Rifts: a role-playing game by Palladium Books that combines every type of game style in existence (D and D type stuff, Sci-Fi, modern combat, superheroes, supernatural, etc.) and combines it into one system. Rifts itself is based on a future earth where a huge disaster killed nearly 7 billion people and destroyed pretty much everything else. Rifts are rips in time and space and they suck stuff in and dump stuff out (like aliens, monsters and demons). Magic and physic powers returned to the world and basically the entire earth had the Wackyland sign put on it (IT CAN HAPPEN HERE).
This of course makes for a great game where you can play any type of character and use magic, technology, superpowers, physic powers, magic swords, summoned terrors from beyond and so on.
I love this game for many reasons, but the biggest one has to be the storyline. They start with the Golden Age of Man (late 21 century) with high tech stuff, the disaster itself (which you can actually play in the game Chaos Earth), and then the Dark Ages where mankind barely hung on. And then the period known as "NOW".
NOW in the time period rocks. You have new nation-states and groups, some good, some bad, some with parts of both because lets face it people, grey is the standard human color. You can be the noblest nation on earth and still do bad things in the name of good because they need to be done (such as dropping two nukes to end a war, or assassinating someone in order to stop a genocide or a war, possibilities are endless).
Palladium Books is the one group that really captures that aspect. They even encourage play like that. You can be good guys fighting for a bad nation for a good reason. Nice mix that.
The chat boards have a lot of people who really don't get that part though. Coalition (the High Tech, human supremest nation in North America) is bad period. Anyone fighting them is good period. Not really in depth viewpoint for some of these folks. Also not very military either. The Coalition is THE military powerhouse in North America. So when it starts a fight, its usually going to win.
The biggest thing I love about this game is centered around that aspect. Palladium Books avoids the "good guy" trap that so many other games fall into. This is know to many gamers as the "Star Wars Trap", "The StormTrooper Rule" or the "Rebel Alliance Clause". Because the rebels/non regular military establishment/militia are the "good" guys they will win, no matter what the real ground military truth is. Any professional military force will be defeated by a rag-tag bunch of heroes, and the nameless soldiers in bad guy armor can't shoot straight except during the opening scene when we are establishing the fact that they are the "bad guys" when they gun down some unarmed women and children. Unless of course the "military" is a group of scruffy, unshaven, graffiti all over their armor and vehicles misfits who are constantly in trouble for doing things "their way" in which case they will pull it out after being ordered not to do something by an superior officer who graduated from the academy.
The Tolkeen War (a recent storyline) focused heavily on that. The Tolkeens (a magic focused kingdom in Minnesota) fought against Coalition invasions. They won some fights, but the Coalition professional military machine ended up crushing the entire kingdom. Which makes perfect sense as the Coalition Military was well equipped, well trained, and after some sorting out, well lead. But many were surprised by this, as the Tolkeens were the "good guys" so they should have won. They didn't and I am thankful that the storyline worked out that way.
I bring this up because I just got "Triax 2" which deals with the other big human technological power: The New German Republic. I won't get into the huge details behind this group, but they are fighting for their lives against Gargoyles and Brodkil demons in Europe. And they just scored a huge victory by using actual military strategy and thought. In the book/series timeline, they were able to cut the demon zones in two by using an amphibious/airborne assault behind the lines and have wiped out nearly a third of their enemy using realistic military tactics. The NGR's army is disciplined, shaves, keeps their equipment clean and well maintained, and has officers that are smart and listen to their NCOs on occasion. In short, completely opposite of every effective Sci-Fi military in existence. I so love that about this game.
Yes, I know its a game. Yes I know we are talking about fantasy and sci-fi. Yes, I know none of this is real. But its nice to see some realism in certain things.
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Thursday, December 10, 2009
One Thing I Like About Fort Sill and Lawton
Around here they just say "Merry Christmas" instead of Happy Holidays. Meaning of Christmas once you boil it down is "Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards Men (aka humanity)". If you get insulted by that, you need help or a slap upside the head.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Speech
I have had several questions from various people about President Obama's speech at West Point and what I thought of it.
First off, I missed it. I was in an online class for ILE Phase IV (CGSC for the older generation) during it so I missed a lot of it. I read a bunch about it afterwards (including that idiotic comment about West Point being an "Enemy Camp") so I have the general idea.
Short and sweet of it is I really don't have much to say about it. I wasn't really surprised by anything he said or any of the reactions (too much or not enough depending on who you listened to). It was about what I was expecting.
I have my own personal option about his decisions, the length of time it took him to reach them, and about his delivery. But they are just that, personal. As a serving officer I don't feel that I need to be spouting off about them on a public forum. I'll talk privately about them if you want to call me. The only thing I will say is that publicly stating a pull out time is not the most militarily intelligent thing to do, but it may have been a smart thing politically. And the big thing to remember is that the government drives the train. The military has gotten orders to do things that are not good military sense before due to political situations (the US Civil War has numerous examples of this and many of them make much more interesting points than anything from Vietnam). Its not always nice, but that is an accepted part of being a US Soldier.
