Alpine Summit

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Hillary's Speeches Come from Famous Manifestos

Hillary Clinton recently spoke about how we need to replace the "on your own" society with a "we're in it all together" society. This is EXACTLY what Karl Marx wanted in his famous Communist Manifesto which has been soundly and experientially disproven as a viable social construct. I thought we already determined Communism to be inferior to Capitalism in the 20th century during the cold war? Apparently not.

Not just that, but Clinton's 'same message, different words' speech about socialism and communism is the definition of anti-American. Our constitution is old and fragile-- I fear it won't be looking any prettier after the Democrats get out of power in the next 4 - 6 years... and it's just as much the Republican's fault.

|

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

God Speaks to Greenpeace

Greenpeace is the environmentalist equivalent, in one way, to PETA. This means you will almost always have something to laugh at them limited only by the speed in which they can release these stunts upon the world.

The replica ark, 2,500 meters above sea level, is designed to be a symbol of hope and dramatic plea to world leaders to take action to avoid catastrophic global warming, Greenpeace states on its website.

Just like hippies to make emotional appeals for causes with no intellectual leg on which to stand. I wonder how many trees they had to kill to do this?

|

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Carter on Bush

Carter says Bush is the worst president in international relations, ever.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.

Because Carter's administration did such a better job.

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."


By "others" I'm sure he means himself since his administration is the next in line from the ones he was citing. If Carter isn't happy with someone's foreign policy, the rest of us should see that as a good thing given his own abysmal track record.

Most Americans agree too when looking at the election map for 1980. So tell me, why should we bother listening to Carter with regards to anything on how to be a President?

|

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Low Opinions

In "The World is Flat," Thomas Friedman talks about how America needs to change its ways in response so lowered barriers for other countries to do business with America. Perhaps our government should read his book and apply the concepts to how politicians operate.

Because of the Internet and more flow of information, people are more informed with how the world operates. The 60's-style liberalism of "let's all just get along" is fading away into more pragmatic views that not everyone wants peace love and harmony. At the same time, the traditional conservative view that America can do no wrong and that pure, brutal capitalism is the way to go is also going the way of the dodo.

There is certainly a long way to go, but because of this changing dynamic in public opinion, coupled with politician's "business as usual" attitude of being more concerned with beating their political opponent than representing the people has caused this 29% approval rating. I predict this is the politician who will be elected in the future as their genuity is proven in local and state governments first or showing public service in some other way.

|

Monday, May 14, 2007

An Historic Weekend

This past weekend I went to what is called the historic triangle to celebrate the anniversary of the first permanent settlement in the new world: Jamestown. It has been four centuries since those first explorers first set foot on Powhatan land and began the first of many tenuous relationships with indians as well as the beginning of slavery in the colonies several years later.

Having toured the several areas, especially Jamestown, the slave oppression as well as the culture clash between the indians and settlers, are well represented. The museums are neither liberal apologist centers to describe how the evil white man came to oppress the peaceful, loving nature lovers of the new world, nor do they dismiss these events as anything but history.

With that said, I should also mention that I have never been to Iraq (yet) and that I have also heard the refrain "it's just not like they say in the media" by MANY servicemen who have been deployed. I now have a good idea of what they mean when I read this story and the many like it.

Out of the (I say) thousands of people at this event, the media showcases stories about 50 protesters whining about slavery when this fact was NEVER denied and in fact wholly embraced as part of the festivities. There is even an African-American advisory council for the event!

In fairness though, only 92 results came up from Google for the protest and over 3,000 came up for Bush giving the generally same blurb about his speech. Still, covering 50 protesters for an event that thousands of people generally celebrate? Give me a break.

|

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Baby Mail

Japan has opened its first (possibly of many) baby mailbox. The design is that a parent too cowardly to murder their child before birth and even more cowardly to own up to the life they have created, can dump their child off at a hospital.

I have two questions about this concept. If this is such an acceptable alternative and should be embraced (according to advocates of this idea), then why must it provide anonymity to the parents if there's nothing wrong with it? I believe it has to do with what Ravi Zacharias calls "the haunting spectre of guilt."

My second question is how can a society degrade the value of a human life so much that people could think dumping a kid off in what I will hence forth call a "baby dumpster" is a good idea in the first place? I find it incredibly sad.

Upon learning she is pregnant, a woman has several months to figure out what she wants to do with the life growing inside of her. Now, the people of lesser moral scruples will simply murder the child as a principle and get on with life. Those with misguided morals might choose to still murder the child, but regret the decision later (or even during the abortion). Those who have the moral courage to admit their mistake in even choosing to take the risk of having sex in the first place will decide to either keep the child or give it up for adoption to a loving couple of her choice. Only the ones with truly misguided moral principles could think that murdering a child will atone for their fornication.

As an aside, it's my personal opinion that the man should have a say in what happens to the child too. Some might say that's not fair since it's the woman who has to carry the child to term, but that's why a child is what should be created by two people who love each other and have voluntarily linked their lives together for the rest of their lives.

|

Thursday, May 03, 2007

AR 530-1 Paragraph 2-1(g)

What are one of the fronts in which the terrorists have a strong foothold? PR is the answer.

Blackfive has a good roundup of one of the newest regulations regarding OPSEC (Operational Security) for the Army. It involves requiring approval by commanders of any communications by soldiers through public online forums "including but not limited to" email and blogs.

In a situation where the media is decidedly against the military and its mission to project American power on its enemies; putting a muzzle on soldiers on the front lines who are usually the only positive news people can hear, is bad policy.

Not only that, but how will this affect the morale of the troops who now have to clear their private family conversations with someone?

Lets go over this: 15 month deployments, online muzzles... why join the Army again?

I joined the Army to see if it could be something I can make a career out of. Right now I'm really leaning towards 'no' if it means having to give up every single one of my rights. I know that sounds self-centered, but there's always a point you have to say the cost is too much.

|

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

France is Having Elections

France is looking for a new president again (thanks to us, I might add). I've been reading a lot of stories posted on Drudge Report and seeing clips on Fox News. My question is "so what?" France is a worthless country nobody cares about-- except the French, and even then not really.

Is France a strategically important country?

No.

Is France important to international relations with other countries in the region?

No. In fact it probably helps to distance yourself from the most hated country in Europe.

Does France contain any natural resources or industries making them exclusively important to any other country's stable functioning?

No.

The only thing going for France is its nuclear capabilities and will in all likelihood be the one to sell nukes to Iran (read: "Terrorists"), ignoring Russia for a moment, if they don't figure how to make them first.

So again, who cares about France? Least of all who's running it? I wrote off France a long time ago and really couldn't care less about this story.

That being said, anytime a communist is defeated is a good thing for not just the world, but for the country... not to mention those pesky things like human rights.

|

Food for Thought

I'm reading "Now They Call Me Infidel" by Nonie Darwish. It's a book about a woman growing up in Egypt, more importantly a Muslim society, as a child of a religious martyr and her transformation from a Muslim Egyptian to a Christian American.

In chapter four she outlines the stark contrast between a Christian/Western wedding versus a Muslim/Eastern wedding.

As a teenager, I vividly recall watching the scene of a church wedding in an old Hollywood movie. I was very touched by the holiness of the marriage vows, especially when the husband promised to love, honor and cherish his one and only wife "till death do us part."

She goes on to note that each participant is an equal before God as opposed to the man being the be all and end all to the relationship. She also notes the romance and genuine love behind the wedding as opposed to the business contract Muslim marriages are all-too-often made.

I now realize that my innocent mind was touched not only by the romance of the marriage vows but also by the way a Christian woman was honored and elevated by her husband and society..."

Her arguments against Muslim law regarding marriage using the resulting family dynamics are undeniable. When a man can drop a woman (or not depending on the situation) at the first sign of trouble in the relationship, the woman's goal is no longer to please her lover but to constantly fight for her husband's exclusivity since he can marry up to four women. It's also a matter of the woman having to ensure her survival in the event that her husband does divorce her-- which she says is why Muslim women are allowed to keep their family's property after getting married.

How can a religion, supposedly the final words of God for the benefit of all mankind for all time, cause such a gap in not just equality of genders, but intimacy in relationship between a husband and wife?

The Koran (Qur'an) talks about "Allah the most merciful, most loving..." I have to smile when I read that. Is it more loving to share your life with someone to whom you have promised yourself exclusively for your life? Or is it more representative of God's love that two people are in constant battle to outmaneuver the other for the sake of surviving on one side (woman) and retaining honor and control on the other (man)? Darwish goes on to mention how this isn't always the case, but the culture (which she explains more than I will here) hinders any kind of advancement and can even cause the women to become more "devout" than their husbands because it gives them some level of respectability--furthering the oppression.

I haven't finished the book yet, but it is very inciteful so far and full of things of which I think many western women should be aware.

|