Monday, September 13, 2004


In my world… (Domestic Policies)

*Abortion would be illegal –except for those rare instances when the woman’s life is in grave danger (though I’m not sure what woman would pick themselves over their baby-I told the man that if it came down to me or Justice –he sure as hell better pick him!)/rape/incest (sex education would teach women to go right to the hospital to have a D & C/Rape Kit if either of these things occurred).

Life MUST have a beginning –and that which is not alive, does not grow…

Condoms, the morning after pill, birth control, birth control implants and all surgical procedures that stop reproduction will be allowed –encouraged and widely available.

*Civil Unions would be available to all that wanted them (hetero or homosexual couples). They would provide ALL of the same legal benefits that marriage does. (Except for adoption where equally qualified hetero couples would still have first priority –as the child will have one less thing to get beaten up over).

*Marriage would be a ‘word’ reserved for a man and a woman. This is a word that began with a religious connotation (not a Constitutional right) and a promise made before God. Civil Unions will afford the same tax breaks (under Bush) or Tax increases (under Kerry) –so it will all be equal as far as civil rights are concerned.

*Gun Control would actually take guns from the criminals while allowing responsible citizens to retain their 2nd Amendment rights. We would have no ‘fluff’ legislation just to please the left, but there would be no guns for sale that could kill an elephant just to please the NRA.

*There would be separation of Church and State, but not separation of God and State. The government would not be able to force a religion on the people, but God would be present now as he was at the inception of our Country.

*Every pedophile (true pedophile- not 18 yr. old boyfriend having consensual sex with his 16 yr. old girlfriend) would be put in jail for life at the first offence. The only way to forgo this punishment would be mandatory castration….end of story. This is not a crime that can be rehabilitated and children should not be terrorized to protect a pervert’s civil rights.

*ALL government programs would be overhauled and all waste cut out. Welfare/Unemployment would exist on a limited basis and would be evaluated on a case by case basis. **There would be tax incentives for each year a person retained their employment and for each year couples stayed married (this would also apply to civil unions).

*Marijuana would be legalized, regulated and taxed. Our jail space should not be taken up with dime-bag pot smokers when we need the room for pedophiles and murderers.

*The Patriot Act would remain and may even be expanded. In my world people would give up the right to have library books private to save just one life (does anyone go to the library anymore anyway?!)

*A new Government department would be established specifically for union oversight. Union licenses would be granted through this department and any infringement on the rights of non-union members/ political extortion/member’s money unwittingly going to candidates…would result in the revoking of that license. The NEA would be the first to go. Teamsters next…

*School vouchers would be available for all children. A child should not be stuck at a ‘bad’ school because of their parent’s financial situation and the neighborhood that they live in. Teachers in public schools would not be restrained by their Administrations on discipline issues. They will be free to give detentions; demerits and any other course of action that will help restore order in the classrooms. Inner city public schools that fail to meet certain standards will be staffed by military personnel –and no child will be allowed to stay behind or they will receive corporal punishment.

*REAL non-partisan studies would be conducted by the best scientists/environmentalists in the world to learn the truth about the environment –how much is naturally occurring cycles, how much is due to natural occurrences (volcanoes causing most of mercury, etc.), and how much is directly from the United States pollution. EPA standards would be set accordingly.

*The legal system would be completely overhauled and would finally do more to protect the victims than the perpetrators. Evidence will never be thrown out if it proves guilt ‘on a technicality’. Victims/victim’s families will have veto power on any deal offered to a defendant by the Prosecution.

*We would immediately begin drilling in ANWAR –this would create thousands of jobs (that will not automatically be union), and provide an alternative source of oil if there is ever a national crisis. The caribou will be just fine.

*Affirmative action would remain in the sense that one could not be discriminated against for their race (or sexual orientation)…but all ‘point systems’ and ‘quota systems’ would be immediately abolished.

*Tax payer money would no longer pay for ‘voluntary detrimental actions’. This means if you choose to attempt suicide, OD or ride a motorcycle without a helmet -become a vegetable and your insurance runs out…your family will have to pay or finally admit that you are brain dead and pull the plug.

*The borders would be closed. Immigration would go back to the way that it used to be done and that is in waves –ensuring we stay a MELTING pot. You would have to know English to pass your citizenship test, to vote or to get a driver’s license. Visas would be heavily scrutinized, but because of the aforementioned rules it would be easy to spot (hear) someone that shouldn’t be here.

*Flag burning would be illegal.

I’m sure I’ll think of 20 more things after I post this…

Don’t tell me all the technical reasons that this wouldn’t work…this isn’t my political platform—it’s my Utopia. (This DOESN'T MEAN NO COMMENTS...just that I hadn't really thought about the 'reality' of this --just what would be ideal in a 'make-believe ALa world')...


riceburner147 said...

Ala71: ru saying no comments are solicited ? If so, please ignore the following.

*The legal system would be completely overhauled and would finally do more to protect the victims than the perpetrators. Evidence will never be thrown out if it proves guilt ‘on a technicality’. Victims/victim’s families will have veto power on any deal offered to a defendant by the Prosecution.

"Technicalities" are the whole basis of the Justice system. If we cannot be precise, we cannot have Justice. Let me give you an examle that may be slightly off subject (whats new about that with me). Many in our Republic complain about parole/probation. And, there are horrific examples where it has gone wrong. But, speak to a correctional officer (Hey CO) or those who are charged with keeping order in our prisons and they will tell you that probation/parole is the fundamental tool to rehabilitate/control the inmate population. Until one has lived in a max security prison you dont realize the magnitude of the problem we face. This is just an example of the nuances that Pres. Ala would face when trying to revamp the Justice system. OK Scotty, beam me back to Utopia.

Great Picture, I personally would support a law mandating 50% of Congress MUST be female in X amount of years. 50% of population = 50% of Gov't. Easy calculation for this progressive male. Probably less needless wars too.

ps waiting for your comment on my post(s)

riceburner147 said...

PS Any chance you would nominate the junior senator form NY for your Vice President......

riceburner147 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
leftyjones said...

Please be sure to inform us as to where on the map your "utopia" is located. I want to be sure that I don't accidentally have to change flights there when traveling.

this we'll defend said...

I'd like to agree or disagree point by point. I'm going to ignore your plea to not tell you why some things would or would not work because these are great discussion points and much of your utopia is currently driving the election. I understand of course that you disagree with me but lets have the discussion - your points are great.

Abortion: I only disagree with you because I disagree with you about where life begins. Post-viability I would totally agree with your position. Remember, some people think the "morning-after pill" is not birth control but an abortion and should be banned. This is the toughest issue of all I think.