That may sound a bit odd, but its a good thing that we accept it (and we can always quit if we don't like it or can't accept it) becuase if we didn't deal with it that way the US would go the way of the Roman Republic. If the army back then felt like it was getting a raw deal they didn't soldier on, they marched across the Rubicon.
The other thing I will say is about that asinine comment about West Point being an enemy camp. If President Bush had gone to Berkley, would the crowd have stood up when he walked in, listened quietly and politely, and then politely applauded when he left? Yeah, thought so. It doesn't matter who the President is, we soldiers serve the US. We chose to, so that means that we go "yes sir" and carry out orders even if we DIDN'T vote for the guy in the White House (unless he decides to violate the Constitution, but that is another story). Enemy Camp? We are the greatest supporters of this country bar none. That comment was huge insult to every servicemember out there.
First off, I missed it. I was in an online class for ILE Phase IV (CGSC for the older generation) during it so I missed a lot of it. I read a bunch about it afterwards (including that idiotic comment about West Point being an "Enemy Camp") so I have the general idea.
Short and sweet of it is I really don't have much to say about it. I wasn't really surprised by anything he said or any of the reactions (too much or not enough depending on who you listened to). It was about what I was expecting.
I have my own personal option about his decisions, the length of time it took him to reach them, and about his delivery. But they are just that, personal. As a serving officer I don't feel that I need to be spouting off about them on a public forum. I'll talk privately about them if you want to call me. The only thing I will say is that publicly stating a pull out time is not the most militarily intelligent thing to do, but it may have been a smart thing politically. And the big thing to remember is that the government drives the train. The military has gotten orders to do things that are not good military sense before due to political situations (the US Civil War has numerous examples of this and many of them make much more interesting points than anything from Vietnam). Its not always nice, but that is an accepted part of being a US Soldier.
That may sound a bit odd, but its a good thing that we accept it (and we can always quit if we don't like it or can't accept it) becuase if we didn't deal with it that way the US would go the way of the Roman Republic. If the army back then felt like it was getting a raw deal they didn't soldier on, they marched across the Rubicon.
The other thing I will say is about that asinine comment about West Point being an enemy camp. If President Bush had gone to Berkley, would the crowd have stood up when he walked in, listened quietly and politely, and then politely applauded when he left? Yeah, thought so. It doesn't matter who the President is, we soldiers serve the US. We chose to, so that means that we go "yes sir" and carry out orders even if we DIDN'T vote for the guy in the White House (unless he decides to violate the Constitution, but that is another story). Enemy Camp? We are the greatest supporters of this country bar none. That comment was huge insult to every servicemember out there.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Global Warming takes a hit.
If you have missed it, check out the story here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
And you might very well have missed it if you just follow the regular media. The BBC and Reuters both have not run anything on this since the story broke. Neither has MSNBC, and the NY Times has refused to publish anything from the leaked data as its "illegally obtained" (funny, that didn't stop them during the Bush Years).
Short of it is that a hacker (or maybe an insider who is in hiding) put out a huge amount of papers, emails and data from a climate research unit in a college in East Anglica, Great Britain. While everything has not been gone through yet due to the amount, several trends have been noted: constant referals to actual data not conforming to Global Warming Models, data being tampered with to make it conform, emails dicussing how to lose data or delete dicsussions about tampering or reasons why the model was not matching the data, emails discussing how to marginalize opposing viewpoints and other scientists, emails discussing how to ensure that only one viewpoint was acceptable, and emails discussing how they actually got rid of data and stonewalled Freedom of Information Act Requests in both the US and UK.
So much for science being open to critical debate. This sounds more like something the Spanish Inquisition would pull (I'll leave off the obvious MP reference). And the media is tucked in nice and snug with the AGW crowd.
I am a biology major (environmental) from college. I haven't used the degree much, but I have a pretty good understanding about how things work in terms of environmental science. We really are still learning about how our planet works, and how its interacting with the sun and space. Real science, able to really start understanding what is going on has only been around for less than 100 years. Not a lot of time to start making grand pronouncements about how we are dooming the earth. And I also have issues with how they are pushing this. I actually am all for new types of energy and moving away from coal and oil, but we can't seem to make the jumps because these idiots keep getting in the way. Nuclear is clean, natural gas in clean, how about we move into these more? One more nuclear plant (as in brand new) could shut down a lot of coal power. Natural gas burns much cleaner, and we have loads of it in the US, so no more "blood for oil" and less greenhouse gas (if that is actually a real problem). Nope, we have to hold out for "alternative energy" becuase god forbid we actually move gradually, we need the miracle NOW. Or we need to shut down the US economy in order to save the world from itself.
But even if we do all of this, I honestly don't think it really is going to stop climate change. The climate is GOING to change because it always does. Its how the earth works, its NATURAL. So let's drop this stupid idea and work on clean and more efficent power because its the smart thing to do. Even if Greenhouse gas is bogus (and it is certainly an unproven theory) it stinks. That's enough reason in my book to switch to a cleaner fuel right there.
And you might very well have missed it if you just follow the regular media. The BBC and Reuters both have not run anything on this since the story broke. Neither has MSNBC, and the NY Times has refused to publish anything from the leaked data as its "illegally obtained" (funny, that didn't stop them during the Bush Years).
