Previous month:
April 2008
Next month:
June 2008

FROG PHISHING ATTEMPT

I don't have a Bank of America account...

Capture5-29-2008-6.43.41 PM

I don't have a PayPal account ...

Capture5-29-2008-6.45.21 PM

And I don't have an AOL account ...

Capture5-29-2008-9.20.54 PM

So why did I receive three almost identical pitches today to log-on to my non-existent accounts with my user name and password to unlock or verify my account?

Because some junior criminal/moron in France was using an Internet Phishing kit (c0mplete with corporate logos) to entice me into revealing my log-on information so that they could access and plunder my account.

Even if I had received a response from a financial institution that I did business with, I would be more inclined to yell at their security officer for sending a real notice that could easily be recognizable as a fake.

This is nothing new about such Phishing attempts. They are the simply the Internet version of the "Bank Examiner Scheme."

A well-dressed and mature man shows up (possibly with an equally well-dressed partner) and explains that your bank account has been compromised by someone employed by the bank. They then ask you for your assistance in catching the miserable crook. All you need to do is go to the bank, withdraw your money, let them count and mark the bills and then you can return it to a new account. Should you have fallen for this scam, your life savings would have flown out the window.

Another version has the Bank Examiner calling you on the telephone to tell you that your ATM account has been compromised. They then ask you to call them back at the bank so they are sure that the telephone line is secure. An associate answers the telephone (with a suitable background of banking type noise) and switches you to the Bank examiner who then requests your account number and pin. They end the call by explaining that they will be contacting you the next day. By that time, they would have already used that information to access your account.

So there really is nothing new in the scam. But that does not stop the gullible from giving thieves large amounts of money each and every year.

What can YOU do?

Should you get an e-mail request similar to the above or asking you to log-on to your account. Simply delete it.

Don't bother reporting the attempt to the bank as their security people are already aware of the situation and will simply tell you to forget the matter. I once called and asked for the security officer at a bank to report a new and novel method of accessing accounts -- and I was blown off by the secretary. Too bad she had already provided her name since my next contact was with the bank's regulatory audit team and told them about the problem with the bank being unwilling to respond to a legitimate customer request. Something must have happened as I received an unsolicited call from a bank officer who wanted more details. I blew him off and suggested he speak with the regulatory audit team. This probably accomplished nothing more than irritating the bank's management, but like the purpose of this blog, it sure beats yelling into the wind.

Never provide personal details to any person unless you are seated at a bank official's desk -- and even then ask them for personal (driver's license) and professional (bank issued photo identification card) identification. Makes them crazy, but your cash stays in the bank.

-- steve

Quote of the day: "

Hindsight is always twenty-twenty."       - -Billy Wilder

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


THE CASE FOR THE REFORM OF CHILD CRIME LAWS...

Presented without further comment...

What must their parents be like?


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


YES ON PROPOSITION 98, NO ON PROPOSITION 99

If you have been following my blog entries on both propositions, you should be well informed of the issues.

However, a recent e-mail from a reader highlighted a subject which I had not covered.

Steve,

" I will vote yes on prop 98. (I recently experienced the high handed way in which Cal Trans acquired a portion of my property for a highway project)."

"Question... Should I also vote yes on prop 99 in the event that prop 98 does not pass.  What is the consensus on this?"

First, whichever proposition wins --it will cancel out the effects of the other proposition.

So the best bet for those wanting to preserve a maximum of individual freedom, is to vote YES on 98 and NO on 99.

Although I urge voters to vote YES on Prop. 98 and NO on Prop. 99, it is also OK to avoid voting on the two propositions because neither one of them may pass.

According to the Sacramento Bee, the current Field Poll results for the two proposition are:

Capture5-29-2008-10.34.52 PM

So we can see that it is possible, by poll time, that neither proposition may win. You can bet that there will be a last minute media blitz by both sides in the coming few days.

(by the way -- the reader would have lost her land under both propositions as highway construction is a "public use" under Prop. 98 and also covered as a "public purpose under Prop. 99). However, compensation may have been fairer under a Prop. 98 scenario.

What can YOU do?

If you believe, as I do, that the government should only confiscate land for  "public use" rather than a "public purpose" which would allow private land to be given to other private individuals for their profit -- as long as the government gets it share -- VOTE YES on 98, NO on 99!

If you believe that "inclusionary laws" which allow the government to tell you what to charge for the use of your private property are unconstitutional and are a form of confiscation, VOTE YES on 98, VOTE NO on 99.

Forget who is financing each side -- as both sides have received millions of dollars in campaign donations. It is a matter of simple liberty and justice that requires a YES vote on 98 and a NO vote on 99.

-- steve

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

Reference Links:

Proposition 98/99 Field Poll Results|Sacramento Bee

California Props 98 & 99: SAVING YOUR PROPERTY FROM CORRUPT DEVELOPERS AND THEIR POLITICIANS - PART I - The background

California Props 98 & 99: SAVING YOUR HOUSE FROM CORRUPT DEVELOPERS AND THEIR POLITICIANS - PART II - The California Initiatives

California Props 98 & 99: SAVING YOUR PROPERTY FROM CORRUPT DEVELOPERS AND THEIR POLITICIANS - PART III - Partisan Politics Playing to the Crowd 

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 98 -- STOP GOVERNMENT PROPERTY GRABS FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 98 -- OVERCOME PROP 99'S "LANGUAGE OF LIES"

PROPOSITION 98 IS A GREAT IDEA: PROOF -- IT IS OPPOSED BY THE FAR-LEFT LIBERALS WHO WANT TO CONFISCATE PRIVATE PROPERTY TO GIVE TO "FAT CAT" DEVELOPERS.

California PROP. 99 CAMPAIGN LIES IN E-MAIL?\

The Latest From Capitol Alert - Capitol Alert - The Sacramento Bee - 'Education leaders,' er, tribes hammer Hancock


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


IS THE LOS ANGELES TIMES ATTEMPTING TO MISLEAD THE VOTERS ON PROPOSITIONS 98 & 99?

From the headline, the reader is led to believe that the writer, Patrick McGreevy, is analyzing the ads put forth by the proponents of both Proposition 98 and 99.

However, after starting with a summary of the issues, the writer appears to slant the coverage toward the pro- proposition 99 side by only analyzing ads that were aired by the pro-proposition 99 side. Not a word from the pro-proposition 98 side.

From the Los Angeles Times...

Analyzing the ads: Propositions 98 and 99

"Prop. 98 on the June 3 ballot asks voters to decide whether the state should restrict government agencies from using powers of eminent domain to force the sale of properties for use in private development, as well as whether to phase out rent control in California."

"A competing measure on the same ballot, Prop. 99, would prohibit government agencies from using eminent domain to take owner-occupied homes. It does not address rent control."

Up to now, everything is accurate. But the very next sentence is misleading. It should read, "Here is a limited  analysis of  two pro-proposition 99 advertisements."

"Here is an analysis of advertisements related to both measures:"

Paid for by AARP

"A 30-second television ad by groups opposing Prop. 98 and supporting 99 features a member of AARP, a lobby group for seniors. He notes that the group opposes Prop. 98, concerned that it 'enables unfair evictions of seniors and other renters, so that rents can be raised without limits.'"

