Police Work, Politics and World Affairs, Football and the ongoing search for great Scotch Whiskey!

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Great news from the Lone Star State

Barring a dumb ass judge trying to make a name for himself Donnie Lee Roberts will be executed by the State of Texas tonight. Besides making this POS pay for his crime, this will mark the 250th execution under Governor Rick Perry's term. Governor, thank you for that record. It's a little over 20 a year....let's try and bump that up. The usual suspects (Amnesty International, etc) will be protesting the elimination of this waste of sperm from the human gene pool at Bagby and Capital, Houston TX at 600pm. That is the location of the old hanging oak tree and they will be hanging Rick Perry in effigy. I will try and get a few pics for later.

Donnie Lee Roberts To Be Executed On Oct. 31 In Texas For Murdering Vicki Bowen

HUNTSVILLE, Texas -- When Louisiana parole violator Donnie Lee Roberts was arrested for fatally shooting his girlfriend at her East Texas home nine years ago, he had an immediate request: the death penalty.

Roberts, 41, is scheduled for lethal injection Wednesday for the October 2003 murder of Vicki Bowen, a 44-year-old dental assistant from Lake Livingston.

Besides making his preferred punishment known in a videotaped statement, Roberts, who was violating parole, also confessed that he was responsible for an unsolved killing in that state 12 years earlier.

"I just remember it was very very bad to try to overcome his own mouth from the beginning," said Stephen Taylor, one of Roberts' lawyers at his 2004 capital murder trial in Polk County, Texas. "It's very difficult when he's expressed himself on videotape to the jury that `I want the death penalty' and that he confesses to this unsolved homicide."

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to review Roberts' case, rejecting arguments that the trial judge improperly barred some testimony from a psychologist and that testimony from a victim of the robbery Roberts committed should not have been allowed...
Sorry but Ms Bowden wasn't available for statement.
...In 2003, a coworker went to Bowen's house after the normally punctual woman had failed to show up at her job. The coworker knocked, but got no answer. The front door was unlocked. Inside, she found Bowen covered with a blanket, face down in a pool of blood. A medical examiner determined Bowen had been shot twice in the head.

Detectives found that a truck was missing from Bowen's home. Later that day, Roberts was spotted driving the vehicle. It was found outside a suspected crack house where Roberts was apprehended.

"When arrested, the first thing out of his mouth was: `I want the death penalty,' " Taylor recalled.

And we will oblige you.

Roberts would be the 12th Texas inmate executed this year. Three more are set for lethal injection next month, including one next week.

RIP Vicki Bowen. Hopefully your family and friends seeing your murderer put to death will bring something to them.

Mr Roberts, may God be more merciful to your soul than you deserve.

The Houston Chronicle shows how clueless it is

From the morning's Houston Chronicle:

I just wonder are the editors of the Chronicle buying into black helicopter crowd? FEMA has no air assets. They are a coordination organization. If a helicopter is up there getting someone out of the water it will say something that is actually called for in the US Constitution, like US Coast Guard or Navy. Or the National Guard.

People who have a "Get big government off my back" bumper sticker have no issue with using military resources to respond to a emergency. Call it service to the nation that the armed forces are raised for. It's things like seizing multiple industries (auto, banking, health care), telling citizens in the republic you must have have an insurance policy they don't want or they will be fined and being told we must pay for that. Or being told "Your greedy" when people say "I think paying half my income in taxes is excessive."

And the Chronicle wonders why it downsized a couple of years ago. They are out of touch with their readers.

Monday, October 29, 2012

Officer Down

Police Officer Kevin Donnell Bowden
Prince George's County Maryland Police Department
End of Watch: Thursday, October 18, 2012
Age: 28
Tour: 6 years

Police Officer Kevin Bowden was killed in a vehicle collision near the intersection of Branch Avenue and Surratts Road in Clinton.

Another vehicle pulled into his path from the adjacent lane, causing the two vehicles to collide. The impact caused Officer Bowden's patrol car to strike a utility pole. Officer Bowden, who was not wearing a seatbelt at the time, was transported to a local hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.

Officer Bowden had served with the Prince George's County Police Department for six years. He is survived by his wife, son, and daughter.
Rest in Peace Bro…We Got The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh. 

The broken clock stuck the right time

I grew up in a family of cigarette smokers and I was the only member repulsed by it. I tried a cigarette once when I was 10 or so and that probably keep me from trying them again. That being said I love a good cigar and I've recently tried a pipe. No I don't ever see trying a cigarette again. Pipes and cigars don't go into your lungs like the cigs do.

That being said I'm shocked I'm somewhat agreeing with the ACLU of Texas in this matter. From this morning's Houston Chronicle.
Searching for a job? Tobacco users need not apply

Smokers beware: Puffing away could reduce chances of landing a job, particularly at a hospital or a health care facility.

Methodist Hospital System in Houston this month announced it will implement a tobacco-free hiring policy on Jan. 1, joining the Texas Medical Center and Memorial Hermann Healthcare System, which have had similar policies since last year and 2010, respectively.

The policies are straightforward. Applicants who smoke or chew tobacco will not be hired. Existing employees are exempt.

A growing number of hospitals and health care institutions have adopted the policies to promote wellness, improve productivity and rein in rising health care costs, but critics say they discriminate and could lead to punitive actions against other personal habits and vices...

Kinda funny when I read this and when my patrol duties take me to Ben Taub or Herman hospital, cops generally park next to the smoking area. Seeings the doctors and nurses smoke does bring a bit of a smile to me. Hey, we're all human.
“We think this is an invasion of privacy and really overreaching,” said Dotty Griffith, public education director for the American Civil Liberties Union in Texas. “At what point do you give up your rights and autonomy? Will they not employ those who ride motorcycles and drink alcohol?”

I somewhat agree with her. Somewhat. This is not an invasion of rights per say because it's a simple contract between two parties. If you don't agree with the policy of Methodist Hospital, don't apply for a job there. Now Methodist, I personally think you are putting a lot of well qualified people off your applicant pool. Not too bright on your side.

Somewhat similar to the point I made when the Houston City Council banned smoking in bars (the smokers go outside now). I am a bit libertarian on this. If a bar owner wants to allow or not allow smoking (or have separate areas) in his business, that is his business. If I as a consumer do not want to go into a bar that allows smoking, I can go elsewhere. I think it's called liberty and freedom of choice.