Short of it is that a hacker (or maybe an insider who is in hiding) put out a huge amount of papers, emails and data from a climate research unit in a college in East Anglica, Great Britain. While everything has not been gone through yet due to the amount, several trends have been noted: constant referals to actual data not conforming to Global Warming Models, data being tampered with to make it conform, emails dicussing how to lose data or delete dicsussions about tampering or reasons why the model was not matching the data, emails discussing how to marginalize opposing viewpoints and other scientists, emails discussing how to ensure that only one viewpoint was acceptable, and emails discussing how they actually got rid of data and stonewalled Freedom of Information Act Requests in both the US and UK.
So much for science being open to critical debate. This sounds more like something the Spanish Inquisition would pull (I'll leave off the obvious MP reference). And the media is tucked in nice and snug with the AGW crowd.
I am a biology major (environmental) from college. I haven't used the degree much, but I have a pretty good understanding about how things work in terms of environmental science. We really are still learning about how our planet works, and how its interacting with the sun and space. Real science, able to really start understanding what is going on has only been around for less than 100 years. Not a lot of time to start making grand pronouncements about how we are dooming the earth. And I also have issues with how they are pushing this. I actually am all for new types of energy and moving away from coal and oil, but we can't seem to make the jumps because these idiots keep getting in the way. Nuclear is clean, natural gas in clean, how about we move into these more? One more nuclear plant (as in brand new) could shut down a lot of coal power. Natural gas burns much cleaner, and we have loads of it in the US, so no more "blood for oil" and less greenhouse gas (if that is actually a real problem). Nope, we have to hold out for "alternative energy" becuase god forbid we actually move gradually, we need the miracle NOW. Or we need to shut down the US economy in order to save the world from itself.
But even if we do all of this, I honestly don't think it really is going to stop climate change. The climate is GOING to change because it always does. Its how the earth works, its NATURAL. So let's drop this stupid idea and work on clean and more efficent power because its the smart thing to do. Even if Greenhouse gas is bogus (and it is certainly an unproven theory) it stinks. That's enough reason in my book to switch to a cleaner fuel right there.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
This is why Mercenaries Suck
I am going to assume that everyone has heard about our "contract security" and the "situation" they have with them in Afghanistan. If not, short and sweet was that a group of hired contract security guards who were supposed to be protecting the US Embassy and other US State Department building/compound in Afghanistan are now being investigated for having drunken orgies complete with naked dancing, hookers and lots of booze (in a supposidly Muslim country too I might add). Several guards have told investigators that they were hazed, forced to perform sex acts for their bosses for good shifts and that the multination force couldn't even talk to each other due to language differences. Which was really great since the guys that they couldn't talk to were Gurkas and arguably the most effective guards they had.
I am a professional soldier, and I don't have much use for mercs. Historically speaking, mercs (usually) are not effective fighters or soldiers. Yes, there are exceptions, but not many. Usually the biggest issues with them are discipline related, and if the chain of command for them is hazy, they rapidly can go out of control. The 30 Years War in Europe is a great example of how out of control mercenary forces can get. Other most recent examples of stupid merc tricks are Abu Gurabi (contract interrogations without supervision which spilled over to a regular unit), Blackwater (take your pick, but the famous ones are the shootout in Baghdad which killed a lot of civilians, the heliocopter getting shot down becuase they were in a hurry, or lots of other smaller incidents, some of which I saw firsthand), and Triple Canopy (had the initial contract to protect US diplomats in Iraq and got fired after one year). This one, however takes the cake.
Simply put, the mercs don't fall under a military chain of command so the military cannot hold them accountable if they jack up. And the civilians they work for frequently don't want to really dig down as this stuff is something they don't understand or don't want to be bothered with. So the mercs can get a pass for doing some outragous stuff. And this makes the problem worse by who it attracts.
I have dealt with mercs in Iraq. The high pay and rather loose discipline attract a bad crowd. Frequently, the guys I talked to were prior military, with over five years in but usually less than 15 years in. This is important because it indicates something. A military retirement is 20 years service, and a initial hitch is usually 4 or 5 years. Most mercs were over 10 years in, so why not go all the way for retirement? Because they wouldn't have made it. Usually discipline problems. I heard a lot of "the army was just jacked up and wouldn't let me do my thing, or do what would have worked, or let us really get tough". Translation: I couldn't follow the ROE and other orders, I was trigger happy and I had trouble with authority. So, ex military with discipline problems? Why not join a high paying group that shoots first and rarely asks questions?
The State Department requently has issues with the Defense Department. I can understand that, but for crying out loud we can follow orders and have discipline. I can't say this mistrust is why State is hiring so many mercs to protect them. I know that State is short security personnel because of the various wars we are in so that is probably a more realistic reason. But this is what you get when you really don't want to be bothered with "details" on security because its something you don't get or think is beneath you. But how are they going to punish these guys? If the army did this, how many coals would we be raked over? But what about these clowns? What can they do aside from fire them? Can they be brought to court? Can they be sued? Can they be punished in any way? THe contract can get jerked, another one awarded and you know what? They will probably hire the same boneheads to do the same thing.