"The actor says that AARP calls Prop. 98 a 'deceptive scheme by a few wealthy landlords to eliminate rent control.'"

Analysis: The anti-98, pro-99 campaign has reported more than 3,000 donations, many of them in the amount of $100. Although most of the money came from property managers and owners, some came from donors who are not landlords but support the restrictions on eminent domain.

A true analysis would deal with the issue of whether or not Proposition 98 was funded by a few wealthy landlords.

Instead the author is citing the donations in support of the anti-98, pro-99 campaign. Considering nothing was said about the campaign contributions of the anti-98, pro-99 side, this is a very misleading section. What the writer also omitted from his analysis is that the anti-98, pro-99 side was funded mostly by trade and service unions, ecological groups and those who were beholden to the government... including developers. Not mentioned is that the anti-98, pro-99 crowds is spending millions of dollars to keep the government's right to do "business as usual" deals. WHY? Because they profit when private land is confiscated and low-income housing (for illegal aliens) is made available.

"Prop. 98 would not eliminate rent control immediately but would phase it out. A report by the independent Legislative Analyst's Office says rent control would continue to exist for current tenants as long as they remain in their apartments or mobile home spaces. As people move out, rent controls would be removed from those units. Some current tenants might live in rent-controlled units for the rest of their lives.

This is a true and accurate statement.

'True' reform

"A radio advertisement by opponents of Prop. 98 features a narrator saying: 'Two measures on the state ballot use the words 'eminent domain.' But only one is true eminent domain reform. That's Prop. 99, which protects homeowners from eminent domain abuse. The other measure is Prop. 98. Ninety-eight is a deceptive scheme financed by wealthy landlords. Ninety-eight would eliminate rent control."

The narrator goes on to say that "98 is a landlord scheme that's bad for renters, homeowners and taxpayers."

More rhetoric from the anti-98, pro-99 side. And, again with the mention of the "scheme financed by wealthy landlords."

Analysis: Prop. 98 would provide homeowners with eminent domain protections similar to those in Prop. 99 and would extend those protections to businesses, farms and other properties.

And here, in my opinion, is the big lie: Proposition 98 does not provide homeowners with eminent domain protections similar to those in Proposition 99, but goes much farther to protect an individual property owner's property from being egregiously confiscated and  given to other private individuals by the government for the sole purpose of raising the tax revenue base.

There seems to be no discussion of "public use" versus "public purpose" which is at the core of the argument. Likewise, there is no mention of the "inclusionary" laws which give rise to rent control and the taking of private property for the purposes of affordable housing.

"This ad, like the other one, also neglects to explain that Prop. 98 would phase out rent control over time, instead falsely implying that it would end immediately."

A true statement.

"Regarding the claim that the measure is bad for taxpayers, the independent Legislative Analyst's Office concluded that 'many governments would have net increased costs to acquire property, but . . . the net statewide fiscal effect probably would not be significant.'"

A true statement.

So what is the writer doing?

First and foremost, he is filing an inadequate report which does not serve to explain the fundamental differences of the two propositions so the the readers of the Los Angeles Times can make an informed choice.

Second, he is simply analyzing advertisements from only one side, anti-98, pro 99 which is not only unfairly balanced, but repeats misleading information.

And while the article does point out a few salient truths, it simply regurgitates the anti-98, pro-99 position without any strong refutation. In my opinion, a hurried and slipshod piece of work.

What can YOU do?

First, realize that the government's taking of private property from one individual to give to another individual for the sole purpose of enhancing the government's revenue base, undermines private property rights in the United States and is unconstitutional.

Second, realize that legitimate "eminent domain" issues exist when property is taken for a "public use" (roads, schools, hospitals, firehouses, infrastructure use) but may not exist when property is taken for a "public purpose" such as a redevelopment district which allows a private developer to capitalize on the misfortune of the individual property owner so as to generate additional government revenue.

Third, the government's taking of private residential complexes to turn them into low income housing is not an acceptable "public use."

Fourth, the government's restriction on the rent or lease prices of private property in relationship to the prices in the marketplace amount to confiscation of private wealth and private property under the law; especially since the owner is no longer free to use the property as they wish.

And fifth, politicians are mostly corrupt when it comes to big developers and other special interests that fund their campaigns. The danger that elected officials, appointees or employees will collude with special interests to the detriment of individual property owners cannot be ignored.

It is wise to remember that the government and the big developers can take care of themselves, it is people like you and me who need to insure that these interlopers do not continue to trample our rights and freedoms in the process of increasing their personal power, prestige or profits.

I strongly suggest that you research the subject and then VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 98 and NO on PROPOSITION 99.

-- steve

Quote of the day: '

Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks.' -- Doug Larson

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

Reference Links:

Analyzing the ads: Propositions 98 and 99|Los Angeles Times

California Props 98 & 99: SAVING YOUR PROPERTY FROM CORRUPT DEVELOPERS AND THEIR POLITICIANS - PART I - The background

California Props 98 & 99: SAVING YOUR HOUSE FROM CORRUPT DEVELOPERS AND THEIR POLITICIANS - PART II - The California Initiatives

California Props 98 & 99: SAVING YOUR PROPERTY FROM CORRUPT DEVELOPERS AND THEIR POLITICIANS - PART III - Partisan Politics Playing to the Crowd 

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 98 -- WHY YOU CAN'T TRUST MAILERS

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 98 -- STOP GOVERNMENT PROPERTY GRABS FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 98 -- OVERCOME PROP 99'S "LANGUAGE OF LIES"

PROPOSITION 98 IS A GREAT IDEA: PROOF -- IT IS OPPOSED BY THE FAR-LEFT LIBERALS WHO WANT TO CONFISCATE PRIVATE PROPERTY TO GIVE TO "FAT CAT" DEVELOPERS.

California PROP. 99 CAMPAIGN LIES IN E-MAIL?

The Latest From Capitol Alert - Capitol Alert - The Sacramento Bee - 'Education leaders,' er, tribes hammer Hancock


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


POLITICALLY CORRECT BULLETS LIMIT EFFECTIVE KILLING?

Who runs the war effort...

It is a toss-up who actually runs the war effort: the White House, the Generals, the liberals, the media and/or the special interests. They all claim credit for shaping the domestic and foreign battlefields. While good soldiers die!

Ignoring the prime directive...

The purpose of military action is to force the leadership of the opposing force to surrender or negotiate; but in all cases, cease hostilities toward our nation and its warrior/representatives. To do this, they break things and kill people. Collateral damage is to be expected and is often helpful in forcing the leadership to take action sooner rather than later.

What is different about this conflict?

One, it is not a declared war. Congress and the American people are deeply divided about the need to pursue action abroad. Like in the Vietnam war, we are on the verge of defeating ourselves -- all to make a partisan political point.

Two, the enemy combatants and their leaders are not conventional soldiers or leaders. True enough about the religious zealots who believe that martyrdom for the cause is the highest calling in this life and that it assures you of a pleasant afterlife. They do not fear death -- and in many cases, welcome it ... especially if they can take their enemies with them.

Three, the methods of pursuing their objective are asymmetrical which is policy-wonk-speak for they don't play by the rules and will do everything in their power to win. No tight battle plans here -- it's full-tilt boogey to kill the enemy.

Four, our leaders seem more concerned with their political future and standing within the media than they do the troops under their command. This is very hard to believe, but after viewing the actions of our past few presidents, Ronald Reagan excepted, it appears that war is more about politics and managing the media than it is decimating the enemy. 

Five, our civilian leadership appears to be micro-managing war operations, sometimes in direct contravention of expert opinion. No surprise here. Imagine someone not ordering a hit on a wanted leader because there were some civilians in the way? Sad, but true.

Six, to prevent undue negative attention in the media, our leaders often create and support "rules of engagement" that may render our fighting troops significantly less lethal and more impotent than the enemy as the goal is often to reduce collateral damage rather than kill the enemy and their support network.

Seven, special interests have corrupted many members of military's leadership who are expecting post-duty positions with vendors who business with the government. There is no shortage of ineffective weapons or weapons systems. One major military contractor couldn't even deliver a high-tech fence to be used under civilian conditions as they continued to pitch their high-tech wares to the military. Software problem, my butt. In my opinion it was a purposeful "design failure" that aided Administration policies.

Which brings us to weapons and weapons systems which are less than effective...

According to the Associated Press...

"US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war"

"As Sgt. Joe Higgins patrolled the streets of Saba al-Bor, a tough town north of Baghdad, he was armed with bullets that had a lot more firepower than those of his 4th Infantry Division buddies."

"As an Army sniper, Higgins was one of the select few toting an M14. The long-barreled rifle, an imposing weapon built for wars long past, spits out bullets larger and more deadly than the rounds that fit into the M4 carbines and M16 rifles that most soldiers carry."

"'Having a heavy cartridge in an urban environment like that was definitely a good choice,' says Higgins, who did two tours in Iraq and left the service last year. 'It just has more stopping power.'"

It's more than bullets, it is the provisioning of soldiers with reliable and effective weapons...

"Strange as it sounds, nearly seven years into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bullets are a controversial subject for the U.S."

It's not strange, it appears to be business as usual. We know what works and what doesn't. So, in my opinion, it must be a joint political-military-vendor decision rather than a coincidence.

"The smaller, steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal. They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to Associated Press interviews."

In 2006, the Army asked a private research organization to survey 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly one-fifth of those who used the M4 and M16 rifles wanted larger caliber bullets.

Can we trust the officials?

"Yet the Army is not changing. The answer is better aim, not bigger bullets, officials say."

"'If you hit a guy in the right spot, it doesn't matter what you shoot him with,' said Maj. Thomas Henthorn, chief of the small arms division at Fort Benning, Ga., home to the Army's infantry school."

True enough, but the real question is how many times will an enemy combatant offer to place themselves in the perfect posture for a kill shot?

It's not the money ...

"At about 33 cents each, bullets do not get a lot of public attention in Washington, where the size of the debate is usually measured by how much a piece of equipment costs. But billions of M855 rounds have been produced, and Congress is preparing to pay for many more. The defense request for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 seeks $88 million for 267 million M855s, each one about the size of a AAA battery."

Rest assured that it is not about safeguarding the taxpayer's funds. As large as it sounds to the average person, 88 million dollars is chump change in the realm of weapons systems. The F-22 Raptor costs about $339 MILLION each. A single B-2 bomber costs about $2.2 BILLION. And we pick up the costs for the design, testing, manufacturing facilities, wining, dining and all of the overhead expenses including toilet paper. To be noted, the government doesn't just order one or two at a time.

"None of the M855's shortcomings is surprising, said Don Alexander, a retired Army chief warrant officer with combat tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Somalia."

"'The bullet does exactly what it was designed to do. It just doesn't do very well at close ranges against smaller-statured people that are lightly equipped and clothed,' says Alexander, who spent most of his 26-year military career with the 5th Special Forces Group."

"Dr. Martin Fackler, a former combat surgeon and a leading authority on bullet injuries, said the problem is the gun, not the bullet. The M4 rifle has a 14.5 inch barrel — too short to create the velocity needed for an M855 bullet to do maximum damage to the body."

So do some fancy reloading to +P+ rounds. For the uninitiated, this is the designation for "overpressure ammunition" which produces a higher-velocity round with greater lethality.

"'The faster a bullet hits the tissue, the more it's going to fragment,' says Fackler. 'Bullets that go faster cause more damage. It's that simple.'"

Rules of war: an oxymoron for all time...

"Rules of war limit the type of ammunition conventional military units can shoot. The Hague Convention of 1899 bars hollow point bullets that expand in the body and cause injuries that someone is less likely to survive. The United States was not a party to that agreement. Yet, as most countries do, it adheres to the treaty, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross."

In war, there is ONLY and ONLY one rule: kill or be killed. Nothing else matters. Winning is the only acceptable outcome. Unfortunately, our civilian leadership believes that it is often better to wound, than kill, as it ties up the enemy with dealing with casualties. Which is all well and fine if we were fighting a compassionate enemy such as ourselves. But, alas, we are fighting an enemy that has been steeped in the "culture of death," where martyrdom for the cause is a gloriously rewarding religious act and that anything less than killing your enemy is religiously intolerable. And by enemy we believe ALL non-believers: men, women and children! These are not honorable men -- their religion allows them to lie, cheat and steal in order to accomplish their mission. Rules -- they only have one: kill the enemy, the more the merrier it will be in the afterlife.

The police are better equipped...

"The Hague restrictions do not apply to law enforcement agencies, however. Ballistics expert Gary Roberts said that is an inconsistency that needs to be remedied, particularly at a time when so many other types of destructive ordnance are allowed in combat."

"'It is time to update this antiquated idea and allow U.S. military personnel to use the same proven ammunition,' Roberts says." 

It doesn't take a military genius or commander to simply designate everybody with a secondary MOS (Military Occupation Specialty) of law enforcement officer. Problem solved. Just as the Secondary MOS for each and every Marine, no matter his primary speciality, is rifleman.

Looking for an easy way out...

"In response to complaints from troops about the M855, the Army's Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey assigned a team of soldiers, scientists, doctors and engineers to examine the round's effectiveness. The team's findings, announced in May 2006, concluded there were no commercially available rounds of similar size better than the M855."

This is not an answer. It is a political decision. If there are no acceptable rounds, return to the older, more effective .308 caliber rifles.  For those really interested in the M855 situation, check the section following Reference Links.

Political correctness gone amok...

"But Anthony Milavic, a retired Marine Corps major, said the Army buried the study's most important conclusion: that larger-caliber bullets are more potent."

"'It was manipulated,' says Milavic, a Vietnam veteran who manages an online military affairs forum called MILINET. 'Everybody knows there are bullets out there that are better.'"

Are they talking about women in combat?

"Heavier rounds also mean more weight for soldiers to carry, as well as more recoil — the backward kick created when a round is fired. That long has been a serious issue for the military, which has troops of varied size and strength."

