We had a little rally

At the DNC on Sunday. Ours was a small gathering, but we had a good time. I was impressed with the concept that on one side of the street was an anti-war rally and on the other was a rally supporting victory (saying "pro-war" doesn't really work, no one is pro-war.) I feel pretty good that, for the most part, we can have our political battles with words and signs and not bullets.

Our message is that the goal should be victory in Iraq, not abandonment. We shouldn't just be looking for the fastest way out, but the way that is best for us and the Iraqi people.

Here are some pics of the rally. You have to click on it to see the whole thing.

This one of me is courtesy of www.lookingattheleft.com




These pics are mine.





We had several speakers.



Even the poor horses had to have protection.

Ready for cap-and-trade?

So ready or not, here it comes! The cap-and-trade bill is making it's way through congress. This bill will force evil polluters (like your power company) to limit their CO2 emissions (that's the cap) or buy carbon credits (the trade.) Read the summary here.

Of course this will result in higher energy and gas prices. Much higher. The EPA did a study found here, that estimates the cost. They estimate that gasoline will cost 22 to 49 cents more in 2020 and electricity will cost 44% more by 2030.

They make some longshot assumuptions though. They assume, for one thing, that most power plants in the country will be replaced in the next 20 years with new ones that include a system for "carbon sequestration," capturing and storing CO2.

From Wikipedia: (Bold emphasis mine.)
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an approach to mitigate global warming by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from large point sources such as fossil fuel power plants and storing it instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. Technology for large scale capture of CO2 is already commercially available and fairly well developed. Although CO2 has been injected into geological formations for various purposes, the long term storage of CO2 is a relatively untried concept and as yet (2007) no large scale power plant operates with a full carbon capture and storage system.

CCS applied to a modern conventional power plant could reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere by approximately 80-90% compared to a plant without CCS[1]. Capturing and compressing CO2 requires much energy and would increase the fuel needs of a coal-fired plant with CCS by about 25%[1]. These and other system costs are estimated to increase the cost of energy from a new power plant with CCS by 21-91%[1]. These estimates apply to purpose-built plants near a storage location: applying the technology to preexisting plants or plants far from a storage location will be more expensive.

The EPA also made the assumption that many new nuclear power plants will be built and that CO2 emitters will be able to buy carbon offsets. Read this story to see how well these programs work.

Here's the really scary part from the EPA: "The absence of these technologies is estimated to significantly increase compliance costs." In one section they estimate doubling or quadrupling costs. That's just gas and electricity.

The EPA estimate also states that total Gross Domestic Product for the U.S. will be lower by $444 billion to $1.3 trillion... in the best case scenario. This will be due to the higher cost of doing everything and the fact that folks will have less money to invest.

How will this effect the trucking company that brings the food to your local grocery store? How about UPS? Farmers?

So my question? Is it worth destroying our economy to slow global warming, if there is even a tiny doubt that CO2 is the sole cause of the warming?

Well, it doesn't really matter what we think. Both Obama and McCain support this bill. So we are in for it no matter who wins this fall.

Better start saving your pennies now.

The Iraq war is over!

Well, it must be... you don't hear about it on the news at all do you? The war seems to have completely disappeared. You would think there would be a story or two on this weekend, since it's Memorial Day...

I wonder if the upcoming election is part of the reason we are not hearing anything about the war anymore. Any good news out of Iraq will help McCain. I'm willing to bet that a big attack (or even a small one) against the U.S. or Iraqi government forces will result in front page news. Relative peace and progress will result in continued silence from the media.

A little disappointed watching "Ironman"

We went to see the movie "Ironman" today. It was a pretty good action movie, overall I enjoyed it. I had one little moment during the movie though that stuck with me.

First let me say, I know I'm over-sensitive to references to the military and to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but with good reason I think. Look at my last post about Stephen King, and look at the protests against recruiters. We are portrayed in the media as illiterate victims of the system, or war criminals. I think it's amazing that anyone even wants to be in the American military these days.

So I was happy to see a decent representation of military people (Air Force) in the movie. They were played a little naive and awestruck by the Rober Downey Jr. character, but it was pretty fair.

So the movie went on, I was enjoying it. The hero goes on his first rescue mission in some far-off villiage in an Afghanistan-like country. He beats up a bunch of bad guys and is suddenly confronted by, I think four, bad guys holding guns to the heads of innocent villagers. So he pulls a neat little trick with his suit, (I won't spoil it) and kills the bad guys, freeing the people.

And the crowd watching the movie cheered.

Nothing against the movie and nothing against the people watching it, but... There are real, live, actual men and women serving in those places right now doing that for real. Rescuing real, live, actual innocent villagers from real, live, actual bad guys. Not actors, not fiction, no CGI explosions or fake gunshots. Real.

When does their movie get made? When do moviegoers cheer for them? Why can't we see that? I know people want that movie, the cheer from that crowd today proves that. People want heroes, people want to be proud of something.

We are the good guys. It would be nice if someone would recognize that for a change. Rather than try to tell us we should be ashamed of what we've done.

Stephen King: Another clueless tool

Here we go again, another idiot who can't keep his ignorance and bias out of public view. He said to a group of high school kids at an event at the Library of Congress:

"I don't want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV, but the fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don't, then you've got, the Army, Iraq, I don't know, something like that. It's, it's not as bright. So, that's my little commercial for that.

Sadly, as fewer and fewer people have any exposure to the military, more and more will accept this stuff as fact. He is probably sitting at home right now wondering why this is such a big deal. After all, I'm sure all the people he knows feel the same way...

Looks like another good book!

Remember this article: http://caferacer99.blogspot.com/2007/04/good-article.html

Well the author of that article, Kyndra K. Rotunda, has written a book about her first-hand experience with the legal side of the war on terror. She is a lawyer and an Army Reservist and she's trying to debunk the myths about Gitmo. Here is the link: Honor Bound at Amazon.com

What should happen is the media and the anti-war crowd should read her book and take her first-hand account into consideration when writing or speaking about Gitmo. What I'm afraid will happen is that they will decide that the book doesn't fit into their preconceived ideas about what is happening there, so they will ignore it.

Pretty much the same way they ignore all of the rest of us in the military. Still waiting for the movie about one of the Medal of Honor winners from this war...

Matthew DeBord is a clueless tool

Read this idiot's OpEd piece printed in the Los Angles Times:

Petraeus' 'ribbon creep'
A uniform full of medals and decorations clashes with his message.
By Matthew DeBord April 9, 2008

Gen. David H. Petraeus may be as impressive a military professional as the United States has developed in recent years, but he could use some strategic advice on how to manage his sartorial PR. Witness his congressional testimony on the state of the war in Iraq. There he sits in elaborate Army regalia, four stars glistening on each shoulder, nine rows of colorful ribbons on his left breast, and various other medallions, brooches and patches scattered across the rest of the available real estate on his uniform. He even wears his name tag, a lone and incongruous hunk of cheap plastic in a region of pristine gilt, just in case the politicians aren't sure who he is.

That's a lot of martial bling, especially for an officer who hadn't seen combat until five years ago. Unfortunately, brazen preening and "ribbon creep" among the Army's modern-day upper crust have trumped the time-honored military virtues of humility, duty and personal reserve.

Think about any of the generals you've seen in recent years -- Norman Schwarzkopf, Barry McCaffrey, Wesley Clark (all now retired) and others -- and the image you'll conjure no doubt includes a chest full of shimmering decorations. In Petraeus' case, most of them don't represent actual military action as much as they do the general's devotion to the institution of the U.S. Army and vice versa. According to an annotated photograph produced by the Times of London last year, the majority of ribbons on Petraeus' impressive "rack" were earned for various flavors of distinguished service. As brave as he may be and as meritorious in general, is all that ostentation the best way to present the situation in Iraq to an increasingly war-skeptical public?

Of course, Petraeus' goal is not just to make simple, soldierly arguments before Congress -- it is to dazzle, at least initially, with the blazing imagery of rank. What, after all, are mere Brooks Brothers suits on the members of Congress in the face of a fighting man's laurels? Some of the showiness can be attributed to regulations: The official uniform of the Army is to be worn in a very specific manner, and the brass have an obligation to live up to their billing by showing plenty of ... well, brass. On the other hand, if you're wearing four stars, you surely have some say when it comes to matters of peacockery.

Medals and decorations have a long history with a slightly cynical tinge. This goes back to their inception, during the Napoleonic era, when the strategic genius from Corsica discovered that baubles handed out to the combatants helped ensure loyalty and ferociousness. "With a handful of ribbons, I can conquer all of Europe," he said. In more contemporary times, decorations have suffered a fraught reputation among the rank and file: nice to get but awkward to display if the memories associated with them are of violence, loss and the ineptness of commanders. There have been isolated incidents of Iraq war veterans returning their medals, and, of course, Vietnam War vets were better acquainted with this kind of protest.

The greatest military leaders, in the age of organized national armies, have often conspicuously modified the official requirements of the uniform, even in the most public of settings. Ulysses S. Grant accepted Robert E. Lee's sword while outfitted in disheveled Union blue and muddy boots. Douglas MacArthur presided over the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on the deck of the battleship Missouri without donning so much as a necktie with his khakis. George Patton was flamboyant, in his jodhpurs and riding boots, but he backed it up in battle after battle. His legend derived equally from brilliant tactics and an outrageous wardrobe.

Perhaps the best example, however -- and one that Petraeus and his cadre should look to for inspiration -- was set by two of the most politically savvy generals America has produced: Dwight Eisenhower and George Marshall. In photographs following World War II, with Ike fresh from rescuing Western civilization while Marshall was working to rebuild it, both men appear victorious, yet somber, cognizant of the challenges met and the challenges ahead. Eisenhower wears a single row of ribbons, Marshall three.

When you've saved the world and managed the lives and deaths of millions, it obviously compels a certain level of modesty about showcasing your accomplishments, however monumental. Apparently when you're trying to explain why your war-fighting achievements are "fragile" and why the conflict you're running in a hot, dusty faraway place might never be won, it does not. Memo to Petraeus: When you're making the case for more patriotic gore, go easy on the glitter.
Matthew DeBord is a writer in Los Angeles.

So lacking anything substantive to say, he decided to attack Petraeus's uniform. The only thing DeBord accomplished is to prove that he knows nothing about the military and can't be bothered to try to find out.

"He even wears his name tag..." Petraeus doesn't have a choice. He is required to wear it. It's funny that there was no one in DeBord's editorial chain, the people who read and decided to allow this editorial to be printed, who had even the tinyest knowledge of the military. No one who could say: "Hey, Matt, those guys have to wear those. Maybe you could leave out that name tag thing..."

But I guess it's not so surprising that no one at that paper has any military experience or knowledge. Or perhaps they just don't care if what they write is true or not, as long as it makes their point.

Anti-war protests

I'm pro anti-war protests. Whenever I see people out in the street protesting against anything the government does, it proves to me that we live in the country that I think we do.


When hundreds or thousands of people feel free enough to go out into the street and proclaim opposition to the government it's a powerful statement that we live in a free and open society. These people don't have to fear a knock on the door in the middle of the night, no one is going to come for them because they carried a sign.


It also makes me feel like we in the military are doing our job. Not only from the "freedom" aspect, but also from a safety perspective. A large gathering of people is a target, especially if they advertise ahead of time. Obviously we are safe here at home if people still feel like they can gather together in large groups in the street.

I also think it's good for the leaders of the parties to see that they shouldn't enter into a war without great deliberation and debate. This is why I still think it's wrong to blame Bush alone for the Iraq war. He made his case to the Senate, they had the means to question him and his administration. If they didn't ask the right questions, that's on them. You can say Bush lied and manipulated the evidence, but I have yet to see credible proof. Obviously the congress doesn't think there is credible proof either, or they would have impeached by now. But that's beside the point.

The anti-war protests emphasize to our "leaders" that they need to be very sure the next time they vote to go to war, they are willing to stick to it for longer than the first bad news from the front. (They probably won't, but that's a whole other story.)

The problem I have with the recent protests is the targeting of recruiters. No one protesting against recruiters can still claim to support the troops. Recruiters are troops, plain and simple. Most of them are what we call "detailed recruiters." Which means they are ordered to recruiting duty, they didn't volunteer for it. If you believe recruiters are evil and are preying on young people to support this administration's illegal war, then you have a shortsighted, immature worldview.

So protest. Protest against this war, or all war in general if you wish. But leave the recruiters alone. They are just Soldiers doing a job.

Surprise party!

Katie threw me a surprise birthday party last night, for my 40th. It was a lot of fun. I suspected she was going to do it, but as the evening went on I started thinking I was wrong. She told me she got tickets to dinner and a play for us and I bought it hook, line and sinker.

We walked into the resaurant and had to go upstairs and there everyone was. I really was surprised. Katie did a great job! We had a great time.

And she bought me the watch that I wanted so bad! Actually my parents and Kate's mom pitched in for it too, I'm very happy!

Found my next watch!

White dial, leather strap, German made, not too expensive. I can get a brown strap for it and, with the white face, it'll be more versatile. This'll be just for the weekends.

Short attention span

Check this article out. This is exactly what led to 9/11. The bad guys test us with small pinpricks that we ignore, and wait for the time to be right for the big attack.

After 9/11 we responded with force, we acted proactively, and we haven't been attacked again. Now we are going back to running scared again and the terrorists are paying attention. How much you want to bet there won't be any major terrorist activity from now until the election? A major attack would benefit the Republican candidate, all of whom come across as tougher on terrorism. No major attacks and we will forget about terrorism and focus on the freebies that the candidates are promising us. American's have short attention spans: remember the Iraq war? (Actually, it's still going on...)

New York Post
January 8, 2008
Iran 1, USA 0
Naval Error In The Gulf
By Ralph Peters
EARLY Sunday morning, the US Navy lost its nerve and guaranteed that American sailors will die at Iranian hands in the future.
As three of our warships passed through the Straits of Hormuz, five small Iranian patrol craft rushed them. As the Revolutionary Guard boats neared our vessels, an Iranian officer broadcast a threat to our ships, claiming they'd soon explode.
The Iranians tossed boxes into the water. Mines? Just in case, our ships took evasive action.
The Iranians kept on coming, closing to a distance of 200 meters - about two football fields. Supposedly, our Navy was ready to open fire but didn't shoot because the Iranians turned away at the moment the order was given.
We should've sunk every one of them.
Not because we're warmongers. But because the Iranians had made threats, verbal and physical, that amounted to acts of war. When will we learn that resolute action taken early saves vast amounts of blood and treasure later?
Oh, from Washington's perspective we did the right thing by "exercising restraint." But Washington's perspective doesn't amount to a gum wrapper in a gutter. What matters is what the Iranians think.
They now believe that the Bush administration, our military and the entire United States are afraid of them.
It goes back to the politicized and irresponsible recent National Intelligence Estimate that insisted the Iranians had abandoned their nuclear-weapons program years ago.
They didn't. They're pursuing enriched uranium as fast as they can. That's what you need for bombs. At most, Tehran ordered its weaponeering efforts to parade rest - until it has the ingredients it needs, after which building bombs won't take long at all.
Forget Washington's trust-fund-twit view of all this: Here's how the train of thought rolled down the tracks in Tehran:
"The Americans have told the world we don't want nuclear weapons, even though they know we do want them. That can only mean that America is afraid to confront us, that their weak, defeated president needs an excuse to back down.
"We can push these cowardly Americans now. They've had enough in Iraq. Their spirits are broken. Their next president will run away like a gazelle pursued by a lion.
"Even their military is frightened of us. On Sunday, America's might bowed down to us. They are frightened and godless, and the time has come to push them."
Sunday's incident wasn't a one-off event improvised by the local yokels after a long Saturday night at the hookah bar. It was blessed and carefully planned in Tehran and had practical as well as political goals.
At the tactical level, the Revolutionary Guards' naval arm was testing our responses: How soon do the American weapons radars activate? At what range do the lasers begin to track targets? How close can a small vessel get to a major American warship? How do the Americans respond to possible mines? Can we use phony mines to steer them into real ones? How long does it take an American commander to make a decision?
Above all: Does an American commander have the courage to make a decision on his own? When he doesn't have time to deflect responsibility onto his superiors?
And it wasn't just some madrassa dropout with salt spray on his glasses scribbling notes on the lead Iranian boat. On shore, the Iranians would've had all their intelligence facilities tuned in to map our electronic profile as our ships prepared to defend themselves. Rent-a-Russian military experts would've been onhand to assist with the newest gear purchased from Moscow.
The Iranians may even have had an escalation plan, in case we opened fire. President Ahmedinejad and his posse may seem contemptible to Washington, but the Iranians think several moves ahead of us: We play checkers, they play chess.
On Sunday, the Iranians tested us. We failed. They'll probe us again. And every time we fail to react decisively, we raise the number of future US casualties.
Remember the USS Cole? You bet the Iranians do. They plan to better that attack by an order of magnitude.
For almost 70 years, we've deployed the finest navy in the history of the world. But it looks increasingly as if we've gone from "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" to "Will this interfere with my next promotion?"
Ralph Peters' latest book is "Wars of Blood and Faith."

Crescent Moon Sprint Triathlon

This was my third triathlon, I wrote this report in September.

Short version.
750m swim: 17:17
T1: 2:53
13 mile bike: 44:27
T2: maybe 1 minute, I forgot to hit the button until I hit the exit
5k run: 26:15
Total: 1:30:42
These are my watch times.
Overall 30/250
AG 8/21

So, long version. Sorry no pics, we forgot the camera. Not really a big deal though. I only have one pair of tri shorts and one tri top, so all the pics pretty much look the same.

This sprint was held in the Aurora Reservoir, east of Denver, about 45 minutes from my house so we were up early. There was a HIM that started before my race so my wave went off at 9:05. Plenty of time to hang out, wait for the bathroom and get set up. I ate a bagel before leaving home, but forgot to eat again before the race. This kind of bit me later on the run because I felt a bit of an energy loss. I meant to eat a Cliff bar about a half hour before the start, oh well.

After my first sprint and my XTERRA in July, I felt very relaxed for this race. I mean I wasn't worried about finishing, so that stress wasn't there. The whole build-up to the race this time was fun and the day was just relaxing and fun.

I borrowed my friend's expensive carbon-framed road bike. So I got to train on it for a couple of weeks. Made a huge difference.

So I went out for the swim feeling good. I thought the water was cold at 65 degrees, but there were folks without wetsuits. I started out taking it pretty easy, as usual. I worry about running out of air. But since this was my last race, and I've done longer distance now, I decided to push it on the way back from the turn around bouy. I started swimming a little faster, and it felt okay. So I pushed a little faster, and then the swim was over. I think I have more speed in me. Really it feels like I can turn my arms over a little faster and "pull" a little harder. Looking forward to trying it.

I tried something new for me, wearing my tri-top under my wetsuit. I have worried about being cold on the bike, but it was no problem with temps in the 70s by race time. That saved me time in transition. I probaby gave the time back by putting on bike gloves. I should have gone without for a 13 mile bike ride. I didn't think they would take that long to put on, but it took about 30 seconds. I came in about 30 seconds behind a guy in my age group at the end, so those gloves are haunting me.

The bike course had some long hills on it. The RD had to change the bike course at the last minute because of construction. So we had to do three u-turns on the course, which stole a lot of momentum. I think I have more speed in me here too. I don't like road biking, it's boring to me. So I didn't do as much training as I should have. But I kept telling myself not to leave anything out there since it was the last race of the year. I need more hill work. I drank a bottle of gatoraide. And since it was a two loop course, I got to see my wonderful wife cheering me on twice.

T2 was quick.

The run was uphill, both ways. It seemed. It was a very long, gradual uphill to the turn-around point, with dips and hills on the way. Here I was chasing a guy in my age group, and we used different strategies. He walked the uphills, I ran them. But I slowed down, so I would almost catch him nearing the top of the hill, then he would pull away on the downhill. The whole last mile of the race went on like this. I never caught him. **** those bike gloves! I also felt a little wooden-legged and drained. I wish I had eaten something before the swim.

All in all, I had a great race! Best part was that it was fun. I feel like I can go a lot faster, too. I made some decisions while training for this race. I'm going to reign in my ambitions a bit. I was thinking of a HIM next summer, that's out. I don't enjoy the long miles on the road bike enough to throw myself into training for it. I plan to do an Oly and, at least, the two XTERRA races here in Colorado, schedule permitting. There is another off road tri (Indian Peaks Dirtfest) near here that I will do if I can. And I'll do this Crescent Moon Sprint again, it was well done and a blast.