This should be a scandel equal to Abu Garabi, these are STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES having ORGIES! But since they are mercs (and a couple of other political reasons I will not go into) they fall into a nice grey area. So now, the US Army is having to provide guards to guard the guards while this is "looked into".
This alone should be the biggest argument for a professional military you would ever need.
I am a professional soldier, and I don't have much use for mercs. Historically speaking, mercs (usually) are not effective fighters or soldiers. Yes, there are exceptions, but not many. Usually the biggest issues with them are discipline related, and if the chain of command for them is hazy, they rapidly can go out of control. The 30 Years War in Europe is a great example of how out of control mercenary forces can get. Other most recent examples of stupid merc tricks are Abu Gurabi (contract interrogations without supervision which spilled over to a regular unit), Blackwater (take your pick, but the famous ones are the shootout in Baghdad which killed a lot of civilians, the heliocopter getting shot down becuase they were in a hurry, or lots of other smaller incidents, some of which I saw firsthand), and Triple Canopy (had the initial contract to protect US diplomats in Iraq and got fired after one year). This one, however takes the cake.
Simply put, the mercs don't fall under a military chain of command so the military cannot hold them accountable if they jack up. And the civilians they work for frequently don't want to really dig down as this stuff is something they don't understand or don't want to be bothered with. So the mercs can get a pass for doing some outragous stuff. And this makes the problem worse by who it attracts.
I have dealt with mercs in Iraq. The high pay and rather loose discipline attract a bad crowd. Frequently, the guys I talked to were prior military, with over five years in but usually less than 15 years in. This is important because it indicates something. A military retirement is 20 years service, and a initial hitch is usually 4 or 5 years. Most mercs were over 10 years in, so why not go all the way for retirement? Because they wouldn't have made it. Usually discipline problems. I heard a lot of "the army was just jacked up and wouldn't let me do my thing, or do what would have worked, or let us really get tough". Translation: I couldn't follow the ROE and other orders, I was trigger happy and I had trouble with authority. So, ex military with discipline problems? Why not join a high paying group that shoots first and rarely asks questions?
The State Department requently has issues with the Defense Department. I can understand that, but for crying out loud we can follow orders and have discipline. I can't say this mistrust is why State is hiring so many mercs to protect them. I know that State is short security personnel because of the various wars we are in so that is probably a more realistic reason. But this is what you get when you really don't want to be bothered with "details" on security because its something you don't get or think is beneath you. But how are they going to punish these guys? If the army did this, how many coals would we be raked over? But what about these clowns? What can they do aside from fire them? Can they be brought to court? Can they be sued? Can they be punished in any way? THe contract can get jerked, another one awarded and you know what? They will probably hire the same boneheads to do the same thing.
This should be a scandel equal to Abu Garabi, these are STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES having ORGIES! But since they are mercs (and a couple of other political reasons I will not go into) they fall into a nice grey area. So now, the US Army is having to provide guards to guard the guards while this is "looked into".
This alone should be the biggest argument for a professional military you would ever need.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
A Clue for the Masses
This is a mix of rant and FYI for various folks out there. Before ranting or rambling on about what books we should be studying for Afghanistan, or that our "Strategic Focus" is off, do myself and other professional military types the favor of at least reading the definitions of what tactical/tactics, operational and strategic mean.
I recently read a WSJ article on how Afghanistan was headed in the wrong direction and that we were following the wrong "Strategy" for winning the war. Now, there is some truth to that saying and certainly we can improve on many things (you always can, no one ever jumps into war and it goes 100% perfect and exactly to plan, not even the Nazi War machine which usually gets tossed up as an example). Where I had the issue is the following paragraph which the author gave a list of books that many officers were reading and studying to prep for action over there. Books like "The Bear Went Over The Mountain" which is a translated copy of the Red Army's AARs for over a hundred small unit actions ranging from squad to battalion size. The reviewed the actions and commented on improvements that could have been made within the Soviet Doctrinal framework. Then the translator added some more based on what the US would have done using ours. Numerous highly useful TACTICAL lessons can be gained from this book. The article author made a huge stink about how this book was merely showing the US "failed" (and most of the actions were not exactly shining examples of how to do it right certainly) ideas and that this was totally undermining the strategy and teaching our officers bad ideas.
This shows an incredible lack of simple understanding of terminology. This book (which I use to train my Junior Officers on in weekly OPDs) is a TACTICAL book. It isn't supposed to be about STRATEGIC level thinking or even operational. It does make some tie ins for certain items along the lines of "The US wouldn't do this as the press would crucify us and its a war crime", but that isn't the point of the book. Its about small unit tactics that junior officers and NCOs might use if they are ever deployed to Afghanistan, and mostly about what NOT to do (I am not kidding, you read this book and any idea of the Red Army being a major military power is going to take a severe hit).
Junior Officers are supposed to have some understanding of strategic aims and operational aims, but their focus is the close in fight. Commanding platoons, doing maintenance, training and so on. The books that this writer was hammering were excellent sources for THIS LEVEL. They were not aimed at strategic levels or operational levels. But this civilian (brutally obvious if you know what you are reading) had his levels and terms mixed up. I agreed with some of his points, but he really needed to work on his understanding of the different levels of warfare. The books he cut down are excellent sources of information that are very useful to draw on at the TACTICAL level.
