Automatic watch

I haven't posted in a while because of the holiday's and stuff.

I've been researching automatic watches. I've always wanted an automatic mechanical watch. Just something about the sweep of the second hand and the idea that this is a collection of springs and gears that are dependent on me for life. There is no battery, no circuit board. The second hand of a quartz watch "jumps" from one second to the next with each tick, a mechanical watch ticks 5 or 6 times each second. So the second hand seems to sweep around the dial, a thing of beauty.

The basic concept has been around since the 1500's, refined and updated and made more durable, but it is essentially the same. The self-winding or automatic watch was invented in about 1770, but was only put into production in the 1930's.

Think about it: On your wrist is a collection of tiny, precision gears and springs turning on bearings made from tiny jewels. It only "lives" because you put it on every day and wear it. If you don't wear it, it stops.

I think this is one of those things that you either get or you don't. Like collecting rare stamps, fine wine or having a fine shotgun handmade for you. Why have a gun made if you could buy a perfectly good one off the shelf? If you have to ask then it probably can't be explained to you.

As an adult I don't think I've ever owned a digital watch, except as a tool to use for a stopwatch. I remember being fascinated with military watches when I was a kid. After I joined the Army I had several military watches, little black-faced watches with tritium on the hands and green nylon straps. I destroyed all of them. The most complete destruction was one in the turret of my Bradley Fighting Vehicle. I was a gunner and after a qualification run down Table 8, I was clearing the weapon. This requires breaking one of the links that hold the ammo together. I had to stick a long flat-tipped screw driver in between two links and pry them apart. My screw driver slipped a couple of times and my wrist hit the side of the plenum (where the gun is mounted), smashing the watch to bits.

I never really thought to worry about the tritium on the hands, until someone mentioned later that it is radioactive.

So for a long time I gave up on nice watches. I still never had a digital, but I stuck with fairly cheap versions of military style watches. I had one with a metal bracelet that was powder-coated black. I wore it to the field in a swampy area where the mosquitoes were pretty bad. I used a bottle of Army "bug juice," which is mostly DEET. By the end of the field problem the watch was silver. All the powder-coating had melted. Again, I didn't feel like I should spend a lot on a "good" watch.

But I've never been able to walk past a watch counter without stopping. I've never wanted a Rolex though. The brand has always seemed very pretentious. Plus there are so many fakes around that, if I spent the money on a real one, I would be pissed if people asked me if it was a fake all the time.

The brands that I've always looked at are Tag Heuer and Omega. I'm not really sure why, other than they have good reputations and make really good looking watches. Omega has a great history. They make the watches that our astronauts wear and the first watch on the moon was an Omega. I only learned about that recently though. I really only knew of the brands from their ads and the "Bond" movies.

So now I have decided that I really want a nice watch. My first thought was the Tag Heuer Aquaracer, a nice looking watch. But when I went to see it in person at a jewelry store it didn't impress me at all. It's a bit small and light. It seems insubstantial. Tag also has some other styles that are much nicer but their prices go up as well. When you get into the Carrera styles, the prices are comparable to the Omega and I like the Omega more.

I didn't want to look at an Omega, they are expensive. But I'm drawn to them. I looked at the "Bond" watches (Seamaster) and the "moon" watch (Speedmaster).

The Speedmasters are all chronographs, that is they have three extra dials around the face of the watch that function as a stopwatch. During the Apollo 13 mission the Speedmaster stopwatch was used to time the manual steering maneuver the astronauts did which put them into the proper descent for re-entry. So it is said that the watch helped save their lives. That's some heavy history, I would love to own that watch. But I have a quartz watch with a chronograph now, a Festina. I like the watch a lot, but I never use the stopwatch. Plus I want a full size second hand so I can see the smooth sweep of the mechanical movement.

So I looked at the Seamasters. Beautiful. Perfect. Only one thing I don't like is they have a little crown on the left side of the watch that is a helium release valve. It exists for divers to use during decompression from extreme deep sea diving. I would never have any use for this and that just rubs me the wrong way. Unnecessary fluff, kind of a "hey, look at my watch!" gimmick. They make a version of the watch without the extra crown and with the additional complication of a second time zone. (Any extra features on a watch besides hour, minute and seconds is called a "complication.") I travel in the Army, so a second time zone makes sense. The Omega has a reputation for durability, so I think the watch will stand up to daily use and, as a senior NCO, I don't do a lot of crawling around in the mud so I'm not so worried about destroying it.

So this is my perfect watch. The Omega Seamaster GMT.



Black dial, steel bracelet. But that's just the beginning of the story. This is the perfect watch for me, but it's expensive. I'm a little worried about taking a $2100 watch on a deployment to Iraq. The only thing I have ever had stolen from me in 18 years in the Army was an electric razor, which I left in the bathroom for a couple of hours, and a gold "puzzle" ring which I left at the gym. I'm not that worried about thieves as much as I'm worried about leaving the watch somewhere.

So I decided to look around and see if a similar watch is available for less. There are many web resources available on mechanical watches. Web sites and forums in addition to dealers at the mall. I found the web more helpful, the people at the mall give conflicting information. So there are a lot of watch makers and hundreds of models. I'm sure I didn't look at all of them, but I checked out most. If I eliminated the second time zone, I could find several watches that would do very nicely. The MKII MMT is perfect. Handmade in the USA for you when you order it, for around $500. There are several other military style and divers watches that are very nice.

But if I insist on the second time zone the number of watches I like goes down to about four. Of those watches two are cheap (quality, I mean) and two are just as expensive as the Omega.

At this same time a couple of things happened. I read a discussion on a watch forum about insuring expensive watches and realized I could add the watch to my homeowners policy to cover theft or damage.

Someone I know through another internet forum, who rides the same motorcycle I ride, was killed on his bike. He was 25 years old. Here in Denver a huge snowstorm hit, I spent several days digging out. At least one person died of a heart attack shoveling snow.

The final straw was when I realized that no matter what watch I bought now, I would end up buying the Omega one day. So I would spend more money in the long run and I would deprive myself of the watch I really wanted for several years. And who knows how many years that might be? I could go back to Iraq this year, for that matter I could slip in the shower and hit my head today and it would all be over.

Life is too short to compromise. I bought the Omega yesterday.

But, I also found out the PX is an Authorized Dealer, so I got a huge discount and didn't have to pay taxes! I was thinking about going to an online dealer, but you never know with the net, plus you don't get the factory warranty if you don't buy from an Authorized Dealer. I think I got a good deal.

Here it is on a rubber strap.

Together again!

So here we are. The left and the right are all pretty much in agreement that Iraq is a mess. The Iraq Study Group has issued their report and it seems we have given up. This is a victory for our enemy, no doubt.

So both sides have traveled different paths and we find ourselves at the same place. The right has tried and failed to bring peace and democracy to Iraq in the hope of changing the fate of the entire region. The idea being the same as taking a horrible tasting medicine to cure a steadily worsening illness. Had we been successful, a peaceful democratic Iraq would have been a very helpful ally in bringing the rest of the middle east into the current century and into the community of nations.

The left, on the other hand, tried and succeded in playing politics. They never wanted the Bush administration to succeed. There was never any real support from the left or its military wing: the mainstream press. I wonder how many cocktail parties are being thrown this weekend in New York and San Francisco celebrating the "defeat" of Bush? Of course this also means that America has lost, but I guess that's less important than getting Democrats elected.

That sounds pretty bitter but there it is. All sweetness and light on the one hand and all evil on the other. I realize that things are never really this cut-and-dried, but the exact opposite is how people on the left describe the situation back to me.

Bush and his rich cronies knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks. They took advantage of the situation to whip the American people into a war mongering frenzy. They ginned up fake evidence of WMDs in Iraq and lied to the English and to the American people to get them to go along with the invasion. This was all so they could get the oil in Iraq, to make themselves richer. And get revenge for the failed attempt to kill Bush's daddy. And to place our military in an advantageous position for further invasions of innocent, peace-loving middle eastern nations. God those Republicans are evil bastards.

I have heard this crap so often, from so many different people, and they believe it. So when I say the radical left is happy we lost, and that the media actively helped create this situation, why is THAT such an unbelievable notion? Are the selfish and cynical restricted only to one side?

So let's get out of Iraq. The left doesn't want to win and the right doesn't know how. Again, the Soldier is stuck in the middle.

Those poor, crazy bastards...

I wonder sometimes if the people who run the media, whoever that is; and the people who make the movies, whoever that is, have any knowledge or experience with the military? Seriously, do these guys even know anyone in the military? Or is there some agenda here to make the military seem like a mismanaged, uncaring, refuge of last resort for the desperate, hopeless trash of our society?

I believe that most of the American people hold the military in high regard. I believe that the people I meet on the street who thank me for my service and shake my hand really mean it. And I believe that those folks are still in the majority.

That said, there are an awful lot of people who are clueless about the military. These people all seem to be getting on the air lately.
Like this quote from Rep. Charles Rangel, the draft guy:
"I want to make it abundantly clear: If there's anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq."


And this goes unchallenged. I have soldiers in my platoon who are doing whatever they can to get deployed to Iraq. I suppose they would be written off as stupid or crazy by the leftys. There's no way that they could be patriotic, could they? No, patriots are the ones holding the protest signs, right?

And I already wrote about Senator Kerry's comments in a previous rant. But this is more about the way Soldiers are portrayed in the media and the movies. I heard a heartbreaking story on NPR today about how Soldiers at Ft. Carson are not receiving the mental health care they need. How they are hounded out of the service if they complain about PTSD. Poor, crazy bastards.

There is a movie coming out about a Soldier who comes home from the war and goes nuts and shoots some stuff up. Poor, crazy bastard.

Rangel and Kerry tell us that no one WANTS to be a Soldier, we are forced to do it by poverty or stupidity. Poor, crazy bastards.

Other than showing how poorly Soldiers are treated, the only stories I can find about the military in the popular media are accounts of crimes committed by us. So we are all victims or criminals.

I suppose I could read "Soldier of Fortune," maybe they are doing stories about individual acts of heroism in Iraq, or portraying Soldiers as something other than witless victims. But I shouldn't have to.

It's as if we are not allowed to see our own military as the good guys. But if we are not the good guys, who is? And if we put this much time and effort into convincing ourselves that NO ONE should serve in the military, how are we going to respond to the NEXT 9/11 type attack. (Because there will be a next attack.)

If we have no military who will WE turn to for protection? A hollywood special effects artist? I wonder if an impassioned George Clooney speech would stop a car bomb?

If we are not the home of the brave, we will not stay the land of the free.

Peace

We just had a little bit of political correctness in overdrive here in Denver. A family put a wreath up as a Christmas decoration. Only the wreath is in the shape of a peace sign. The homeowners association, or at least the guy in charge of the HOA, decided it was a protest against the Iraq war and told the family to take it down or be fined $25 a day.

Of course this became a big honkin' deal. People offered to pay the family's fines and everyone was outraged.

I think there are two seperate issues here. On the one hand is freedom of speech and on the other is the right of people to peaceful enjoyment of their homes.

I don't have a problem with a HOA having a rule against signs for or against political issues in their yards or on the side of the house. This kind of thing can get way out of control and make for real problems in the neighborhood. Plus who needs it? You can get plenty of politics online, right? If the rules are spelled out before you buy into the neighborhood, and you sign off on it, you really have no beef.

The peace sign wreath is a non-issue. It's Christmas, "peace on earth, goodwill towards men," and so on. It's supposed to be about peace. The HOA backed down and the family gets to keep the wreath.

The larger issue, as far as I'm concerned, is the right to protest. I can't help but view everything from the perspective of a Soldier. I don't spead for all servicemen and women, but I'm happy to see protest. As long as people feel safe enough to go out into the street and carry a sign and chant slogans in opposition to the government, I know I'm doing my job. Every "impeach Bush" bumper sticker I see is simply a sign that we live in a free society.

Plus it's important that politicians on both sides see that people are paying attention. I don't have a problem being sent into danger on behalf of the American people, as long as it's a last resort and the people are behind the mission.

This is what pisses me off so bad about our current situation. Say what you want about the way we got into Iraq, but we had a vote in the Senate. Bush didn't take us to war alone. It's fair to say he led us there, but he had the support of most of the Senate. It's also fair to say let's continue to talk about our options and make adjustments along the way, which is what I think Bush has failed to do.

But let me say this about the idea of "dissent." Jefferson said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." This may be true if you are speaking out against the popular opinion of the time, or if your words have the possibility of putting you in some kind of danger: physical, legal, etc...

The original patriots were in real danger from the Brits. The people speaking out against the Iraq war before we went in and the Senators who voted against the war were dissenting. If you post an anti war opinion on the web three years after the war starts, that's not dissent. That's an opinion, and you are entitled to it, but it doesn't give you some special status as a radical dissenter. The secret police are not coming to your door in the middle of the night.

So if you are against war in general, or against the Iraq war for whatever reason: speak out. Put your bumper sticker on, whatever. Hopefully the next time our leaders consider going to war they will do better oversight. But just disagreeing with the government doesn't make you a patriot.

What does? It's hard to say exactly. I'd say just support your country, appreciate the good and work to correct the bad. If you are one of those people who thinks we deserve to be attacked because of our terrible culture, you are not a patriot. I would recommend traveling to some third world countries. It might make you appreciate what we've achieved here in the U.S.

A picture

Here is a picture of our bikes.

The Triumph Thruxton is mine and the Ducati belongs to Katie.

Riding

Once while riding my motorcycle in Arizona I passed through a swarm of bees. In Arizona you pretty much assume all bees are Africanized, that is "killer bees." But that's not really the important point.

What really strikes me is that when I mention this to people I usually slip and say "I once flew through a swarm of bees." I never consciously decided to say "flew" or ever even thought of saying it that way. But that's how it has come out on the three or four occasions I have mentioned this in the three years since it happened. I did it again last night.

Funny. I guess deep down I equate motorcycling to flying. After giving it some thought, I realize now that when I'm on the bike for a while on the open road (not stuck in traffic) the bike itself disappears. Like I'm just flying three feet above the ground.

I can't get over how it took a slip of the tongue, and several years, to reveal that to myself.

The Draft

I don't think mandatory military service is a very good idea. I don't want a bunch of people in my Army who don't want to be there. They will just screw up a good thing.

Here's an alternative.

I don't think it's the purpose of the government to give people money for nothing. That is essentially what the Pell grant program is: free money for college. Let's end this program. Kids could still get loans. Instead let's make kids earn money for school.

We have a Peace Corps that serves overseas. Volunteer for two years, get two years worth of college. Volunteer for three years, get three years of college money, etc...

We have Americorps working here in the States. Same deal except less money. Folks who serve overseas should get more money.

We also have the military. Keep the GI Bill and other veteran's benefits for people who serve in the military.

So kids would have three options to serve their country, all honorable. All would earn them college money and give them a perspective on the world that most are sorely lacking now. (I wouldn't mind seeing a requirement in colleges that you have to live overseas for a time to get a degree, but that's not really practical.) And no one would be forced to do anything, it would all still be voluntary.

The Peace Corps and Americorps would have to be greatly expanded to accomodate all the new people coming in, but that can only be a good thing. And all the people going into the Peace Corps and serving overseas would give us a much needed boost in credibility and standing with the rest of the world.

This is what we should be debating. Instead we have a typical, politically motivated, completely doomed gesture. Which is done so that next election they have something to throw in each other's faces. It would be nice if they were trying to DO something, instead of just trying to beat each other.

Worth the trouble?

I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth the trouble to keep an open mind. Seems like it would be a whole lot easier to just decide what I think is right and never listen to another person's viewpoint.

I seem to get into a lot of discussions with people who don't feel like I do about current events and politics. Although discussion might be the wrong word. Most of them don't want to hear opposing views, and they seem to hate facts. I don't believe that I have all the right answers, I'm still looking for them. But it's hard to get a good discussion going when you can't get people to agree on a starting point.

ME: Terrorists deliberately target civilians. This is wrong.
RANDOM LEFTY: Americans have killed innocent civilians too.
M: Not on purpose.
RL: So?
M: I said deliberately target them. There is a huge difference.
RL: Whatever.

So it really seems pointless. Until we can agree on a version of reality, I don't know how we can get anywhere on what to do about the people who want to kill us.

M: Bad people want to kill us.
RL: Maybe we deserve to be killed.
M: We are mostly good people who would like to see the whole world live in peace and freedom.
RL: They don't want to kill us, they just want to live in peace and freedom.
M: You changed the subject, but okay, then why do they attack us?
RL: We support Israel.
M: And that justifies the murder of schoolchildren?
RL: Bush is an idiot.

That's pretty much the way most of the discussions go. I haven't really heard anything that convinces me to change any of my major positions yet. But I'm still willing to listen.

What I've learned is that there are different versions of reality, depending on who you talk too. Not just different versions of the same basic concepts, I mean nothing in common at all. We can't even seem to agree on what "bad" and "good" mean. If I say "Car bombing a market full of civilians is bad," I never just get "Yeah, that's wrong." I always get some bull about how the poor terrorist has no other way of protesting the evils of western culture and how we are responsible for the bombing because the billions in aid we donate to the third world is less per capita than Sweden.

I just wonder why it's so important to so many people in America to take the blame on themselves for the evil of other people. I'm sure we have done bad things, things that people in other countries have a right to be angry about. As a world superpower we can't look after our own self interests and please everyone in the world. But nothing justifies killing random civilians.

Until we can agree on that, we can't move forward.

Crazy

Here's something I don't understand about left-wing types. They think George Bush is an idiot. I mean stupid! They make fun of his goofy mistakes and write books about his pathetic speeches. (He really is a bad public speaker.) They say his daddy got him into Yale and he pulled C's and on and on. "Nuculur!" Hahahahaha....

They also say he fooled the entire country and a good part of the free world into going to war. He manipulated most of the Senate into voting his way, and pressured the FBI and CIA into falsifying intelligence to support his war. He got all these Senators to say Saddam was a threat and had WMDs, including Kerry and Hillary. He got the intelligence agencies of foreign countries to back him up, somehow. Some people even believe Bush was planning to invade Iraq before 9/11 and he somehow set the whole thing up - just to give himself an excuse.

That's pretty good for a C student. No, that's genius - evil super-genius. That's James Bond super-villain type genius! Think about it. All the people who would have to either be in on the plot, or be duped into doing Bush's bidding. It boggles the mind. Watergate pales in comparison, not even in the same league.

In fact some of the same people he hoodwinked, supposedly, are people who accuse him of being stupid. So what does that say about the people he fooled? How embarrassed would you be, as a Senator? "Yeah, I'm SO much smarter than Bush, but... he's just such a convincing speaker..."

Anyway, I suppose you could say Bush is just a puppet, doing the bidding of the real evil super-genius: Dick Cheney (or Carl Rove, depending on who you talk to). But that would mean that Bush is an incredibly gifted actor. So why would he act so dumb?

And anyway, if Bush IS an actor, then we should really pay attention and do what he says. Because, after all, in America we consider actors to be minor gods. To be worshipped and adored. Every utterence to be revered as gospel. (See Clooney, Pitt, Jolie, etc...)

Which leads to a huge problem for liberals.

1. Bush is dumb. In which case he isn't capable of lying and manipulating the country into the war. Or really even being a part of a huge conspiracy directed by someone else. Which means the people who voted to give him the power to go to war are really to blame, after all they gave this idiot the power to go to war?

Or

2. Bush is an evil super-genius. If he is capable of doing all that the left accuses him of - we should just be glad he's on our side. Or maybe he's not... Anyway, if he's that brilliant, there's nothing we can do. He's far too smart for all of us.

It really can't be both.

There's a third possibility. Maybe he's just doing what he thinks is the right thing to do. Maybe he laid out the case as best he understood it, presented evidence that he thought supported his case and used political pressure on our allies to get done what he thought needed to be done. Then he let the Senate vote.

Patience

There is an interesting Buddhist teaching that goes something like: Whoever is your enemy is your teacher as well. The same idea is expressed many different ways.

This means (to me) that if someone is pissing you off, you have a choice. You either choose to be angry and respond to that person (or situation) with anger; or you choose to not be angry and not respond with anger. So this is the idea that you choose your mind, even if you can't control the situation.

Living in a big city and dealing with big city traffic every day, I get lots of practice. My wife and I are constantly saying, "That guy is teaching you patience," when one of us is getting ticked off.

I'm getting better at it too. Practice makes perfect. I recently bought a new computer. A Dell XPS, a nice little laptop. My teenage son downloaded something to it and must have picked up some malware. Within days problems started multiplying and soon it wouldn't boot. This should have upset me but I tried to look at it as an opportunity. I reloaded the operating system and drivers and it actually runs faster, with less BS software on it. Now I'm glad this happened. I got angry with my son at first, now I wish I had been more patient. Hopefully I will learn.

But overall, I feel like I'm walking around with more of an optimistic attitude. The world is full of doors opening now, rather than doors closing.

And it's all about changing your mind. In reality that's all you control.

New Ducati

My wife just got a new Ducati sport classic, the Sport 1000. Now we both have Cafe Racers!
She is so excited she insisted we ride to the restaurant to watch the football games today. And it snowed. Hard. So we left a little early, rode home in a driving snow storm. Good times! I love that I married a woman who thinks this is funny!

How I got here (politically)

In a nutshell this is how I got from Democrat to Independent.

My parents raised me to believe rich people are evil. Especially Republicans. (I know you are reading this Mom, don't deny it.) As I got older I believed all the trash being thrown around about Reagan and the first Bush. As far as I was concerned, they were horrible presidents and bad people. If you had known me then I would have told you this, and argued it all day long. In fact I did argue this with my Platoon Leader many, many times. I was the gunner on his Bradley Fighting Vehicle and we passed a lot of time in the field debating politics. He was a devout Republican.

So as the years passed I voted for Bill Clinton twice and felt pretty good about it. But I was noticing that some of the planks of the Democratic platform didn't quite make sense to me. How can you be for abortion but against the death penalty? (The Republicans have the same problem, in reverse.) And how come when one of our guys gets caught in a scandal it's a fluke, a single bad apple; and when one of their guys gets caught it's an example of widespread corruption in their party? (Ditto, Republicans.)

So I'm starting to doubt the whole party thing when Clinton had his intern affair. What drove me out of the fold, so to speak, was the hypocrisy of the people defending Clinton. That's when I saw that there are no absolutes, no standards, when you are a partisan. Another example: It was perfectly okay for Clinton to dodge the military during Vietnam, but despicable for Bush to get into the National Guard. The same people defending Clinton when he ran were bashing Bush during his run, and vice versa.

Politicians and the people running their campaigns think we are stupid. They think we don't pay attention and we can't remember what was said from one election to the next. And they are right, for the most part. I can think of only two reasons for people to remain members of either political party. One is that you are a single issue voter. Whether it's abortion or the environment or whatever, you have one issue that's important to you so you will stick with the party that is on your side through thick and thin.

I respect this, I think when it comes time to vote this is the only real way to make a decision, because we will never get better than "the lesser of two evils" to choose from. So you have to decide which person is going to do what you want on your most important issue. This is how I ended up voting for Bush twice. My issues were security and the economy.

The other is that it's easier than thinking for yourself. I think a lot of folks fall into this one. "Dancing with the American Idol Survivor Stars" is on, so I don't want to think about hard stuff.

It IS hard. Trying to keep up with everything that's going on, sorting through the bias and spin on the news and in the papers, and it's getting worse.

The bottom line is I have no respect for either party. I don't think they are interested in what's best for the country or the people. They have an agenda and they will push it through no matter whether it makes sense for us or not.

I lean conservative because the liberal agenda defies common sense. And they double-talk too much. The impression I get is that they think we are too stupid to understand the details. Taxes, the economy, security, these are complicated subjects. The Democrats don't ever seem to get into specifics: How does taxing the rich more help the economy? Most low income people pay no taxes already, how does giving them my tax money help them in the long run become higher income? What, exactly, IS your plan to secure America? "I'll do it better" isn't a plan.

I don't feel like the democrats are speaking to me when they go on the Sunday morning shows and such. Until they start answering questions with specifics, I can't get on board. I don't like all the Republican plans, but at least I know what they are and can make a decision based on something concrete.

The future

Here's what I would LIKE to see now that the Democrats control the House and Senate:

A clear alternative to the current tactics in Iraq. A plan for getting the Iraqis to take charge of their country and to stop killing each other. Bush and the Republicans think their tactics are working and clearly they are not. Given enough time and Soldiers, it might work or it might not. Frankly I don't know if there is a way to make the Iraqis stop killing each other. It's easy to say Bush went in without a plan and screwed the whole thing up. It's a fair criticism too. Actually I would say they went in with an incomplete plan rather than no plan.

I think it would also be fair to say that if the politicians had been working for victory, rather than waiting to pounce on any perceived failures, the American people would have been behind the effort and the situation would be much different. It's like the chicken and the egg... Is the chaos in Iraq causing Americans to want to quit; or are the terrorists, who pay close attention, seeing the dissatisfaction with the war and stepping up the attacks?

Are we losing or are we quitting? Are we the people who fought through to victory in World War 2, or are we the people who ran away from Somalia when the going got tough. The democrats may "get us out" of Iraq, but unless we leave a stable situation, we will be back.

Here's what else I'd like to see:

Go ahead and raise the minimum wage. But make sure it's not going to cause that restaurant down the street to fire my teenage son because they can't afford to pay him. Or keep them from hiring him in the first place.

Protect our roadless areas. The environment is what makes me want to be a liberal, really. Try going for a hike around Denver, true wilderness is hard to find around here. You need to pay for a permit to camp and no fires are allowed. What's going on in the Front Range could happen one day in the rest of the west if we don't plan for growth now. But it has to be done with an eye towards business and development. People without jobs aren't likely to have time to go out and enjoy the wilderness; they will be more worried about feeding their kids.

Force the auto companies to produce higher mileage cars. This is a no brainer, the technology exists, just do it. Don't get the U.S. involved in some goofy global warming treaty that punishes us alone. Again, we need to do something, but we also need to feed our families.

These are a few of the things I'd like to see happen. If they do this kind of thing, then I will start to see them as a force for positive change and might even consider voting for their candidate for president in 2008.

Here is what I'm afraid WILL happen:

I'm afraid the Democrats will use the next two years to set up their bid for the presidency in 2008. We will see investigations, hearings and maybe impeachment talk about Bush. They will push bills through that they know Republicans will vote against and Bush will veto; just so they have ammuntition to hammer Republicans with next election. I believe Republicans do the exact same thing when they are in power.

And this is the problem. These politicians don't care about doing anything to help us or the country. They are interested in getting elected and staying in power.

So we can look forward to two years of pounding the Republicans and negative, negative, negative all the time. I hate the way the media has worked to make us feel bad about being Americans these last few years. But I think we need to resign ourselves to it for a while longer.

Article in the New York Times

I'm just going to post this whole thing.

New York Times
November 8, 2006

No Atheists In A Foxhole? No Idiots, Either

By Tim Kane and Mackenzie Eaglen

Washington -- The Pentagon’s announcement that all military branches reached or exceeded their active-duty recruiting goals for fiscal year 2006 grabbed plenty of headlines. Small wonder. After all, it flouts the conventional wisdom that our military is mired in an unpopular war. Recruiters must be looking under rocks and bending standards to fill the ranks, right?

Wrong. Indeed, a study we conducted of the recruiting classes for all military branches in 1999 and from 2003 through 2005 puts the lie to the crass assumption that the United States is fielding a low-quality military.

A common misperception is that the ranks are increasingly filled with relatively uneducated young men and women from low-income households. Yet this myth doesn’t hold up under inspection.

Our study analyzed demographic data on every single enlistee, not just a sample, and found that in terms of education, last year’s recruits were just as qualified as those of any recent year, and maybe the best ever. Over all, wartime recruits since 1999 are in many respects comparable to the youth population on the whole, except that they are on average a bit wealthier, much more likely to have graduated from high school and more rural than their civilian peers.

As for the idea that the military poaches from poor families, the fact is that, as the conflict in Iraq continues, youths from wealthy American ZIP codes are volunteering in ever higher numbers. Additionally, enlistees from the poorest fifth of American neighborhoods fell nearly a full percentage point over the last two years, to 13.7 percent. In 1999, that number was exactly 18 percent.

Yes, the Army has changed its standards — for example, our study found that 4.4 percent of Army recruits received Category 4 scores (the lowest ranking) on the Armed Forces Qualifying Test. This is up from 2 percent in previous years, and has been widely touted as evidence of decline. Yet we also found that the percentage of enlistees with Category 1 scores, the highest level, is rising.

More important than enlistee test scores is a comparison of military volunteers to their civilian peers. And here there is no contest. Counting enlisted troops only, 29 of 30 have a high school diploma, compared to about 4 out of 5 civilians. And the typical enlistee reads at a level roughly a full grade higher than other young American adults.

Critics have also focused on the fact that age limits on recruits have been raised — the Army’s old threshold of 35 has been changed to 42 for active-duty troops and to 40 for reserves. But this was simply an acknowledgment of reality: older recruits today are much healthier on average than in previous generations.

We also looked at a much-noted curiosity: Why were the years 1999 and 2004 harder for recruiting than the others in our study? The answer, most experts agree, is a strong economy. Indeed, the Pentagon always faces a challenge enlisting young people when jobs are plentiful. Thus the Army is crediting its current recruiting success, in part, to significant cash bonuses and other financial perks. And that’s the way it should be: using market incentives for volunteers, not a draft of the less fortunate.

While achieving last year’s recruiting goals is a success, there is some cause for concern regarding future recruitment and retention efforts — particularly in the National Guard and Reserves — if military spending over all isn’t increased. We feel that the Army’s 2008 budget proposal is $20 billion or more below what it should be.

During a time of war abroad and prosperity at home, tens of thousands of young Americans remain willing to make real sacrifices for the rest of us. Congress and the Pentagon should not shortchange them on pay and benefits. The soldiers themselves might appreciate getting paid more of one other thing: Respect, both for their intelligence and their decision to serve.

Tim Kane is the director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at the Heritage Foundation. Mackenzie Eaglen is a senior policy analyst there.

Kerry's comment on the military

Nice. I always get that feeling from civilians. That they feel sorry for me. I must be from a poor family, or I'm not smart enough to make it in the "real" world. Kerry just said it out loud.

I bet he was suprised at the reaction. I fully believe that what he said is the commonly held opinion of his circle of friends and of many people like him. I'm sure they don't come right out and say it, even to each other; but it's the accepted explanation for why anyone would WANT to be a soldier.

Remember the line from "Piano Man," by Billy Joel? "...he's talkin' with Davey, who's still in the Navy, and probably will be for life." That doesn't exactly sound like a positive thing does it?

This is from the "Dilbert Blog," by Scott Adams:
"I remember one day in sixth grade, our teacher asked us to go to the blackboard, one at a time, and write down something we would be willing to die for. The first few kids wrote down answers such as “cancer” and “hit by car.” Our teacher informed us that this was not what he was looking for. When my turn came, I wrote “my country” and apparently this was the right answer. He praised me in front of the class. He also would have accepted freedom and democracy.
So how did a 12-year old know he should die for his country? That stuff gets in your head early, way before your critical reasoning capacity is in place. And it stays there."

So the baby boomers grew up thinking that you have to be nuts to volunteer for the military, and now they have the kids who are being recruited in school. And they protest and fight against the recruiters. Then they say they support the military. I wish they would just be honest. Don't say you support the military if you wouldn't allow your child to join. That's like saying you support civil rights but you don't want your daughter dating a black guy.

John Kerry only said what many people believe. I think it's a minority, but there are a lot of them. Every time I'm out in public in my uniform, I get the sympathetic looks and the "how much longer do you have?" questions. I had a guy ask me that once and I told him I could retire in two years, but that I would probably stay in for two more after that. He looked shocked. He actually asked: "Why would you do that?" I told him that I love being a Soldier and I don't want to stop. He walked away looking puzzled. I don't think my answer fit his version of reality.

I get plenty of "Thanks for your service," type comments too; so I know that there are people out there who "get it," too. If you see a Soldier in uniform, please say thanks, but don't ask when he or she is getting out. Ask how long he or she has been in, where they've been, etc... We love that. We are proud of our service and proud of our country.

If you are one of those Kerry type people, you don't have to understand. You can live in your little fantasy world, pretending that you are smarter, more worldly, higher class; and that the world is not a dangerous place or that the U.S. is the cause of all the wars and hatred out there toward us. That's a nice little fantasy that you are lucky enough to be able to indulge in. If one day you convince enough kids to believe this fantasy, and the military runs out of recruits, it'll all come crashing down around you. By then it will be too late, unfortunately. But I know you don't believe that.

For now, just sit down, shut up and enjoy the freedom provided to you.

Why I'm not a liberal

I think that I'd like to be a liberal. Being a liberal is considered "cool." Being a conservative is so old-fashioned. Conservatives are old, uptight, moralistic, boring. Dick Cheney! Liberals are young, hip, good-looking, fun. George Clooney! Like the commercial featuring the two guys as a Mac and a PC. The Mac is young and cool: liberal; the PC is fat and uptight: conservative.

Actually I think I mean I'd like to live in the world that liberals THINK we live in. Do you follow what I mean? Liberals have all these great intentions; peace, love, dope! If WE, meaning the United States, would only stop being so selfish and mean; the whole world would get along and be peaceful and prosperous.

Unfortunately we don't live in a world where most of their ideas are possible. It would be cool, for example, if we could solve the terrorism problem with "dialogue" and understanding. But I don't think it matters how well we understand Muslim culture; or how much we want to help people in third-world countries overcome poverty, disease and oppression. THEY don't care what our intentions are.

It would be great if every working person in the U.S. could be paid $10 per hour or more. Liberals seem to believe that it's as simple as passing a law. Mandate what everyone is to be paid and eliminate poverty! Of course this doesn't take into account the reality that there would be far fewer jobs overall because business owners, making the same amount of money as they did before the law was passed, wouldn't be able to hire as many workers.

This seems so simple to me, so logical, that it boggles my mind that so many people in America don't get it.

Like I said, it would be great to live in that world. But that world just doesn't exist.

Off day

I'm off work today so that time I usually spend in the car or on my motorcycle thinking about things I want to blog about didn't happen. If something comes up I'll post it. Who knows I'll be going out later so something might trigger a rant.

The Snow

On my way to work this morning the power was out at two gas stations I tried to get gas from. Does Excel not understand that we have snow every year here. Here's a clue, it will snow again at least one more time this winter!!

How hard would it be to go out in the middle of the day on a nice bright sunshine filled summer day and check the power lines to see if they will hold up to the snow? Put a little tension on the line and see if it breaks. Yeah, sure some of them will break and then people will be out of power. I'm sure if you explain that the power is out on the beautiful summer day so that it won't go out in the middle of the night in the dead of winter, folks will understand.

Some PHB probably fired the guy with common sense for coming up with pain-in-the-ass suggestions like this.

Rich Liberals

Here's what I don't get about rich liberals:

Why don't they all put their money together and start a big charity to give the money to poor folks?

It seems every left-leaning politician runs on a platform of sticking it to the rich. (Nothing like punishing success.) Barack Obama was in Denver today and one of the quotes they used on the news was Obama saying he would fight to roll back the "tax cuts for the rich." Well he's rich, so I started thinking: Why don't they cut out the middle -man and start a charity to give THEIR OWN money directly to the poor?

They could set a limit on the amount of money that they think each person should make. Anything they earn above that amount, they donate to this charity. Then the charity would give the money to anyone who makes below a certain amount. I think they would gain a lot of credibility with people like me who think it's okay to make as much money as you can. (I'd probably still disagree with them, but I would respect them more.)

I'm comfortable with the idea that some people are willing to work harder than I do, or spend years in school, so that they earn a lot more money than I do. I also am comfortable with the idea that I earn more than other people. We all make choices. I don't have a problem paying taxes and having some of those taxes used to help the people who, for whatever reason, CAN'T earn enough to live on.

But there is a huge difference between someone who CAN'T earn enough, and someone who is capable of going to school or working longer hours, stop spending more than they earn, etc... and CHOOSES not to.

And as long as I'm sending my money into the government, I want to know that I'm not just subsidizing some loser who would rather sit at home smoking dope than go to work. Some people need help, they should get it. Some people need education, and they should get it too. Some people are looking for a free ride.

Here is another thought: If rich liberals think the federal government is the best place for their money, why don't they just GIVE their money to the government? If the tax cuts are so unfair, don't claim them! Just do a straight 1040 with no exemptions and no deductions. How hard is that?

That way the entrepreneurs and small business people could still get the cuts that allow them to grow their businesses; and the regular folks like me can still afford to sink money into my 401K (actually Thrift Savings Plan in the Army), which drives the economy.

Enough for this rant.

Letter to Mom

I sent this to my Mom in response to an email. I thought I'd post it up.

I believe many, many people on the left want us to lose in Iraq. It's the only explanation for the complete lack of acknowledgement for any of our accomplishments there. Can you name a single "hero" from this 3 year old war? Or seen a single movie/documentary that portrays the troops in anything but a negative or sympathetic way?

Now CNN shows terrorist snipers killing our troops. Would they show a video of our snipers killing terrorists? They haven't. What does that tell you? It's hard not to think that the country is against the soldiers when you see this.

It's easy to get into an "us v them" mindset. In this case the "us" are the soldiers and the "them" are the civilians who don't understand the danger they are in if we don't succeed.

The Cafe Racer

This is my bike. It's a cafe racer styled bike and the reason for the name.

First little rant

Chaos and negativity, it drives me nuts. You would think that every soldier that ever went to Iraq has been killed. People want to see the caskets of soldiers coming back to the states, in the name of truth, they say.
That's bullshit.

You want the truth? You want balance? How about showing pictures of troops coming home safe and sound? How about showing footage of all the convoys arriving safely at their destinations every day in Iraq? Boring... No drama...

No one is interested in truth or balance anymore. All we want are weapons to beat our opponents over the head with. That's fine if our opponents are the terrorists. The problem is we are fighting each other. No one outside the administration is interested in winning this war. They want to win in November, not in Baghdad.

Bush and Co. obviously don't have the right tactics. They need help, but they won't get it because no one in opposition wants Bush to look good. And Bush wouldn't take help anyway because he doesn't want to look like he needs the help.

We Soldiers are stuck. Prisioners of our political system.