However, the point from the ACLU rep is well made. At what point does this stop? I drink and I love my Harley. I also drive a F-150, I have flown a private plane and two of the things on my bucket list I haven't done yet are skydiving and scuba divings. Will those be the next to be on the banned list?

By the way ACLU, you would have more credibility in this issue if you have raised it when the Obamacare bill was up. Just saying. Then again intellectual consistency is not a hallmark of the left.

Now there is some hope out there:
Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have statutes that ban employment discrimination against smokers, but 21 states, including Texas, do not.

Another piece of liberty gone. Problem is getting it back.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

A question to ask of these protestors...

Do you have a job?

Keystone XL pipeline work splits trees, divides opinion

WINNSBORO - Sitting in trees more than 40 feet above pipeline construction crews, two men have come up with an ultimatum.

"Until TransCanada can give me a legally binding document that they're not going to cut any of these trees down, I'm not coming down from here," said one of the men.

The problem, local residents say, is that the men are sitting in someone else's trees.

And if I owned the land I'd be cutting the tree myself...and then after they got down I'd prosecute them for criminal trespass.
For more than a month, a group calling itself Tar Sands Blockade has embarked on the most aggressive effort yet to stop work on the southern portion of TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline.

Protesters have locked themselves to heavy machinery, stood in front of working equipment and taken to the trees in a network of platforms, tarp and rope, hoping to prevent work on the $2.3 billion Oklahoma-Texas leg of a line eventually planned to link Canada with the Gulf Coast....

...Protesters outsiders

Except for a handful of property owners who object to the pipeline, most of the demonstrators have not been local, said Leslie Boorman, a Winnsboro resident who works at a computer repair shop in town. Both men in the trees said they are from outside of Texas....

...The men, identifying themselves by aliases saying they fear legal action by TransCanada, said they were comfortable surviving on canned food, books and often confrontational conversations with security workers standing about four stories below them.

They were the holdouts of a group that once totaled nine tree protesters. The rest descended after TransCanada decided to shift its pipeline route around the group's platforms and banners, one of which reads "You Shall Not Pass."...

Or if you don't want to cut the tree down, just cut them off from resupply...a couple of K9s around these idiots will probably keep supporters away.

More to the point, these professional protestors have no business on another man's property. They are criminals and need to be treated as such. Hopefully they spend some time in the county jail soon.

Officer Down

Police Officer Kelley Chase
Oklahoma City Oklahoma Police Department
End of Watch: Saturday, October 13, 2012
Age: 38
Tour: 5 months
Incident Date: 10/12/2012

Police Officer Kelley Chase died after suffering a head injury during a defensive tactics test at the Oklahoma City Police Academy.

He was completing the six-minute long final test with an instructor when he was thrown to the ground and struck the back of his head on a mat. He remained conscious but was unable to stand up again after striking his head. He was transported to a local hospital where he succumbed to internal head injuries the following day.

Officer Chase was a U.S. Air Force veteran and had been sworn in as a police officer only five months earlier at the beginning of his academy session. He is survived by his wife and two children.
Rest in Peace Bro…We Got The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Date night

I've often complained about the crap coming from Hollywood these days. I think we have something here worthy of forty bucks for the two of us!

The trailer is awesome. Hopkins has Hitch down cold! The only way Hitch would have it!

And from the grave, a message on movie etiquette:

Friday, October 26, 2012

26 is the new 16

A common phrase today is words to the effect "Thirty is the new twenty". If that is true, Ms Durham's showing 26 is the new 16

Here is the narative of this intellictual genius:
“Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody,” she says. “You want to do it with a great guy. It should be with a guy with beautiful — someone who really cares about and understands women. A guy who cares whether you get health insurance, specifically whether you get birth control. The consequences are huge”

“You want to do it with a guy who brought the troops out of Iraq. You don’t want a guy who say, ‘Oh, hey, I’m at the library studying’ when really he’s out not signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act; or who thinks that gay people should never have beautiful, complicated weddings like the kind we see on Bravo and TLC all the time.

“It’s a fun game to say ‘who are you voting for?’ And they say, ‘I don’t want to tell you,’ and you say, ‘No, who are you voting for?’ and they go, ‘Guess!’

“Think about how you want to spend those four years. In college-age time that is 150 years. It’s also super uncool to be out and about and say, ‘Did you vote?’ ‘No, I wasn’t ready’”

“My first time voting was amazing,” she says. “It was this line in the sand. Before, I was a girl. Now, I was a woman”

“I went to the polling station, I pulled back the curtain. I voted for Barack Obama,”

Ms Dunham was eligibel to vote in 2004 but I guess Bush or Kerry were not her type, not worthy of her voting virginity. But more than that she expects to be taken seriousley with this. You can make arguments for things such as ending the war in Iraq (for some reason she doesn't want to mention this would never have happened without the surge, which then Senator B Hussein Obama opposed, or the fact Afganistan is falling apart). But to put this out with a giggly teeny bopper as a serious appeal to young voters strikes me as a Hail Mary of the Obama campaign.

Lena Dunham is all too typical of young Obamaites. Thinking with something other than a brain. Hopefully she's makes enough money to threaten to leave the country after Romney leaves.

Again Lena, don't go away mad, just go away.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Officer Down

Police Officer Joseph Olivieri
Nassau County New York Police Department
End of Watch: Thursday, October 18, 2012
Age: 43
Tour: 19 years
Badge # 2846

Police Officer Joseph Olivieri was struck and killed by a vehicle while investigating an accident in the HOV lane of the Long Island Expressway, near Exit 35.

He had exited his patrol car when another vehicle entered the crash scene and struck him. He was transported to North Shore University Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.

Officer Olivieri had served with the Nassau County Police Department for 14 year and had previously served with the New York City Police Department for five years.
Rest in Peace Bro…We Got The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh.

Geopolitical Weekly: The Purpose of Presidential Debates, October 23, 2012

By George Friedman

Monday night's presidential foreign policy debate probably won't change the opinion of many voters. Proponents of President Barack Obama are still convinced that Mitt Romney is a fool and a liar. Proponents of former Gov. Romney have the same view of the president.

Of course, this is normal in any American presidential race. Along with the eternal conviction that the party in power is destroying the country, we have regarded Abraham Lincoln, during the 1860 election, as a simple-minded country bumpkin with a touch of larceny; Franklin Roosevelt as a rich dilettante and socialist; and Dwight Eisenhower as a bumbling fool who is lazy and incapable of understanding the complexity of the world -- this about the man who, during World War II, led the most complex military coalition on the planet to victory.

We like to think that our politics have never been less civil than they are today. Given that Andrew Jackson's wife was accused of being a prostitute, Grover Cleveland was said to have illegitimate children and Lyndon Johnson faced the chant "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" I will assert that the Obama-Romney campaign doesn't even register on the vilification scale.

The founders wouldn't have minded this culture of contempt for politicians. In founding the republic, their fundamental fear was that the power of the state would usurp the freedoms of the states and individuals. They purposefully created a political regime so complex that it is, in its normal state, immobilized. They would not have objected if professional politicians were also held in contempt as an additional protection. Ironically, while the founders opposed both political parties and professional politicians, preferring to imagine that learned men take time from their daily lives to make the sacrifice of service, many became full-time politicians and vilified one another. Thomas Jefferson's campaign said of John Adams that he had a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." Adams' campaign stated that Jefferson was "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw sired by a Virginia mulatto father." And Jefferson and Adams were friends. I would suggest suspending the idea that we have never had so vicious a politics.

Let me move to a more radical thought. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are capable men, as well intentioned as ambitious men seeking power can be. Just as I doubt that Jefferson and Adams were as stupid and malicious as their campaigns tried to portray one another, the same can be said of Romney and Obama. I am not suggesting for a moment that the circus of accusations stop, however. To the contrary, seeing how one endures slander is an outstanding measure of a leader's character and an opportunity to learn how the candidate will react to the sorts of unreasonable and unfair conditions that the president is sure to encounter.

A president will face a world that does not wish the United States well in all cases and an opposition that will try anything, fair or foul, to make the president fail. A president who breaks down when he is mistreated -- as Edmund Muskie, a senator running for president in 1972, did over charges made against his wife -- is a non-starter. Muskie's campaign immediately collapsed, as it should have. A president who expects to be treated fairly is an immediate liability.

The True Objective of Debates

A debate is not about policy. It is impossible to state a coherent policy on any complex matter in 90 seconds. The debates between Lincoln and Steven Douglas did go far in that direction, but then it wasn't on national television, and it was for senator of Illinois, not the presidency. That left room for contemplation. It should be remembered that prior to the Kennedy-Nixon race of 1960, there were no debates, partly because there was no television and partly, perhaps, because the ability to debate was not seen as the appropriate measure of a president.

Debates test one thing: the ability to quickly respond to questions of numbing complexity that are impossible to answer in the time available. They put a premium on being fast and clever but don't say much about how smart a candidate is. Nor are they meant to, in part because being smart, in an academic sense, is not essential to be president -- as many have demonstrated. At their best, debates test a candidate's coolness under pressure and ability to articulate some thought at least vaguely connected to the question while convincing the viewers that he or she is both personable and serious.

That is, after all, what leadership is about. We have had enormously intelligent presidents who simply couldn't lead. Here, I think of Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, both of whom had substantial and demonstrable intellects but neither of whom, when confronted by the disastrous, could rapidly contrive both a response and a commanding and reassuring presence in public. In that sense, their intellects betrayed them. Each wanted the right answer, when what was needed was a fast one. Each was succeeded by someone who could provide a fast answer. FDR's famous first 100 days did not solve the Depression, but they did give the sense that someone was in charge. FDR and Ronald Reagan could reassure the country that they knew what they were doing while they rapidly tried things that might work.

Therefore, the question of who won Monday's debate is not one that a viewer who spends his time focused on foreign policy can answer. The candidates weren't speaking to those who make their livings involved in or watching foreign affairs. Nor can we possibly extract from the debate what either candidate intends to do in foreign policy, because conveying that was not what they were trying to do. They were trying to show how quickly and effectively they could respond to the unexpected, and that they were leaders in the simplest sense of being both likeable and commanding, which is the incredibly difficult combination the republic demands of its presidents.

Technology's Impact

It is important to remember that for most of our history there were no televisions and no debates. Knowledge of the candidates filtered through speeches and letters. The distance between the president and the public was even greater than today. In a sense, the imperial presidency -- the president as first among equals of the three branches of government -- really began with FDR, who used radio brilliantly. But there were no debates or public press conferences in which to challenge him.

The distance collapsed with television and rapid-fire interplays, yet at the same time increased in another way, as the president became the most public and pseudo-known character in government. I say pseudo-known because, in fact, the president's greatest skill lies in revealing himself selectively, in a way and to the extent that it enhances his power.

What could be sensed in debates were things like meanness of spirit, ability to listen, willingness to improvise and, ultimately, there was a chance to look for humor and good will. There was also a danger. The debate put a premium on articulateness, but it is not clear that the well-spoken candidate -- or at least the candidate who could speak most clearly most quickly -- also thought more clearly. There are many people who think clearly but speak slowly while acting quickly. They are not meant for Bob Schieffer or Candy Crowley's meat grinder.

The point of this is to continue a previous argument I have been making. The issues-based candidacy is a fallacy, especially because events determine the issues, and the most important events, such as 9/11 and the financial crash, are not always expected. Therefore, reality divides the candidate's policy papers from the candidate's policies.

I am arguing that the subject of the debate and the specific answers in the debate are doubly unimportant. First, the nature of these debates makes coherent presentation impossible. Second, the stated policies, such as they are, have little to do with the results of the debate. Nor will the better debater win. The winner of the debate will be the one whose soul, when glimpsed, appears able to withstand the burdens of the presidency. Romney's surge had less to do with Obama's performance and more to do with what the viewer learned of Romney.

This has always been what American presidential campaigns are about. All that has happened is that television intensified it and the debate purified it. A debate is a 90-minute opportunity to see a candidate under pressure. What the viewer determines he saw will be critical.

I am also making a parallel argument that our perception of today's political campaigns as uniquely vicious is untrue. We have always been brutal to our candidates, but this served a purpose. We may not know what his policy on trade reform is, but we need to know what kind of person he is for the unexpected issues that will come faster and be more deadly than any moderator's questions. I think this is the purpose debates serve. They are not some public policy review but a dissection of the soul of someone who wants to be president. It is not necessarily a good one, or always an accurate one. It is, however, why we have them.

The question may come up as to who I think won the debate. My opinion on that is no better than anyone else's, nor, as I pointed out, do I think it really matters. The winner of the debate may or may not have persuaded enough voters of his virtue to be elected. But in the end, our response to the debate is idiosyncratic. What moved me may not have moved others. After all, the country appears divided down the middle on this election, so obviously we are seeing different things. Therefore, who I think won the debate is as irrelevant as who I think should be president. Besides, there are more important questions than our own opinions on the candidates. For me, one of those is trying to understand what we are doing when we elect a president.

The Purpose of Presidential Debates is republished with permission of Stratfor.

How to fix problems and make them worse.

One of the repeated pieces of tripe from the B Hussein Obama regime is "Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive." Well, how well off is GM and the Chevy Volt:

The Week - NR / Digital Articles - National Review Online

General Motors sells the electric Volt for $40,000 and loses about $50,000 every time it makes a sale, because that $40,000 car costs $89,000 to build. The solution GM has hit upon (you have to be a government-run enterprise to think this way) is to sell it for $30,000 instead. GM is offering additional $10,000 discounts on a car nobody wants, but the problem is: Nobody wants it. GM should just close the production line — in fact, that is what GM is doing abroad, shutting down factories in Europe because nobody there wants GM’s non-electric cars, either. The Democrats made the GM bailout the centerpiece of their economic case at their convention in Charlotte, boasting that the intervention saved more than a million jobs. This ridiculous claim assumes that without GM every single automotive job in the United States would have been lost: not only those at GM and other U.S. firms pinned down under the morbidly obese autoworkers’ unions, but at Honda, Toyota, BMW, etc. An automaker that cannot sell cars at a profit is not a business, and it is altogether mysterious that it has become a talking point.
The entire handling of GM and Chrysler was a complete debacle. And yes, George Bush is partly to blame for this. W, we needed you to be like you were with Enron, "Sorry we're not going to bail you out." Instead, we got “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system”. Really didn't work out well there did it? Both companies should have gone through reorganization (before January 2009 would have been nice, before the Obamaites could screw it up like they did). Now we have an institution of American capatalism turned into a governemnt bureau. And it needs another bail out. Any surprise there.

Now there is hope with out there with our motorcycle industry.
Lest the GM debacle have you fearing that no American company can successfully cobble together a motorized vehicle, consider the case of iconic motorcycle manufacturer Harley-Davidson. H-D is a business that has been through hell but never been offered a bailout — the motorcycle industry doesn’t have that kind of political clout — and so it has had to do what GM hasn’t: get better. H-D is predicting a 16 percent operating margin this year, which it achieved by investing in robotics and embracing cutting-edge inventory and production techniques to replace an assembly plant that the Wall Street Journal referred to as “an industrial museum.” But to get that done, H-D had to go thermonuclear on its main union, telling the workers at its York, Pa., facility that they were going to make concessions regarding work rules and flexible production or the plant was going to move to Kentucky, where the extortionate power of unions is much lower, a fact that has attracted such manufacturing heavyweights as Toyota. Harley’s employees decided they like building motorcycles, and, though there are 1,000 fewer workers there today than there were three years ago, the company is moving into the future on solid ground, having consigned nostalgia to the design and marketing departments.

There it is. The Obama regime took over GM not to save the auto industry but to save the UAW. If the purpose was to save the auto industry why hobble it with unsustainable contacts with the UAW? I think we all know the answer. Hopefully a Romney administration lets GM become a private company again and it goes through reorganization supervised by a bankruptcy judge. And the UAW leadership screams when they are told the laid off workers will not be getting 90% of pay and benefits anymore.

This is not the 1950s and our major industry needs reform. But bureaucrats cannot do it. So I voted for true reform a couple of days ago.

And as a proud HD rider, thanks Harley. Hopefully people at the Big Three watched you and got a few ideas.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012


I think I'm gonna be in for a few good nights with some scotch on this. Over 1000 pages, this is an epic read. And will be worth it!

Life is good!

Voting Day

Beth and I got off our dead asses and did our civil duty today. Harris County has early voting till November 2nd and I wanted this done quick.

From the location around 900am:

Getting ready for the line I came prepared. I generally put a cover over my books because I try and take care of them. But I removed the cover from my current read:

As they say in Chicago, vote early and vote often! :<)

In all seriousness, vote. And have a great week. Today is my Monday and I'm starting work in a couple of hours. WAAAAAA.

Monday, October 22, 2012

I didn't want anything to do with a group of obsessives who paid to get together to talk incessantly about a TV show that had been cancelled. It wasn't logical.

But now the first Captain of the Enterprise does. And so does the first Captain of the Enterprise D! And a few others.

What I would have given to be there. Oh well, hopefully Kirk doesn't croak anytime soon!

Now that's logical! William Shatner and Patrick Stewart join historic reunion of all five of Star Trek's captains

Their careers might have all have gone in very different directions, but the five Star Trek captains seemed happy to reunite for the first time in ten years in London on Friday.

Despite starring in different series' the actors share a common bond and still seemed happy to chat to fans about the long-running show after all these years.

The five captains William Shatner, Patrick Stewart, Kate Mulgrew, Avery Brooks and Scott Bakula all took part in the major reunion convention at London's ExCel Centre.

Although Star Trek has more recently been turned into a glossy, Hollywood film franchise, fans remember it best as the innovative sci-fi series that first captured their imaginations in the 1960s.

William Shatner, now 81, who starred as Captain Kirk in the original series which first aired in 1966 has not attended a convention for some years.

Speaking in 2008, the actor said: 'I didn't want anything to do with a group of obsessives who paid to get together to talk incessantly about a TV show that had been cancelled. It wasn't logical.'

British actor Patrick Stewart, who starred as Jean-Luc Picard in New Generation has gone on to have great success on screen and on stage after taking up the Star Trek role in 1987.

The star, now 71, also seemed more than happy to greet fans at the Destination London Star Trek Convention although he didn't stick around to pose for as many photographs as the others.

US actress Kate Mulgrew, who became best known throughout her career as Captain Kathryn Janeway in the Voyager series, has since been nominated for a Golden Globe and has appeared in a number of Broadway hits.

Actor Avery Brooks, who starred as Benjamin Sisko from 1993-1999, has starred in various TV programmes and films, but hasn't been seen much in recent years.

Scott Bakula, who played Jonathan Archer, has also starred in Quantum Leap and Chuck as well as being nominated for four Emmy awards.

The stars were greeted with the usual deluge of fans in fancy dress, and even witnessed a Klingon wedding between a Swedish couple.

Live Long and Prosper

Sunday, October 21, 2012

A 67 yard field goal!

This is great! And he's in high school

Congrats man...hopefully you go high in the draft!

Obama and the Ivy League

I've often said the Ivy League has gone down over the last few decades. Before you would go to them for excellent education. Now you go there based on the reputation. It used to be earned. Like many things in the Northeast, it's now old and falling into disrepair.

A great article all in all but here is the critical issue. From National Review.
Attack of the Ivy League ***holes

Before proceeding further, I should explain what the Ivy League is. Officially, it’s a group of eight colleges in the Northeast (Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Pennsylvania, Princeton, and Yale) that play football against one another, rather badly. It was not formally organized until the early 1950s, when the reaction from Harvard was probably, “Wait a minute, we’re in with who?” (Actually it would more likely have been whom.)

Unofficially, of course, the Ivy League, even avant la lettre, has for centuries been a symbol of everything Middle America hates: rich, snobbish, exclusive, Eastern, and too smart for its own good. With the exception of Cornell, a post–Civil War parvenu, the schools were all founded before the Revolution, and ever since, they have been filling the ranks of America’s Establishment: intellectuals, bankers, lawyers, businessmen — and now, increasingly, presidents...

...Obama did go to Harvard Law School, though, and never mind black vs. white, East vs. West, or uniter vs. divider, because here’s the true, the fundamental conflict in Obama’s soul: Is he a Columbia ***hole or a Harvard ***hole? The answer is important, because those are two very different types of ***hole. Both are obsessed with showing you how smart they are, but the Columbia ***hole does it by telling you everything he knows, while the Harvard ***hole does it by acting bored with whatever you say. The Harvard variety is at least laid back, and the Columbia variety can be interesting; but put them together and you have a world-weary pest. That may not be an exact description of Obama, but he’s certainly getting there.

Not much to show from the Harvard side and what his Columbia side says ain't that bright.

Man, I can't wait for the election...and January 20th, 2013.

Friday, October 19, 2012

Security Weekly: Defining al Qaeda, October 18, 2012

By Scott Stewart

The Obama administration's efforts to counter the threat posed by al Qaeda and the wider jihadist movement have been a contentious topic in the U.S. presidential race. Political rhetoric abounds on both sides; administration officials claim that al Qaeda has been seriously crippled, while some critics of the administration allege that the group is stronger than ever. As with most political rhetoric, both claims bear elements of truth, but the truth depends largely on how al Qaeda and jihadism are defined. Unfortunately, politicians and the media tend to define al Qaeda loosely and incorrectly.

The jihadist threat will persist regardless of who is elected president, so understanding the actors involved is critical. But a true understanding of those actors requires taxonomical acuity. It seems worthwhile, then, to revisit Stratfor's definitions of al Qaeda and the wider jihadist movement.

A Network of Networks

Al Qaeda, the group established by Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, was never very large -- there were never more than a few hundred actual members. We often refer to this group, now led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, as the al Qaeda core or al Qaeda prime. While the group's founders trained tens of thousands of men at their camps in Afghanistan and Sudan, they initially viewed themselves as a vanguard organization working with kindred groups to facilitate the jihad they believed was necessary to establish a global Islamic caliphate. Most of the men trained at al Qaeda camps were members of other organizations or were grassroots jihadists. The majority of them received basic paramilitary training, and only a select few were invited to receive additional training in terrorist tradecraft skills such as surveillance, document forgery and bombmaking. Of this select group, only a few men were invited to join the al Qaeda core organization.

Bin Laden envisioned another purpose for al Qaeda: leading the charge against corrupt rulers in the Muslim world and against the United States, which he believed supported corrupt Muslim rulers. Al Qaeda sought to excise the United States from the Muslim world in much the same way that Hezbollah drove U.S. forces out of Lebanon and Somalia forced the U.S. withdrawal from Mogadishu.

Al Qaeda became a network of networks -- a trait demonstrated not only by its training methods but also in bin Laden's rhetoric. For example, bin Laden's 1998 "World Islamic Front" statement, which declared jihad against Jews and Crusaders, was signed by al-Zawahiri (who at the time was leading the Egyptian Islamic Jihad) and leaders of other groups, including the Egyptian Islamic Group, Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan and the Jihad Movement of Bangladesh.

Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States applied against the al Qaeda core the full pressure of its five counterterrorism levers: intelligence, military, law enforcement, diplomacy and financial sanctions. As a result, many al Qaeda members, eventually including bin Laden, were captured or killed and their assets were frozen. Such measures have ensured that the group remains small for operational security concerns. The remaining members of the group mostly are lying low in Pakistan near the Afghan border, and their isolation there has severely degraded their ability to conduct attacks. The al Qaeda core is now relegated to producing propaganda for guidance and inspiration for other jihadist elements. Despite the disproportionate amount of media attention given to statements from al-Zawahiri and Adam Gadahn, the al Qaeda core constitutes only a very small part of the larger jihadist movement. In fact, it has not conducted a successful terrorist attack in years.

However, the core group has not been destroyed. It could regenerate if the United States eased its pressure, but we believe that will be difficult given the loss of the charismatic bin Laden and his replacement by the irascible al-Zawahiri.

In any case, the jihadist movement transcends the al Qaeda core. In fact, Stratfor for years published an annual forecast of al Qaeda, but beginning in 2009, we intentionally changed the title of the forecast to reflect the isolation and marginalization of the al Qaeda core and the ascendance of other jihadist actors. We believed our analysis needed to focus less on the al Qaeda core and more on the truly active and significant elements of the jihadist movement, including regional groups that have adopted the al Qaeda name and the array of grassroots jihadists.

Franchises and Grassroots

An element of the jihadist movement that is often loosely referred to as al Qaeda is the worldwide network of local or regional militant groups that have assumed al Qaeda's name or ideology. In many cases, the relationships between the leadership of these groups and the al Qaeda core began in the 1980s and 1990s.

Some groups have publicly claimed allegiance to the al Qaeda core, becoming what we refer to as franchise groups. These groups include al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Even though these franchises bear the al Qaeda name, they are locally owned and operated. This means that the local commanders have significant latitude in how closely they follow the guidance and philosophy of the al Qaeda core.

Some franchise group leaders, such as AQAP's Nasir al-Wahayshi, maintain strong relationships with the al Qaeda core and are very closely aligned with the core's philosophy. Other leaders, such as Abu Musab Abd al-Wadoud of AQIM, are more distanced. In fact, AQIM has seen severe internal fighting over these doctrinal issues, and several former leaders of Algeria's Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat left the group because of this conflict. Further, it is widely believed that the death of Somali al Qaeda leader Fazul Abdullah Mohammed was arranged by leaders of Somali jihadist group al Shabaab, which he had criticized sharply.

The last and broadest element of the global jihadist movement often referred to as al Qaeda is what Stratfor refers to as grassroots jihadists. These are individuals or small cells of individuals that are inspired by the al Qaeda core -- or increasingly, by its franchise groups -- but that may have little or no actual connection to these groups. Some grassroots jihadists travel to places such as Pakistan or Yemen to receive training from the franchise groups. Other grassroots militants have no direct contact with other jihadist elements.

The core, the franchises and the grassroots jihadists are often interchangeably referred to as al Qaeda, but there are important differences among these actors that need to be recognized.

Important Distinctions

There are some other important distinctions that inform our terminology and our analysis. Not all jihadists are linked to al Qaeda, and not all militant Islamists are jihadists. Islamists are those who believe society is best governed by Islamic law, or Sharia. Militant Islamists are those who advocate the use of force to establish Sharia. Militant Islamists are found in both Islamic sects. Al Qaeda is a Sunni militant Islamist group, but Hezbollah is a Shiite militant Islamist group. Moreover, not all militant Muslims are Islamists. Some take up arms for tribal, territorial, ethnic or nationalistic reasons, or for a combination of reasons.

In places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and northern Mali, several militant groups are fighting foreign forces, their government or each other -- and sometimes all of the above. Some of these groups are jihadists, some are tribal militias, some are brigands and smugglers, and others are nationalists. Identifying, sorting and classifying these groups can be very difficult, and sometimes alliances shift or overlap. For example, Yemen's southern separatists will sometimes work with tribal militias or AQAP to fight against the government; other times, they fight against these would-be allies. We have seen similar dynamics in northern Mali among groups such as AQIM, Ansar Dine, the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa, various Tuareg groups and other tribal militias in the region.

Taxonomy becomes even more difficult when a group uses multiple names, or when multiple groups share a name. Groups adopt different names for discretion, confusion or public relations purposes. AQAP called itself Ansar al-Shariah during its fight to take over cities in southern Yemen and to govern the territory. But radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, who was arrested in the United Kingdom in 2004 and extradited to the United States in 2012, has long led a movement likewise called Ansar al-Shariah. Even the Libyan jihadist militia that attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi uses the same name. But just because these groups share a name, and just because members or leaders of the groups know each other, does not necessarily mean that they are chapters of the same group or network of groups, or that they even subscribe to the same ideology.

As we mentioned long before Moammar Gadhafi was ousted in Libya, jihadists and other militants thrive in power vacuums. This assertion has proved true in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, and more recently in Libya, northern Mali and now Syria. Weapons flooding into such regions only compound the problem.

Militant Islamists have seized the opportunity to grow in influence in such places, as have the subset of militant Islamists we call jihadists. So in this context, while the al Qaeda core has been crippled, other portions of the jihadist movement are thriving. This is especially so among those that aspire to mount local insurgencies rather than those more concerned with planning transnational attacks. The nuances are important because as the composition and objectives of jihadist groups change, so do their methods of attack.

Defining al Qaeda is republished with permission of Stratfor.

Geopolitical Weekly: Turkey's Challenge and the Syrian Negotiation, October 16, 2012

By Reva Bhalla
Vice President of Global Affairs

Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zubi harshly criticized the Turkish government early last week over Ankara's proposal that an interim government succeed the al Assad regime, saying that "Turkey isn't the Ottoman Sultanate; the Turkish Foreign Ministry doesn't name custodians in Damascus, Mecca, Cairo and Jerusalem." Being the spokesman for a pariah regime requires a mastery of propaganda. Al-Zubi has not disappointed in this regard, mounting a strong rhetorical offensive against Syria's powerful northern neighbor.

While his latest rebuke of Turkey will not save the al Assad regime (much less his own career), he is tapping into a powerful narrative in the region, one that will have stronger and stronger resonance in the Arab world as Turkey is forced to play a more assertive role in the region.

Great Expectations in Ankara

As Ankara is discovering, the resurgence of a nation can be an awkward and rocky process. Things were simpler for Turkey in the early part of the past decade when the regional climate allowed Turkey to re-emerge cautiously, with a white flag in hand and phrases like "zero problems with neighbors" on its lips. The region has since become far more unforgiving, with violent political transformations nipping at Anatolia's borders, Iran putting up stiff competition for regional influence, Russia's resurgence proceeding apace and the United States increasingly losing interest in the role of global policeman. The region is pushing Turkey into action regardless of whether Ankara is ready to take on the responsibility.

The past week offered several glimpses into Turkey's growing pains. Turkish and Syrian border troops shelled each other after Syrian mortar fire killed five Turkish civilians. Turkish fighter jets scrambled after the Syrian air force attacked a town along the Syrian side of the border. Turkish-Russian tensions also flared when Turkey intercepted a Syria-bound plane from Moscow allegedly carrying radar equipment. And a nervous Ankara watched as a coalition of Kurdish groups from Syria, northern Iraq, Iran and Turkey gathered in Paris to brainstorm ways to exploit the shifting regional landscape and propel a campaign for Kurdish statehood.

The Basis for a Negotiation

The conflict in Syria offers both a threat and an opportunity for Ankara. Turkey took a risk when it became the most ardent and visible backer of the Syrian rebellion. Now, tens of thousands of refugees are flowing across the border into Turkey. The threat of sectarian warfare spreading past Syria's borders looms. And the exposure of Turkey's regional competition with Iran has elevated the Kurdish militant threat from a domestic sore point to a weakness that regional competitors like Iran can exploit.

Turkey is also closely monitoring a critical force that has begun to shape the region: the rise of Islamist movements and the discrediting of Arab secularist police states. The transition from secular autocracy will be tumultuous, but the more leverage Turkey has with this Pan-Arab Islamist movement, the better prepared it will be to manage its neighborhood. An opportunity is thus developing for Turkey in which it can assert its Islamist credentials alongside its ability to compete effectively with Iran and to deal with the West. Turkey is uniquely positioned to steer the Islamist movement while the Arab street still requires a regional backer in its challenge to the old regimes and to keep Iran at bay. But Arab attitudes toward Turkey will shift with time as Turkey's expectations of a growing sphere of influence in the Arab world inevitably clash with the Muslim Brotherhood's vision of a Pan-Arab Islamist movement following its own course, as opposed to one set by Ankara.

Turkey has several immediate challenges. First, it is attempting to prevent a power vacuum from expanding in Syria that would fuel Kurdish separatism. Second, it is trying to push back the Iranian sphere of influence while expanding its own into the Arab world. Third, it wants to be taken seriously as a regional leader. Heavily constrained as it is, Ankara appears to have chosen to tackle this array of issues primarily through dialogue.

Turkey wants to avoid regime change in Syria, and it is not alone. Neither the states trying to retain influence in Syria, like Iran and Russia, nor the states trying to force a political transformation in the Levant, like Turkey, the United States, Saudi Arabia, France and Qatar, are prepared to weather the consequences of debaathification, which would dismantle the state machinery, sideline the Alawite minority and plunge the country more deeply into civil war. A growing consensus centered on removing the al Assads while largely maintaining the regime has created an opportunity for dialogue between the United States and Turkey on one side and Russia and Iran on the other. Tehran and Moscow have used the monthslong stalemate in the Syrian conflict to edge their way into discussions over a post-al Assad government. The Russians and Iranians have positioned themselves for a possible agreement that facilitates an exit for the al Assads while requiring a prominent space for the Alawites in a new government, something that would preserve Russian and Iranian influence in Syria.

The urgency to negotiate the Syrian transition is escalating just as one of the key pillars Stratfor identified from the start of the conflict, the cohesion of the Alawites, appears to be breaking down. Recently, clashes have erupted between Alawite clans in the coastal Alawite strongholds of Latakia and Qardaha, the birthplace of former President Hafiz al Assad. Evidence also has emerged supporting claims that a handful of Alawite military officers have recently defected from the regime. Critical Alawite defections could accelerate in the coming weeks as fewer Alawites see the survival of the al Assads as necessary to their own survival.

As the al Assad clan continues to weaken, Turkey has sought to stitch together negotiations already fraught with complications. One look at the participants in the discussion over a post-al Assad Syria explains the difficulty.

The U.S.-Iranian Dynamic

The first major dialogue for Turkey to mediate is between the United States and Iran. The United States has no interest in initiating a military intervention in Syria, though it is preparing for the possibility that U.S. intelligence assets and special operations forces will have to secure Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles in the event of a regime meltdown. The United States also does not want to engage in a military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program. Washington thus has elected a strategy whereby Turkey does the bulk of the work on Syria while Washington focuses on weakening Iran through sanctions pressure, covert operations and building up a credible military threat in the Persian Gulf. Washington hopes to coerce Iran into negotiations where it can extract hefty concessions from Tehran on issues ranging from Syria to the Iranian nuclear program.

Timing is everything in such a challenging negotiating environment. The U.S.-led economic siege of Iran is starting to bite, as evidenced by the rapid depreciation of the Iranian rial in the past weeks. Iranian officials claim that Iran can weather hardship far better than most think, but the specter of social unrest exploited by foreign powers clearly weighs heavily on Tehran. Iran also cannot shake the threat of a potential U.S.-Israeli strike. Though the chances of such a strike remain low, occasional Israeli saber-rattling plus a far higher level of U.S. military preparedness in the Persian Gulf make it much harder for Iran to call the U.S. bluff. At the same time, Iran is watching the situation in Syria deteriorate and is trying to prevent a scenario in which the sectarian spillover in Syria threatens Iran's hard-fought gains in Iraq. All of this does not necessarily mean Iran is ready to offer serious concessions, but Iran is giving indications that it wants dialogue with Washington.

Turkey is the facilitator for that dialogue. Turkish President Abdullah Gul and Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi met last week, and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with Iranian Supreme National Security Council chief Saeed Jalili in mid-September. While the Turkish government has been keeping Washington abreast of these talks, Iran has been softening the atmosphere to create favorable conditions for a resumption of talks on its nuclear program. U.N. monitors have reported that Iran is converting more than one-third of its 20 percent enriched uranium stockpile into uranium oxide in powder form to alleviate concerns over potential attempts to produce weapons-grade nuclear fuel. Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has revealed that Iran is attempting to arrange a visit by International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano to Iran to discuss the possible military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear program (though the United Nations has not yet confirmed the visit).

While putting out feelers via the Turks for negotiations with Washington, Iran is also preparing a contingency plan for Syria. Transitioning from a conventional army to an insurgent military force is logical for Syria's Alawite minority given the crisis' trajectory. Hints have emerged that Iran is preparing an Alawite militia for use when the al Assads fall with the help of Hezbollah. By creating a strong militant proxy, Iran can try to ensure its interests won't be ignored should its latest attempts at negotiations with the United States fall through.

The U.S.-Russian Dynamic

Turkey must also navigate fitful U.S.-Russia negotiations. Russia has deep relationships with the Syrian and Iranian regimes and will likely play a role in securing the exit of the al Assad clan in return for guarantees of influence in the refashioned government. Russian President Vladimir Putin was supposed to arrive in Istanbul on Oct. 14 for talks with the Turkish leadership, but that visit was postponed to Dec. 3. The extent to which the detention of the Russian plane and Turkish accusations that Russia is arming the Syrian regime caused this change in schedule remains unclear, but Moscow was quick to reschedule the visit for a date after the U.S. presidential election. At the same time, Russia is trying to revive dialogue with the United States over ballistic missile defense in Europe and Russia's contentious relationship with NATO. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov aims to have a Russia-NATO summit (which was canceled in May amid heightened U.S.-Russia tensions) again rescheduled for the end of the year, after the U.S. election.

It appears that Russia may be delaying negotiations over Syria until it gets a better sense of whom it will be negotiating with in Washington. Similarly, Iran is unlikely to make any bold concessions until it, too, can be sure that the next U.S. administration will follow through on its end of any potential bargain. With these broader interests in play, there is not much Turkey can do to influence the time and place of negotiations.

The Other Stakeholders

Israel and Saudi Arabia are two key players on the sidelines of this negotiation to watch closely. Israel is not a direct participant in the transition talks, but it has a vested interest in preventing the further destabilization of its northern frontier and in sapping Iran's regional strength. Israel will continue to rely on covert means to try to reinforce the pain caused by the U.S.-led economic siege against Iran but will also search for a deal with Russia that would increase Iranian isolation.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has been heavily involved in efforts to fortify the Syrian rebellion with the aim of undercutting its regional adversary, Iran. Though Saudi Arabia can see the risk to the region of having Syria remain in a prolonged state of civil war, it also does not want to see a broader understanding between Washington and Tehran develop out of the Syrian crisis, an understanding that could strain the U.S.-Saudi relationship. If negotiations gain traction in the coming months, Saudi Arabia may end up being more of a spoiler than a facilitator.

Turkey's Challenge

These negotiations evidently are about much more than Syria. Syria is merely the conversation-starter for much broader strategic disputes. Turkey's challenge in managing the number of players and competing interests in this negotiation may be immense, but there is arguably no country more suited by geography and its own strategic needs to seize the task. Turkey lies at the crossroads of the many conflicts these negotiations will touch on. And unlike the United States, Turkey's physical proximity to the issues deprives it of the option of selective engagement.

All of this will generate great consternation within Turkey. The founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, sought to relieve his country from the burdens of the Ottoman legacy in the Islamic world. His vision entailed creating a state based on a national -- as opposed to an Islamic -- identity and reorienting Turkey toward Europe, where the idea of a nation-state had already taken root. Today, Europe is turning inward, grappling with the revival of the nation-state while clinging to the idea of a supranational union. To Turkey's south, Pan-Islamism promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood is pricking Turkish historical sensibilities as violent political evolutions compel a reluctant Ankara into action.

The Syrian information minister strategically exposed this uncomfortable reality in his recent rebuke of Ankara. Turkey is not trying to advertise the re-creation of the Ottoman sphere of influence, but it simply cannot avoid having its actions rekindle memories of Ottoman troops on Arab soil. This memory is seared into the Syrian and Egyptian consciousness, something Turkey's regional adversaries will exploit in a bid to delay Turkey's inevitable rise.
Turkey's Challenge and the Syrian Negotiation is republished with permission of Stratfor.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Warmer and fuzzier.

Last week I posted on how I was feeling better on the election because B Hussein Obama's latest commercial seemed a bit desperate. Well here is another makes me feel better.
Obama camp uses guilt in fundraiser email - Steve Friess - POLITICO.com

The Obama campaign is now resorting to bill-collector language to rouse folks on its email list who haven’t donated — a tactic that’s sparked some sharp blowback even among supporters.

A campaign email sent over the weekend provides the recipients with their customized “online giving history” that includes a 10-digit “supporter ID number.” That’s followed by a list of the recipient’s “most recent online donation” and “total amount donated online.”

“It looks like you haven't made an online donation to the campaign yet,” the email continues. “If you were waiting for the last minute, you're pretty much there.”

In a season of countless campaign emails, this one seemed especially strident — even to seasoned professionals like Scott Goodstein, external online director for Obama’s 2008 campaign.

“The Obama team is smart and tests everything, but while squeaking out a little more cash, is it worth it if it turns off base supporters that are reading your narrative and doing the hard work?” Goodstein said. He described the appeal as “a ‘collection-style’ bill from the campaign's auditor.”

An Obama campaign official told POLITICO that the campaign has received only positive feedback from recipients and that people are impressed by the personalization.

The campaign must not be looking at Twitter, where the email is being referred to as a “shakedown.” One conservative blog, Weasel Zippers, is enjoying a flood of traffic, with hundreds of readers likening the Obama-generated ID numbers to Big Brother.

“The president of the United States allots you an ID number and tells you that you haven't paid money to his campaign?” one commenter wrote. “This is so Orwellian that I am totally aghast. ... This is nothing less than thuggery.”

Another offended recipient was financial services regulatory lawyer Michael S. Smith of New York, who said the FTC would be quizzing him if he’d have sent such a note when he worked for AIG.

“They’re skating right on the line,” Smith said. “This is like if I were trying to sell you a health insurance policy and I sent an email, and then two months later I said, ‘We looked in the records you didn’t buy the policy, don’t you think it’s time?’”...

Looks more and more like a sinking ship. Good for the nation and the world. I don't want to be overconfident (I vote early next week) but again, I'm feeling a bit better.

You gotta see this if you haven't...the helmet cam of Felix Baumgartner

No comment is needed.

The Army is commemorating this!

Where has the Army I proudly served for 23 years gone.

U.S. Army Commemorates Burning of Draft Card

U.S. Army Commemorates Burning of Draft Card

8:56 AM, OCT 15, 2012 • BY MICHAEL WARREN

The official Twitter account of the United States Army sent out a message to its more than 186,000 followers recognizing the 47th anniversary of the "first public burning of a draft card." Here's the tweet:
The account links to an article at History.com about the 1965 public protests against the Vietnam war.
The Army's Twitter account profile says, in part, that its purpose is to provide "news & updates about our Soldiers around the world, as well as a place to connect with your Army."
Also today in military history, it was 148 years ago today that the 400 Union soldiers and 50 Confederate soldiers were killed at the Battle of Glasgow in Missouri. The battle was a Confederate victory.

God we need to purge the Pentagon of these Obamaite morons.