Apples to apples, not apples to pears or peaches (or guavas).
I recently read a WSJ article on how Afghanistan was headed in the wrong direction and that we were following the wrong "Strategy" for winning the war. Now, there is some truth to that saying and certainly we can improve on many things (you always can, no one ever jumps into war and it goes 100% perfect and exactly to plan, not even the Nazi War machine which usually gets tossed up as an example). Where I had the issue is the following paragraph which the author gave a list of books that many officers were reading and studying to prep for action over there. Books like "The Bear Went Over The Mountain" which is a translated copy of the Red Army's AARs for over a hundred small unit actions ranging from squad to battalion size. The reviewed the actions and commented on improvements that could have been made within the Soviet Doctrinal framework. Then the translator added some more based on what the US would have done using ours. Numerous highly useful TACTICAL lessons can be gained from this book. The article author made a huge stink about how this book was merely showing the US "failed" (and most of the actions were not exactly shining examples of how to do it right certainly) ideas and that this was totally undermining the strategy and teaching our officers bad ideas.
This shows an incredible lack of simple understanding of terminology. This book (which I use to train my Junior Officers on in weekly OPDs) is a TACTICAL book. It isn't supposed to be about STRATEGIC level thinking or even operational. It does make some tie ins for certain items along the lines of "The US wouldn't do this as the press would crucify us and its a war crime", but that isn't the point of the book. Its about small unit tactics that junior officers and NCOs might use if they are ever deployed to Afghanistan, and mostly about what NOT to do (I am not kidding, you read this book and any idea of the Red Army being a major military power is going to take a severe hit).
Junior Officers are supposed to have some understanding of strategic aims and operational aims, but their focus is the close in fight. Commanding platoons, doing maintenance, training and so on. The books that this writer was hammering were excellent sources for THIS LEVEL. They were not aimed at strategic levels or operational levels. But this civilian (brutally obvious if you know what you are reading) had his levels and terms mixed up. I agreed with some of his points, but he really needed to work on his understanding of the different levels of warfare. The books he cut down are excellent sources of information that are very useful to draw on at the TACTICAL level.
Apples to apples, not apples to pears or peaches (or guavas).
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Inglorious Basterds
Today my wife and I saw "Inglorious Basterds" by Taretino.
It ROCKED!
This is certainly NOT a war film, or even mildly historically accurate. But it was vastly entertaining. It went from being funny to "ewwww, that is a bit graphic", to a mix of both.
And it was absolute proof of a something I have noticed. That item is this: no one cares if you do bad things to Nazis.
No lie, they showed a Nazi being beaten to death by a guy with a bat and the audience was laughing at the one liner. I was, and so was my wife. Of course the idea behind the unit was that they were going to be as bad as the Nazis (and they were and then some), but no one had any issues with US Troops doing this to Nazis.
Nazis are the one group that absolutely NO ONE will defend at all. The absolute bad guy, the perfect villan, the one undeniable product of WWII in that you have someone that no one can ever possibly root for. And everyone is tickled pink if you are doing something to them that would repulse you if it was someone else and make the ACLU call the President.
Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that Nazis are thought of this way. They should be. But so should Communists, Maoists and Stalinists. AQ and Hamas too. They are not, and that is a pity. I really don't like how the term Nazi gets tossed around so much and how many on the left use it paint those on the right (especially since the Nazis were actually socialists, irony can be thick in history). Call someone on the left a Nazi and you will get a strong reaction to be sure. My biggest issue isn't the labling, its the fact that this label runs the risk of loosing the sting of due to over use. Nazi might join the legion of other words that no longer pack the punch that they once did due to over use. Remember when "damn" was something you never heard on TV?
The Nazis were as close to pure evil walking the earth as has even been (and they had some good company who got off light). I really hope that the term never looses its punch and that no one ever has a qualm about laughing when watching a Nazi getting beaten to death.
It ROCKED!
This is certainly NOT a war film, or even mildly historically accurate. But it was vastly entertaining. It went from being funny to "ewwww, that is a bit graphic", to a mix of both.
And it was absolute proof of a something I have noticed. That item is this: no one cares if you do bad things to Nazis.
No lie, they showed a Nazi being beaten to death by a guy with a bat and the audience was laughing at the one liner. I was, and so was my wife. Of course the idea behind the unit was that they were going to be as bad as the Nazis (and they were and then some), but no one had any issues with US Troops doing this to Nazis.
Nazis are the one group that absolutely NO ONE will defend at all. The absolute bad guy, the perfect villan, the one undeniable product of WWII in that you have someone that no one can ever possibly root for. And everyone is tickled pink if you are doing something to them that would repulse you if it was someone else and make the ACLU call the President.
Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that Nazis are thought of this way. They should be. But so should Communists, Maoists and Stalinists. AQ and Hamas too. They are not, and that is a pity. I really don't like how the term Nazi gets tossed around so much and how many on the left use it paint those on the right (especially since the Nazis were actually socialists, irony can be thick in history). Call someone on the left a Nazi and you will get a strong reaction to be sure. My biggest issue isn't the labling, its the fact that this label runs the risk of loosing the sting of due to over use. Nazi might join the legion of other words that no longer pack the punch that they once did due to over use. Remember when "damn" was something you never heard on TV?
