brief thoughts/stuff...

...so this record review (from a local Philly weekly, mid-90's, by Joey Sweeney) is one of my all-time favorites. It's right up there with Spinal Tap's "Shark Sandwich" review. Joey Sweeney now runs a nice blog called Philebrity. Check it out Yo!...

...Love this quote, from a facebook friend's profile page: "In times of war, you often hear leaders - Christian, Jewish, and Muslim - saying 'God is on our side.' But that isn't true. In war, God is on the side of refugees, widows, and orphans." - Greg Mortenson...


...wtf was Mischa Barton up to this past summer? Cheesus Christmas! Here's a quote from the article I got this from: "'It's kind of silly now to be talking about it because I'm so fine now, but it was just a really bad time for me. It was sort of one of those things. It was like a perfect storm - everything happened at once. I was overwhelmed, I had too much work going on, I had surgery for my wisdom teeth that went really badly. I had two surgeries - I had four [teeth] taken out and it had gone really badly wrong - they had to drill into my jaw and I was just in excruciating pain. I was having Novocaine shots every day to minimise the pain. It really was rock bottom." - I'll say! But glad to see she's back to normal now! or as she stated: 'I'm so fine now'

U.S. ranked 83rd most peaceful, out of 144 nations

Americans pining for a peaceful existence might consider moving to New Zealand, the most peaceful nation on Earth, according to the 2009 Global Peace Index released Tuesday by an Australian-based research group that counts former President Jimmy Carter, Ted Turner and the Dalai Lama among its endorsers.

The U.S. is 83rd on the roster, according to the Institute for Economics and Peace that rated the relative tranquility of 144 nations according to 23 "indicators" - including gun sales, the number of homicides, the size of the military, the potential for terrorism and the number of people in jail.

The index defined peace as "the absence of violence," and so far, things are a little dicey. Violence and instability have increased, respect for human rights has decreased. The researchers also calculated that the world's nations have collectively lost close to $8 trillion due to the complications of widespread violence.

After New Zealand, the top 10 most peaceful nations are Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Austria, Sweden, Japan, Canada, Finland and Slovenia. In the bottom 10 are Zimbabwe, Russia, Pakistan, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Israel, Somalia, Afghanistan and, in last place, Iraq.

Traditional U.S. allies generally fared well on the list: Germany is at 16, Australia at 19, Spain (28), South Korea (33), Britain (35) and Italy (36).

Libya, Nicaragua, Jordan, Cuba, China, Peru and Ukraine all are rated more peaceful than the United States. Rwanda is rated 86, Syria 92, Iran 99 and Mexico 108.

"Because they can work better with others, peaceful countries can constructively work together on solving some of our most pressing economic, social and environmental problems. Indeed, peace is the prerequisite to helping solve today's major challenges, such as food and water scarcity, decreasing biodiversity or climate change," said Clyde McConaghy, a former advertising director and business executive who developed the index with entrepreneur Steve Killelea.

"Peace is a concrete aim that can be measured and valued, not just in social terms but in economic terms. There is a clear correlation between the economic crisis and the decline in peace," Mr. McConaghy continued, adding that peace tends to promote productivity and trade.

America's so-so rating on the Index is better than its grade last year, when the nation was ranked 89th.

The six-point jump is due in part to a lower risk of terrorism, said Leo Abruzzese, director of North American research for the Economist Group, which calculated the data for the index.

The Economist Group also publishes the Economist and Roll Call, among other things.

"Although the United States saw an increase in ranking despite the economic crisis, some factors - such as the ease of access to weapons, a large prison population and ongoing combat deaths - prevented it from ranking higher this year," Mr. Abruzzese said.

The index is primarily based on 2008 data from the International Institute of Strategic Studies, the World Bank, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and United Nations sources.

Memorial Day: RECOGNIZE!

Some thoughts on Memorial Day...

Memorial Day, at its core, is a day when we take time to remember, honor, champion, and recognize the extraordinary people who did something we didn't: died serving their country in the armed forces. This includes those people who died in a war, or other type of conflict, as well as those who died while training in the military, at any point in our country’s history.

