Some Gave All........

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:

Staff Sergeant Jared C. Monti distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a team leader with Headquarters and Headquarters troop, 3rd Squadron, 71st Calvary Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, in connection with combat operations against an enemy in Nuristan Province, Afghanistan, on June 21st, 2006.

While Staff Sergeant Monti was leading a mission aimed at gathering intelligence and directing fire against the enemy, his 16-man patrol was attacked by as many as 50 enemy fighters. On the verge of being overrun, Staff Sergeant Monti quickly directed his men to set up a defensive position behind a rock formation. He then called for indirect fire support, accurately targeting the rounds upon the enemy who had closed to within 50 meters of his position. While still directing fire, Staff Sergeant Monti personally engaged the enemy with his rifle and a grenade, successfully disrupting an attempt to flank his patrol. Staff Sergeant Monti then realized that one on his soldier was lying wounding in the open ground between the advancing enemy and the patrol's position.

With complete disregard for his own safety, Staff Sergeant Monti twice attempted to move from behind the cover of the rocks into the face of relentless enemy fire to rescue his fallen comrade. Determined not to leave his soldier, Staff Sergeant Monti made a third attempt to cross open terrain through intense enemy fire. On this final attempt, he was mortally wounded, sacrificing his own life in an effort to save his fellow soldier.

Staff Sergeant Monti's selfless acts of heroism inspired his patrol to fight off the larger enemy force. Staff Sergeant Monti's immeasurable courage and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 3rd Squadron, 71st Calvary Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, and the United States Army.

Libertarian Musings

Libertarian principles uphold the right of equality for all law abiding citizens. Being different does not represent the lowest common denominator, being stupid does. But unfortunately, we can't seem to develop of cure for stupidity or bigotry.

There exists various impressions by most Americans concerning why Libertarians want the legalization of drugs. This liberty is supported by the LP for fundamental reasons: The freedom to treat your body as your property, not that of the state. If they're counter is that drugs are harmful......that's not logically compatible with the fact that there are numerous 'legal' substances and activities that people engage in that are just as, if not more harmful than recreational drug use. Once again it boils down to the morals or icky feelings many people have. They simply put no thought into the lack of logic or sense of their argument.

There are already mind altering and perception reducing substances that are entirely legal. Tendering fears of someone being 'high as a kite' on the job is no different than someone being 'drunk as a skunk' on the job. They haven't called for criminalization of alcohol, or other harmful substances such as tobacco and fatty foods......why not?

Merely acknowledging logical contradictions is a crutch that keeps liberty at bay. The individual doesn't always have to be part of society, but when no harm is committed toward the society.....there is no imperative to limit the right of the individual exercise over his or her body.

The laws that criminalize victimless crimes are rooted in bigotry and superstition. Granting such sovereignty is not an all or nothing paradigm....it is a logical paradigm.

The disdain for a viable third party comes at the expense of choices for people like me. I never understand why a citizen would voluntarily limit themselves to two major parties.....parties that quibble over hot button wedge issues, but are realistically not much different from each other. Why not simplify the issue even more and combine the Democratic and Republican parties? We would still be just as screwed, but there would be a lot less bickering and partisanship.

When we are always forced to choose between two candidates, we surrender our principles at every turn, and fall into deciding either who is the lesser of two evils, or always voting just to keep the other guy out.

I subscribe to the Libertarian principles over the Libertarian Party, so I would be just as satisfied if either party would lean towards freedom, liberty and sovereignty of the individual. But sadly, they do not. Even subscribing towards a pure Socialist model would have its benefit for the citizen, if you could neutralize greed, special interests and partisanship, but we cannot. Thus at the very least, if viable third parties such as the LP or the Greens can install a fear of hemorrhaging voters, forcing them to place the principle over the party, then I can endorse that as a partial victory.

To even remotely claim that the Libertarian Party platform is not mainstream, is stating that personal liberty is not mainstream. The equilibrium is tilted, possibly beyond redemption. The status quo endorses bureaucratic theft of the citizens property and freedoms, paying mere lip service to the uneducated.

Strategies should be analyzed and explored....but make no mistake, the status quo is not interested in compromise. I still believe that other issues need to be headlined to gain voters, but there comes a time when we have to tackle the problem where citizens are just as lobotomized as they believe the LP is.

How do we overcome stupid? How do we cure the country of Glenn Beck? The mouth breathers use symbols of liberty while denying that they are smothering it. Sometimes a mature dialogue is the preferred method, sometimes it's a slap in the face.