The Nazis were as close to pure evil walking the earth as has even been (and they had some good company who got off light). I really hope that the term never looses its punch and that no one ever has a qualm about laughing when watching a Nazi getting beaten to death.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Whole Foods, Greenpeace and Health Care
If you haven't heard about all of this you need to get online more. First off, Whole Foods CEO wrote an article suggesting his take (as a private person) on how we could do better on Health Care. He had some good points I thought (Tort Reform anyone?), but it was the response he got that makes him my hero and gives me a reason to shop at Whole Foods (other than my wife who likes them).
The far left "progressive" crowd went completely bat#$%% over his commentary and article. Lots of them stated that they would NEVER shop at Whole Foods again (wow, an added bonus for me). Daily Kos posters have pretty much called for his public execution. I absolutely love this. I am wondering what is making them madder; the fact that a CEO of a major corporation is weighting in against the President, or that they are now realizing that for all the "progressive" food and ecology and world love that they are associating with Whole Foods its still a major capitalist corporation run by a guy who makes tons of money off of them and doesn't care if they shop there or not.
And if this guy hadn't been running it, it wouldn't have worked out to start with.
The GreenPeace item is the article in the BBC Today in which the retiring head of GreenPeace admitted that the famous "All the Arctic Ice will be melted by 2030 unless we do something NOW" statement was a flat out lie. He said that they knew the data was wrong but went with it because the cause was just and the "US economic growth had to be curtailed". Nice. So if my cause is just I can lie? Wow, what a concept. It appears that lots of our current political establishment has taken that lesson to heart and then some.
Which leads to Health Care. Not much to say on this except that being in the military I am currently on the closest thing to a Socialist Health Care System the US has. And it sucks compared to the alternative. Tamara has kept her own health care as long as she could because its nice to be able to make a same day appointment instead of having to wait 5 to 8 days (that is the rough turnaround time at our Post). I'll agree we can improve our current system and that we have some serious issues with it. But this current monster they are pushing? Oh hell no.
Not only is it 1000+ pages of legalise, but its going to run run by an organization that can't run a used car sale or even read the entire bill before pushing it.
Guys, how about some research or something? Or keeping that promise to post all the bills for the public to read before signing? Bueller?
The far left "progressive" crowd went completely bat#$%% over his commentary and article. Lots of them stated that they would NEVER shop at Whole Foods again (wow, an added bonus for me). Daily Kos posters have pretty much called for his public execution. I absolutely love this. I am wondering what is making them madder; the fact that a CEO of a major corporation is weighting in against the President, or that they are now realizing that for all the "progressive" food and ecology and world love that they are associating with Whole Foods its still a major capitalist corporation run by a guy who makes tons of money off of them and doesn't care if they shop there or not.
And if this guy hadn't been running it, it wouldn't have worked out to start with.
The GreenPeace item is the article in the BBC Today in which the retiring head of GreenPeace admitted that the famous "All the Arctic Ice will be melted by 2030 unless we do something NOW" statement was a flat out lie. He said that they knew the data was wrong but went with it because the cause was just and the "US economic growth had to be curtailed". Nice. So if my cause is just I can lie? Wow, what a concept. It appears that lots of our current political establishment has taken that lesson to heart and then some.
Which leads to Health Care. Not much to say on this except that being in the military I am currently on the closest thing to a Socialist Health Care System the US has. And it sucks compared to the alternative. Tamara has kept her own health care as long as she could because its nice to be able to make a same day appointment instead of having to wait 5 to 8 days (that is the rough turnaround time at our Post). I'll agree we can improve our current system and that we have some serious issues with it. But this current monster they are pushing? Oh hell no.
Not only is it 1000+ pages of legalise, but its going to run run by an organization that can't run a used car sale or even read the entire bill before pushing it.
Guys, how about some research or something? Or keeping that promise to post all the bills for the public to read before signing? Bueller?
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Fishy
Short post.
Did anyone else have a "WTF?!?!" moment when you heard the news release about the White House asking for people to send them an email about "fishy" healthcare info?
I did.
This is what we get from a government that is so inept that it can't run a Used Car sale...
Did anyone else have a "WTF?!?!" moment when you heard the news release about the White House asking for people to send them an email about "fishy" healthcare info?
I did.
This is what we get from a government that is so inept that it can't run a Used Car sale...
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Continuing Education
I am into my third week of AOWC (Advanced Operational Warfighting Course) online. The virtual class room is pretty much boned and yet again another example of the DOD living up to accusations of Fraud, Waste and Abuse. Btu the course itself is pretty fun. The idea behind this course is simple. You are going to be a staff pouge for much of your military career (simple fact of army life) so we are going to make you a really good one. Why? Simple, it is better to have 12 Blutchers than one Napoleon (for my readers lacking any military history knowledge (Hi Aunt Jan) Blutcher was the Prussian who aided Wellington at Waterloo and helped win the big one).