Is it possible that the standards for a combat infantryman have been reduced over the years or that his modern equipment is some type of computer-modeled tradeoff between soldier safety and lethal effectiveness?

"The M14 rifle used by Joe Higgins was once destined to be the weapon of choice for all U.S. military personnel. When switched to the automatic fire mode, the M14 could shoot several hundred rounds a minute. But most soldiers could not control the gun, and in the mid-1960s it gave way to the M16 and its smaller cartridge. The few remaining M14s are used by snipers and marksman."

"U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., is buying a carbine called the SCAR Heavy for its commandos, and it shoots the same round as the M14. The regular Army, though, has invested heavily in M4 and M16 rifles and has no plans to get rid of them."

Perhaps that is symptomatic of the new political and military leadership -- they are slow to admit errors and will do almost anything to cover up a mistake?

"A change in expectations is needed more than a change in gear, said Col. Robert Radcliffe, chief of combat developments at Fort Benning. Soldiers go through training believing that simply hitting a part of their target is enough to kill it. On a training range, getting close to the bulls-eye counts. But in actual combat, nicking the edges isn't enough."

If this is true, someone deserves to be fired; starting with the Colonel with his head up his six. We have known the truth about the use of weapons in hostile environments and in asymmetrical warfare situations since Vietnam where the enemy was smaller in stature and lighter clothed. Is this Colonel to be believed? That no gunny sergeant or chief petty officer gave his men a "no shitter" lesson on what can be expected in combat as well as in weapon performance?   

"'Where you hit is essential to the equation,' Radcliffe says. 'I think the expectations are a little bit off in terms of combat performance against target range performance. And part of that is our fault for allowing that expectation to grow when it's really not there at all.'

"The arguments over larger calibers, Radcliffe says, are normal in military circles where emotions over guns and bullets can run high."

"'One of the things I've discovered in guns is that damned near everyone is an expert,' he says. 'And they all have opinions.'"

Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that the Colonel is merely reflecting the position of his superiors and, in all likelihood, would not provide the media with a true situation report without compromising his career.

The strength of military leadership and performance lies in its noncoms: non-commissioned officers...

Screw the Colonels -- ask the sergeants and chiefs about what really works. The guys on the ground that make it happen. Don't ask range rabbits or the customized weaponry crowd what works. Ask the ordinary guy who works in the field.

Get some old farts like Ollie North, Dale Dye or Richard Marcinko to do your market research and then listen to what they have to say. I am sure that you will be surprised at the difference between the official line and what is needed in the field.

Where are we headed?

With the sole exception of Ronald Reagan, I have serious doubts about the leadership abilities and competence of our government. While it could be that politics and the special interests have so permeated the government that its institutions are crippled and no longer able to function effectively, it could also be that our elected leaders are a mirror of the wants and needs of an increasingly dysfunctional public. A public which feeds on superficial media events and demands instant gratification. A public which has lost their "unified sense of patriotism" in favor of "feel good" policies promoted by the far-left liberals; all with a purpose of driving us toward a more Marxist environment in which the people increasingly look to the government for support with their daily activities. Perhaps the bureaucracy has reached a critical, self-sustaining mass, where its blind ambition is to feed off the work of ordinary citizens.  To exert even greater control over the population while simultaneously raising tax revenues. Even to the point of ignoring science and pursuing specious schemes which will not produce results for hundreds of years after we are all dead.

What can YOU do?

It is now  time to put aside the partisan differences which have been carefully crafted by the politicians, special interests and the media in favor of returning the functioning of the United States to politicians who want nothing more than to enlarge upon the glory that is the United States. 

It is time you clip articles about problems in the military and send them to your elected officials. Ask them for an answer. Inform them that your next letter will be to the media. Put pressure on our politicians to do right by our soldiers.

As I write this, I cannot help think about what Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would do to our military if elected. Clinton's husband did everything in his power to weaken both our military and intelligence agencies. Obama seems more interested in playing diplomatic games in the Zbigniew Brzezinski-Madeleine Albright style with our enemies than he does looking at the situation through the eyes of a Commander-in-Chief. While McCain may not be what I want as a Reagan-style conservative, I have no doubts that he will stand up and defend America to the gates of hell if necessary.

Do not vote for any candidate or current politician who is willing to subvert the safety, security, sovereignty and economic strength of the United States or limit an individual's right of self-defense for their personal philosophy, power, prestige or profits.

-- steve

Quote of the day: "

We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are." -- Anais Nin

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

Reference Links:

US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war - Yahoo! News

Could it be that the vendor is delivering inadequate rounds and that the military has inadequate testing?

The true test of any bullet is if domestic gurus would voluntarily recommend the round as a choice for self-defense among all of the other choices available.

Let's see what the experts say:

"The well-documented performance of the M855 as a fragmenting bullet in the diagrams above is an exception; the fragmentation contributes significantly to its performance. Please refer to the Ammo FAQ for further discussion. You will note that M193/M855 are NOT on the recommended list below. While these are not bad bullets, you will note that they are subject to large variations in neck length (distance the bullet penetrates before fragmenting); this variability is not desirable. In case of the short neck length, it is indeed an effective bullet. When 855 doesn't begin to fragment until 8"+, it will not be very effective on front torso shots and thin individuals; this explains the dissatisfaction of US combat troops with M855 in some cases."

"While the M855-type ammunition generally meets performance requirements, there have been quite a few reports in inadequate fragmentation. Please remember that this is military ammo, and while the fragmenting properties are well documented and understood, there is no requirement for the bullet to fragment when being tested for acceptance. There can be significant variations in constructions which could make some lots perform much worse than others. For this reason, it is not on the list.

What? The military apparently does not test the very property that gives the round its effectiveness? This is hard to believe -- unless there is a known problem and cover-up in procurement procedures.


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


EXPANDING GOVERNMENT POWERS WITH THE REMOVAL OF ONE SINGLE WORD

Adversarial government...

Unfortunately, we are living in a time when our government is often a government by the lawyers, for the lawyers; where each bureaucrat becomes an advocate for a self-serving position and that the common citizens are often treated as adversaries.

So it is in the government's self-interest to insinuate themselves in every aspect of a citizen's life so as to maintain both political control and a steady flow of supporting revenue.

The language of the law...

The third lesson* learned in law school is that the law is never absolute; that a creative lawyer can often bend the language of the law and precedential cases to their will in order to serve as an effective advocate for their client.

Removing a single word from a law may make each and every property owner responsible to the federal government for the use of their private property...

At issue is H.R. 2421, the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007, also known as  the Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act, that has been introduced "to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United States."

Which is a blatant attempt to greatly expand the powers of the federal government under the guise of improving the Clean Water Act.

The word that is slated for removal is  "navigable" ...