The Republican Party Can Kiss my Ass

The Republicans have sealed the deal when it comes to the question of 'will I ever vote Republican again?'

Watching the coverage and seeing pictures of several of the placards carried in Washington DC today...for their Take Back America/Tea Bagging/Anti-Obama rally...I'm disgusted beyond words at the level of undisguised and unbridled ignorance of these people.

These slack-jawed mouth breathing oxygen thieves actually have me defending the Democrats by virtue of their blatant lies and comparisons to terrorism/Socialism/Marxism/Hitler. The mental midgets carrying these signs couldn't tell you the first tenet of the ideologies they accuse Obama of, and they can't be concerned to back up their claims of appeasing terrorism. But they certainly can take a buzzword and run with it; they certainly can take a catchphrase and turn it into a meme; and they take marching orders from Fox News, Beck, Limbaugh and DeMint like the most obedient little brown-shirts.

Did somebody activate the chip in their brain? Was their water extra fluoridated? Did they eat paint chips as a kid? I joke about the impending zombie apocalypse....but by god I think it's already here. These intellectually stunted goose-steppers give fascism a bad name.

Worse, they are co-opting the symbols and tag-lines of patriots and liberty lovers. I'm sickened at the level and tone of political dialogue in my country. My fallback plan of escaping to Costa Rica is looking more appealing as each day passes.

Susanna Irish part 1

Emelie in Swan Lake

Emelie is the 4th from the right.

Health Care and Liberty

I haven't invested myself in too much of the recent health care debates, as most of it has been simple partisan rhetoric, but an article today got me thinking.

It seems that there is talk of mandating the purchase of health care insurance by all citizens, in much the same way that we are required to purchase auto insurance to legally drive on the public roadways. The difference of course being, if you couldn't or didn't wish to purchase insurance, you simply wouldn't drive [legally at least]. With a mandatory health care purchase requirement, there is no out. Hell, suicide is considered against the law in many places.

Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama's effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul.

The fast-moving developments put Obama in a box. As a candidate, he opposed fines to force individuals to buy health insurance, and he supported setting up a public insurance plan. On Tuesday, fellow Democrats publicly begged to differ on both ideas.

ust as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.
Yahoo

Some questions that come to mind in the midst of these debate.....questions that are at the very heart of our concepts of freedom and liberty, but questions that do not get asked.

Is it legal for our government to mandate the purchase of health care insurance, and fine us if we refuse [or simply can't pay]?

What is the motivation behind the desire for public officials to hold sway over nearly every choice we citizens have over our own bodies?

Should our personal choices regarding our health be inviolate from the law, as long as we don't pose a threat to public safety?

BBQ Rules

We are about to enter the BBQ season. Therefore it is important to refresh your memory on the etiquette of this sublime outdoor cooking activity. When a man volunteers to do the BBQ the following chain of events are put into motion:

(1) The woman buys the food.
(2) The woman makes the salad, prepares the vegetables, and makes dessert.
(3) The woman prepares the meat for cooking, places it on a tray along with the necessary cooking utensils and sauces, and takes it to the man who is lounging beside the grill - beer in hand.
(4) The woman remains outside the compulsory three meter exclusion zone where the exuberance of testosterone and other manly bonding activities can take place without the interference of the woman.

Here comes the important part:

(5) THE MAN PLACES THE MEAT ON THE GRILL.

(6) The woman goes inside to organize the plates and cutlery.
(7) The woman comes out to tell the man that the meat is looking great. He thanks her and asks if she will bring another beer while he flips the meat
Important again:

(8) THE MAN TAKES THE MEAT OFF THE GRILL AND HANDS IT TO THE WOMAN.

(9) The woman prepares the plates, salad, bread, utensils, napkins, sauces, and brings them to the table.
(10) After eating, the woman clears the table and does the dishes...
And most important of all:
(11) Everyone PRAISES the MAN and THANKS HIM for his cooking efforts.
(12) The man asks the woman how she enjoyed 'her night off' and, upon seeing her annoyed reaction, concludes that there's just no pleasing women.

reposted from  http://bigpicture.posterous.com/?page=8                                                                                                                                                     

More Good War goodness

We are attempting to install a federal system into a tribal culture and the results have not been, and will not be pretty.

I still want to know, from ardent supporters of this conflict.....why the fight in Afghanistan [and the subsequent nation building] is paramount to our national security; and how [without the vague party line] 'victory' can be achieved?