Civil Unions - I agree except that the word "marriage" should be used only by religious institutions and not by the government. Otherwise the govt is taking a religious stand. So why not make all legally-recognized relationships a "civil union" from the standpoint of the state, and have marriage refer to a religious ceremony? My vow before God in a church was more important to me than whether the clerk of court filed the paperwork properly anyway. And if your church chooses not to recognize gay marriage that is their right. Nobody should force the Catholic church to recognize or legitimize what they abhor. Or any other religious group.

Gun control - I would go further and allow guns that kill elephants to be sold. While many on the left are for gun control I emphatically am NOT. I believe in the Bill of Rights - all of them, including the 2nd. The argument that "this was written a long time ago and the Founders didn't mean AKs or machine guns" is specious. All of them were written a long time ago, and the Founders were wise enough to include a way to amend them. If the People today haven't changed the 2nd then we shouldn't "interpret" it away either. Why keep weapons from law-abiding citizens? Criminals won't be deterred by more laws - they are already breaking them! And no lives would be saved. As an example of the weak arguments made in support of gun control, NBC News had a story on the assault weapons law expiring and showed footage of the West Hollywood bank robbery to show how assault weapons in the hands of even minimally trained individuals can do great damage. But they didn't mention that the bank robbers were ILLEGALLY IN POSSESSION OF THE WEAPONS. They were both prior felons and were not allowed to have them, so since they ignored already existing laws why would a new law forbidding anybody to have such weapons change that scenario one bit? It wouldn't.

Your "separation of church and state, but not God and state" is exactly what the Founders wanted, and what I want - and what most of the "left" wants, but not the right. School prayer is not forbidden now, but most of the right thinks it is. Because they want mandatory school prayer, sometimes disguised as a "moment of silence." They want creationism taught in science class. They don't want govt to be nuetral, they want it pro-Christian (and definitely NOT pro-Jewish or Buddhist or Muslim or whatever). So you and I agree, but you should realize that isn't the position of your party. Don't believe me? Ask some of your Republican friends who favor school prayer if the govt should be pro-Christian or treat all religions the same, including having a day of Islamic prayer, Jewish prayer, Buddhist meditation, etc.

Pedophiles - why life in prison? Why not death? Or life + mandatory castration?

Everybody wants waste cut from govt programs. No-bid contracts and boondoggles like NMD don't decrease it.

"Welfare/Unemployment would exist on a limited basis and would be evaluated on a case by case basis." - this is already the case. We still need more programs to help people that want self-sufficiency be able to attain it instead of blaming the poor for being poor. George W. was "unemployed" for a decade and never worried where his next meal was coming from. Poor people do. With the exception of drug addicts and criminals, few people on welfare want to be there. The myth of the "welfare queen" driving the cadillac is as false now as it was when Reagan first spouted such nonsense. Spend a day trying to help people who need assitance negotiate the maze and jump through the hoops of our welfare system (as I have) and you will realize you would much rather work then be on welfare. It is EASIER to work.

Tax incentives for employment and marriage seem like a good idea but it is doubtful this would change behavior in any way - it would simply cost the public purse. there are already incentives for employment - that is why people have jobs in the first place. And you don't want an inflexible labor market - switching careers or moving from one employer to the next is one reason our economy is successful - we have a flexible labor market. You don't want to discourage that. And the number of people who would stay married for a tax break probably wouldn't justify the cost.

You are right on Maryjane. But before we release all non-violent drug offenders we should carefully screen each of them to ensure our society is better off with the out among us rather than being kept apart. Not all people in prison for smoking dope are there just for that - but perhaps that is all they were convicted for. The gang-banger with his arms covered with prison tattoos, who is 35 and has never worked, who is suspected of five murders but never convicted, who the cops finally put away because they caught him with a brick of hash in his trunk and ten guns, and he pled out to just the drug charge - do you want him for a next-door neighbor? We should do it carefully. And those who do merit release should have help to be self-sufficient. Remember, release 10,000 prisoners at a savings of billions of dollars, 9,999 get a job and become taxpayers and raise families and contribute, but ONE "Willy Horton" and the program ends as the public demands we "get tough on crime" and the news reports only the details of the "recently-released drug felon who raped and murdered."

Patriot act - no way. It isn't as simple as library reading lists - and why would such things be of interest to the govt anyway? Aren't there more effective ways of finding out information that the authorities need that don't trample our civil liberties? If the answer was no I might agree, but the answer is clearly yes.

Union oversight? Read up on the National Labor Relations Commission. And while you decry the union money that goes to candidates you don't like who argues on behalf of shareholders when publicly-owned corporations (such as Enron or Halliburton) make donations that not all shareholders agree with? Double -standards are not appropriate. Either Unions and corporations can make donations, or they can't. Same standard for both.

School vouchers can be effective if carefully designed. Taking money away from public schools is not the way to improve public schools. Prop. 13 in California proved this - in the '50s, '60s, and into the '70s the California public school system was an example to all, the best in the world. Then "taxpayer revolt" and prop. 13. The Republicans promised it would NOT impact quality. Of course it did, and California public schools are now decrepit and a disgrace. The Republican solution? Repeal prop 13? Hell no. Blame the teachers. Yes bad teachers should go, but how many do you know? Before Prop 13 school boards decided how the funds were spent. Now the much smaller fund is all sent to Sacramento and then doled out by Sacramento, and local school boards have little say on how the money is spent. As a result it is poorly spent. All the result of REPUBLICAN initiatives, the small-government mavens that they are. As a side note, how much did the federal government grow under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II compared to Clinton? But I believe school vouchers can work to improve things if properly designed and implemented.

Inner city public schools that fail to meet certain standards will be staffed by military personnel - much like the "war on drugs" or "operations other than war" (nation-building) the solution appears easy. Take the incredible war machine we have and use its efficiency to solve a completely different problem. Since I believe in a strong national defense I say NO WAY. The Army is designed to kill people. We say "defend" and "protect" and "serve" and "honor" and that is great and true, but the bottom line is the machine gun I carried didn't spit out "defend" or "honor" or "just say not to drugs." It spit death, and I was trained to be pretty good with it. That is the mission of the military - to kick in doors and break things and kill people, not to take over failing public schools. Failing public schools should be the responsibility of a local school board that has real power, or perhaps of a politician like Mayer Daley in Chicago who has done wonders with his new powers over public schools. But not the military.

We already have real non-partisan environmental studies. They are ignored by the partisan politicians in Washington.