Translation: Genius is a great thing, but if you only have one of them he can't do two very important things. One, he can't be everywhere. Two, he cannot be 100% on his/her game 100% of the time. So what happens if you get hit in 2 places or on a bad day? Bad things happen. The Prussians figured this out and devised the staff system as we have come to know it (although we in the US modeled ours after the French Staff System developed prior to WWI). The idea is that even if we don't get a genius (a Fredrick the Great) we can train enough Blutchers that it won't matter. Our sum whole leadership will be better than your sum whole (especially if you only rely on one guy).
I am doing the AOWC to finish off my ILE (Intermediate Level Education) which is the Masters Level of military training. This stuff isn't easy by a long shot. We study leadership, operational and strategic thinking, critical thinking, history (as in we dig out the lessons it can teach us, this is not done very much in civilian schools or they are horribly off due to lack of (go figure) critical thinking). I personnally am really enjoying this as it is challenging (nothing good is easy) and it makes me think and learn and push.
Now, as I am wont to do, I have been thinking about all of this. When you boil it down, the US military produces some amazingly educated people. Then I realized that actually we produce not some, but a hell of a lot. A Captain is going to have not only lots of hands on experience in high pressure situations and in "intersting" locations, but he has been taught a huge amount. College, but also the courses the army will send him too. In my case, a rough translation of what I have been taught is going to equal two BA/BS degrees and 2 Masters degrees (when I complete ILE anyway).
This being the case, can someone tell me why the hell we still get looked at like we are gunslinging cowboys who can't put two words together in a sentence? I guess it is just easier to steriotype us, because actually thinking about what we say and do, and realizing that maybe the answer can't be condensed to a bumper sticker, would require some critical thinking and some serious education too.
Which is seeming to be in shorter and shorter supply in this country.
Translation: Genius is a great thing, but if you only have one of them he can't do two very important things. One, he can't be everywhere. Two, he cannot be 100% on his/her game 100% of the time. So what happens if you get hit in 2 places or on a bad day? Bad things happen. The Prussians figured this out and devised the staff system as we have come to know it (although we in the US modeled ours after the French Staff System developed prior to WWI). The idea is that even if we don't get a genius (a Fredrick the Great) we can train enough Blutchers that it won't matter. Our sum whole leadership will be better than your sum whole (especially if you only rely on one guy).
I am doing the AOWC to finish off my ILE (Intermediate Level Education) which is the Masters Level of military training. This stuff isn't easy by a long shot. We study leadership, operational and strategic thinking, critical thinking, history (as in we dig out the lessons it can teach us, this is not done very much in civilian schools or they are horribly off due to lack of (go figure) critical thinking). I personnally am really enjoying this as it is challenging (nothing good is easy) and it makes me think and learn and push.
Now, as I am wont to do, I have been thinking about all of this. When you boil it down, the US military produces some amazingly educated people. Then I realized that actually we produce not some, but a hell of a lot. A Captain is going to have not only lots of hands on experience in high pressure situations and in "intersting" locations, but he has been taught a huge amount. College, but also the courses the army will send him too. In my case, a rough translation of what I have been taught is going to equal two BA/BS degrees and 2 Masters degrees (when I complete ILE anyway).
This being the case, can someone tell me why the hell we still get looked at like we are gunslinging cowboys who can't put two words together in a sentence? I guess it is just easier to steriotype us, because actually thinking about what we say and do, and realizing that maybe the answer can't be condensed to a bumper sticker, would require some critical thinking and some serious education too.
Which is seeming to be in shorter and shorter supply in this country.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Guardians of the Public Trust
This is a rant, so if you are not into this sort of thing skip the rest.
Otherwise...
"Guardians of the Public Trust" is a phrase that I have seen several times this week in various bits of reading material. First one was from the Memoirs of US Grant discussing his job as regimental quartermaster in the Pre-Civil War Army and how he was required to account for public property (aka, all US Army equipment his regiment possessed that he was signed for). I have read this same phrase in an Ethics Brief we are required to read ourselves and then brief to our battery leadership, who briefs it on down the line. I used this same phrase when explaining to a West Point Cadet who is training with us over summer break about Reports of Survey/FLIPLs on missing equipment and assigning blame and more importantly liability as to who was going to pay for it or be punished for failing to keep proper accountability of said property.
This phrase is an old one obviously. The US Army (and other uniformed services) have been using this term since prior to the Civil War to explain a fundimental point about the military. We serve the people and Constitution of the US, we are beholden to them, and when we screw up we answer to them. Not just the big media circus shows like Iran-Contra, or f-ups in Vietnam, or not planning Phase Four of Iraqi Freedom. No, we do it every day. Every part, every weapon, every tool, down to the smallest screw, someone is signed for it and is held accountable for it should something go amiss. This week alone my Brigade has had two investigations into missing equipment and I have signed off on a shortage annex (a document that shows that equipment was damaged, worn out or lost due to regular use) for a change of command inventory that involved 6 full days of inspections for every piece of equipment in a battery so the incoming commander knows that when he signs he has every piece he is signing for. And once this is done, he briefs the BDE CO. This is how much detail we go into.