The ever erudite Abu Muqawama literally nails it, though himself a COIN-dinista and not favoring withdrawal:

In the next few days, I will post some thoughts on how the United States and its allies might adjust their strategy for Afghanistan based on the outcome of the Afghan elections. But as I have written, this really is the worst-case scenario: a small margin of victory for Karzai amidst widespread allegations of fraud. Prior to the election, this was considered to be the worst outcome for Afghanistan, the legitimacy of the Afghan government, and the international community.

When people look back on the Afghanistan war, this might be the moment when historians will judge we should have cut the cord on the Afghan government. If we believe Generals McChrystal and Petraeus, and we believe a counterinsurgency campaign to represent our best chance of success in Afghanistan, then we have a big problem. Because if we believe what we ourselves have learned about counterinsurgency campaigns, we understand that we cannot be successful in one if the host nation government is seen as increasingly illegitimate -- and that's what the Karzai government is.
CNAS

The Good War?

Given the resurgent debate in the media, I've got plenty of thoughts about our policy in Afghanistan....

Foremost, nobody can define victory. Politicians, pundits and armchair commandos can make sweeping generalizations about the desired endstate, but nobody can outline the barest of steps needed to attain it. We played into Al Qaeda's hand in 2001. AQ is a cell based organization that can operate in nearly any nation, as they have. AQ purposely and publicly staged it's 'Headquarters' in Afghanistan during the planning of 9/11, based on the assumption that the US would retaliate militarily after the attacks. This retaliation would be conventional and enduring, as it's our modus operandi. The Taliban regime was expendable to AQ in the broader pursuit of it's goals; and our involvement in Afghanistan has brought forth dynamics that were on AQ's wishlist, but probably never dreamed possible.

Policy makers can't define what metrics are suitable for defining victory. Is it a democratic government? Not with the massive vote fraud in the recent election. The US however, will continue to support Karzai....to the detriment of many Afghan citizens.

Is it killing the enemy? This is the worst metric to use in a COIN environment. There is virtually no way to compete with what are called "$50 Taliban", Afghan civilians who will willingly aid Taliban, AQ and other insurgent groups for profit....as has been their way for centuries.

Is it 'winning the hearts and minds'? In a grand scheme yes; but only at the platoon level are we truly understanding the tribal dynamics in a given area, and unfortunately those dynamics are completely different the next valley over. Relentlessly killing Afghan civilians in punitive airstrikes is not helping matters either. In any COIN environment, and in this one in particular, the enemy has the decisive upper hand in information operations; they control the message because we and the Karzai Government are outsiders to nearly everyone outside of Kabul.

As NYT journalist Dexter Filkins writes:

The situation on the battlefield is difficult on its own. But it is, of course, inevitably bound up with the political stalemate in Kabul. As American commanders and diplomats have said repeatedly here, no amount of troops can substitute for a lack of political consensus among ordinary Afghans.

There is no strategic rationale for continuing the war in Afghanistan. The realities of continuing the fight have far more to do with domestic politics here in the US than strategic ramifications in the fight against AQ. Terror groups are not going to be the downfall of this nation...this nations self-detrimental actions will be. There is no strategic focus and no definable endstate. It would take at least as many years and more money than we've spent to date to prop up a shaky pseudo-democracy that will surely fail when we leave, due to the cultural and social desires of the Afghan people, and the fact that an Afghan military strong enough to secure the patchwork nation, cannot ever be supported by the Afghan economy.

These are very real issues that are being swept aside in the 'good war' defense of the supporters of this perpetual war. For some good analytical dialogue about COIN and Afghanistan, I recommend Abu Muqawama.

Duck Season

Make no mistake...I am a Duck fan. I will always be a Duck fan.

But Thursday night I was disgusted and embarassed. Eagerly anticipating the start of the 2009-2010 College Football season with my team playing on the Smurf Turf at Boise State...I was treated to a team that couldn't beat my high school squad. Lethargic, unmotivated and incoherent....the University of Oregon resembled turkeys rather than ducks.

Where was the ground game? Where was Masoli? The Boise State QB couldn't miss when he drilled the ball to his receiver; Oregon several times almost couldn't get the requisite number of players on the field. If not for many egregious missteps on behalf of the Bronco's, this could have been an utter blowout.

Blount torpedoed his NFL career. Good. He wrote checks with his mouth that his ass couldn't cash...and then threw a tantrum after playing like a community college athlete.

I will be there for the Ducks this season....but will they be there for me?