According to the Congressional Research Service, this legislation:

"Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to replace the term "navigable waters," throughout the Act, with the term "waters of the United States," defined to mean all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting them, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution." <Source>

Prairie potholes?

potpic1

"Prairie potholes are depressional wetlands (primarily freshwater marshes) found most often in the Upper Midwest, especially North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. This formerly glaciated landscape is pockmarked with an immense number of potholes, which fill with snowmelt and rain in the spring. Some prairie pothole marshes are temporary, while others may be essentially permanent. Here a pattern of rough concentric circles develops. Submerged and floating aquatic plants take over the deeper water in the middle of the pothole while bulrushes and cattails grow closer to shore. Wet, sedgy marshes lie next to the upland." <Source>

Landowners, farmers and sportsmen are concerned with the proposed legislation ...

According to USA today...

"A proposal backed by environmentalists to change one word in the Clean Water Act and subject tens of millions more acres of land to new federal oversight has ranchers and farmers fuming."

"'It's a huge grab for more federal intervention in our lives, and we don't need that,' says Montana cattle rancher Randy Smith says."

"Smith sometimes diverts water on his 20,000-acre spread for the sake of his animals or crops. He worries that doing so under a new law will mean lots of paperwork, lawyers and site visits rather than a few scrapes of a backhoe."

"'We're perfectly capable of doing what's right for the land,' says Smith, who has 1,000 head of cattle in Glen. 'We know that if we don't take care of it, we won't take care of our animals.'"

The far-left liberals who have co-opted the environmental movement as another tool to advance their Marxist agenda are now rejoicing...

"Jim Murphy, a lawyer for the National Wildlife Federation, says the law must be revised to protect not only the water on the lands at issue but the waters they flow into. He says the waters and wetlands now outside the scope of the law 'provide incredible functions to the health of all watersheds' and are valuable as aquatic habitats, sources of drinking water and flood prevention."

"The Clean Water Act of 1972 makes it illegal to pollute 'navigable' waters. Over the decades, disputes arose over the government's expanding definition of "navigable," and some landowners complained that the word was being interpreted too broadly."

"Two Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 came down on the side of landowners, ruling that ponds at the bottom of a gravel pit and a marsh miles from any lake or river were not navigable and thus not subject to the act."

"Murphy says the new language would cover an additional 20 million acres; the Illinois Farm Bureau says it would be more like 55 million acres."

There are enough laws on the books that prevent individuals and corporations from polluting the land, water and air.

"Feingold says the word change is in keeping with how the Clean Water Act had been interpreted and enforced over the years. Zach Lowe, Feingold's spokesman, says the bill is needed to protect the water quality of thousands of tiny lakes and streams in the Lower 48 states."

"Rob Fowler, a lawyer who represents Business Alliance for Responsible Development in Birmingham, disagrees. He says Feingold's bill goes too far and would require federal permits for drainage ditches in housing developments, which he calls 'ludicrous.'"

Every wet spot in the United States? 

"[Reed] Hopper, a lawyer with the Pacific Legal Foundation of Simi Valley, Calif., which promotes property rights, says the Feingold bill 'would federalize literally every wet spot in the United States.'"

"Like the original Clean Water Act, Feingold's measure exempts 'normal' farming, forestry and ranching. Hopper says that phrase offers little protection because what's normal to farmers may not be normal to an agency."

Lawyerly interpretation of the language...

"For example, in 2004 the Army Corps of Engineers, which enforces the Clean Air Act, issued a cease-and-desist order to Brad Goehring, a wine grape grower in Clements, Calif., for tilling his land in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Goehring says he was converting pastures to vineyards. But Mike Finan of the corps in Sacramento says the change from grazing, in which the land remains in a more natural setting, to grape growing required a permit."

"Goehring says and Feingold's bill would criminalize normal farming work. 'In the past, if a cattle rancher put out a salt lick, the cattle kick up the dirt, which creates a mud puddle, which the Army Corps of Engineers wants to call a wetland,' Goehring says. 'They range from 1 square foot to 20 by 20 feet. The average depth is 2 inches of water.'"

Raising the cost of food even further...

"Tim Recker, president of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, says Feingold's bill would place an unreasonable burden on people who are not polluting but just raising crops and livestock and using water to do it."

"In his contracting business, Recker installs farm drainage systems that keep soil and fertilizer in fields and out of streams. He says that under Feingold's bill, instead of getting approval of local officials for the systems, he'll have to hire a lawyer, go through a federal permitting process and wait 12 to 15 months."

Any excuse will do...

One of the most egregious tactics of the far-left is to file a lawsuit which ultimately results in the bankruptcy of the defendant due to legal expenses or a quick settlement which pumps additional dollars into the organization's coffers. In many cases, the delay of the original project beyond its viable commercial life is the goal.

The project to develop Playa Vista on the property of the old Hughes Aircraft plant were delayed for years and at a cost of millions of dollars while environmentalists waited for a butterfly or some protected species to land anywhere on the property. Had this law been enacted, the project would have been further delayed as the land was somewhat marshy in places.

Enough is enough...

To politicians, everything requires legislation. It doesn't matter that there is a patchwork of existing and new legislation which may be confusing and contradictory. Lawyers thrive on chaos. Besides, the media only covers new legislation and lobbyists on contribute to pursue or prevent new legislation. But this proliferation of the law is rapidly getting out of hand -- dragging the United States down to the level of being subject to the whims of petty bureaucrats acting like dictators of a banana republic.

What can YOU do?

Watch the progress of this bill. If it is reported out of committee, contact your elected official and tell them there are already enough laws on the books to control pollution.

Remember that the law is a potent weapon when wielded by the  far-left. They are literally using our own laws against us for their own nefarious purposes.

Many ecologists strongly believe that the problem with planet earth is man and that they need to do everything in their power to curtail any commercial development or the destruction of so-called pristine lands.

It is these crazies who have caused our current energy crisis as they fought against clean nuclear energy and drilling for oil offshore or within the continental United States. Keeping an enormous oil field off-line and undeveloped to protect the "pristine land" is unnecessary and unreasonable. Where they thought that the Caribou would be decimated by the Alaskan Pipeline, they were shocked to see that the animals were thriving and the herds expanding.

Ignore the crazies and force our elected officials to concentrate on the needs of the United States over those of the special interests with their countless lawyers and lobbyists.

Do not vote for any candidate or current politician who is willing to subvert the safety, security, sovereignty and economic strength of the United States or limit an individual's right of self-defense for their personal philosophy, power, prestige or profits.

-- steve

Quote of the day: "

Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks." -- Doug Larson

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

Reference Links:

Proposed change to water law riles landowners - USATODAY.com

* Lessons from Law School

Lesson one: the profession is paramount -- without the profession to protect and nurture you, you would be another working stiff.

Lesson two: it really doesn't matter what side you are on as both sides, however despicable, deserve capable representation by an able advocate. Remember: a single attorney in a town makes a living; two attorneys create a bonanza.

Lesson four: the creation of billable hours is a malleable definition which can be stretched to cover thinking about a client while playing golf or eating dinner... and even while engaging in drunken sex. It is the intent that matters.


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


HOW FAR SHOULD THE MAJORITY ACCEDE TO MINORITY RIGHTS?

A hidden government crisis...

We are now facing a major government crisis, a crisis of monumental proportions and one that has never been faced before.

A coalition of cross-purposes...

I am speaking of a government, including local state and federal levels, that is controlled by self-serving bureacrats and a coalition of minorities, none of which has the ability to win on their own and whose desires seem to be the increased empowerment of their special interest constituents rather than the overall welfare of the United States and its legal citizens.

The laboratory called California...

In California, long considered, for better or worse, the front-runner of societal trends, we are seeing the rise of Hispanic politicians who seem to have an allegiance to Mexico, a sovereign nation whose political policy seems to be exporting their sick, impoverished and ill-educated  population to the United States. Whether for the purposes of securing future voters under some form of amnesty or securing a lower-wage unionized labor pool which can be manipulated for unionized political power, decisions by Hispanic legislators and their supporters seem to be complicit in destroying the California's healthcare, education, judicial, retirement, social and cultural infrastructure. The majority interests are being overridden on behalf of the interests of the minority.

Black versus Hispanic...

Again, turning to California, we can see the demographic results of encroaching minorities. Here in Los Angeles, we see two Black candidates for the position of County Supervisor in a rapidly changing area who cannot agree on much of anything other than this might be the last Black Supervisor elected in this changing district. No matter who says what, the pre-election pronouncements by both candidates are pandering to their racial base for support, while seeking another manageable minority to make the election difference. Their campaigns do not seem to be a wide appeal to the large base of legal citizens, but to minorities and the trade unions which capitalize on the increased representation of lower-wage minorities.

Minorities everywhere...

In one city, an extremely small minority is petitioning the court to halt the build-out of a large scale wireless Internet infrastructure on the grounds that they are allergic to wireless signals and should be protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In another venue, a United States District Judge has ordered the Treasury Department to develop paper money that is more recognizable to blind Americans.

Or is it liberals with a hidden agenda?

In some instances, it is avaricious class action attorneys creating victims to fuel litigation which produces large paydays for the litigators and little or nothing for those who have been treated shabbily.

But, in a greater number of cases, we find far-left liberals appealing to activist judges to secure victories which would be more assuredly denied them at the ballot box. All based on some slight that is being used to, in effect, use behavior modification techniques to alter the nature of a legal citizens daily life.

We are often forced to pay more for water due to restrictions to protect a small fish which is thought to being endangered -- although no one really knows what is causing a decline in the fish population.

We are denied cheaper nuclear energy in the face of rising oil prices because the far-left liberals are ostensibly interested in weakening our military and deathly afraid of nuclear proliferation. Or is it that they want to reduce the quality of life in the United States to more nearly match the rest of the world? To allow the United States to devolve into a nation that would more readily accept a pro-Marxist stand to "collectively" make things better for all citizens.

The democrats...

Nowhere else do we see the confluence of far-left liberal politics, social engineering and pro-Marxist philosophy than in the democrat party. Both of the current presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are vying to see which one can provide the greatest benefits to the greatest number of voters. In essence, doing what politicians have done for decades, buying votes and influence with public dollars. Both candidates are bald-faced liars as they claim to be above racial, ethnic and gender appeals. The democrat party, more than any other party has corrupted certain minority leaders into acting as Judas goats -- leading their constituencies down a pre-ordained path for little or no real return in effecting change in the minority communities.

United we stand, divided we are bled by politicians...

It is about time that the legal citizens of the United States overlook their own personal traits and background and elect leaders who will represent all of the legal citizens. Elected officials who will metaphorically raise all boats, no matter the construction or color, to new heights by raising the level of the seas.

Politicians who do more for the people than continuously campaign for office to secure their personal power, prestige and profits.

It is about time for the minority viewpoint to be respected, but NOT to the point of grossly interfering with the rights of the majority. And for the evil-minded among you, I refer not specifically to racial, ethnic and sexist minorities, but to all minorities including those based on far-left Marxist political leanings, those who want to subvert science for their own causes and those who demand that we act accordingly to promote world harmony. Minorities of every stripe, color, type and texture.

It is time to halt the balkanization of the United States into manageable sub-groups and return to the position that we are all legal Americans and we live in the United States.

With a culture that respects the rights of an individual over the rights of the "collective." And while it sounds somewhat contradictory, it can be achieved more easily by reducing the interference of all levels of government in our lives and by promoting equality under the law. Law which should not be used to grant special privileges for any group of people for any reason. Laws which are subverted by the legal profession to create meritless litigation for the purposes of personal enrichment. Individuals should be allowed to do anything which does not disrupt the general order of the community and which is legally permissible under our Constitution and State laws.

What can YOU do?

You are an American first. If you wish to be something else, try the country of your choice. 

Avoid thinking like a victim. If you feel that you have a legitimate case of discrimination, deal with it on an individual level. Do not involve your fellow citizens in individual problems by escalating every perceived wrong to a federal or class action lawsuit. That is to say, feel free to collectively air your grievance -- but make sure that it is a true grievance and not some imagined slight.

Vote for honest politicians (if there is such a thing) who profess to work for the people -- all the people.

For those who vote while thinking that "it is now our turn to plunder the public's pocketbook and wield political power," concentrate on being of service to your fellow citizens rather than trying to legally rob them of the fruits of their hard-earned labor.

In the final analysis, everyone is a minority of one, so concentrate on improving your own achievements rather than trying to reduce those of others or benefit from their labor.

Do not vote for any candidate or current politician who is willing to subvert the safety, security, sovereignty and economic strength of the United States or limit an individual's right of self-defense for their personal philosophy, power, prestige or profits.

-- steve

Quote of the Day: "Show me someone content with mediocrity and I'll show you someone destined for failure."
-- Johnetta Cole

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

Reference Links:

Judge: Make Money Recognizable to Blind|Washingtonpost.com

Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings|KOB.com

Black political leaders face a new era in Los Angeles

Judge Issues Final Order to Protect Smelt as Delta Fish Populations Plummet


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


FRED THOMPSON IS BACK -- WHO CARES?

There was a time...

The was a time when I respected and promoted Fred Thompson as a Presidential Candidate. In spite of a plan for America that was written years ago ( when he was Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee  in 2001) and a less than stellar campaigning style, I truly believed that Thompson had what it took to lead the Republican party as a Reagan-style conservative. A man who would surely triumph over Rockefeller-style Republicanism and their spendthrift ways.

Over time I became more and more disenchanted.  Thompson looked tired, listless and refused to engage with his Republican competitors, with the democrats and with the public at large. Many people claimed he was the perfect Southern Gentleman. Compared to Thompson, old man  McCain was a thunderbolt -- willing to mix it up with potential voters, speechify and argue his position while there were still people in the room.

In general, Thompson looked tired -- and quite frankly, sick. As time went on, it became apparent that Thompson's forte was heavily scripted speeches in a controlled environment. Shaking hands with donors for $1200 and taking pictures for $2300. The media portrayed him as a lazy candidate.  And my enthusiasm flagged to the point where I turned to Mitt Romney as a potential standard bearer for the conservative branch of the Republican party. And we all know how that ended.

Fred Thompson surfaces...

Capture5-26-2008-3.22.08 AM

From a recent promotional e-mail from Townhall Magazine, it appears that Fred Thompson is now beginning to position himself as kind of an elder statesman ...

"Attorney, actor, presidential candidate, and senator, Fred Thompson is uniquely able to begin a national dialogue on the fundamental principles that define what is conservatism today and he has chosen Townhall Magazine as his place to do it."

"In this must read piece, Senator Thompson breaks down what principles conservatives should look for in judicial nominees, what Democrats are doing to keep strict-constructionist judges from the bench, and the threat of judicial activism. "

It is unknown whether or not Fred Thompson will appear regularly in the magazine and whether or not he is embarking on a public relations campaign which might position him for an appointment in an upcoming Republican administration.  But his timing is interesting.

So who cares?

Unlike the historian Newt Gingrich who is busily defining the New Conservative Republican Agenda and preparing an ideological platform, does anyone really care to hear from Fred Thompson in today's current hyper-partisan environment?

What can YOU do?

Let me know what you think. Is Fred Thompson relevant today? Can he make a difference?

I am interested in the opinions of all of the people who thought that I was either unfair (or worse) when I withdrew my support for Fred Thompson. Specifically I would like to hear from people like winghunter who passionately defended Fred Thompson even though he was dropping out of the sky like a downed bird.

-- steve

Quote of the Day: "Intelligence without ambition is a bird without wings." --C. Archie Danielson

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

Reference Links:

IS FRED THOMPSON A VIABLE CANDIDATE?

FRED THOMPSON: CATCHING FIRE OR FLAMING OUT?

THE SIMPLE GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING FRED THOMPSON

Government at the Brink - Volume I:  Urgent Federal Government Management Problems Facing the Bush Administration can be found here

Government at the Brink - Volume II: An Agency by Agency Examination of Federal Government Management Problems Facing the Bush Administration can be found here.


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 98 -- WHY YOU CAN'T TRUST MAILERS

I urge my readers to read, for themselves, the actual propositions and check how the impartial California Legislative Analyst has described each one of the propositions.

Right versus wrong...

To me, it is simply a battle of right versus wrong: I do not want our government to take private property from a private individual and give it to another private group so that they can develop it for profit -- all with the promise of increasing tax and fee revenues to the government. Under this scenario, no citizen's property is safe from an unconstitutional land grab by the politicians and their special interests.

Specifically at issue is the wording of "public use" which, to me, connotes the proper use of the eminent domain process to build roads, schools, fire and police facilities;  infrastructure facilities which benefit us all versus "public purpose" which would allow government to simply grab an individual's land for anything that may benefit the government -- political speak for whatever brings in more tax and fee revenue and helps our political friends and contributors.

Following the money...

While both parties make claims and counterclaims about who is actually behind these propositions, it is helpful to understand what is really going on.

Make no mistake about it... both propositions are backed by millions of dollars in contributions, mostly from large contributors with a horse in the race. While smaller contributions from "believers," as they are known in the political fundraising trade, are the ones featured in the media.

Allegedly "fat cat" mobile home developers and apartment owners are behind proposition 98. And on the other side, the groups backing proposition 99, you have heavy contributions (about 2-1) from the labor unions, ecology groups. developers and far-left liberal organizations who stand to benefit from the government's land grab. The backers of proposition 98 are trying to protect their private property from being purchased at ridiculous prices by the government or being further controlled by government with restrictions on how they use their property or what prices they can charge others to lease their property.

Many times, we find donors who have no interest in the race making major "quid pro quo"  contributions: you support my cause now and I will support your cause later. In this same category we find donations by public relations firms, law firms, lobbyists and others who do business with one side or another -- and consider the expenditure a normal cost of doing business -- a form of political advertising if you will. 

Hiding behind "trustworthy" names and committees ...

Both groups hide behind "noble" and "trustworthy" names that are designed to portray wide community support and beneficial reasons.

Unfortunately, the truth is much more sordid. In the case of many of the proposition 99 committees with their high-minded sounding names, we find the commercial advocacy group of Baker, Castillo & Fairbanks.

Why you can't always trust advocacy flyers...

Which brings me to today's rant. The hidden agenda behind the campaign.  Not only must the average citizen be wary of "quid pro quo" support deals by politicians and the sycophantic friends, but now you must also watch third-parties who are entering the battle -- who are actually advocating for or against something quite different than what they claim.

Today's example involves a story from the Sacramento Bee which explains why a politician is being targeted by a group portraying themselves as something other than what they say they are...

From the Sacramento Bee...

"'Education leaders,' er, tribes hammer Hancock"

"A group billing itself as 'Education Leaders for High Standards' has sent thousands of campaign mailers blasting Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, for trying to 'weaken academic standards' on the eve of her contested Senate primary."

"But more than 90 percent of the funds for the mailer came not from "education leaders" but from a coalition Indian gambling tribes, most notably the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians. The tribe has battled with Hancock to open a casino with slot machines in her East Bay district."

An apparent example of "quid pro quo"  intimidation advocacy...

"If these tactics can defeat me, it sends a message to other legislators that they question or oppose gambling interests at their own risk," said Hancock in an interview."

The educators...

"The California Tribal Business Alliance donated $99,000 to the "independent expenditure" mailer campaign. That committee, in turn, was funded by five $75,000 donations from gambling tribes and $244,000 from the Lytton Band, which operates the San Pablo Lytton Casino in Hancock's district."

"Another $10,000 for the mail was contributed by EdVoice, an education advocacy group funded by prominent business leaders. "I just think that what's happening right now is the Loni Hancock folks are trying to make the messenger the issue, not the message," said Paul Mitchell, EdVoice's political director."

For the record, I despise the far-left liberal politics of those that are running and believe that Indians, as well as others, should be interested in supporting the finest education for California's legal citizens. However, all groups should be upfront about who they really are and what they really want. Unfortunately, it is not always the political way.

For those wanting to see an accurate portrayal of how political business is often executed, you may want to watch Aaron Sorkin's "Charlie Wilson's War." Sorkin, while a liberal, has a fine writer's eye for detail and story-telling.

Transparency in politics...

But my point is: the casual voter seeing the "Education Leaders for High Standards" may be mislead into voting for a candidate or issue which has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand.  

Perhaps the citizens should demand that strict "truth-in-advertising" laws be applied to campaign literature.

What can YOU do?

Study the propositions for yourself.

Decide whether you support Proposition 98's "public use" or Proposition 99's business-as-usual "public purpose" grounds for confiscating private property from individuals.

Do you believe in the far-left Marxist doctrine of the "collective" trumping the rights of the "individual?"

VOTE YES ON 98, VOTE NO ON 99 if you believe, as I do, that the government should be held to a higher standard when interfering in its citizen's lives.

-- steve

Quote of the day:  "

Your true value depends entirely on what you are compared with." -- Bob Wells

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

Reference Links:

The Latest From Capitol Alert - Capitol Alert - The Sacramento Bee - 'Education leaders,' er, tribes hammer Hancock

California Props 98 & 99: SAVING YOUR PROPERTY FROM CORRUPT DEVELOPERS AND THEIR POLITICIANS - PART I - The background

California Props 98 & 99: SAVING YOUR HOUSE FROM CORRUPT DEVELOPERS AND THEIR POLITICIANS - PART II - The California Initiatives

California Props 98 & 99: SAVING YOUR PROPERTY FROM CORRUPT DEVELOPERS AND THEIR POLITICIANS - PART III - Partisan Politics Playing to the Crowd

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 98 -- STOP GOVERNMENT PROPERTY GRABS FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 98 -- OVERCOME PROP 99'S "LANGUAGE OF LIES"

PROPOSITION 98 IS A GREAT IDEA: PROOF -- IT IS OPPOSED BY THE FAR-LEFT LIBERALS WHO WANT TO CONFISCATE PRIVATE PROPERTY TO GIVE TO "FAT CAT" DEVELOPERS.

California PROP. 99 CAMPAIGN LIES IN E-MAIL?


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


NEW QUAKE SCENARIO: COLLAPSE OF LOS ANGELES HIGH-RISES IS A CREDIBLE SCENARIO!

UPDATE: 07-29-08 BIGGEST EARTHQUAKE IN NEARLY 15 YEARS

According to Reuters...

"It was the Los Angeles area's biggest earthquake in nearly 15 years, but for many the tremor felt like business as usual. A 5.4-magnitude temblor at lunchtime on Tuesday sent office workers streaming from their downtown Los Angeles high-rises and led many to reach for their phones to check on friends and relatives."

Original Blog Entry ...

The first 60-seconds...

Capture5-22-2008-11.35.12 PM

from the 2008 ShakeOut Scenario.

On August 23, 2007, I wrote a blog entry that questioned whether or not certain high-rise buildings in Los Angeles were safe ...

KNOWLEDGE IS RESPONSIBILITY: ARE LOS ANGELES OFFICIALS HIDING THE TRUTH ABOUT HI-RISE EARTHQUAKE VULNERABILITIES?

Days after that was written, on August 31, 2007, I wrote another blog entry...

PROBABILITY: THE UNCERTAINTY FACTOR IN SCIENCE -- SCIENTISTS CLAIM 1,000-YEAR EARTHQUAKE LULL IN LOS ANGELES -- INDICATOR OF INCREASED RISK?

I have a personal interest in the subject...

First, I vividly remember the Northridge Quake in excruciating detail. Having to seek the assistance of a neighbor to extricate a family member from a jumble of furniture, trying to get gas and water at a local gas station with no power, fleeing the area for a clear, safer area in case of strong after-shocks and dreading the fact that this 6.7 magnitude, 15-second shaker could be a precursor to the dreaded "BIG ONE" that everyone talks about. We never returned to that residence (it was red-tagged as unsafe) except to retrieve our belongings.

Second, one of my good friends, a certified welder and pyrotechnics special effects expert, kept telling me about these buildings in Los Angeles which were put together with a particular welding product and were unsafe. I remember standing with my friend on the floor of a West Los Angeles high-rise and looking at a crack between the wall and the floor -- looking three stories straight down where the building's supports had separated from the frame.

So I was determined to follow-up the subject when I started writing my personal blog.

Today...

The U.S. Department of the Interior - U.S. Geological Survey, in conjunction with the California Department of Conservation - California Geological Survey, released a report titled "The ShakeOut Scenario."

This is not some haphazard guess at what may happen by politically-motivated hacks, it is solid research and the extrapolation by knowledgeable scientists and others; based on the work of some of today's smartest earthquake specialists, engineers and disaster coordinators.

The joint authors of The Earthquake Scenario are: Lucile M. Jones, Richard Bernknopf, Dale Cox, James Goltz, Kenneth Hudnut, Dennis Mileti, Suzanne Perry, Daniel Ponti, Keith Porter, Michael Reichle, Hope Seligson, Kimberley Shoaf, Jerry Treiman, and Anne Wein.

For those Californians who do not recognize the name Lucile M. Jones, she is better known as Lucy Jones who, with her compatriot Kate Hutton are the most prominent fixtures on any serious report on earthquakes in California.

One of my worst fears...

On page 7 (out of 312) in a section subtitled "Buildings," I found this section:

"Steel moment frame buildings built before 1994 were found to form cracks in their connections during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Similar damage occurred in the 1995 Kobe earthquake and some buildings collapsed."

"Special study was conducted to analyze the behavior of steel frame high-rise buildings in the ground motions modeled for this earthquake. This event shows amplified long period motions caused by resonance in the sedimentary basins, particularly the very deep Los Angeles Basin."

"A special panel of structural engineers evaluated the analytical study and concluded 'Given these ground motions, the collapse of some pre-1994 welded-steel moment-frame buildings is a credible scenario.'”

Because this result comes from the long period ground motions, the area where this type of damage is possible is relatively large and includes much of the urbanized areas of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. It is impossible to determine how many and which buildings are the most susceptible without detailed structural analysis which is beyond the scope of this study. For the purposes of the ShakeOut emergency drills, we posit that 5 steel moment-frame high-rise buildings will collapse and that 10 more will be 'red-tagged.'”

And on page 113, is a more specific section on the problem titled: "High-Rise Pre-Northridge Welded-Steel Moment-Frame (PNWSMF) Buildings; Study by Swaminathan Krishhan and Matthew Muto, California Institute of Technology “ShakeOut 2008: Tall Steel Moment-Frame Building Response” and the comments of review panelists: Greg Deierlein, Stanford University, Ronald Hamburger, SGH Inc. and Jim Malley, Degenkolb Engineers.

For those wishing to read the report, it can be found at by clicking on the Reference Links section at the end of the blog entry.

Danger is constant...

If you live in California or anywhere else on the Pacific rim, also known as the "Ring of Fire," you are in constant danger from the effects of an earthquake.

What can YOU do?

Learn about earthquakes and their destructive power.

Prepare yourself and your family to deal with the aftermath of an earthquake such as the one described in The ShakeOut Scenario 2008 where you can rely on little or no public services.

Side note:  This is another recommendation that you defend your Second Amendment Rights as the police, as in Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina, were not able to protect individual citizens from looting and other egregious acts. Being able to protect yourself, your loved ones and your neighbors in times of civil unrest, at least for a period of 7-days is of tantamount importance.

If you work in a high-rise, you may wish to question your building's management to determine the type of building and if any earthquake retrofitting was preformed. Ask when the building was last inspected and by whom.

And, of course, question your elected officials who control the information flow at the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety to see if all of the steel moment frame buildings (especially those downtown and on the Wilshire Corridor) have been inspected and necessary repairs made.

It was rumored that certain politicians may have exempted certain building areas from being thoroughly inspected due to political considerations as the mitigation expense could have proven to be overwhelming for some of the politically-connected developers and building owners.  With my limited resources, I was unable to verify if there was any truth to the rumor... and those who know are not speaking.

-- steve

Quote of the day:  "

Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." -- Elbert Hubbard

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

Reference Links:

The ShakeOut Scenario (2008) 312-page report in PDF format (Released: 2008-05-22)

The HTML versions can be viewed at The ShakeOut Earthquake Scenario - A Story That Southern Californians Are Writing (Released: 2008-05-22)


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS