I'm currently reading the late, great Tom Clancy's last novel, "Command Authority," co-written with Mark Greaney.
Bittersweet... Tom Clancy gone... Vince Flynn gone...
Barack Hussein Obama sits in the Oval Office. Hillary Rodham Clinton is seen as not just a "viable" presidential candidate, but the one to beat...
(*SIGH*)
America is so f--ked up.
What sort of fiction do you folks read? Do you have fictional heroes? Imagine... President Jack Ryan... for real!
(*ANOTHER SIGH*)
Who are your role models; real people... fictional characters... it matters not. It's the traits that are important.
I'd be interested to hear from some of you, my readers.
Anyway... on to newsbites... found - as always - in the comments section!
8 comments:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/15/senior-uk-defense-advisor-obama-is-clueless-about-what-he-wants-to-do-in-the-world.html
President Obama is “chronically incapable” of military strategy and falls far short of his predecessor George W. Bush, according to one of Britain’s most senior military advisors.
Sir Hew Strachan, an advisor to the Chief of the Defense Staff, told The Daily Beast that the United States and Britain were guilty of total strategic failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama’s attempts to intervene on behalf of the Syrian rebels “has left them in a far worse position than they were before.”
Strachan, a current member of the Chief of the Defense Staff’s Strategic Advisory Panel, cited the “crazy” handling of the Syrian crisis as the most egregious example of a fundamental collapse in military planning that began in the aftermath of 9/11. “If anything it’s gone backwards instead of forwards, Obama seems to be almost chronically incapable of doing this."
"Bush may have had totally fanciful political objectives in terms of trying to fight a global War on Terror, which was inherently astrategic, but at least he had a clear sense of what he wanted to do in the world. Obama has no sense of what he wants to do in the world,” Strachan [continued].
The dithering over intervention against President Bashar al-Assad has empowered the Syrian ruler, undermined America’s military reputation and destabilized the Middle East, said Strachan. “What Obama's done in talking about Red Lines in relation to Syria has actually devalued the deterrent effect of American military capability and it seems to me that creates an unstable situation, because if he were act it would surprise everybody.”
“I think the other issue is that in starting and stopping with Assad, he’s left those who might be his natural allies in Syria with nowhere to go. He’s increased the likelihood that if there is a change of regime in Syria that it will be an Islamic fundamentalist one.”
Britain’s shock parliamentary vote against military action in Syria also exposed Prime Minister David Cameron’s lack of a clear strategy. “It absolutely illustrated the failure to think through the strategic implications of his own actions,” said Strachan.
Strachan’s book, "The Direction of War," which will be published next month, examines the failure of modern political leaders to use strategy to predict and account for the implications of military action.
Oxford University’s Professor of the History of War says the lessons learned at the end of the 2oth century proved to be damaging at the start of the next. “Using war did deliver. The wars were pretty short, the Falklands, First Gulf War, Kosovo, so people lulled themselves into an expectation that war was simply a continuation of policy and that it was successful. But it hasn’t been since 9/11,” he said.
Part of the problem, Strachan contends, is that politicians are unduly worried about allowing military leaders to give frank and open advice. He criticized the way General Stanley McCrystal was forced to resign after making unflattering remarks about his political bosses in Washington. “The concern about the military speaking out shows a lack of democratic and political maturity. We’re not facing the danger of a military coup. The professional experts, who deal with war all the time, should be able to express their views all the time, openly and coherently, just as you would expect a doctor or a teacher to express their views coherently about how you run medical policy or teaching policy,” he said.
* ABSOPOSIFRIGGINTIVELY...!!!
“Soldiers have a duty here as well — if they just say, ‘yes Mr. Prime Minister or Mr. President, we can give you exactly what you want,’ then they’re probably not being very honest.”
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304149404579322482088561454?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
The Christie bonfire has burned for a week.
In that same week, The Wall Street Journal reported that the FBI "found nothing" in the IRS's targeting of conservative political groups that warrants criminal charges.
(*SNORT*)
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
This conclusion struck lawyers Jay Sekulow and Cleta Mitchell as fairly amazing. Both represent conservative groups targeted by the IRS, and they say the FBI only recently got in touch with a few of their clients.
Thus, two of the most powerful public institutions in the U.S. — the FBI and the IRS — have concluded no harm, no foul, and the memory hole swallows the Obama administration's successful kneecapping of the GOP's most active members just as they prepared to participate in the 2012 presidential campaign.
(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)
Many — ruined or terrified by the IRS probes — shut down. Mr. Obama won.
(*RUEFUL NOD*)
One may be thankful that corners of the U.S. judiciary remain intact and unintimidated.
Late last week, a judge in Wisconsin slowed down what was essentially a Democratic prosecutor's star-chamber investigation of conservative groups that supported Republican Gov. Scott Walker. A special prosecutor armed with subpoena power had been poring over the groups' finances, while a gag order stopped the groups from saying they were his targets.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
On Friday, a court quashed some of the subpoenas for lack of probable cause. That's good, but don't expect to see Friends of Scott Walker going on offense any time soon. Legal pistol-whippings by state prosecutors can have that effect, win or lose.
(*NOD*)
Worth noting is what the IRS's political audits and the attempted takedown of the pro-Walker groups have in common: Both took place essentially out of public view.
An event like Chris Christie's traffic jam is the Internet's version of bread and circuses. What the Democrats' left-wing activists have learned is that most of the time the Web's political media beasts are sleeping. It's most opportune during those periods of non-attention to use modern media technology not just to hit one's opponents, but to drive them from politics.
* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303848104579312422581164580?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
President Ronald Reagan rejected class warfare, advocating sound money and lower tax rates to boost growth and living standards.
His policies worked.
* YES THEY DID! I WAS THERE! "HE WHOSE NAME DARE NOT BE MENTIONED" WAS THERE! PHIL WAS THERE! CARL WAS THERE!
The economy grew faster than 7% in real terms for five quarters in a row starting in the second quarter of 1983.
Gross domestic product grew on average 4.6% per year in real terms during the 1983-88 expansion, while real median incomes grew 2.1%.
Reagan's policies were such an economic success that appeals to class warfare gained relatively little political traction for 25 years.
* BUT NOW... WE'RE IN THE AGE OF OBAMA...
(*SIGH*)
Since the Reagan years, growth policies have faded while the government has increased its control over the economy and national income.
* THAT SON OF A BITCH "PAPPY" BUSH BEGAN DISMANTLING REAGANISM THE MOMENT HE TOOK OFFICE AFTER CAMPAIGNING - AND WINNING - ON A "STAY THE COURSE" PLATFORM.
* KNOW YOUR HISTORY, FOLKS... BETTER YET - REMEMBER...
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)
Top marginal federal income-tax rates have risen to nearly 44% today from 28% in 1988.
The dollar has weakened while consumer prices have doubled in 25 years.
* AND IN MANY CASES MORE THAN DOUBLED...
Federal non-defense spending has nearly quadrupled to $2.8 trillion in 2013 from $750 billion in 1988, adding a huge burden on taxpayers as national debt grows.
(*NOD*)
Today, almost five years after the recession officially ended in June 2009, job growth from new business formation is running one-third below average...
(*PURSED LIPS*)
Real GDP growth has averaged a weak 2.3% over the past three years...
* AND INFLATION ACCOUNTS FOR MUCH OF THIS! (BEWARE SMOKE AND MIRROR ACCOUNTING, FOLKS!)
...while real median incomes have fallen 0.6% per year.
* INFLATION PLUS INCOME DECLINE... GREAT... FANTASTIC... ALL HAIL OBAMA!
This disastrous economic result sets up a political confrontation between those who believe that a bigger government makes things better and those who believe that it concentrates power and income in fewer hands, undercutting the middle class.
* MORONS vs. NON-MORONS.
Progressives may concede the weakness of the economic recovery. Yet they urge more government spending and higher taxes, claiming that their policies will achieve higher growth and a fairer distribution of income.
(*BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL*)
Conservatives need to champion economic growth as Reagan did, but they also need to make a more forceful connection between the government's centralization of power and income inequality.
(*NOD*)
Big government expansions in recent years have harmed individuals with modest incomes while exempting or benefiting people with higher incomes. These include the federal takeover of the mortgage industry, and the Federal Reserve's decisions to keep interest rates near zero and buy some $3 trillion in bonds. Both of these expansions channel credit to the government and the well-connected at the expense of savers and new businesses.
* ABSOFRIGGINPOSILUTELY...!!!
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)
Top marginal federal income-tax rates have risen to nearly 44% today from 28% in 1988.
The dollar has weakened while consumer prices have doubled in 25 years.
* AND IN MANY CASES MORE THAN DOUBLED...
Federal non-defense spending has nearly quadrupled to $2.8 trillion in 2013 from $750 billion in 1988, adding a huge burden on taxpayers as national debt grows.
(*NOD*)
Today, almost five years after the recession officially ended in June 2009, job growth from new business formation is running one-third below average...
(*PURSED LIPS*)
Real GDP growth has averaged a weak 2.3% over the past three years...
* AND INFLATION ACCOUNTS FOR MUCH OF THIS! (BEWARE SMOKE AND MIRROR ACCOUNTING, FOLKS!)
...while real median incomes have fallen 0.6% per year.
* INFLATION PLUS INCOME DECLINE... GREAT... FANTASTIC... ALL HAIL OBAMA!
This disastrous economic result sets up a political confrontation between those who believe that a bigger government makes things better and those who believe that it concentrates power and income in fewer hands, undercutting the middle class.
* MORONS vs. NON-MORONS.
Progressives may concede the weakness of the economic recovery. Yet they urge more government spending and higher taxes, claiming that their policies will achieve higher growth and a fairer distribution of income.
(*BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL*)
Conservatives need to champion economic growth as Reagan did, but they also need to make a more forceful connection between the government's centralization of power and income inequality.
(*NOD*)
Big government expansions in recent years have harmed individuals with modest incomes while exempting or benefiting people with higher incomes. These include the federal takeover of the mortgage industry, and the Federal Reserve's decisions to keep interest rates near zero and buy some $3 trillion in bonds. Both of these expansions channel credit to the government and the well-connected at the expense of savers and new businesses.
* ABSOFRIGGINPOSILUTELY...!!!
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)
Middle-income earners used to be the primary beneficiary of the rise in the value of their houses. Housing gains now lift Washington, allowing the government to pay itself huge "dividends" from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Reserve, which owns nearly $1.5 trillion in the government's housing-related bonds. The government promptly spends the windfalls, fueling a further accumulation of wealth and income for those with Washington access.
The financial industry is making billions in profits fueled by the government's provision of zero-rate loans for those with connections and collateral.
Wall Street's upper crust is the epicenter for financing the contractors, lobbyists and lawyers that help the government spend money.
* AND WALL STREET'S "UPPER CRUST" DONATES TO BOTH PARTIES... COLLUDES WITH BOTH PARTIES...
Meanwhile, government grabs a huge share of the profits generated by small businesses. It piles on opaque regulations, complex tax rules and countless independent agencies producing a system that works against small businesses and the middle class.
(*NOD*)
The Affordable Care Act takes pains to exempt Congress, government, corporations and unions, but leaves the rest severely exposed, adding to inequality.
(*SMIRK*)
This week's congressional budget deal saw a narrow group of Washington's elite legislators and lobbyists working over the weekend to divvy up nearly $1.1 trillion in discretionary spending for 2014.
* YEP... DEMOCRAT SCUM AND REPUBLICAN SCUM UNITING IN "BIPARTISAN" FASHION TO ENRICH THEMSELVES AND THEIR FRIENDS AT THE EXPENSE OF REGULAR HARD-WORKING AMERICANS.
* TELL ME AGAIN HOW "VIOLENCE IS NOT THE ANSWER," PLEASE...
Much of the spending and all of the lobbying and debt underwriting costs will benefit those with high incomes while the extra debt falls heavily on the middle class.
* THEY PLAY US FOR SUCKERS BECAUSE WE ARE SUCKERS! WE PUT UP WITH IT!
There is nothing wrong with an appropriate level of government services — they're necessary! But we are long past that level! Growing the government shrinks the rest of the economy and after-tax paychecks.
The next debt limit increase is approaching fast, probably in March. Fiscal conservatives are likely to argue along traditional lines for a few spending cuts or some votes to highlight the ObamaCare calamity. That leaves Democrats with the inequality argument to use as a bludgeon against Republicans.
The debt-limit debate should be a national referendum on the size of the federal government and the need for new controls on its growth and power.
* BUT IT WON'T BE. (BOEHNER, MCCONNELL, AND THE GOP LEADERSHIP MIGHT AS WELL BE REPRESENTING A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY...)
* FOLKS... THERE ARE NOT TWO PARTIES. THERE'S THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND THE NEO-DEMOCRAT PARTY RUN BY THE RINOs. YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS.
That will be a critical step in restoring income growth, but as currently written, the debt-limit law forces votes in favor of more debt.
* YEP...
(*SHRUG*)
I've advocated strengthening the debt limit by adding a declining debt-to-GDP ceiling that, when exceeded, triggers extra controls on spending and a hair shirt for Washington. Extra debt should trigger a slowdown in automatic entitlement growth, pay cuts for senior officials and reductions in their subsidized benefits until they resolve the spending crisis.
* I'D RATHER SHOOT THE BASTARDS...! (KIDDING... JUST KIDDING...)
A new debt law offering spending restraint would boost confidence among investors and entrepreneurs. Most important, it would allow median incomes to begin rising again once Washington leaves private enterprise more room to breathe and grow.
* NOT... GONNA... HAPPEN...
(*SIGH*)
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-doubts-over-common-core-wont-be-easily-dismissed/2014/01/15/68cecb88-7df3-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html
The Common Core represents the ideas of several national organizations (of governors and school officials) about what and how children should learn.
* THE "GOVERNORS" MENTIONED ARE FIGUREHEADS... THEY APPOINT "REPRESENTATIVES" BASED UPON PARTISAN AND IDEOLOGICAL CREDENTIALS - IN OTHER WORDS, "POLITICS." DON'T GET THE IDEA THAT REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT GOVERNORS ARE ENGAGED IN ACTUAL DISCUSSIONS AND DEBATE, LET ALONE RESEARCH!
(*SNORT*)
It is the thin end of an enormous wedge. It is designed to advance in primary and secondary education the general progressive agenda of centralization and uniformity.
* YEP. BECAUSE THIS IN LARGE PART IS THE RINO AGENDA AS WELL AS THE DEMOCRAT AGENDA.
Understandably, proponents of the Common Core want its nature and purpose to remain as cloudy as possible for as long as possible.
* YEP...
The 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the original federal intrusion into this state and local responsibility, said “nothing in this act” shall authorize any federal official to “mandate, direct, or control” schools’ curriculums.
* HOW'D THAT WORK OUT...?
The 1970 General Education Provisions Act stipulates that “no provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any” federal agency or official “to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction” or selection of “instructional materials by any” school system.
* UH-HUH...
(*SMIRK*)
The 1979 law creating the Education Department forbids it from exercising “any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum” or “program of instruction” of any school system. The ESEA as amended says no Education Department funds “may be used . . . to endorse, approve, or sanction any curriculum designed to be used in” grades K-12.
* AND YET... (READ ON...)
Nevertheless, what begins with mere national standards must breed ineluctable pressure to standardize educational content. Targets, metrics, guidelines and curriculum models all induce conformity in instructional materials. Washington already is encouraging the alignment of the GED, SAT and ACT tests with the Common Core. By a feedback loop, these tests will beget more curriculum conformity. All of this will take a toll on parental empowerment, and none of this will escape the politicization of learning like that already rampant in higher education.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Leave aside the abundant, fierce, often learned and frequently convincing criticisms of the writing, literature and mathematics standards. Even satisfactory national standards must extinguish federalism’s creativity: At any time, it is more likely there will be half a dozen innovative governors than one creative federal education bureaucracy. And the mistakes made by top-down federal reforms are continental mistakes.
* FOLKS... DOES ANYONE DISAGREE...? TRULY...???
The Obama administration has purchased states’ obedience by partially conditioning waivers from onerous federal regulations (from No Child Left Behind) and receipt of federal largess ($4.35 billion in Race to the Top money from the 2009 stimulus) on the states’ embrace of the Common Core.
* FOLLOW THE MONEY... THE BRIBES...
Many proponents seem to deem it beneath their dignity to engage opponents’ arguments, preferring to caricature opponents as political primitives and to dismiss them with flippancies such as this from Bill Gates: “It’s ludicrous to think that multiplication in Alabama and multiplication in New York are really different.”
* OH YEAH...??? KEEP READING!
What is ludicrous is Common Core proponents disdaining concerns related to this fact: Fifty years of increasing Washington input into K-12 education has coincided with disappointing cognitive outputs from schools.
(*TWO THUMBS UP*)
Is it eccentric that it is imprudent to apply to K-12 education the "federal touch" that has given us HealthCare.gov?
* OR THE $500 TOILET SEAT... OR THE 12 YEAR PLUS AFGHANISTAN WAR THAT WE'RE PRESENTLY LOSING...? (THINK ABOUT IT, FOLKS... FACE FACTS... TODAY EVEN AMERICA'S MILITARY IS RELATIVELY SCREWED UP!)
[P]olitical dishonesty has swift, radiating and condign consequences. Opposition to the Common Core is surging because Washington, hoping to mollify opponents, is saying, in effect: “If you like your local control of education, you can keep it. Period.” To which a burgeoning movement is responding: “No. Period.”
Post a Comment