a way (slanted) towards the biases of the people in charge and in ways that marketing research again suggests will encourage readership and viewership. That is why on truly important stories of the day I try to go to as many CREDIBLE sources as I can, because comparing between them lets facts come out and biases and outright lies be exposed.

Why was the story in the Toronto Star news at all? Wasn’t it just another President-landing-in-a-flight-suit story type thing? Joe makes some very good points in that the only way the rescue could be “fake” was if Pvt. Lynch was not in Iraqi hands. She was, we went in, got her, came out. Little or no discussion on resistance, treatment, and more at first, and not a lot afterwards.

On one hand, and in the most importance sense in many ways, Joe is right. This is not a story, because she was in Iraqi hands and we went in and got here. No one disputes that, so her rescue cannot have been faked.

On the other hand, he is wrong because the charge alleged in the story was that it was staged. Such an allegation is news.

It is news, and newsworthy, because it would mean at best that the Coalition of the Willing and the United States of America had screwed up, and that at worst these same groups had willfully and deliberately kept Pvt. Lynch an enemy prisoner of war for propaganda purposes. If true, either requires debate and action to correct either poor judgment or a deliberate abuse of power so that such does not happen again.

Now, much of this is not direct allegation, but is done by implication. My real problem with the story in question is that it does a lot of implying that seems designed to put Coalition operations in this regard in as bad a light as possible. It implies that the rescue teams were wantonly and willfully destructive with their actions. It implies that they did so knowing there was no opposition, and therefore no valid reason for their actions. It implies that such was Keystone Cops at best and Machiavellian planning and operations at worst. In short, it seems to be doing all it can to diminish, demean, and defame all those involved.

For me, that is the true story here. That is why I went into it the way I did. And yes, I did use the word fake in my lede, though it was not truly accurate. Joe is right, the event was not faked, and the story in question only implies that it was staged. Yet, that is a distinction lost on most readers. The difference between staged and faked is one that will be missed, and I chose to go with the other term because it is what would be perceived and what was also being used on the news. Another dictum of journalism is to go with what your audience knows and is familiar with, and I really do need to quit doing that. My audience here knows better and deserves better.

If there were any truth to the allegations made in this story, directly or by implication, then it is newsworthy. It should be, and would have been, pounced on by organizations who would see the ratings coup, the prizes and awards, and the chance to become the next Woodward and Bernstein. That the Star and the reporter did not do what was needed to do this for themselves speaks volumes to me.

So that brings us to the second point, the other way it is newsworthy. Was the story nothing more than a smear campaign? Was it an act by elements of The Media to discredit that which they opposed? Was it just another case of liberal extremists not only never saying they were wrong or sorry, but trying their best to fling mud on those they can’t touch directly? Could it even be something worse, like deliberate lying on the part of the reporter? These questions are valid and have been raised elsewhere in blogs and even in The Media. That makes it newsworthy in and of itself.

So, to answer the questions: No, I really don’t think this story was news, and were I the editor who got it, I would have had a lot of questions that would have had to be answered before I ran it.

It became news, however, because it was published. The questions it raised were intriguing, no matter which way it was approached. All of those questions deserve answers, and I simply regret that I have only been able to provide questions and not answers. Some of the answers can only come from the publication and the reporter; all the others must come from people asking hard questions in places to where I currently have no access. All I, any of us, can do is hope that they will be asked and request those that can – such as Fox, SkyNews, etc. – do so, and soon.

-30-

« ...howl's done

I like to think that I am more complex than just a single word or issue. Indeed, I get called all sorts of names. To some, I am a radical and to others I am a radical conservative. Because my beliefs differ from many, I am a pagan, a sinner (given), a heretic (rather like that one, reminds me of a character I once read about in Sunday school), a damned soul, and much more. Because I happen to be an admirer of the female form, I am a pervert, a pervert, a disgrace (would prefer they try me before saying that), evil, and more. I can go on, but you get the point.

How I describe myself is complex. I am a male, have Scot/Welsh/English/Native American/French(explains a bit, doesn’t it)/and either Dutch or German heritage, loves to cook, read, hike, walk in the woods, give and get massages, admires the female form, blathers on my own web log, am a writer and communicator, loves art in most forms, likes animals, both as friends and as dinner, believe in the magic of live, and much more. How do you compress all of that into a reasonable length?

You can’t. It just isn’t possible. The closest I can come is that I am an eclectic, thinking independent, the thing that scares politicians and power seekers the most. I am NOT a Republicrat, a Conservative, a Liberal, or any of the other dozen or so labels that people have tried to apply to me. I am a conservative on fiscal matters and defense, but that is not an absolute. I am a liberal on certain other areas, in large measure because I believe in social freedom and keeping government the heck out of our daily lives as much as possible, but that too is not an absolute.

For me, I tend to look at each problem as unique and requiring of unique thought. I have enough experience in life to be highly suspicious of the simple and easy answer to any problem. I also have enough self-respect to rarely call myself any one thing, unless that is, my Mom really was right and I simply am trouble.

-30-

« ...howl's done

In the interests of full disclosure, yes I do have one. It was given to me by an acquaintance when I visited them on a regular basis, as they happened to live next to U.S. Government repository for nastiness. We probably needed MOPP gear, but he had the mask and it made him feel better for me to have one too. Not sure if the canisters are still good or not, but it is somewhere in my closet.

What to do if there is a warning and you don’t have a mask? Simple, according to government sites and experts: take a tight-weave t-shirt, get a double thickness, and put it over your nose and mouth. It is not as good as activated charcoal and layers of micron-level filters, but it will get quite a good bit including – I am told – most biologicals.

If you look at the odds and types of threats, the likelihood of same, and do a cost-benefit analysis and decide differently, knock yourself out. Don’t want to spend that much? There are escape hoods that are much more reasonably priced and will do in a pinch. They are even good for travel in case there is a fire at the hotel or other location.

Now we get to the nitty gritty and the thing that will upset most people: guns. The upsetting part is that I am going to say up front that most people should not go buy a handgun.

Unless you are going to take the time to buy the gun, get instruction on proper use and safety, and practice with it on a regular basis, please don’t get a handgun. If you are like people I have met over the years and go get one, load it, and put it on the bedside table, please never invite me to your house.

“I got my gun today!”

“You did? What type?”

“I got a Frick 9mm. I’ve got it loaded an up on the bedside table. Want to see it?

“Well, how does it shoot?”

“I don’t know. I haven’t shot it yet.”

“Really.” (Oh bleep. This guy is an accident waiting to happen, and I don’t want to be the accidental death) “When are you scheduled for the range and lessons?”

“Oh, I haven’t done that yet. Don’t know when I will.”

“Oh.” (Wonder if I can take out a policy on his wife, kids, and dog?) “But you have it loaded and ready to shoot?”

“Yeah! I will smoke any intruder that comes in.”

“Since you haven’t shot it, how can you be sure that it is accurate?”

“Oh, the sights are good, and everyone tells me it is the most accurate pistol on the market.”

“The sights probably are good, but without being sighted in how can you be sure that where you aim is where you will hit?”

“Oh, its accurate and it will hit where I aim!”

“Riggghhhhtt.” (Can you take out insurance on other people’s possessions?) “Well, then, what type cleaner did you use on it?”

“Oh, it was clean as a whistle when I bought it.”

“Oooookay.” (Wonder if I can take out a dismemberment or death policy on him?) “You didn’t check to be sure there was no grease in the bore or receiver?”

“No, should I?”

Okay, you get the drift here and the truly scary thing is that this is close to a real conversation or three I have had. This is a perfect example of a firearms accident waiting to happen, and I tend not to go back to these people’s houses. People like this give responsible owners a very bad reputation. This is also the type person who sticks the gun down the front of their pants and eliminates future contributions to the gene pool.

If you do want a pistol and are willing to be responsible and do it right, here is the way to go. Go to a reputable gun store. To find one, talk to those who do shoot and get recommendations. Try different guns, find one that fits your hand and has the things you need, such as stopping power, ease of use, good skull sweat in the design, etc. Also, keep in mind that no one pistol is going to be the best thing for all situations. Try them on a range, this is something good gun stores are happy to do. Most shooting ranges will rent pistols to you or let you try a variety of rentals for the price of one if you are pistol shopping. Once you have done your shopping and research, then buy what works best for you.

Once you have bought, then take the gun to the range and get with the range master/certified instructor. They will help you learn the pistol, clean it before using it (you need to get a kit with the gun), and teach you all you need to know. This may take more than one lesson, though a lot of range and safety basics can be covered during the try-them stage. Then practice, practice, practice. You need to do a lot to get used to the pistol and to break it in. You then need to go at least once a month to maintain your proficiency.

Unless you take a full day at the range once a month, maintaining is about all you will do. To give you an idea, I used to fire around 500 rounds per weapon per month when I was semi-serious about shooting. That was simply to maintain, not to necessarily improve – though I took any advancement I could get.

Rather than a pistol for home defense, I tend to recommend a shotgun. If there is a situation, real or imagined, the adrenaline flows. Your hands shake, your heart hammers, your breath comes in gasps, and none of these things is conducive to pinpoint accuracy. Take a look one day at the statistics for gunfights, and see how many shots are fired at very close range, and how few (if any) hit the target(s).

A shotgun makes up for that with lots of bullets, called shot. Get some number one buck, or even some number two shot and it will do the trick. Lots of pellets with punch to do what you need done.

The trick is, also, that you need to shoot the shotgun at a range as well. That way, you can see the damage that will be done. You will know what it is going to do to your home, which is tear the holy hell out of it. Even though you can get rounds that won’t penetrate a wall, they are still going to tear up the things in that room where you shoot and the wall.

This is a good thing. It means that you are not likely to use it unless you have a clear target that really needs shooting. You are not likely to shoot the spouse, the kids, the dog, the cat, the bird, or a shadow. If you do have to shoot someone or something, you are going to do it right to spare the rest of the house.

Two other quick points. First, I do not believe in trigger locks or locking guns away. This is dangerous, far more dangerous than you think. If you want the citations, take a look at John R. Lott Jr.’s “The Bias Against Guns”. It will be getting a review here in the next couple of weeks. I hope, as it is a hard read for me simply because some of what he goes over in the way of bias tends to raise my blood pressure to the point I have to quit reading.

Second, teach your kids properly about guns. Do NOT traumatize them so that they never want to touch one; that is your psychosis and should not be put off on them. Teach them responsibly and well, be it with an Eddie Eagle program or some other. My parents taught me from a very early age, about 3 if I remember correctly, that guns were not toys. I knew not to touch one unless I was going hunting or to a range. I knew what they could do and would do if not handled properly. Doesn’t mean I did not make mistakes, just that the mistakes were controlled and knowledge applied to the seat of learning as needed. Do thou likewise, as an educated child is far less likely to do something stupid simply because you were stupid and did not teach them properly.

Final thought of the day: the choices you make are yours. Live with them and take responsibility for them. No one else is responsible for your decisions, for what you do, or what you do not do. You and you alone are the master of your fate.

-30-

« ...howl's done

When a story is sensitive, and involves high-profile people or situations, you are often asked to withhold names. This is a sticky situation, since identifying the people is essential to establishing the credibility of the information provided. People need to know if the person truly is an innocent bystander or if they have an axe to grind. Anonymous sources are not supposed to be used on a regular basis, and when used you are to clearly identify the position that gave them access, such as “senior administration official” or “member of local law enforcement” or “a neighbor.”

If the story is truly a major expose, it is a lot more than one story. You know that your witnesses and every fact presented will be challenged. So, you have the main story that should be well written, riveting, and presents the main case. You then have sidebars or separate stories that document certain things. If you have named sources, you provide information on them, their background, etc. If any of them have skeletons in their closets, you bring them out so that you can control how and when it is presented. You provide the documentation needed to back up key points.

Even when you are doing an “ambush” piece designed to rip the lid off someone or something, you also are required to go to them and get comment. Fair and balanced means just that, though it is quite often the most abused portion of journalism. It is easy to pick bad quotes, take them out of context, or destroy them by placement within the story. It is not right, but it happens on a regular basis. You still, however, have to go and at least make a token effort to get the other side of the story.

Where to start with Mr. Potter’s interesting story. It is, after all, a major expose that could well be on par with the coverage of the Watergate break-in. After all, the U.S. Government has been caught in a lie, a very large lie. This was no small deception, but rather something costing at least in the hundreds of thousands and designed to have a significant influence world wide.

Well, let’s first take a look at the sources. He lists early on that he talked with six members of the medical staff at the hospital from where she is rescued, and with an unspecified number of “local residents.”

In the story, only four of hospital staff are identified, and that is poorly done. No attribution as to who was the attending, the specialties involved, or other relevant information is provided. So, no background on them and no way to assess their participation or qualifications to make any of the comments attributed to them. The closest this comes is with the nurse who allegedly took Pvt. Lynch in as “one of her own.” Yet, even there the only citation is that she is “…the hospital’s most nurturing nurse…”

The only other named source in the story is a waitron who lived nearby. The story he provides is lacking in certain crucial details, such as when things happened and how long between his being asked questions by U.S. Forces and the assault on the hospital took place. In reading the story, I was left with the impression that it was a significant period of time, but there is no way to deal with an implication in the absence of facts.

Out of the seven alleged sources, we have five on record. Of the others allegedly interviewed, there is not one quote or citation given, by name, by background, or any other identification used to protect sources. Of the ones cited, no background information is provided, and this is crucial. Were they members of the party or of the regime? Were they required to be? What are their specialties and medical background? What was there documented background with Pvt. Lynch? This is a hospital after all, and even in the heat of battle there are such things as charts. Patient care demands it, and it is a quick and easy way to verify information.

Other easily verifiable things are brought up and left hanging. The people interviewed at the hospital cite damage done to the hospital in the rescue. One specific incident is the special bed allegedly given to Pvt. Lynch that was again allegedly damaged in the rescue. The only one of its kind in the hospital.

Curiously, the reporter makes no mention of this other than to apparently take the statements made at face value. Surely if this was indeed the stage play alleged, it would have been easy to walk in and look at the bed, to examine some of the other great damaged claimed by the medical staff. Reporters are as bad or worse than professional spooks. You put your foot on it, you touch it, you verify it with your own two eyes. For a reporter writing an expose of this magnitude to fail to do so and to record for posterity (and to cover his own posterior) the charges made is unthinkable. You want the proof to smash the people you think are lying.
There is also a section that claims that a U.S. military doctor came to the hospital to thank the staff for the treatment and surgeries provided to Pvt. Lynch. A general physical description is given, but nothing else. Excuse me? I can guarantee that if any such visit took place, the doctor would have identified himself, and that there would have been some discussion other than a general thanks. Doctors do that, and almost invariably look in to see if there are any needs with which they can help. No citation, no identification, and a description so vague that no other reporter will be able to track down said American doctor.

Another assertion made that should be fairly easy to confirm is the story given that they had put her in an ambulance and tried to take her to the nearby lines. They allegedly were shot at and forced back. Such checkpoints on roads are known and documented, and incidents such as an ambulance approaching would have been documented, as not even war stops paperwork. Something that can be checked but, again, no apparent effort was made to do so. Indeed, the only such incident reported this morning was one in which an ambulance allegedly approached a checkpoint and offered information on Pvt. Lynch in exchange for a large sum of money. Said request was allegedly denied.

And while I am at it, why in the name of all that is good would we have brought lawyer Mohammed to the U.S. if the story were not true? Why put him where every media outlet in the world not only knows where he is, but can easily get to him? Why is there no mention of him or his story at all in this article? Here were at least seven, if not many more, people who could confirm or rebut the story he provided. Why wasn’t this opportunity taken?

There is a great deal of trial-by-implication in the story. Frankly, I question the context and placement of certain quotes regarding the injuries to Pvt. Lynch. To say that I find them misleading is an understatement.

The same goes for the lack of responsive quotes. The closest this comes is the nurse allegedly saying that Pvt. Lynch can vouch for her story. The story ends with a canned quote from a briefing from Lt. Col. Yantis at Walter Reed citing that the media would just have to wait to talk with her. This little bit is entirely disingenuous and misleading, in that it is done in a way to strongly imply that the media was being kept away from her to prevent the truth from coming out.

So, no quotes and no apparent effort to get comment from anyone in Coalition Forces in response to the story. Not even a “No Comment.” That in and of itself is one of the most telling things here. If there were proof and solid evidence, I can’t think of a single writer, much less a reporter, who wouldn’t be in the face of General Franks on this. This is, after all, a major story. It is guaranteed stardom and also guaranteed to create catastrophic political storms. This is what The Media thrives on. So, where is it?

I won’t even go into the writing of the piece, other than to say that if a student turned it into me I would be headed down a couple of grades from the start. It is poorly written, and even though this a feature/expose the reporter shows few signs of understanding journalistic writing. The only “odour” I find coming from the fog of war is the stench of this piece of drek.

Fair and balanced? Not hardly.
Well written and presented. No.
Meeting of basic journalistic criteria? No.

This story fails in every respect from the point of view of real journalism. It is at best a hatchet job, and how anyone could take it seriously as presented is a mystery to me. Every story you get should be taken with a grain of salt, but this one needs an entire box.

I will take a moment to address some things I heard on the news this morning, even though I have not been able to verify them through the net.

First, the idea that the special operations forces may have been shooting blanks is ludicrous. They don’t even do that in training, which is a verifiable fact. Equally verifiable is the fact that members of the teams are killed or injured in such training. To suggest that they would go into an area that was not secure and subject to the wonderful fedayeen is laughable.

As for camera crews being there with full gear, not even the pile of “odour” that started this mess makes that claim. That drek cites two cameramen and a still photographer in uniform; no inbeds, no movie crews, etc. For those who are not aware, there is a heck of a difference between what it takes to do a television show or movie and what the military typically carries. Again, an easily verifiable fact that is not pursued.

Unless and until someone can come up with verifiable information to substantiate the claims made, it should not be taken seriously. This is not a journalistic story, but a story by and for The Media. Deal with it accordingly.

-30-

« ...howl's done

The New York Times has long considered itself, and been regarded by many in The Media, as the newspaper of record for the United States. I admit that in my career, before I saw the light, that I aspired to have a byline there. It was the pinnacle of print journalism, and it stood for the highest standards in all areas.

The information it provided was to be beyond reproach, checked and confirmed, by a staff that knew they were the best of the best. Most members of the public have taken what it says unquestioningly because it was supposed to be this paragon of virtue.

The fact is, however, that it has been incredibly biased in its coverage. That is bad enough, but was an issue that was getting public scrutiny such that interested and responsible citizens could get the information they needed to make up their own minds on the matter.

Now has come Jayson Blair. To steal from Day By Day, the newspaper of record now has a record. The citizens who have depended on the information in it to make informed decisions and provide informed consent to the actions of government have been betrayed.

That betrayal extends beyond Mr. Blair. Mr. Blair did indeed make the decision to break every rule and canon of journalism and needs to be held accountable for his actions on professional, civil, and criminal levels.

Yet, he did not act alone. The management of the Times was well aware that there were problems with his work. One manager wrote a very strong memo that was, apparently, ignored by higher management. It is clear from the Times’ own coverage that individuals within the management chain were aware of the problems and failed to act. That failure to act was not merely a breach of journalistic ethics and responsibilities, but was an utter and abject abrogation of the responsibilities to the other employees and to the governance of the United States.

The colour of Mr. Blair’s skin has no bearing on his responsibilities as a reporter or the decisions he made. He needs to be judged on the basis of his actions and decisions, nothing else.

The same can not be said about the management of the Times, both publishing and editorial. If any individual there failed to do their duty in part or in whole because the subject was non-white, then they are as guilty of bigotry and racism as any supremacists of any stripe that they have reviled in their pages.

Journalism is not a profession that needs to provide different standards based on gender, race, or religion. There is no physical fitness requirement that needs gradation to accommodate such difference. The same standards apply to all, and discrimination of any stripe is reprehensible, condescending, and demeaning to all concerned.

Jayson Blair needs to be held fully and completely accountable for his actions, and the damage he has done. Vilifying Mr. Blair, however, is not the answer, and must not become the story that is spun out of this.

Mr. Blair did not act in a vacuum. It is evident from this instance that there are significant and serious problems with the management of the Times. Even if none of the other rumors and allegations of falsehoods with other stories and reporters are true, the management of the Times has failed of their responsibility.

A housecleaning is clearly needed at the Times. It needs to be undertaken vigorously and immediately, or else so-called newspaper of record will diminish not itself, but a critical cornerstone of our freedom.

-30-

« ...howl's done

When you do sausage, bacon, or about any meat, this is crucial. That brown stuff on the bottom of the pan is what makes a great gravy or sauce. Add flour, water, and spices and you have a gravy. Add wine, spices, and maybe some arrowroot or cornstarch, and you have a sauce.

Keeping things in balance so that stuff stays carmelized and good is crucial. If you are using a good pan, cutting the heat down a bit is not an option since it can take one to five minutes to get an effective change. Burning happens much quicker than that, so you use the amount of grease/liquid and the amount of food to control things. Having just poured off the majority of the grease, it was up to food.

Then the phone rang. The caller ID showed a 1-800 number that I thought might be the realtor, lawyer, or surveyors I talked to in recent days. I took the call, knowing that none of them would object if I jumped immediately back into cooking. I grabbed with my cooking towel as my hands were coated in raw pork.

After several hellos during which I almost hung up, I finally got the person on the other end to start talking. They were from a fire department and were just so full of fake down-home friendliness that it wasn’t funny. They would not get to the point in a hurry, which meant that I was not able to move as quickly as I should. Even as I frantically tried to get more patties made and into the pan, I was having to keep dealing with this thing on the other end.

Now, I don’t care if you are the best and most deserving charity in the world. Don’t waste my time. Especially don’t do so in a way such that I watch that golden crust on the bottom of the pan start going towards that dark brown or black colour that means you are screwed. No gravy, bitter tasting grease, bad food. The guy finally gave me a good opening, as to how I was doing. “Busy. Burning sausage. Bye.” I hung up and jumped back into the fray.

I did not make gravy, but did keep things from burning or being bitter. Or at least the food. I am bitter. I am more than merely annoyed at this charity and all the other hacks, flacks, and minions of evil that insist on wasting my time by calling or e-mailing with things in which I have no interest. They deserve Bun Bun in full fury, no quarter.

As for me, I plan to start fighting back. Several other bloggers have some legal and fun things to do to spammers of all types, and I intend to start doing the same. I am also tired of being polite to telephone time wasters. So, call at your peril. You may just find that I have started a listing of charities to avoid here, to go with the one charity that I do say support.

Your choice, but make it a wise one.

-30-

« ...howl's done

For a number of reasons, my going over to this region are likely to be very limited soon, so I bought up several pounds of sausage and have spent the morning since my first post cooking up all that sausage. Since they don’t do a hot version, I spiced up some of the batches myself. My batches, not theirs, since I did about three pounds per batch and had several to do.

The resulting cooked sausage is cooling now, and will be vacuum sealed and frozen. Cooked pork stores better than raw, and lasts a lot longer. Trick I learned from my father. So, I have a good bit to last me.

This will get stretched out by using some Jimmy Dean. I like that brand, though I don’t like the texture. That is easily solved, however. I get their regular and add chipotle, cinnamon, hot paprika, and sometimes some truffle powder, mix it up and then run it through the meat grinder. That takes care of the texture issue and helps ensure a good mixing of the spices. Cook and freeze.

I have been wanting to do some more cooking things here, and plan to do so soon. Stay tuned, and I will share some favorites as well as the occasional glitch.

-30-

« ...howl's done

The theory is interesting and does hold up to study. Yet, there is something else that is often missed in discussions: simplicity is required, but so is accuracy. Accuracy is even more important that simplicity. If the basic information is not complete, then the effort has failed. “Fire” is as simple as you can get, yet if you don’t say where and/or what type, the fire department can’t get there to help you. Utter simplicity, therefore, fails.

Which brings us back to the topic of the day, labels. One word descriptors are like saying “Fire.” They catch a part of what is going on, but only one part. Often the portion captured is not even a major part of the person, place, or thing. Sometimes, this is very deliberate.