Soldiers and military members, ultimately, do as they're told, to the best of their ability. This is their job description for as long as they're a member of our armed forces. This means hardcore, dangerous training, and at times, fighting in wars. Sometimes it means dying while doing your job. So we honor those people for that sacrifice.

I honor many people on Memorial Day, but I especially honor Michael Cooke, who was/is a friend of mine, and whom I served with in the Marine's 2D Reconnaissance Battalion (one of the Marine's Special Operations’ Forces), for 4.5 years. He is from the region (Horsham, PA), and is the only child of Joan Cooke, who still lives there. I visit his resting place with his mom occasionally, sometimes on Memorial Day.

I was there when he died, as we served in Desert Storm together. He was the only one from our Battalion who died during that conflict. He earned a Bronze Star with Valor, for his extraordinary observation and technical skills, while on a highly dangerous mission in enemy territory. His mission was to negotiate, observe, discern and chart the minefields that Saddam Hussein's defenses had established just inside the Kuwaiti/Saudi Arabian border, so that the whole of international forces could pass through them, unabated. Well, he succeeded in that extremely precarious venture, but upon return to our location, while routinely unloading gear and weaponry, one of his hand grenades exploded directly next to him, and he died instantly. The good news is that he didn't know this was about to happen, and he didn’t feel a thing. He was there one second, and the very next second he was gone.

Not a week has gone by in 19 years that I don't think about him. Michael, we miss you dude. And we honor you. Joan, have a peaceful Memorial Day.

Remember folks, soldiers don't start wars. Soldiers suffer in wars.

The least we can do on Memorial Day is honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice, while serving their country.



Memorial Day salutation: People often ask me, if it’s proper to say “Happy Memorial Day!” While I’ve said this at times, it may not always be the most appropriate thing to say; on its surface, it sounds a bit strange. But the important thing is to acknowledge the meaning of the day, and respect the sacrifice servicemen and women made, while sharing that recognition with surviving family members and friends, as well as active military members.

I’ve searched several times for a standard or ‘etiquettely-correct’ salutation and haven’t been able to find one. But below are some possibilities. Use your best judgment.

-“Have a peaceful Memorial Day”
-“Have a good Memorial Day”
-“I/we remember your sacrifice today”
-“Our prayers are with you today.”
-“Have a blessed Memorial Day.”
-“I’m thinking of you on Memorial Day.”
-“I share your loss on Memorial Day.”

The Hamas 'Peace' Gambit

I don't often agree with Chuck Kraut, but I do when it comes to Israel's never-ending war with all the enemies on their border. To say there are many layers and a plethora of complicated issues when it comes to that region (Palestine, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Gaze, et al.) would be a gigantic understatement; all sides have at least a few good points. But there is one thing that is pure and simple: surviving. When the bottom-bottom line is just an "us or them" choice, then the end surely justifies the means. That's why the euphemism "disproportionate response" (which gained traction thanks to an irresponsible media a few years ago, when Syria/Lebanon/Hezbollah/Iran rained rockets on Israeli civilians) doesn't work, and is useless in situations like this. One, because there are no rules in war. Period. And two, because of the word "response": if you're dumb enough to provoke a response in the first place, you lose the right to complain about the response; whatever it is. - sj

The Hamas 'Peace' Gambit
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 8, 2009

"Apart from the time restriction (a truce that lapses after 10 years) and the refusal to accept Israel's existence, Mr. Meshal's terms approximate the Arab League peace plan . . ."-- Hamas peace plan, as explained by the New York Times

"Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"-- Tom Lehrer, satirist

The Times conducted a five-hour interview with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal at his Damascus headquarters. Mirabile dictu, they're offering a peace plan with a two-state solution. Except. The offer is not a peace but a truce that expires after 10 years. Meaning that after Israel has fatally weakened itself by settling millions of hostile Arab refugees in its midst, and after a decade of Hamas arming itself within a Palestinian state that narrows Israel to eight miles wide -- Hamas restarts the war against a country it remains pledged to eradicate.

There is a phrase for such a peace: the peace of the grave.

Westerners may be stupid, but Hamas is not. It sees the new American administration making overtures to Iran and Syria. It sees Europe, led by Britain, beginning to accept Hezbollah. It sees itself as next in line. And it knows what to do. Yasser Arafat wrote the playbook.

With the 1993 Oslo accords, he showed what can be achieved with a fake peace treaty with Israel -- universal diplomatic recognition, billions of dollars of aid, and control of Gaza and the West Bank, which Arafat turned into an armed camp. In return for a signature, he created in the Palestinian territories the capacity to carry on the war against Israel that the Arab states had begun in 1948 but had given up after the bloody hell of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Meshal sees the opportunity. Not only is the Obama administration reaching out to its erstwhile enemies in the region, but it begins its term by wagging an angry finger at Israel over the Netanyahu government's ostensible refusal to accept a two-state solution.

Of all the phony fights to pick with Israel. No Israeli government would turn down a two-state solution in which the Palestinians accepted territorial compromise and genuine peace with a Jewish state. (And any government that did would be voted out in a day.) Netanyahu's own defense minister, Ehud Barak, offered precisely such a deal in 2000. He even offered to divide Jerusalem and expel every Jew from every settlement remaining in the new Palestine.

The Palestinian response (for those who have forgotten) was: No. And no counteroffer. Instead, nine weeks later, Arafat unleashed a savage terror war that killed 1,000 Israelis.

Netanyahu is reluctant to agree to a Palestinian state before he knows what kind of state it will be. That elementary prudence should be shared by anyone who's been sentient the last three years. The Palestinians already have a state, an independent territory with not an Israeli settler or soldier living on it. It's called Gaza. And what is it? A terror base, Islamist in nature, Iranian-allied, militant and aggressive, that has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortar rounds at Israeli civilians.

If this is what a West Bank state is going to be, it would be madness for Israel or America or Jordan or Egypt or any other moderate Arab country to accept such a two-state solution. Which is why Netanyahu insists that the Palestinian Authority first build institutions -- social, economic and military -- to anchor a state that could actually carry out its responsibilities to keep the peace.

Apart from being reasonable, Netanyahu's two-state skepticism is beside the point. His predecessor, Ehud Olmert, worshiped at the shrine of a two-state solution. He made endless offers of a two-state peace to the Palestinian Authority -- and got nowhere.

Why? Because the Palestinians -- going back to the U.N. partition resolution of 1947 -- have never accepted the idea of living side by side with a Jewish state. Those like Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who might want to entertain such a solution, have no authority to do it. And those like Hamas's Meshal, who have authority, have no intention of ever doing it.

Meshal's gambit to dress up perpetual war as a two-state peace is yet another iteration of the Palestinian rejectionist tragedy. In its previous incarnation, Arafat lulled Israel and the Clinton administration with talk of peace while he methodically prepared his people for war.

Arafat waited seven years to tear up his phony peace. Meshal's innovation? Ten -- then blood.

Statement from spacejace (see post below this for context)

Look folks, sometimes it just comes down to surviving. Sometimes a thousands-year history of religious warring and idealogical battling (along with who actually "started it") takes a back seat to living or dying. This is what the Israelis are facing as we speak. FACT: Hamas - also known as the "Palestinian government" - earlier this month, unprovoked, launched a barrage of missles into the Israel civilian population. That is a fact. We're not debating that.

I strongly believe the very good Palestinian people wish their government had not done this. The Palestinian people are just as sick to death of all the death as Israeli's are. Palestinians didn't vote for this government like we vote for ours. There were a litany of things beyond their control involved in the last Palestinian election, but suffice it to say, they didn't have much choice; they were strong-armed and lied to, among other things, and the outcome was never really in doubt. If the Palestinian people or the "Palestinian Authority" could remove Hamas (and the other terrorist factions actually running the country) they would. I sincerely believe that. Perhaps they'll be able to take a more active role in the future. But it's important we give ve the Palenstinian people the benefit of the doubt.

So, where does this leave us? it's simple, really. Very simple. As simple as 2+2=4. I'll explain:

1. Bad people (Hamas, Hezballoh, Iran, others) who want to cause chaos, terrorize and inflict death on innocent civilians in Israel launch hundreds of missles to achieve those goals (let's not forget: Iran is [f]actually suppying the aforementioned with money, weapons and resources because they have stated outright - nothing ambiguous here! - "all of Israel must perish!")
2. Israel, wanting to stop the indiscriminate killing of their people - and who have a lot of firepower on their side - decide they need to stop the bad people from doing this.
3. So they launch an offensive (wishing sincerely they didn't have to) to stop those people, since NO ONE else wants to, or is caple of doing so (including the Palestinian people, who want peace).

See? Simple.

Lots of people will die. Good people, bad people, innocent people; all kinds of people. People from many different countries, from many different terrorist factions; people from all sides.

At THIS PRECISE point in time, it's not about a palestinian state, religion, who started it way back when, and any other myriad of dynamics involved and unsolved. I can assure you in due time, a peace process addressing these issues will be discussed and implemented during an Obama administration, led by Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton (you go grrrlfriend!); but for now, it's about surviving (by the way, why haven't more people noticed that the Bush administration 100%, absolutely ignored this problem for his entire 8 years as President? Bush literally couldn't have cared less). Israel is fighting back to save their people. They are targeting ONLY the terrorists and quite honestly, I am AMAZED at the precautions Israel is taking (and has taken) to avoid civialian deaths (the exact opposite of what Hamas/the Palestinian Government does when attacking Israel); it's unprecedented. Research the precautions Israel takes and the techonology they use to do this on your own; you'll be amazed, I assure you.

I've often said that Israel has shown great restraint over the last couple of decades in their dealings with Palestine. The fact is, if Israel did not care about the Palestinian people, they could take care of the problem once and for all by decimating the entire country fairly quickly, a couple of months actually. They have chosen not to do that for as long as I've been alive. If I hear one more analyst or writer talk about a "disproportianate response" with regards to Israel's military action (this happened often when Hezballoh/Lebanon decided to indsicriminatley send missles to kill civilians into Israel a couple of years ago), I don't know what I'm gonna do. Listen: there is no such thing as a "disproportianate response" in war folks. I got news for you: when it gets down to bottom-bottom lines like "live or die," there are no rules. None.

It sucks for the innocent Palestinian people.
It sucks for the innocent Israeli people.
The irony is, this is what Hamas wants.

The killing and madness continues. Loop SO not closed....

Statement from Shimon Peres

Israel's President Shimon Peres, On the Attacks in Gaza (several days ago)


President Peres:
"It is the first time in the history of Israel that we, the Israelis, cannot understand the motives or the purposes of the ones who are shooting at us. It is the most unreasonable war, done by the most unreasonable warriors.

The story is simple. Israel has left Gaza completely, out of our own free will, at a high cost. In Gaza there is no single Israeli civilian or soldier. They were evacuated from Gaza, our settlements, which called for a very expensive cost. We had to mobilize 45,000 policemen to take out our settlers from there. We spent $2.5 billion. The passages were open. Money was sent to Gaza. We suggested aid in many ways - economically, medically, and otherwise. We were very careful not to make the lives of the civilian people in Gaza difficult. Still I have not heard until now a single person who could explain to us reasonably: why are they firing rockets against Israel? What are the reasons? What is the purpose?

And I must say also that the phenomenon about Israel is the restraint of the army and the unity of the people. The army waited and waited; the Palestinians asked for a ceasefire, and we agreed. They themselves have violated the ceasefire. Again, we didn't know why, until it came to a point where we were left without a choice but to bring an end to it. The operation was planned carefully and the army was true to its principles: namely, to be precise in its targets and careful not to hit civilian life. There is a problem because many of the bombs were stored in private houses. We have contacted the owners of the houses, the people that dwell there, and told them leave it. You can't live with bombs. We have to bring an end to the source of the bombs.

Israel doesn't have any ambition in Gaza. We left out of our free choice. We have never gone back to the idea of returning to Gaza. It's over. But we cannot permit that Gaza will become a permanent base of threatening and even killing children and innocent people in Israel for God knows why. I feel that in our hearts, we don't have any hatred for the Gazan people. Their suffering doesn't carry any joy in our hearts. On the contrary, we feel that the better they will have it, better neighbors we shall have. Now that Hamas is turning to the Arab world for help, the truth is that the Arab world has to turn to Hamas for the help of Hamas. If Hamas will stop it, there is no need for any help. Everything can come again to normalcy. Passages: open; economic life: free; no Israeli intervention; no Israeli participation in any of the turnarounds in Gaza.

As a nation, we feel united. As a nation, there is wholehearted support for the army, the way they handled it, their restraint, their discrimination, and their responsibility. The great winner can be reason, and reason will lead to peace. We are very serious, in a serious mood. Many of our children are still in the shelters, and we would like them, like the children of Gaza, to breathe fresh air again. This is the story, and whoever asks us to stop shooting - they have to change the address. Let them turn to Hamas and ask them to stop shooting, and there won't be shooting. Thank you very much."

Veterans Day thought (plain, simple, distilled)

So this is a response to a buddy of mine who wished me, "Happy Veterans Day!" today, on our fantasy football message board ('happy veterans day!' in case anyone's wondering, is a great salutation; I don't know if there's an 'official' or common one, but I've always appreciated that one). Keep in mind it's a blog for crying out loud, not the New York Times. Disregard typos, vocabulary, and broken sentences. This goes for everything I ever write on here.


Thanks buddies!

As troops, servicemen, anyone who currently is serving or has ever served can tell you, we are more than happy (bored, patriotic, just plain nuts) to committ ourselves to possibly die for our country, or any other insane sacrifice that might happen, as long as it's for a goddamned good reason.

The LEAST ANY leader can and should do - when LEADING a million or so young americans who are preapred to give their lives like that - is make sure it's a war or mission worth dying for. Leaders OWE us that. It's part of the fucking deal. We TRUST them to be able to determine what a good reason is, to state it simply.

This is the point Bush never got and still doesn't get, with regards to Iraq, and why I've always spoken out so much against the Iraq war, his decision, and anyone who has ever supported the Iraq war (including John McShame). These bastards made one of the worst decisions in our country's history when they decided to invade Iraq and did our troops, our military and America no favors whatsoever. And the reason it was such a bad decision was because it wasn't "worth" american lives. It was simply unnecessary for any american heroes to die there. Same thing with vietnam. which was also a 100% wholly unnecessary war, and eerily similar in that lies from our leaders and made up events were pushed vehemently to sell this utter nonsense to the American people.

Invading Iraq (Hussein never terrorized one single American here and the lying about "WMD"s! - OH MY!" among other things) and committing troops there is exactly the kind of decision troops DON'T want, need, or signed up for. Obama saw Iraq for what it was, and It's why he voted against invading them. He knew damn well it was unnecessary. He out-thunk George W., John McShame (w/ all his experience!) and a whole lot of our other "leaders" on this most important decision of the decade. Let there be no doubt about it: Obama will be a great commander-in-chief, because he has common sense and sound judgement. Something me, and millions of other veterans and active-duty military members wish Bush and the likes of John McShame possessed.

Our military is DECIMATED now, due to an unnecessary war that simply never had to happen. Hussein was no more a threat to one single American than Madonna is. He was boxed in and incapable or launching a firecracker for christ's sake. There wasn't even a MOUSE from al Qadea in Iraq before we invaded, let alone a terrorist! The Iraq war never had to happen and should never have happened and every American service person who died there didn't have to die and should not have died.

The paramount point I hope I'm making (about youth, others being more than willing to sign up for the military and potentially pay the ultimate price so long as they feel they can trust their leaders wholeheartedly), has been compromised during this administration, and America, families, veterans and our military is suffering for it, and will continue to for a truly long time. Americans who would otherwise sign up for the services, have decided they can't trust their leaders anymore to be in charge of their lives when it really matters. So they're not signing up. Recruitment for the military has not only been abysmal for the last several years, but it's actually made us genuinely and definitively less safe as a country (more on this down the road). It's a living tragedy. Thanks to Bush, our military is broken. Without a draft, it will take at LEAST a DECADE to get it back where it needs to be.

Okay, perhaps I digress. But it's important people everywhere realize the sacrifices veterans and current active duty troops have made and are making, and what goes into their thought process; as well as the dangers of what terrible leadership can do to our national heroes, their families and our country.

John McShame's "experience"

…so I was thinking about experience and how it relates to the leaders Americans pick for President…

Does experience trump common sense and leadership? For someone who touts his military experience and world knowledge so much, John McShame’s experience didn’t do a damn thing to help him (and all of us) out when it really mattered; when the time came to make the right decision with regards to the biggest military and policy decision of this decade, he made an absolutely terrible one.

And the guy who has nowhere near the breadth, depth or type of experience that John McShame has, actually made an infinitely-better and smarter decision, when he decided it’s better for America and for all Americans to NOT start a war with Iraq (and whoever else came along for the ride).

Yes, his name is Barack Obama.

See, If Barack Obama were President, there would not have been a war in Iraq. Read that again. If Barack Obama were President, there would not have been an Iraq war.

For those of you who don’t know, Barack Obama, without all the “experience” John McShame has, voted AGAINST the Iraq war. It turns out Barack Obama didn’t – and doesn’t – need “experience” to make the correct and far better decision(s) for America. He’s got something BETTER than all of John McShame’s experience: common sense, better vision, and complete and thorough leadership.

Ahh, what might have been; what should have been….
a) John McShame’s experience, if President, would have led us to the same exact result that President Bush’s decision led us to: by taking our focus, military/intelligence might, and our resources off of the real enemy - the actual enemy who really did attack us - the Taliban and Al Qadea are currently at the same strength they were on 9/11 (based on the latest Pentagon assessment from earlier this year, as well as the latest national intelligence estimate, and also independent studies done by independent organizations). This would not be the case If Barack Obama was President.
b) Al Qadea and all the other factions we’re currently fighting in Iraq would not be there for the next several decades (Hussein kept them all under control) if Barack Obama was President.
c) Our military would not be decimated if Barack Obama was President. 33% of all military forces deployed currently are from the National Guard and Reserves; tens of thousands of troops are on their 3rd, 4th, and 5th tours; thousands upon thousands of troops are being involuntarily extended. This is a very dangerous military precedent, and amounts to a decimated and broken military that can only be repaired by a full-fledged draft.
d) If Barack Obama was President, we wouldn’t have had almost 4500 troops die largely in vain in Iraq, and approximately 200,000 maimed for life. This is to say nothing of all the broken families and Iraq Vets our kids will grow up seeing homeless on the steets, much the same way I grew up seeing Vietnam Vets homeless, uncared for and forgotten about.

It goes on…

John McShame STILL thinks it was the right decision to “fight them there so we didn’t have to fight them here!” He thought – as President Bush did - we were going to “spread democracy throughout the Middle East!” He thought – as President Bush did - we were “protecting ourselves from WMD’s!” Wow. So much for “experience!”

Obama knew better. MUCH better. He knew better than John McShame did with lots less experience. And he made a far better decision. How? Why? Because it’s not about experience, it’s about leadership and common sense.

Why do I refer to John McCain as John McShame? Here’s why…

For someone like John McShame who cares and values our troops so much, he’s sure got a dysfunctional way of showing it: If ANYONE should know an unnecessary when they see one; if ANYONE should know what troops dying in vain looks like, it’s John Sidney McCain the Third, who served in the greatest unnecessary war American troops have ever fought in (Vietnam). And he doesn’t seem to know this. Of if he does know it, he doesn’t care. Either way, his EXPERIENCE has failed him; it’s failed us. It’s failed our troops, it’s failed our national heroes (which John himself once was). Sending troops off to fight a war that is completely and wholly unnecessary is not what people do who value troops, and the ultimate price they too often pay. This is shameful. That’s why I call him as John McShame.

Plain and simple: experience is overrated as a requirement for the office of the President of the United States. George W. Bush had it. Look where we are. Heck, y’all lived it the last eight years! He is far and away considered the worst U.S. President of all time by an overwhelming amount of independent scholars, Presidential historians, professors, authors, and others. How about Sarah Palin, aka “Caribou Barbie?” John McShame picked her for a lot of reasons; experience wasn’t in the top 20.

It’s about leadership and common sense. Barack Obama has it by the boatload. John McShame apparently possesses neither.