Why? The army's equipment is public property. Not in the sense that every Joe on the street can sign out a tank, but that public monies were made available by the people's representatives (aka Congress) to equip us and that they TRUST us to use it correctly and make every attempt to insure against loss, theft or damage. Every soldier is a guardian in this sense. Even a brand new private who has been in the army less than a week signs for and is then responsible for his personal equipment (helmet, poncho, body armor, etc).
We are able to do this on a regular basis without too much drama.
WHY THE HELL CAN'T WE GET THE EFFING CONGRESS TO DO THE SAME DAMN THING?!?!?!?
Or the President's Finance Wizards or "Czars"(boy, what a great name to use huh?)? Or the FED?!?
The army spends a couple billion over on a new weapon system and we get front page on the NY Times and blasted on how this money could be better used in some social program or to save minnows in Oregon. The government passes a bill that in one swoop spends as much as Bush did for 8 years, and can't account for where it is all going to go, and then forces the Independent Auditors who are supposed to keep this whole thing honest to resign or fires them, and NADA.
WTF!?!?!?!
I am a true Guardian of the Public Trust. Every piece of gear I have ever had I have accounted for or paid for if I damaged or lost it. I am involved with an appeal over a piece of equipment I lost as a BC. But while I am appealing, I am also paying the monthly fine with the understanding that if I do win I get it back. It might take a while to get everything cleared up, but I am not effing around and not paying while I fight it. The law states clearly what I must do and I follow it.
I am trusted to kill for my country, I am trusted to account for millions of dollars of public property for my country. Why can't we get the same out of our government who is responsible for TRILLIONS OF THE PUBLIC'S MONEY?
It can be done, we just need to MAKE THEM do it. Time for forget parties, next time around find the guy who releases his income tax statements and submits to regular audits and is loud about wanting clarity in spending. I will vote for a DEMOCRAT if they can do this (that should give you the idea on how much this is horking me off).
Otherwise...
"Guardians of the Public Trust" is a phrase that I have seen several times this week in various bits of reading material. First one was from the Memoirs of US Grant discussing his job as regimental quartermaster in the Pre-Civil War Army and how he was required to account for public property (aka, all US Army equipment his regiment possessed that he was signed for). I have read this same phrase in an Ethics Brief we are required to read ourselves and then brief to our battery leadership, who briefs it on down the line. I used this same phrase when explaining to a West Point Cadet who is training with us over summer break about Reports of Survey/FLIPLs on missing equipment and assigning blame and more importantly liability as to who was going to pay for it or be punished for failing to keep proper accountability of said property.
This phrase is an old one obviously. The US Army (and other uniformed services) have been using this term since prior to the Civil War to explain a fundimental point about the military. We serve the people and Constitution of the US, we are beholden to them, and when we screw up we answer to them. Not just the big media circus shows like Iran-Contra, or f-ups in Vietnam, or not planning Phase Four of Iraqi Freedom. No, we do it every day. Every part, every weapon, every tool, down to the smallest screw, someone is signed for it and is held accountable for it should something go amiss. This week alone my Brigade has had two investigations into missing equipment and I have signed off on a shortage annex (a document that shows that equipment was damaged, worn out or lost due to regular use) for a change of command inventory that involved 6 full days of inspections for every piece of equipment in a battery so the incoming commander knows that when he signs he has every piece he is signing for. And once this is done, he briefs the BDE CO. This is how much detail we go into.
Why? The army's equipment is public property. Not in the sense that every Joe on the street can sign out a tank, but that public monies were made available by the people's representatives (aka Congress) to equip us and that they TRUST us to use it correctly and make every attempt to insure against loss, theft or damage. Every soldier is a guardian in this sense. Even a brand new private who has been in the army less than a week signs for and is then responsible for his personal equipment (helmet, poncho, body armor, etc).
We are able to do this on a regular basis without too much drama.
WHY THE HELL CAN'T WE GET THE EFFING CONGRESS TO DO THE SAME DAMN THING?!?!?!?
Or the President's Finance Wizards or "Czars"(boy, what a great name to use huh?)? Or the FED?!?
The army spends a couple billion over on a new weapon system and we get front page on the NY Times and blasted on how this money could be better used in some social program or to save minnows in Oregon. The government passes a bill that in one swoop spends as much as Bush did for 8 years, and can't account for where it is all going to go, and then forces the Independent Auditors who are supposed to keep this whole thing honest to resign or fires them, and NADA.
WTF!?!?!?!
I am a true Guardian of the Public Trust. Every piece of gear I have ever had I have accounted for or paid for if I damaged or lost it. I am involved with an appeal over a piece of equipment I lost as a BC. But while I am appealing, I am also paying the monthly fine with the understanding that if I do win I get it back. It might take a while to get everything cleared up, but I am not effing around and not paying while I fight it. The law states clearly what I must do and I follow it.
I am trusted to kill for my country, I am trusted to account for millions of dollars of public property for my country. Why can't we get the same out of our government who is responsible for TRILLIONS OF THE PUBLIC'S MONEY?
It can be done, we just need to MAKE THEM do it. Time for forget parties, next time around find the guy who releases his income tax statements and submits to regular audits and is loud about wanting clarity in spending. I will vote for a DEMOCRAT if they can do this (that should give you the idea on how much this is horking me off).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