So why do we do it? A large part of it may simply be intellectual laziness or sloppiness. Because we are lazy in so many ways, it is easy to go with a one word label even when we know it is not complete, and therefore correct. It is quick and simple and we can move on to other things.

Some of it may be semantics and ease of communication. When writing or talking, no one wants to say every few sentences “They are a Keynesian on economics, a Heston on gun control, a Lott on weapons safety and discussion, a Rumsfeld-Ringo-Ohmigoshian on defense issues, and a Brownian on medical issues person.” Instead, a short phrase is used to identify them.

A short phrase is the key here. It allows accuracy and precision to be employed while allowing the reasonable flow of information. It allows more of the person, place, or thing to be captured and presented for consideration.

One word labels make it very easy to dismiss someone, particularly in political discussions. To brand someone a Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Libertarian, or other allows them to be marginalized. This is particularly true if the person is not of a mainstream party.

The use of a one word label is most often, if not always, an attempt to dismiss the person or subject of conversation. It is almost impossible to sum up anything with accuracy and precision in one word. So, to employ that tactic suggests that someone doing so is attempting to dismiss or denigrate the subject of the label. It is also an attempt to force the discussion into a pre-determined “box” of arguments, such that new discussions and considerations are not possible. Thus, control over what is discussed when and where is determined at the start.

Be wary of one-word descriptors and those who use them. They are at best an intellectual crutch, and at worst a weapon of enslavement.

-30-

« ...howl's done

It was to this that I ate a cheese plate, had strawberries fresh from a farm, and some Smoking Loon Syrah. That I looked out over the mountains, and down towards a nearby lake. It has been my pleasure to eat at some of the finest restaurants in the world, from Russia to Japan, yet some of the best meals I have ever eaten have been where I was last night. It was not the food, though most everything tastes better to me here, but the company and the peace that made it so.

This morning is no exception. There is a duck out at the bird feeders right now, having figured out that there is corn and other good things out on the ground. He has one of the young squirrels confused and upset and it is the best situation comedy I have seen in some time. Then again, squirrels deserve to be confused and upset, it does them good. I have set the plastic chicken (long story) back in her nest just for that purpose, and to get the occasional nearsighted and gullible fox (Hey, there’s supposed to be feathers, bright blood and tasty flesh! What IS this?).

There are visitors that come here and from the moment they get here all lights go on, the television and at least one radio are on and loud, and they talk just to hear themselves talk. Then they wonder why they don’t see anything other than a few common birds.

Such may be a large problem with modern life. We get caught up in the hustle, the lights, the noise, and it becomes our world. The box gets us, from ways of thought to ways in which we “live” outside of work. All is rush and frantic.

Be it in the woods or wherever, we need to take time to pull up and break the box. By breaking it we see new and better ways to do things, we innovate, and we grow. Routine can be good, and comforting, but it can be deadly on many levels. Find a real or metaphorical porch, pull up, and enjoy the view for a bit. Let new and rare friends introduce themselves, from the real to the metaphysical. Take the time to do something different, to recharge, and to pull out of the boxes that make up your life. You will be the better for it.

Even with all the hustle and bustle of this trip, I have taken that time and gotten some new insights that will be applied in the days ahead. I may loose myself once again to the boxes, but I also know to take the time to break them periodically.
Enjoy this day and find little ways to break little boxes, then move up. As for me, I am going to break one more this morning by breaking my normal leaving routine and go enjoy a final cup of tea with the duck, the squirrels, and whomever else drops by. Driving can wait, life can’t.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Their driving is right interesting as well, and has been source of amusement as well as some frustration of late. It served also as a useful reminder that as much as some things change, others stay the same. The roads haven’t changed, and some of the drivers have not either.

The problem to this is a limited ability to pass. The few passing areas (straight stretches) are now almost all double yellow lines courtesy of some of these same people. So, be sure to have a book or some interesting companions in the car.

Then again, this area always has been an odd mixture of drivers. It was not unusual to come along and see two pickups stopped the road, the drivers talking just as their parents did on the weekly trip to town in wagons not all that long ago. Then again, there were those who raced the area, both for fun and the delivery of moonshine.

I was lucky enough to be taught how to drive like that by a woman who knew. She took me under her wing when I was about 12, and I am the better for it. More on her later, but as a result, I love to take a couple of these roads when I can. It is a great way to truly check out a vehicle.

One has to exercise caution when doing so, because of the flatlanders, law enforcement, and local game. Coming around a curve at high speed and hitting a bear or deer can take your day down a notch or two.

Still and all, it is good to see that as much as things have changed, others have stayed the same. Now where did I put that book…

-30-

« ...howl's done

France is no longer truly a global power. It far flung colonies are gone, and French attempts to meddle in things have come to spectacularly bad ends. The day when France could tell other countries or peoples to shut up is long gone, and only pride makes them pretend otherwise.

The EU has some similar problems. The word there is protection, and no amount of protection will save industry, academia, or other special publics from changes in the rest of the world. It is as if they want to freeze things as they were, not even as they are, and force time and the tide to stand still.

In a way, I can very much understand that. This area, that in many ways I consider my true home, has changed. I hate it. With a passion. Where once were woods, trail, and game, there now stand million dollar palaces that dwarf the quiet cabins and homes that were once dotted across the landscape. The palaces are built right up next to one another, and are driving up the taxes so that families that used to live here almost can’t afford to continue to do so.

There is a part of me that would have frozen this area years ago, that would have stopped the building, saved the woods and mountainsides as they were, that would love to see the big cats come back along with other game long missing. I long for the nights when you could hear the music of the hounds as they pursued a coon, and hear the huffing and puffing as that coon came by where you were on its way to safety. When you could, would, and did bathe in a lake (streams being far too cold).

Those days are gone and no amount of wishing will change that. I am having to adapt, and have made the decision to embrace the change and control it around me as best I can. I can’t stop it, but I can make it work for me and mine.

That is the difference between those who survive and succeed, and those that fail. Change is the immutable law of time, and you either embrace the change and learn how to work it to help you and yours, or you fall by the wayside. Just as many cabins and such now are closed and failing, so to are countries and ideals. Most still have a chance to change, to adapt, and survive. What remains to be seen is if they have the intelligence, the courage, and the will to do so.
-30-

« ...howl's done

Normally I am up quite early, but this morning when Dawn knocked I growled and we both went our separate ways. I slept in quite late for me, then was up to share the morning with my friends. Nostalgia has a special place, and this morning it was in food. I cooked up all the old favorites, the traditions from when I was quite small. Blueberry muffins, sausage, an egg fried in a bit of the grease, and tea. The latter is my modification, because it was always coffee with my Dad.

I remember vividly the ritual, both when we camped here and after we had some shelter. Early morn and Dad would be up, and often I would sneak out to join him. We both worked hard not to wake Mom or anyone with us, and just sit and watch. When I could drink coffee I did so with him, and it was a special thing we shared.

For me, the dawn was gorgeous, a special time to spend with a Dad I did not always get to spend the time with that I, or he, wanted. It was also the start to the day that was filled with things to do, from running the woods and ridges to swimming. It was the warm-up time.

I knew that for Dad it was different, that the dawn was in many ways the best part of the day. It was something that I did not understand, but appreciated nonetheless. It was also a time where, in a low, quiet voice he would show me things, teach me the birds and animals, and share what came from many years of knowledge and keen observation.

Dad is gone now, but I still share the dawn with him and understand. The dawn, the early morn, really is the best part of the day. The world comes alive and we share in it, we watch the birds and beasts and savor the “silence” that is alive with sight and sound. It is a relatively peaceful time for nature red of tooth and claw, and the fog this morning made it more so.

All too soon people are up and about, and the sounds of saws, hammers, and worse echo across the valleys. There will be things to do and while some or most of them will be fun, it is not the same. I shall miss the morning, but am glad that Dad and I have shared it again.

-30-

« ...howl's done

There is a formal contract between the state and the soldier. It describes what will be done, how it will be done, and the basics that each owes the other. The problem is, it only covers the basics and like our articles of governance leaves a great deal unsaid. There is where the problems lie.

At the risk of gross over-simplification, there are four basic schools of thought on this. I’m sure some academic somewhere has better names for them, but for now these will do.