Your "overhaul" of the legal system would result in a less effective legal system, one more likely to punish the innocent and less likely to catch or deter the guilty. The reason I know this is that, for all its faults, and there are many, our legal system is more efficient and effective than other systems in other countries where what you propose is already in place. Dont try methods known to fail and expect better results. Try successful methods. One way: learn WHY evidence is sometimes tossed out on a "technicality." Most of the time it is to ensure a more accurate and just result, not a less accurate and unjust one. Bigandmean should be able to give you some examples. The many reasons victims don't run our criminal justice system is just too much to address here.

ANWAR - there are so many good arguments against that, I will just leave this one alone for another day.

Affirmative action can't remain in the sense that one can't be discriminated against on account of race. That is what it is - discrimination on account of race. It is a failed policy and should be tossed out as a good idea (at one time) gone wrong. The arguments for it (rich white kids get advantages that poor black kids don't) ignores reality (rich kids of any color get advantages that poor kids of any color don't).

Voluntary detrimental actions - in many states that is already the case (but we don't bill families for the actions of individuals).

Closing borders? Ahh, good old-fashioned xenophobia. The way immigration used to be done was racist and unjust. Legal immigrants are less likely to be on welfare, more likely to own their own businesses, and more likely to serve in the armed forces. Within 3 generations immigrants of any ethnicity are "assimilated." They speak English as their first language, own their own homes, etc., and consider themselves "true" Americans - and perhaps not surprisingly, are as likely as anybody else to want stricter immigration controls to keep "those people from coming here."

Requiring English to pass the citizenship test? What an idea. You might want to look up what it takes to pass the test already before you propose "changes." Since unless you are elderly or disabled you must be able to speak and understand English before becoming a citizen.

Requiring English to vote? Only citizens can vote, so for the most part immigrants can't vote unless they know English. The exceptions would be native-born citizens and Puerto Ricans. PR is different and I assume you don't have a problem with that. So is this a large pool, native-born citizens who don't speak English? And even so, don't they have the same citizenship as you?

"Hearing" somebody that "shouldn't be here?" What if they are illegals from Ireland who speak English? Germany, and don't? What if they speak fluent English - like many of the 9/11 hijackers? Does ability to speak English somehow translate into security concerns in your mind? Are you threatened by other languages?

Fact is, like gun control, enforcement of already existing visa laws would address the problems you are concerned about, and new laws unenforced are no more likely to solve problems than already-existing unenforced laws. But new laws may take our freedoms away and leave us worse off than before - for example, many international students are having trouble getting visas to study here - and that hurts US and OUR universities and our students, not the foreign students. They will go on to other foreign schools and those schools will be grateful to have them, while our research universities suffer.

Flag burning - is there a more political form of protest? Our Founders burned the british flag, pulled down statutes of King George III, etc. and then made sure Congress could pass NO law abridging freedom of expression. They surely meant flag-burning since they had assaulted the symbols of the British monarchy frequently. You say sure, free speech except for the flag. You would toss out the Constitution and Bill of Rights in favor of their mere symbol. Sure flag-burning is disgusting and offensive, but a government secure enough to tolerate idiots seems less likely to turn tryannous than one which views some commie dirtbag with a flag and a lighter as a threat to national security who must be stopped. Freedom of speech means you will sometimes be offended - suck it up and be a big girl about it. Fanatical devotion to a flag is wrong whether it is Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, North Korea, or the United States of America. Fanatical devotion to an idea - well, it depends on the idea. I am fanatically devoted to our ideals as expressed in the Constitution, and thus I would defend the commie dirtbag's right to disagree with me and burn a symbol of what I believe in, for to do otherwise would require me to turn away from the ideals our Founders put down.

Great post - even if you didn't want comments. Your utopia actually sounds similar to mine - a free, healthy, happy, safe, and God-fearing population with liberty and justice for all. We disagree about how to get there, that's all.

ALa said...

TWD...I'm a Leo -I always want comments...LOL. I just meant that I know many of the things aren't 'realistic' just 'idealistic'...
Anwyay, one clarification -I wasn't saying active military -guys who have used the GI bill to teach anyway...give them incentives for inner-city duty. I think the kids would be more respectful to a teacher who they knew was a marine...

this we'll defend said...

I'm all for that. I think there are some programs out there like that. We should encourage it more - some stud NCO gets out and we encourage him to use the GI Bill, get a degree, and then go to work teaching. Perhaps we should have programs that give them more incentives - perhaps loan forgiveness, and then the GI bill they use for living expenses during college and they go right to work in schools with their tuition debt forgiven. Some of the best teachers I ever had were NCOs with no degree - they could easily pick up technical skills in college and then teach away. They were incredible instructors, and I imagine that would be true whether they were teaching retrograde operations under enemy pressure or Biology.

free0352 said...

I agree with a lot of what -Defend- said. Though kids don't always listen to a teacher who is a Marine...Just ask my daughter :)

Some states give free tuition to service members who attend state schools, Illinois and Texas are examples. I surely support this benefit here in NEW COMMUNIST YORK!!!!!! I don' dig very many Federal Programs, I would like to see the individual citizens of this country support the troops like they say they do and pass laws like Texas and Illinois. This would draw huge recruitment (why everybody in the service is from friggin Texas) and truly hook up a vet. This is something you all can inform your local rep you would like to see introduced and voted on. This would be such a good call it's gotta be as non-partisan as it gets.

Bigandmean said...

In Utopia I would:

1. Require that any politician found to have violated the public trust be publicly flogged, banned from holding political office and forced to move to Patterson, New Jersey;

2. Require that any convicted child molester be publicly flogged, castrated and forced to move to Patterson, New Jersey and live next door to a disgraced politician;

3. Require that anyone who claims to be an expert on anything, be able to explain his position in 20 words or less, without appealing to emotion or name calling or risk being castrated and required to live next door to a child molester;

4. Require diversity of opinion in order to qualify to teach at a public institution of higher learning. Views espousing political correctness would subject the offender to immediate castration;

5. Require that major news reporting agencies be free from political partisanship. Violators would have to castrate Dan Rather.

Kat said...

Just a few things...weirdly agreeing with TWD on some issues (actually, not weird as I have done it before; sometimes I didn't post it because he said it better. Hope TWD's head can still fit through the door! LOL)

On banning weapons...I must agree with TWD. I have had my own source of information. My father is a 21 year veteran of law enforcement. He says the same thing that I have heard from officers everywhere: banning weapons do not keep them from the criminals' hands, only out of ours. In which case, why bother? Why bother to try to create a law that can only be enforced on someone like me who goes to the gun shop and fills out a ton of paperwork and goes to classes designed to teach gun safety and practical and accurate use?