First, there is the “corporate” mindset that sees the contract as a contract in toto. What is there is all there is, and you do the minimum amount to meet the conditions spelled out in the contract. Bean counting and efficiency rule the day.

Second, there is the “empire” mindset, that takes an even more extreme view. Those that serve are merely units to be used and discarded. Rather than do even the minimum, they seek to find ways to do even less, so that more resources can be devoted to other parts of the state.

Third, there is the “myrmidon” mindset, previously espoused by Jane, that sees anyone who would fight to defend themselves and others as murderers, thieves and worse. Their view, often couched in more polite phrases, is that such people deserve nothing because they are lower than nothing. Especially when there are other, more deserving people out there who could be “helped” by the resources going into other “more deserving” publics.

Fourth, there is the “idealist” mindset, that says that the maximum possible should be done for all who serve. They who serve deserve all that can be given them.

Yes, this is indeed a topic for long and thoughtful discussion. The care given to our veterans is a large topic, and they deserve far better than they have gotten in the past. My own father refused to consider any treatment through these programs because of the abysmal conditions within them.

But there is more that we need to consider than medical and other benefits. There is something far more important that needs to be addressed, and the case of Captain Speicher is an excellent example of it.

Those who serve in the military take up a special portion of the compact. The original idea of the citizen soldier is still around, but there needs to be a trained core at the ready to protect the other members of the compact. The males and females who voluntarily choose to serve in the core deserve a great deal. Those that don’t serve voluntarily, i.e. were drafted, deserve a good deal. The one thing they deserve that they have not gotten is acknowledgement in its most fundamental form.

They deserve not to be left behind, under any circumstances. The America of the founding fathers and the America we all like to think we live in demands that we account for everyone, that we find them dead or alive. If alive, we get them out, treat them, and restore them to all that we can. If dead, we bring them home to bury them with respect and we bring justice – not law – to those that were responsible for their death if that is needed.

That is a fundamental, implied, promise made to every citizen from the founding fathers to the Monroe Doctrine and the War of Jenkins Ear. It goes doubly so for those who serve.

We, the people, have failed of that promise far too often. Those who are supposed to serve us, to protect those who put their lives on the line for us, have for too many bad reasons failed in this. For some, it was a matter of policy in that the war was over, problems were to be buried, and if that meant people were to be buried so be it. For others, the soldiers and civilians were beneath contempt and deserved whatever they got.

Unless we the people demand a full accounting, we may never know why Capt. Speicher was declared dead with such unseemly haste and with so many obvious questions about his fate. To my mind, it was a failure, cowardice, and more that this was done. It harkens back to another time when we failed in that duty. That we, as a people, turned our backs because it was easy, and those in positions of authority did so for political gain.

Even if no other good came out of the liberation of Iraq, this much did. We, as a government and a people, insisted that no one be left behind. The government as a matter of policy re-affirmed what was writ in ink and blood in the years between our independence and the end of the War of 1812. We now hunt, belatedly, for Capt. Speicher and we must ensure that our elected representatives do right by him and his family. For to do so is also to do right by us all.

We leave no one behind. That is a promise made to those who serve, and it is one that must be kept.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Then, two tornadoes were detected about 30 miles from here and moving on in. After studying the weather radar and other info, I elected to get a shower. Yep, a shower. Two reasons. First, there is a streak in me of the "Yes, the ship is going down and we will go out dressed as gentlemen." Second, and far more importantly, is the prevention of infection.

The big problem with a tornado is not the sucking, but the shooting. They fire everything from cows to pine needles at high velocity, so that most injuries are projectile injuries. The problem with projectiles is only half the object. The other part are all the microbes that come in with it. A bullet or a pine needle, they all bring in bits of cloth, skin, and other such things that are just coated with microbes. These, in turn, cause infection. So, clean skin and clothes just in case.

I also dressed in heavy clothing. One of the best things you can do is bundle up in a heavy storm. The clothing protects you from many dangers, and can help mitigate a projectile injury. If you have body armour of any type, wear it.

More in a few minutes. LW

0817 Tornado Emergency Declared by EMA. Touchdown.

0822 I really don't like green sky. Heavy clouds, dark, to the west. Siren going off again, lots of lightning. Time for step two.

0823 Multiple incoming. Joy

0825 Overhead?

0831 Well, seems several have spawned out, though I am in the clear for now. Just high winds, heavy rain, etc. The apartment below mine seems to be having trouble, as there was the emergency carpet people in. Not surprised, can hear water running down the wall, none in on me so far but need to check.

Other reports have circulation at various other locations. Interesting, esp. in terms of the Chinese curse...

0835 No damage or leaks so far. Time for a quick review of some things. When an emergency such as this does occur, have a good safe shelter. Designate one room of your house as a storm shelter. In my case, for what little good it will do, I have an interior bathroom designated for this purpose. It is the center-most room, as well protected as anything in this building can be, and I can pull stuff in to cover me if needed.

A quick point: a storm shelter should be low, interior, and secure. A terrorist incident shelter needs to be high, interior, and secure. Remember, most chemical and biological agents are heavier than air, and will sink. Get above them. A storm shelter should ideally be underground, but do what you can.

If you don't have a battery powered radio or TV, why not? Do you really think power and cable are going to stay up? Plan ahead.

0845 Rain is letting up, lots of flooding that is visible from where I am and reported on the news.

Some quick thoughts on shelter in a storm. When the time comes, close all blinds and curtains. If the windows shatter, this will cut down on flying projectiles, with luck.

Put on your heaviest coats and clothes. Get in your shelter and cover yourself if possible. In the days of iron pipes, I was taught to grab..

I do hope that was thunder, do not like long, low rumbles right now

0847 Must have just been, as nothing on radar and no other signs outside. Back to where I was

In the days of iron pipes and cast-iron tubs, sheltering in a bathroom was a great idea. I was taught to hang on to the iron pipes as a child, and an old-fashioned bathtub was a wonderful shelter. When I build my house...

Forget hanging on to PVC, and a fiberglass tub is better than nothing. Put precious ones in it and cover them. Put yourself over them and hang on. If it is just you, get in, cover up, and hang on.

Damn, sirens again. Let me go check the radar...

0850 Nothing obvious, but another good storm seems to be just to the west and moving east. No obvious signs outside, but am going to be prepared to move to shelter, such as it is, really quick. Have to get a TV for the office, as I have the big TV and the bedroom TV on loud to get the good local weather.

This is why I believe in rational preparedness. Things like this happen on a very regular basis here. This is why I have plastic sheeting to cover windows and doors, battery-operated appliances, and more. It is also why I have an old military helmet and gear: In a storm, these come in VERY handy.

Yes, I am being as safe as I can be and am padded as much as I feel needed. If something happens, I will wish for more but am as protected as is practical. Heavy rain. Let me go check the perimiter again. LW

0900 Not bad right now. No leaking into my apartment, but I think my downstairs neighbors may be flooding. Not only are they ground floor, but it sounds like that pesky roof leak is still there and still going down over my fireplace and down into their apartment. Streets are flooded, and idiots are driving into them. People, use some sense. If the street is covered, don't drive into it. If you do, they should not rescue you and allow this to be a method to put some needed chlorine in the gene pool. There are people that really need help and you are diverting from them. Quit being so frelling selfish

0915 So far, so good. No damage here, though a LOT of flooding around. When a sloped parking lot is mostly flooded, you have problems. No fatalities or injuries reported yet from the storms or tornadoes. One from someone driving into a flood, but I suspect you can gather my opinion on that. Sorry for the family's loss, but little sympathy otherwise.

To go back to some lessons or preparedness. Despite keeping this journal, I have been being safe. Early on, I did shower and dress, and padded as much as I felt prudent. I also have an old military helmet that did go on during the worst. This is also a time that if you have body armour, wear it. I also put into my safe zone a flashlight that had been tested, a rechargeable searchlight, a battery-operated television (batteries checked and replaced), and other supplies. Nearby were first aid kits and more. Made sure I had some water handy. Take care of the basics...

On me, I also put some things I think are prudent. I did put on my cell phone, a knife, and other emergency items so they would be *on me* and have a good chance of staying with me. That way, no matter what, I had some basic supplies. Given the way this place is built, I have no confidence in being where I was when the storm started, and might have needed to try to fix myself and work my way out of wherever and whatever.

Largest problem with being prudent is that it is quite warm, and I would love to shed some layers but it looks like another storm is popping up to the west, according to the radar. Will be uncomfortable until I am sure what is happening. Why do so many radar WWW sites put in a five minute delay? When things are popping, the key to preparedness and prudence is accurate and timely information. A delay can and will get people killed. Idiots. LW

0925 Things are clearing up. Still lots of rain, but the storms to the west seem to be falling apart. Will drop down a level or two and resume semi-normal operations. Also go over some lessons learned. One is, where is the sports strap for my glasses? I have several, and could not put my hand on a single one. Not good. Other than that, things went well. Am still PO'd that the battey for the camcorder was dead, wanted to try to capture some of this. Oh well. It will be charged just in time for the sun to come out, probably.

My final words on this, I hope, are to be prepared. Have plans, be prepared to implement them on a moments notice, and keep up with things. Most things are survivable, and can be survived in style, with proper planning. It does not have to be extreme, just prudent.

Be safe out there. I have far too few readers to loose any of them.

Laughing Wolf

« ...howl's done

Had Jane truly taken such action, it would have been the proof needed to show that she had indeed stepped fully and irretrievably across the line into treason. Not even her most ardent supporters would have been able to pass this action off as free speech, and her most ardent critics could have used it to secure indictments. It would have been proof positive that her actions resulted in the death and/or disablement of military personnel.

So, having said all this I must say that Jane is not guilty of this charge and I am taking steps here and in private to refute it. To do so is a responsibility I have as an individual to the society in which I live. The fact is that so many internet mail things like this are false, and why I rarely pass them on without checking them thoroughly.

All that being said, however, I will now indulge myself a bit to play Paul Harvey and tell the rest of the story. The rest of the story is that, in my opinion, Jane Fonda is an opportunistic traitor, in the moral if not legal sense given that Tokyo Rose was convicted for "mere" propaganda, deserving neither respect or support. I agree whole heartedly that she did not and does not deserve the honor of having been in ABC’s 100 Years of Great Women. All that is coming out now about ABC and its bias just adds fuel to this fire. Yet I must also point out that this event took place in 1999, which is another point the e-mail in question misses.

Snopes also has a good take on Jane’s self-serving “apology” to our troops, one that has never been repeated even in the extremely lackluster manner of the original. Indeed, it has been widely reported that Joan Baez, another anti-war protester who later changed her views, called on Jane to acknowledge that the unified Vietnam was not what they had hoped, and Jane refused.

She has never truly changed her tune on this. She called our soldiers “war criminals” and worse, she supported and encouraged the North Vietnamese, she publicly thanked the Soviets for supporting the North Vietnamese, and more. She did some of these things not as an impressionable youth, but as an adult into her mid-30s. We won’t even go into her statements over the last 20 years about my home state of Georgia and politics in general.

Anyone and everyone makes mistakes, and we all say things we regret. We hold opinions, often strongly, that we later change in light of experience and fact. The true mark of a responsible individual is when they own up to such things.

Jane Fonda has never done so. She has never admitted she was wrong in any way, shape, or form about her actions and beliefs. The closest she has come is saying that she should not have had her picture made on the anti-aircraft gun. For her actions and her continued support of same, I can not have any liking or respect for her. Future actions might could change this, but that depends on change, maturity, and responsibility that she has yet to demonstrate. While I can hope, it is not something I expect to ever see.

-30-

« ...howl's done

This is not exactly surprising. Her sojurn in Iraq and Iraqi hands was not a trip to Club Med. What exactly happened is not fully known, and what can be learned is being played close to the vest to protect her privacy. Even so, it is clear that she endured much.

I do hope that the efforts to help her regain her memories is successful, and done such that she gains strength from it. Further trauma is not something she needs or deserves.

I also hope for this for some very selfish reasons.

First, we do need a good example for all females in the military. We need someone that can be held up as a gold standard of what it means to be a soldier and to do one's duty. There are fictional characters aplenty, such as David Weber's Honor Harrington, but we need reality. The early, unconfirmed, reports seem to show that Pvt. Lynch is just that. She held her own, fought till she was out of ammunition, and may have fought on even beyond that. Her weapon apparently was in good shape and well maintained; she fired back with effect; and, she kept on until overwhelmed. If this is indeed true, then she has set a very high bar for all how serve now and in the future.

Second, we do need to honor her appropriately. There is a problem with awards that have lost meaning because they have been given out indiscriminately. This year's Oscar for documentary would appear to fall in that category. Many military medals are also percieved in that light, so care must be taken in any award given.

I have heard calls for the Medal of Honor, but that is overboard. If you want to know why, go read the citations at Medal of Honor Citations and you will see. What she apparently did and endured was great, but does not meet the qualifications for this honor.

That leaves the Silver Star and Distinguised Service Cross. I can and will make a good argument for the DSC, provided that the reports can be verified. Some of this can be done from eye witnesses, forensics, and related avenues. It would help the process along greatly if she were able to provide information so that they know where to go to investigate.

So, for selfish reasons and in hopes of healing body, mind, and soul as needed, I hope that efforts are successful. We need her, and she deserves healing and all appropriate honors.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Boycotts should be a very selective weapon reserved for those who go beyond the pale. Everyone has the right to say something stupid, we all do it many times over the courses of out lives. Where it crosses the line for me, however, is when a person either says something demonstrably false, breaks a promise, or otherwise acts without honor.

Two easy examples of that are France and Belgium. Both abrogated sworn obligations to their allies; one or both provided intelligence to the enemy; one or both provided aid to the enemy in the form of weapons, trade, and direct assistance; and, both have worked to obstruct efforts at peaceful solutions. Reasons for this are many, but most have to do with money from all appearances. This is why I am not making purchases of products from those countries.

You will notice, however, that Germany is not on that list. The leader of Germany did oppose us, obstruct us, and vilified America to the high heavens. Even as he did so, however, German troops and police took over guarding our bases in Germany so that the soldiers could go where they were needed. France and Belgium would likely have demanded we double the guard so as to tie up troops. Other things were done as well to aid and assist us. The final straw were the salutes and honor guards given our returning wounded, as documented in e-mail by a Chaplin. In such ways they honored us and their obligations, so I will honor them.

When it comes to individual celebrities, I am just as picky. The obsession that popular culture has with Hollywierd is fascinating on many levels. They are trained entertainers and that is all the training some of them have. Just because they are a star doesn’t mean they know anything other than acting, singing, dancing, etc.

Now some do, and I respect those people on more than merely being a good entertainer. These people have taken the time to research a topic, and can and do provide valid citations to back up the position they have taken. They at least conform to the rules of debate and will evaluate new data and facts and adjust accordingly. I may strongly disagree with them, but I respect both them and their position.

What I do not respect are those who argue without facts, on emotional appeal alone. I do not respect those who are unwilling to consider alternate viewpoints, who believe that they alone have the right of free speech, or who do something that gives aid and comfort to the enemy. So, I pick and choose my targets accordingly.

The lead singer of the Dixie Chicks had every right to say what she did. It is her opinion and she has a right to it. I would have at least some modicum of respect for her had she done it here in front of her core audience. The fact that she did it overseas and apparently never anticipated it would get back home cost her any chance of respect. It also means that though I had been considering purchasing the latest CD, even though I am not a fan, I will not do so now. That is my choice for now, and it may change if I see signs of real change on their part, and you must make your own choice.

Years ago, I swore oaths to protect and defend, and pledged that I would if necessary give my life to protect the freedoms of others. I am still willing to do so, and one of my litmus tests is if the other person is willing to do that as well. Far too many are not, and if they are not I don’t feel I am under any obligation to support them economically. It does not mean that I go after them in any other way, or try to ban what they say. They do have the right to say it, just as you have the right to say you disagree.

It is easy to jump on bandwagons like the anti-Chicks campaign. It is far less easy to be selective and thoughtful across the board. I have taken the time to try to separate the sheep from the goats, and if you are going to boycott you should as well. Take the time and visit sites like Boycott French Products or Hollywood Halfwits so that you do things with some thought. Don’t boycott American products or companies in mistaken belief, or go after an individual simply because you disagree with them.

As an individual, you have an obligation to yourself and others to do what is right. Take the time and pick your targets. Make your economic shots count on every level and in every way.

-30-

« ...howl's done

To prevent these things, the rights to free speech and a free press were clearly enumerated in the documents announcing the creation of America and in creating its government.

The right of each citizen to speak their mind was given. With that right came the charge to use it well. Free speech may not be abridged, but that right does have some delineations. Falsehoods and sedition were the only limits placed, with the right of public safety being added later to this list. In other words, you were free to speak your mind so long as you spoke the truth, did not incite rebellion, and did not endanger others through false and reckless action.

The latter was one of those things that was apparently understood by the founders, but not called out because such obviously fell under false speech and sedition. Sedition by definition means action against public order. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre when there is not a fire obviously was false speech, and contrary to public order as defined by the term sedition.

A free press had a very different meaning in the days of America’s founding. Reporting and the media as we know it today really did not exist. Newspapers were first published to convey necessary information for commerce and order, such as shipping schedules, government decrees, and the like. These came to carry “news” as we know it as an adjunct to this other function. Broadsides, or single-sheet papers, were put out to give news and – most importantly – to give information partial to a specific viewpoint/political party. Different “newspapers” provided different viewpoints.

While word of mouth did get news around, it was the broadsides that truly got the news of the day out and about. Political groups and parties, and other societies produced their own to promote their viewpoints. In some cases, they bought or operated their own presses, and in others a local printer might print the broadsheets for several different organizations. By ensuring that the government did not control or regulate the presses in any way, the ability of all groups to print their viewpoints, if they had the means, was ensured. It meant that if something was done that was contrary to order and charter, that news of it could not be suppressed. The right of an individual to say the truth, verbally or in print, was assured.

The idea of an anointed elite to report the news did not come until the early 1800s with the French revolution. It was there that the “Fourth Estate” was born, and the concept of what would become modern journalism truly began to evolve. It is important to note, however, that the same restrictions as were placed on individual speech were placed on “the press.” Reporting must be factual and it may not be seditious.

The government may not restrict free speech or a free press. No greater gift, and responsibility, do we have as citizens.

-30-

« ...howl's done

The first pillar of the republic is an informed and active citizen. The founding fathers did not merely expect citizens to be informed and take part, they required it. Indeed, being a citizen was not something automatically granted. To vote required meeting certain standards, and this is not necessarily such a bad thing. While it is true that standards can be used to disenfranchise groups or publics, it also was a way of ensuring that the person voting had some clue about events and what they were voting upon.

Within the great experiments, rule of the mob was a concern and a fear at home and abroad. The masses were not believed capable of thinking for themselves. How could mere individuals who were not aristocratic have the brains, training, etc. to exercise leadership responsibly?

Yet, here was America saying that they not merely could, but that they would do so. That the average citizen could and would keep up with current events, that they would have the context of history and more to interpret those events, and that they would make good decisions, both on issues of the day and on who they chose to represent them. Indeed, one of the many experiments that is America is the education of all. Not necessarily public education as it has become, but the concept that everyone is capable of learning and that they should learn enough to meet the requirements for citizenship.

For every right enumerated by the founding fathers, in document or in law, there were corresponding responsibilities. These were discussed and understood, and implied rather than enumerated. While one could wish that they had been as well documented as the rights, this was not done in part because many could not conceive of the two being separated. The need for an educated citizenry was well understood and well documented, even when it was not enumerated.

That there would be failures of the mass citizenry in this regard was also recognized. For that reason, a second pillar was put in place: able and strong representation. It was anticipated that the citizens would elect representatives who had the training, skills, and knowledge needed. That they would elect people of strong character, will, and wisdom so that when necessary they would defy popular opinion to do what was right.

This burden was discussed and accepted as one of many checks and balances in the system. If the masses failed, it was up to the representatives to do what was right. The corollary, of course, is that representatives who did not do what was right or otherwise failed of their duties, were to be removed. Though the oaths no longer contained life, fortune, and sacred honor, it was understood at the start that such was being pledged.

Citizenship comes with heavy responsibilities. So too does leadership. Both were understood at the start, and we need to remind ourselves of such today as we take stock of ideas, events, and other activities that are part and parcel of being a citizen in this republic.

-30-

« ...howl's done

It seems that the William Morris agency, on behalf of itself and its clients, went after one of the websites that had sprung up to track the idiotic statements of celebrities. BoycottHollywood.us is gone. Their domain registrar caved under the threat of legal action and pressure by the William Morris agency, and pulled the plug on them.

While much remains to be learned, it appears that attorneys acting on behalf of the agency accused the site of libel and other and other potential civil and criminal offenses. The fact is, for now at least, that there are no specifics cited anywhere other than a claim that William Morris didn’t like the e-mail it was getting. What was the libel? What were the other actionable items?

If this had happened to an organization owned or controlled by The Media, the response would have been to tell William Morris and its attorneys to place said letter in a lower orifice and push hard. The outlet would have been screaming from the rooftops about the attempt, and trotted out the standard that truth is the ultimate defense against all claims of libel. They would have demanded citations on the other charges, and trumpeted loudly if they were not immediately produced.

Instead, Dotster.com removed the site because of bad contact info. The fact that the owner of the site has been getting death threats and the like made no difference. This was a convenient excuse and they took it.

Yep, the jackboots are out and the tactics of McCarthy are alive and well. Free speech does have consequences. The Hollywierd crowd has found that out, and doesn’t like it. The strike back will have consequences as well, for it is clear now that those who have complained the most about being repressed, are more than willing to engage in repression themselves.

-30-

« ...howl's done

America is a series of great experiments, all of which revolve around individual liberty and responsibility. That indeed the masses can govern themselves. There are many who hate this idea even today, and want power over the masses for their own use and gain. The concept of individual liberty is an anathema to them, be they at home or abroad. They do not want citizens, merely subjects.

The quickest way to turn a citizen into a subject is to remove the concepts of individual liberty. To have the people voluntarily give up freedoms for safety, or the illusion of same. To have the citizens vote to make themselves subjects.

Understandably, this is happening today. A truly free society is impossible to police using traditional methods. There is no way to track, trace, and conduct surveillance in the way that would guarantee all perps would be caught and dealt with. Not, that is, without creating a massive police state. In the name of public safety, things need to change. Liberties need to be temporarily curtailed for the greater good, or certain freedoms given up to ensure your safety.

This is the most slippery slope of all, and we are already on it. We have been on it for some time, but the events following 9-11 have served to bring it to the fore. Look at history, not just of the United States, but of the great republics – and empires – that have gone before. Look hard and learn the lessons.

There have been some wonderful discussions on Jerry Pournelle’s site that cover this topic in a depth not possible in a short piece. A recent piece regarding Claudius and the creation of the Roman Empire is very thought provoking. Read it and some of the other posts, and follow-up with some of the excellent discussions on U.S.S. Clueless and at Mrs. Du Toit.

I leave you today with a quote and a thought.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin.

What happens now is up to you. You are responsible. Are you citizen, or subject? The choice is yours.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Consumables are the things which we need to work and survive. They include fuel, food, water, air, and medicines, While there are more, these are the critical five for an emergency.

Wire systems provide the electricity to you, and data services as well. While electricity is technically a consumable, it is easiest to put it into this category for planning purposes. After all, storing electricity in truly usable quantities for an emergency really is practical.

Equipment and records is the third category. These are the possessions in your structure, from the television to the backups of your computer files.

Let’s start with the easiest first: Equipment. Critical records, like vehicle titles, deeds, and such should either be in a safety deposit box at a bank, or in a fire and waterproof box hidden in your home. Include serial numbers and photos of all major (and minor) purchases, from your computer to your television, so that you have insurance records.

Truly important records need to be stored in two different locations. An easy way to do this is one I have used for many years: friends and family. I have stored copies of important records with people who are geographically separated from my location. In turn, I have done the same for them. Simple and safe, and it works as a matter of routine.

Wire damage is less easy to fix, but easy to plan for. Know a good electrician and keep the number handy. Make sure you have plenty of spare fuses, know where the fuse box is located, and how to turn everything off and on. In an emergency, you may need to cut off power to just one place, or you may need to know how to throw the main switch. This is not always straightforward, so plan ahead.

Consumables are the easiest to work with. As discussed before, build up a “pad” in your supplies, from food to toilet paper, and then keep the stock rotated. This covers you not merely from storm, but from the dreaded unannounced visit by family and friends as well. Rational planning does not merely cover you for major disasters, but all unexpected happenings.

There is more to come, and some fuller discussion of a variety of topics, but this provides a good overview and some food for thought. Concentrating on the results rather than on the causes makes planning for emergencies a much easier task. Take a few moments and plan ahead, it can be a lifesaver.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Yes, a Monroeite. It can be argued that Monroe fits into a Jacksonian or similar mold, but James Monroe presented something that would be used by most of the major camps. It combined foreign policy and domestic policy to create the Monroe Doctrine, which can be summed up as “Don’t play your games in the Americas.”

To leave it at that, however, does it a disservice as it was much more than just a statement of foreign policy. It affected domestic policy as well, though that is most often ignored in schools. That is a shame as it helped set the stage for many more things than just foreign relations.

The Monroe Doctrine has been amplified and other doctrines have joined it, but for simple but profound statements of policy it has remained the model. Until now.

The Bush Doctrine states that the United States is at war with terror and tyranny, and you are either with us or with the terrorists. Concise and straightforward, this statement is the heart of the Bush Doctrine.

There is more of course. In the President’s own words, the full doctrine is as follows:

“Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a target of American justice. Any person, organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes. Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world -- and will be confronted. And anyone in the world, including the Arab world, who works and sacrifices for freedom has a loyal friend in the United States of America.”

Even more than the Monroe doctrine, the Bush Doctrine will reshape the landscape of foreign policy. Unlike the infant America, we now have the force and the capability to project that force to anywhere in the world. We can project a larger amount of force with fewer resources than anyone else. That puts teeth into the doctrine in a way that matters.

The world is changing in new and radical ways, and old ways and institutions are going to fall. Whilst care needs to be taken that good things don’t go out with the unworkable onto the trash heap of history, change is for the good. New alliances, new partners, and new ways of thought are coming to the fore. It will be interesting to see who can dance to the new tune, both at home and abroad. For the President has restated his new doctrine, said what he meant, and clearly means what he says. Interesting days lie ahead.

-30-

« ...howl's done

The plane was nothing special, just a COD. No, not the fish, but the plane that sometimes brings the fish, big fish or real fish. It makes deliveries to carriers, and today it delivered something much more. Flying in the plane was an older pilot, in the company of a young, dedicated, and experienced pilot.

Any pilot, civilian or military, knows what that means, and it is not just someone carting an old geezer around. It is a sharing, a passing of the torch both ways. The older pilot imparts some talk of what went on before, and the younger pilot – openly and/or clandestinely – brings the other pilot up to speed on current operations. They talk, exchange knowledge, and do so in a way that most observers would not understand.

And there is much about the older pilot that many do not understand. Many people, including some I know, hate him with a passion. They hate him for his political affiliation; they hate him for his religious beliefs; they hate him for what he represents; and, most of all, they hate him for being more than they can ever be.

This older pilot has been called an idiot, and worse. His mental agility and mental capacity are the stuff of jokes from one and all. He may not be the most erudite person around, but there are two points to consider here. First, he has never used erudition and smooth talk to lie on matters of honor. Unlike others before him, he has and understands the terms honor and integrity. Second, he is no idiot. Idiots do not make good pilots, and even if they do make it through the training program they do not last long. Either they are booted out, or they take themselves out.

If you hate someone simply because of a label, such as black, white, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, Methodist, Catholic, or Jew, you are a bigot. A small-minded imbecilic cretin who deserves no consideration. Yet, the very people who decry bigotry and racism the loudest in this nation have no problem hating the older pilot because he is a Republican. Worse than that, he is proud of it. Such a thing! The outrage! Indeed, where is the thought and outrage at the mental and philosophical bigotry behind that thought and the multitude of statements that accompany it.

An even larger problem for some is that is that this man says what he means and means what he says. He does not play “the game.” He doesn’t couch his words in layers of meaning to give weasel room, or engage in endless debate over the meaning of “sex” and “is” and other irrelevancies.

Who cares if he landed the plane himself, had help, or let the “kid” do it for him. The fact is, he took the time to prepare, to wear the uniform, and do it right. He did not have such contempt for those he was with that he ordered them disarmed and mocked the uniform. He was one of them, and now leads them, and does not hold them as being dirt beneath his sandals.

You can see the difference it makes in the crew; in the returned salutes followed by warm handshakes. The pilot did not stand on ceremony, did not insist on mickey mouse forum and getting away from the masses. He mixed, he toured, he talked, and he listened. He followed protocol to the extent necessary, then did what was right and got back to the troops.

“United States, Arriving!” was what came out with the pipes. Indeed, in many ways the best of America did arrive. Honor, integrity, and true people skills: all those things and more were on the deck of that carrier just now. The pride and joy I felt in seeing that were overwhelming.

I do not agree with everything George Bush does or says, particularly on the home front. I will oppose a number of issues in the strongest possible terms, from extending the so-called assault gun ban to the Patriot act in all forms. Yet, I will not stoop to the unthinking and uncritical attacks of those who want to destroy him, and America as we know it. I can and do respect him, even when I disagree with him.

More’s the pity I can’t say the same for many others. To them I simply say that if you want to find the liar, the cheat, and the idiot, then look in the mirror. As far as the war on terror is concerned, I give thanks that we have the leader and the team we do, and not his opponent. I give thanks that I witnessed what I did today, live, as it happened for I saw a promise made.

The torch passed back and forth. The vow is sealed, and the promises will be kept. Our military is no longer despised by those who lead it, and The Man has given his pledge to them and to the world. Terrorists and those who support them, despair.

-30-

« ...howl's done

The ideal situation would be that a major operation got exposed and that Interpol, Brazil, Canada, and the U.S. are cooperating in running it down and rolling it up. Some of the initial information in the original Reuter’s story would seem to suggest that. There were details in it that indicated that the authorities knew a great deal, and that more was being learned.

Those same details, however, could also suggest that various authorities were far more interested in covering critical portions of anatomy. Indeed, the current story makes this appear to be much more likely. Lower echelons are being blamed, there is no need to be concerned, and don’t look at the man behind the curtain.

To complicate things a bit, it can be quite difficult to tell when a cover-up is designed to cover official screw-ups and when they are being put in place to protect an investigation or counter-intelligence operation. Both could be the beneficiaries, but it usually is one or the other. That is one reason why reporters have dug into stories they shouldn’t, because it is hard to tell and when there is no trust or understanding between the two sides…

It may also be simply a case of a news story breaking, and not cleanly. Early reports are by their very nature incomplete and inaccurate. That was a factor in why many news services used to refuse to run breaking stories until more information can be obtained. This worked in the days of the press, but radio and television killed this useful pause for thought. Weasel words are used instead, from “It appears” to “It is unconfirmed but…”

These qualifiers are quite often lost and are most often a sop to placate the journalist and protect the outlet. They are, especially in broadcast journalism, small and rushed through. It is rare to see it done otherwise.

The internet has compounded this problem. Stories go out world-wide in seconds, and then take on a life of their own. Sites proclaim them, and then never change them. Old news, news that is thoroughly discredited makes the rounds and lives again and again.

If this is the case, however, why have the Brazilians and the Canadians not put out more definitive statements? At higher levels there is a tendency to want to say nothing and say it well, but even the dimmest politician knows that the quickest way to kill a false story is with short, simple, truthful, declarative statements. You are open, you are honest, you keep it short and sweet. It works, and it works well. So, that brings up the question of why this has not been done?

If it were just a simple case of bad information and fast reporting, the situation should be getting clearer, not murkier. Even if the people in Brazil were not media savvy, the Canadians are and they are not helping. Which brings us back to the first hypothesis.

Time will tell the what and the which. What is needed now is information, truthful information given in a timely, responsible, and professional manner. Once that is done, then we will be able to analyze the situation and decide what needs to be done and how. Both in terms of the story, and in terms of how we cover it.

-30-

« ...howl's done