How many criminals do you know that submit themselves to that process? None, because that would put them in the system or be run through the system which is what they want to avoid.

Even in Utopia, there is always some a-hole that wants to rain on your parade. I was just posting about the legend of camelot and the realization that the tenets of camelot were only protected and made available by sword and by spear. Strength in arms. There was always a blackknight ready to rain on their parade and they had to protect it with arms.

It was about three years ago that I read a story about ak47s being shipped to the US illegally. Like the war on drugs, these things have a way of finding themselves around our system. It is not you and I buying these cheaply made and illegal weapons. It is the people who already have bad intentions. The only way that these folks can be defeated is by insuring that we, either as private citizens or as police officers, can meet or beat that fire power. Further, it is only through our own understandings of right and wrong as to whether we use weapons to deliberately take someone's life for a criminal endeavor or in protection.

You can make that choice with a car or a plane or a simple box cutter. We know that already.

In regards to's not the carribou I'm interested in when I disagree with drilling there. I have looked and looked at the energy situation. Estimates from OPEC and Energy International and a number of other "experts". Basically, there will come a day when oil reserves begin to ebb. Some say it will be sooner than others. One thing we should prepare and reserve for is the day that comes to pass, or the day that the ME region has it's next blow up and the oil is interdicted.

Maybe, talking about oil and reserving it and wars is not PC, but, the day that our military is unable to move because we are unable to provide it with ample gas and oil, is the day that we are the most vulnerable to attack. Oil and other natural resources must be reserved. The day that this happens could be 30 years from now and a new, viable technology makes it less necessary. That would be nice. But, it could happen tomorrow and we should be prepared with reserves for such an eventuality.

Even then, ANWAR would have limited impact. The Energy Task Force many were demanding to see the details of, released documentst indicate that we are looking at all such reserves around the world to see what would take the place should main resources become off line. This should be an indicator of the future. There are places that are not really stable that we get our oil from. We must be prepared for their eventual demise.

I also think that many do not understand how the oil economics work. you understand that we don't keep our oil for ourselves, even though we pump out enough to handle at least half of our needs, it is sold on the open market, like all countries. We are part of the world economy. It is a method to bring revenue and taxes into our country as well as pump the same into other economies. And we're not just talking about the ME. If we were to go isolationist and try to retain the oil within our own market, we would see a kind of economic bust here and abroad that might rival the depression era. you can't simply withdraw from the global market.

Those are my main issues.

I would agree with the vouchers, but I do have an issue with teacher's unions. Not that they are unionized to insure good benefits and equal pay per se, both excellent ideas, but, I fear, as in many unions, the ability to discipline inappropriate behavior, give salaries based on merit, performance, etc, seems to be a bit undermined by some of the NEA and other union rules. I think this might be a case where the pendulum has swung a bit too far to the other side and needs to come back towards the middle some.

Also, that the NEA seems to be able to manage the curiculums of schools instead of the board of education, bothers me some.

I am not saying we have schools full of bad teachers, just that, without incentives, sometimes the drive for excellence is lost.

Of course, that is just my opinion.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

ALa71, I can never resist commenting on ideal societies, LOL:


Yes life does have to start somewhere, and there are three levels to it:

1) Emotional/mystical
2) Mechanical
3) Cognitive/sentient

Emotionally and mystically, your "child" takes on a life at the time you determine to have a baby, which can be months or even years prior to conceiving. This "life" is evidenced by such things as buying baby toys, the assigning of a name, and setting apart baby rooms and play rooms for the new addition to the family. Physically this life may not exist and may never exist, but emotionally and mystically, it's very real.

Mechanically, something is "alive" when it can function independantly (i.e., a born baby.)

To me in my "flavor" of viewing life, the emotional/mystical onset is too early and the purely mechanical one is too late. The cognitive/sentient definition would place the beginning of cognitive/sentient life at the onset of conscious brain function, or the function of those lobes of the brain associated with self-awareness and ability to experience sensations. This "coming to life" in a cognitive sense is not an instantaneous "zero to sixty" emergence, but a gradual one, where an earlier fetus is "less alive" and a later neonate is "more alive", cognitively speaking. But given the body of functions the brain accumulates over time, I'd say that by the 12th week a fetus should be considered a living entity and off-limits for abortion. Prior to that a fetus should be considered not self-aware enough to carry any moral implications more dire than the use of a condom to prevent fertilization.


On same-sex marriage, I use the Jefferson test: does it do me injury if my neighbor marries someone of the same sex? Does it pick my pocket or break my leg? No? Then it's probably not an area which can be considered a just power of government, to regulate.


I think the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the security of a free State. It didn't keep the British out of Washington, D.C., in the War of 1812, but it DID keep them out of Baltimore, and New Orleans. I don't want to ever say "never" in terms of ever needing a militia to preserve freedom, again. History is too repetitive and cyclical to be that cocky. So in that regard, any non-WMD weapon suitable to wartime use, should be available to the PEOPLE. But I'd settle for just small arms.


On Marijuana legalization, are you sure the Republican tent is big enough for that? Issues like that are enough to make me continue to consider myself "Independant" rather than "Republican", regardless of whom I endorse as candidates in various elections.

I myself would go so far as to treat all recreational substances as alcohol: recognized as a personal danger, but not always as a societal danger. Use them while driving, and expect jail time. Public intoxication, subject to ordinary misdemeanor violations. Otherwise, "hey, it's your funeral!" This could sneak some Darwinian forces back into humanity through the back door, where the stupid are otherwise coddled into the gene pool, to the detriment of human civilization. It's not a lovey-dovey reason I have, to support legalization, LOL.


I would only keep the information-sharing and other "non-threats to liberty" aspects of the Patriot Act. Most aspects of it are in that category, but some of the "slippage" of the 4th amendment doesn't set well with me.


To me, if labor practices are going to be government-regulated ANYWAY, then really unions themselves should just be abolished. Let representatives ***ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE***, and the whole people not just the workers, decide what labor practices are fair in this country, and implement that policy by way of the existing DOL (with some added enforcement teeth). Want a 30 hour work week? Put it to the House Labor Committee. Let the debate be public, and let the voters know which way it went. You can't vote the AFL-CIO out of office, and to use a Progressive's terms for it, there is no "social justice" in that.


Scratch the surface of any "bad school" and it will bleed parental neglect. Take that to the bank. If mommy's a crackhead, junior's not going to get his homework done, and all the school funding in the world will still NOT take mommy's place. (That's the reason why some private schools reject some students' applications--they know too much about the parents!) Sure, you can feed him breakfast, but then what? Make sure he takes showers at night? The madness has to stop somewhere. The road to better education takes a significant detour into the area of social work, and most Districts don't have the courage to cross PC boundaries of what's acceptable parental behavior. I say refer the cases to Child Welfare, and meanwhile, only hold schools responsible for things more reasonably within the school's control, like for example, making sure the air temperature is neither freezing nor blazing hot in the classroom.


I think in the legal system there are two very bad trends: too much money being spent to find the "technicalities" (by people with the means to do so); and too little funding of the court system to where case loads are so beyond the court's capacity that only the most egregious cases are ever taken to trial--everything else is forced into a plea-bargaining pattern, which does justice neither to innocent people accused, NOR to victims of crimes.

Fund up the courts to where they CAN take any and all cases to trial where you don't have an outright confession or guilty plea by the defendant.

And make all defense attorneys "public defenders" and not for sale to the highest bidder. If a public defender is substandard, replace him or her. If it needs more funding, fund it.

Savings in a criminal justice arena can and should be sought in taking drug and prostitution prosecution out of the picture (for the most part). It's not worth the resources to meddle in people's private lives like that.


Drilling is all well and good, but that merely delays the inevitable need to convert to a non-petroleum energy source. It won't eliminate it.

I don't go into all the bleary-eyed, maudlin melodrama about "environmental impact", but neither do I think it really attacks the root of the energy problem, to drill more.


Ironically, one of the chief grievances of the early colonial revolutionaries here in America, against King George, was that the King was restricting immigration. I guess now it's come around full circle, LOL.

I think it's reasonable to require that entry into the U.S. on a non-tourist visa predicate on a background check (for obvious anti-terrorism reasons), employment prospects (so we don't import welfare cases), and rudimentary English skills. I wouldn't go much beyond that, myself.


Flag burning is an interesting philosophical topic. If I exercise a right, to desecrate the symbol OF that right, am I still within my rights? That's kind of like, if I lie about lying, am I still lying? That can go 'round in circles if you let it.

If you reject the symbol of what procures you your rights, mentally and philosophically you should NOT be able to enjoy the rights you apparently despise. On the other hand, it should be a matter of pride to a community that rights cannot be desecrated so easily as some despicable person would the flag. I say let the community retain pride is preserving the rights regardless of what some creep does to the symbol, and then let the ensuing approbation be social, but not criminal.

Now to comment on the comments:

Force a 50% female Congress? Quotas, quotas, quotas. Sheesh, some people just have no confidence in their own ability to succeed! And all this talk of how anti-war women are, neglects the history of such past rulers as Cleopatra, Boudicca, Catherine the Great, Queen Elizabeth, duchess Marie de Guise, or in more recent times, the slightly hawkish stances of the likes of Margaret Thatcher. Talk to a woman about endangering her children and THEN see how "pacifist" she is!!!

I had to skim past a few points to find one where I disagreed with you, LOL. On "blaming the poor for being poor," I think there are two kinds of poor: the working poor, who should get assistance because they are not a part of their own problem; and the non-working poor, in which case they need to get a job and THEN apply for assistance, because their refusal to take a job IS a part of their problem. The former class of poor, I don't blame for being poor. The latter class, I do. The anecdote of the "welfare queen in a Cadillac" is from complicated circumstances--usually the Caddy is stolen, AND/OR the food stamps being used at the store were bought at 1/2 the face value in illegal food stamp trading operations, not applied for by the Caddy-driver in question. It's not to say someone couldn't have seen a person in nice clothing pay for groceries with food stamps, but there's always more to the story than what meets the eye. So I'm half with you there, but half disagreeing on your assertion that no one has ever seen such a thing.

"It is EASIER to work."

Even in the working world, haven't you seen the type of people who spend more time and energy trying to get OUT of doing a task, than they would have spent if they'd simply have done the task? That would be the type of people who think it's worth their time and energy to process the paperwork to "get paid by the system". The joke's on them, because that same time and energy at a corporate office would net them at least $45K/year and health insurance.

On "non-partisan scientific studies", what we have today are multi-partisan ones, and to make any of them "non-partisan" is as impossible as producing "non-partisan news" on TV. Who sponsors your operation, and will you bite the hand that feeds you? I say leave them as multipartisan as they are today, and let the conflicts between the facts become interesting points of scientific debate. The ones who have to use the least amount of color and filler in their findings, will scientifically prevail, because after all, reality still matters.

I agree with you partially on the visa rejections of foreign students at our universities, but where we miss out the most is in that TUITION MONEY, baby. That's a lot of chaching that goes away if we're too restrictive. So if we do say "no" to a visa, let it be for a real no-shit reason, not because his name ends in a vowel.

That's startlingly few disagreements, considering how we've gone 'round and 'round in the past, LOL.

Kat said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
~Jen~ said...

BigandMean....Did I ever tell you you're my herooooo? You're everything I wish I could beeeeeeee? I could fly higher than an eeeeeaaaagle....You are the wind beneath my wings...... It could be the Castration Party. Sounds fun.

Ala71 - so where do I sign up?


ALa said...

CSM & TWD: I have to make one more clarification...I don't mean close the border as in on one enters again...I mean close the borders so people aren't sneaking in (remember 'realism' didn't play a part in this post LOL) -BUT I just read a big article about how immigration was only done in waves before --people in and then none for a couple of years and then repeat the cycle. This was supporting the 'melting' part of the melting pot.

TWD- I am not sure if the driver's license, voting, citizenship when you don't know English is a state by state thing -but I have met many driving -voting -non-English speaking citizen here in Philly (a lot are Italian Grandmoms who have been here forever and just haven't learned (that would be South Philly)...Philly also has a big Korean population that all live in one area (they voted on making the street signs Korean...that would be Olney), also a huge Russian-Jewish population (Far North-East)...tons of non-English speaking in all of the aforementioned.

Big and Mean -I can ALWAYS count on you for my blog-laugh!

Kat- What were you going to say?.....we need your 2 cents!

This was actually pretty fun to do…

Kat said...

Ala...the one I deleted was a duplicate of the earlier post from me. Said it. Although, I'm sure that I will have more to say later.

And yes, this was a fun exercise in "dreams of camelot".

Frater Bovious said...

Rather amazing amount of agreement between all these comments. This was a lot of fun to read.

Personal note on Cadillac Queens. I bagged groceries at a grocery store once upon a time. There was this lady that came in once a week and bought about $150.00 in groceries. Now, these are 1980 dollars, and we're talking two baskets of groceries. She paid with food stamps. I wheeled them to her Black Corvette with the personalized license plates "PO DOG". It was always a challenge to load all those groceries in that car.

So, this is not one of those "I have a friend whose sister knew this guy" stories. The Cadillac Queens existed, at least in the 80's.

Otherwise, I found it very eery to kind of pick and choose between TWC and ALA for what I thought was ideal. Cool.

On a completely different note, I have some definite thoughts on Affirmative Action, and am currently working through an article to post. I think it important to note here that on the emotional/mystical level, my article on Affirmative Action predates all comments in this particular blog. So there. ;p

riceburner147 said...

Re: Riceburner,
Force a 50% female Congress? Quotas, quotas, quotas. Sheesh, some people just have no confidence in their own ability to succeed! And all this talk of how anti-war women are, neglects the history of such past rulers as Cleopatra, Boudicca, Catherine the Great, Queen Elizabeth, duchess Marie de Guise, or in more recent times, the slightly hawkish stances of the likes of Margaret Thatcher. Talk to a woman about endangering her children and THEN see how "pacifist" she is!!!

What's a quota ? Oh,about 25 cents (really poor)

CSM: and your objection was what ? The woman you name were in an autocratic position to begin with. I am talking about learned woman in a democratic (small d) governing body. Probably agree with you as far as a woman with her child threatened, maybe she would KEEP them in a less threatening position (no utopia here tho)

blue67ccm said...


How can I get you on the ballot in Virginia?? :)

this we'll defend said...

I just have to say, this was freaking AWESOME. This could have easily degenerated into a "you're a poopoo head" "NO, you are" debacle like we've seen before, but it didn't. The intelligence and thoughtful, well-worded comments just blew me away. Great idea, ALa71, and thanks to everybody who posted. My perfect leglislature in my Utopia would have ALa71, riceburner, lefty, Free, Bigandmean (and also as the head of the dept. of corrections/castrations), Kat, Cigsmokman (your abortion comments were incredible), and Frater. Great comments everybody - this shows how democracy and the free exchange of ideas gives us the edge over all other forms of government.

Of course it would be a rubber-stamp legislature since I would have total power and have the title of "Supreme Ruler and President for Life." Hey, it's my utopia after all.

MrMalcolm said...

In Utopia, our police department would be instructed to pull over anybody who has a bumper sticker that says "Mean People Suck" and beat the living hell out of them.

If TWD is the dictator or something, who gets to be Queen?

Bigandmean said...

Well OK, maybe I was a little obsessed with the castration thing. Growing up in a farming/ranching family I was amazed to find out at a very early age that the male of any species would immediately outgrow any personality disorder after undergoing the big "C". After awhile, the animals were so familar with the drill that all you had to do when one acted up was whisper the word "castrate" in his ear and he turned into a bovine Billy Graham.

this we'll defend said...

Mr. Malcolm: you are now the head of the TWD Utopian Justice Department. Please encourage the "Meat is Murder" crowd to learn the difference between "meat" (ummm, tasty) and "Murder" (not good).

And please give Alanis a lesson in "irony," preferably with a billy club. Also moby for having a dumbass name. Also Bono for the same thing PLUS being involved in American politics when he isn't even a GD CITIZEN. As if Ireland were so friggin better that waves of Americans fled there at any time in history. Make Bono tell you what he is looking for and when he expects to find it.

Anybody doesn't like the beatings you dispense is referred to Bigandmean.

Man, this power thing does corrupt - but it feels sooo goood!

As for who will be Queen, she shall be "mein furheurina" spouse. Because I am afraid of her.

Today blogland, tomorrow... whatever. I'm going to bed.

~Jen~ said...

"because I am afraid of her"?!?!?! LOL TWD!

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Riceburner, whether the position is autocratic or not, I feel confident that when a situation arises that may bring children into danger, a woman politician will tend to switch from "nurtur" mode to "violent mama bear" mode rather quickly. In a sense, the violent stance will be motivated BY the nurturing instinct, and when the two work in concert, they can be particularly fierce. From a hawkish point of view I have no objection whatsoever to female political leaders, and I laugh riotously at those snivelling disgusting peace-at-all-cost types who think that having female leaders would make us as a nation just as snivelling and disgustingly pacifistic as they are. A bit of the Brer Rabbit treatment is in order for them.

TWD, LOL about "meat is murder". It's actually violent struggle for survival in an animal kingdom that pathetic and ridiculous hippies can't do anything about, e.g. lions and tigers and bears, oh my. And it's ridiculous to think that what is natural for other carnivores and omnivores of the animal kingdom has to be especially unacceptable to us humans. One area where I do take notice about meat, though, is the concern over mad cow disease and the excessive use of hormones in the modern feed. I tend to go organic on the meat when I can, although I'm not as alarmist as, say, some of Art Bell's guests.

this we'll defend said...

Art Bell! LOL!

He was at one time convinced the Army was doing something out at Fort Irwin in conjunction with Area 51. He used to rail about how nobody was allowed to go into "secret restricted areas" on Fort Irwin (the live fire area, duh). In honor of his attention we named some of our OPFOR irregular guerilla force we would portray in war games the "Peoples Parumphian Army" in honor of Parumph, NV, the one-horse town he broadcast from. The PPA was pretty weak but always amusing - just like Art.

Our battle cry:

Viva Parumphia hasta la siempre victoria! Viva Art Bell!

Bigandmean said...

P.E.T.A.-People Eating Tasty Animals

Kat said... our little Utopia I would like to be on the Supreme Court, so I can write long investigative dissertations on why something is or isn't constitutional and have everyone agree because it's too much work to look up all the cases I site. LOL

Also, can we make a law that says there will be no PC laws? No quotas? Anyone that descriminates against another person gets sent to BandM or Mr. Malcom for punishment depending on the extent of their descrimination.

And, if anyone professes being a real live member of PETA and shows up wearing any clothing that is not synthetic or is explicitly made of animal hide, hair or feathers, must be sent to Mr. Malcom or BandM for punishment depending on the amount or type of clothing worn.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

TWD, it has taken me a solid five minutes to recover from HYSTERICAL laughter at "The People's Parumphian Army"... (okay, now I'm back in a giggling fit over it and can still barely type!) YES, yes, yes, Mr. Bell is quite the... Parumphian. To me that's what makes his show entertaining. It's so way out there, so ridiculous, that it's like Mad TV but the comedians don't crack up over their own skits.

I know the drill (no pun intended) about live fire and conspiracy theories. In the 16th SOW we'd fly up to a range in Alabama to test chaff and flares for our Combat Talons, and let the Spookies squeeze off massive quantities of 105s and 40 mikety-mikes at various targets there, and at night I'd hear on short wave radio from militia type broadcasters that "the New World Order" people in the "black helicopters" were getting ready to swoop in and confiscate their 12 gauge shotguns, as evidenced by how they saw us fly over their heads there in the swampy Bayou. To paraphrase Dr. Evil, "HOW 'BOUT ***NO*** YOU CRAZY PSEUDOMILITIA BASTARDS?" Geeeeeeesh. And sometimes we'd even see battle damage from .22 rounds shot at us, during post-flight inspections, and the militia radio nuts would claim they sent us away by returning fire. I didn't start casting votes for Joe Scarborough until I could verify that he had truly experienced a falling out with the Panhandle Patriots (one of the pseudomilitia type conspiracy nutcase groups).

People's Parumphian Army... *guffaw*... that's GOOD!

Frater Bovious said...

Quick comment on the women as pacifist topic as brilliantly summed up by that cigarette smoking dude: "From a hawkish point of view I have no objection whatsoever to female political leaders, and I laugh riotously at those snivelling disgusting peace-at-all-cost types who think that having female leaders would make us as a nation just as snivelling and disgustingly pacifistic as they are."

I have walked the dangerous corporate halls of America and learned this about men and women. Men compete. Women go to war. And they ask no quarter. Fair is not in the vocabulary. Annihilation is. fb

this we'll defend said...

Cigsmokman: didn't catch the 16th SOW first time. Can't say I enjoyed Hurlbert while I was there (too close to Eglin - bad memories) but I always loved it (to date me by using an outdated term) when "puff" was on-station.

Kat said...

Just a thought...during the Indian wars, when the captives were brought back to camp, wasn't it the women who tortured and killed the captives? Particularly if they had a loved one killed in battle?

We are a mean part of the species when provoked.

(at least, this rumor keeps them in line at work) LOL

ALa said...

When Justice was a few days old, the man I were driving to my Parent's house and he wouldn't stop crying. I was upset and said, "I don't know what's wrong -why does he keep crying?!" The man said, "Because he's an infant"...but I heard, "Because he's an asshole."
The man said I looked at him with a look he'd never seen and he was honestly worried I was going to claw his eyes out while he was driving...

So yes, I agree...when offspring, family or friend is threatened...we can be a frightening lot!

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

TWD: Eglin AFB would definitely give bad memories to any Ranger and Infantry trainees, that's for sure. It has a habit of KITing a couple or three a year largely because the trainees think because it's in Florida that means it'll be nice and warm in the swamp. I'll bet it taught you to respect hypothermia, eh? ;)

At the Air Force Special Operations school, we had trainers come in from various other units, like small arms experts from the British SAS or USN/SEAL demolitions instructors, or sometimes celebrity visitors like Steven Seagal just to meet 'n greet. Sometimes the CCT and PJ cadre would offer to take them on a tour of Eglin and they'd get this gassy look and say... "no thanks!" LOL

If I could totally retool the U.S. military today, I'd dedicate at least one AC-130U to each company-sized ground unit. I'm absolutely certain that firepower would come in handy more times than one on a given active day.

In the Combat Talon side of the house, we were mainly a Top Secret Taxi most of the time (for units that don't exist), but life got interesting when an engine wouldn't start and you're in a place you officially aren't at the time. FARPs also got "Chinese Proverb Interesting". CMRTs were easier because you just show up, blow it up, and go up. The most fun you can have with your clothes on, though, would be electronic surveillance. The gadgets on those Talons are just outrageously cool.

Kat, Big'nMean, ALa, in Andy McNabb's book, "Bravo Two Zero", he describes how the initial stages of his torture by the Iraqis was done by women. He intimates that it was some of the most cruel stuff they did.

this we'll defend said...

I wasn't there in the winter (no white thread for me) but I still hated it. It wasn't just the course - I like the mountains of Northern GA, I think they are pretty despite bad memories of Dahlonega. But I HATE Eglin. Sure do like orange doors on a bird though.

The thing I like most about AC-130s is when your unit gets them it isn't the typical no-warning "you've got CAS for 15 minutes, where do you want it?" unplanned bullshit the AF calls CAS. It is the real USAF "we are here for the next six hours" and they were right on time and they understand your plan and might even call down and say "I see this, thought you should know." They are true "support for the ground" guys and very popular.

At the NTC I hate to say it but many CAS pilots and CAS missions suck.

FA-16s don't have the loiter time and are too fast, and their pilots don't seem that interested in the ground plan. They act, no pun intended, as if their mission is "beneath them." They rarely showed for OPORDS and when they did they didn't listen. I found many of them to be arrogant, assuming that an infantryman like me really was impressed with a guy that flew a plane (having jumped from planes numerous times that really wasn't the case). I've seen times when the BLUFOR was deploying into a trap, doing exactly what we wanted them to do, and then our "Redair" shows and without checking with us wipes out a lead element and goes home to Nellis to celebrate their "victory" while we curse as the Blufor decides to change direction, and our primary targets were ignored - all because the pilots didn't know or care about the ground plan. Sometimes 5 tanks supporting a breaching operation are a more important target than 25 tanks in reserve somewhere else, but it was hard to convince FA-16 pilots of this during the 15 minutes they spend overhead. They go for the higher numbers every time regardless of the logic - because they don't understand the ground plan. They were also often late, one even had the gall when yelled at over the radio for being 45 minutes late on-station to say laconically "traffic was bad in Vegas." ARRGGHHH. Of course not all were like that and some were great, but it happened way too frequently. Navy pilots, in anything, seemed even more condescending. Not always - if there are pilots out there, if the shoe fits wear it, if not then I'm not talking about you. But from this grunt's perspective not all pilots are as good as they think they are.

A-10 pilots were usually totally different. They often understood the ground plan, were on time, did what we wanted, and usually did more. And they hung around a lot longer than 15 minutes (or in some cases, 5 minutes). They also almost always sent LNOs to our OPORDS, something we really appreciated. And most of our "Ivans" (FACs) were A-10 pilots. They hated tanks so much they didn't even like the ones on their own side. Just loathed armor and liked to refer to even our tankers as "targets." That cracked me up. Great pilots. We LOVED having A-10s. They were "our" pilots.

FA-18s from the USMC were sometimes good too. They weren't arrogant at all (destroying yet another myth about our military - that Marines are arrogant). I had one mission where the LNO attended the OPORD, asked intelligent questions, took notes, and then must have thoroughly briefed his pilots because during the mission one pilot came down on our freq and told us "I see a lot of dust trails in Brown Pass headed west, I think their deployment further south might be a feint." Our scouts hadn't caught it yet but he was right. The Blufor had a few M1s headed toward us followed by M-88 recovery vehicles pulling barbed wire dragging in the dirt (an old OPFOR trick) and almost fooled us into thinking it was the main effort (you see some tanks followed by a huge dust cloud you usually assume a battalion is headed toward you, and you are usually right). In fact their main effort was going to flank right into us, and that call gave us enough time to respond. We sent that guy a case of very expensive beer. The blufor, as always, was defeated, but they were told how close they came and were very pleased with themselves. To make that call the LNO had to understand our plan and thoroughly brief his unit, and that pilot had to understand our ground plan (which means he paid attention to the LNO's briefing), know what we nicknamed our terrain features (at least the major ones), spot the dust trails and know how they figured into our plan, and he had to have been monitoring our freq to understand how the battle was playing out and how his call could help. And then he had to call it in. All while flying an FA-18 and conducting his CAS mission. He had to be a friggin' super-genius, nobody better talk about "dumb jarheads" around this Army soldier. I know I couldn't multi-task like that without driving right into the damn ground. It actually happened twice, both times with Marines, in the course of about two years.

But despite all this I'll take AC-130U any day of the week.

Right Winger said...


Love your Blog!

this we'll defend said...

I wonder if it is possible to post something more off-topic than I just did.

Sorry everybody. I was just rambling.

Frater Bovious said...

It was riveting rambling, and that always gets a pass. fb

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

TWD, ACC (Air Combat Command) has a long history of arrogance going back to its previous TAC (Tactical Air Command) days. They were the AF's idea of "Top Gun", and thought of those pilots as the Knights in Shining Armor, an aristocracy within an aristocracy, and if a TAC pilot was an AF ACADEMY grad, well hell son, that's not even a mere mortal anymore. The soles of his boots don't even touch the ground, and he has no bodily functions. In other words: Merrill McPeak level arrogant.

Beyond that extra bit of arrogance juice served with every breakfast at TAC/ACC, it boils down to loiter time and the amount of interaction with the ground forces. In AFSOC, the Talon and Spectre pilots were there for the ground mission, and considered themselves an integral part of it. Crew members like myself were MADE a part of it from time to time. Ramp would drop and Rangers would start rolling out the back in their infil posture, and I'd hear over the interphone, "Ron, Mike, Jim... go get muddy with 'em for a while." What that meant was, go with the unit and help out in any way we can (usually as manual labor when they had equipment to haul, but sometimes as reinforcements). That's a close working relationship with the shooters. Funny thing, sometimes the Rangers would be excessively basic with us, like holding up an M-16A2 and saying "you know how to fire one of these?" And sometimes they'd assume too much, like our ability to keep up with them in the jungle. Some of those guys, I swear they had an ability to just melt through thick brush, while I'm about six kinds of tangled up and trying not to scream when there's a 10" leg span banana spider staring me in the face.

this we'll defend said...

when it comes to "melting through the brush" practice makes perfect.

Banana spiders... makes me think of the Mohinga swamp and the ever-present "black palm." I think I still have splinters coming out over a decade later. You ever get to do JOTC and the Green Hell? Awesome fun.

I guess the relationship b/w ground and air explains why A-10s are so awesome (the AF has A-10s assigned to support certain Army units, for instance at Campbell they wear the 101st patch on their flight suits), why USMC air is good - a little ground training for those guys helps - and why your unit was so balls.

I'm not being arrogant when I say that the military should train everybody that the ground trigger-pullers are what EVERYBODY else supports - the Navy, the AF, all other non-trigger pulling jobs. And trigger-pulling jobs that aren't on the ground are support. That way supporting the war effort becomes the focus, as opposed to "number of sorties flown" and "total tonnage of bombs dropped."

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Can't say as I've had the pleasure of a Fort Sherman visit, although I did a few evolutions of Tandem Thrust, Team Spirit, and Foal Eagle in the Pacific. That was prior to my AFSOC days though. At Hurlburt Field it was more a matter of small classes scheduled for four or five individuals needing the training in order to be assigned to various mission profiles. For CMRT I got demolitions training at Pope AFB; for anti-hijacking operations, the 720th and some outside unit instructors conducted classes for us right there at Hurlburt; for FARP some of our more seasoned CCCs conducted classes just outside the Talon hangar. We certainly weren't as exotic or elite as the Special Tactics guys, but we did have jobs to do in some of the teams that involved CCTs and PJs and CWs. For example, in anti-hijacking, we'd be involved in the planning and execution of the dynamic entry--because we knew down to the fraction of an inch where there would be thick bulkhead and where there would be thinner skin, where the det cord would work best. CMRT was obvious, because if we knew how to fix equipment, we also knew how to make it unusable to the enemy.

We weren't ordinarily supposed to be going out into the jungle with Rangers and SEALs and such, but then "rules" were sort of a fuzzy thing in that world. Sometimes an Aircraft Commander thought it would be a good character-building experience for us to go out into the shizzle with the shooters, and sometimes they just plain needed every swinging dick that could carry a rifle at that point in time. But most of the time it was sort of a selfish motive because there was a lot of equipment to haul, and many hands make for faster work, and faster work means it's miller time sooner for hot shot pilot, LOL. When it was a matter of equipment hauling, the shooters were more than glad to have the extra hands. When it was something more violent going on, it usually depended on how desperate they were for additional cover fire. It could range from being a little grouchy that we were in their way and slowing 'em down, to seeing us like the cavalry come to save their ass--not much in-between.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Oh yeah, on what the focus of the mission is, I think that really depends on what the larger strategic objective is. If it's a matter of bombing some city, it may be that the ground mission is to provide security around the airbase used for that bombing, in which case it flips the other way around in terms of who's supporting whom. Or sometimes the major strategic objective is a maritime one, in which case ground boots may be supporting by securing a seaport, and air troops may be supporting by offering airborne reconnaissance, something like that.

MOST of the time you are correct, though, that the mission is a ground one, that is, to seize a target of some sort by land--and that the air and naval components are there to support that mission, not build up bragging rights in ancilliary metrics.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Found the patch I used to wear: