Quinoa Eating Jerks!

I am not in the mood to write some long, and tangent-ing monologue like I did last night. So tonight I will keep it short. If you eat quinoa, as I do, you may or may not have known that you are a jerk. A globally unconscious jerk. Here is an article from grist.org. It is a progressive and ecologically minded site. What is that? You need a more detailed description, OK. Let’s just say, they give a pass to Democrats every now and then, but never to Republicans. Still need more? OK. They hate the man, but only when the man ends in .com, those ending in .edu or .gov are either cool or necessary evils to fight the .com man. More? They would never be late for an Occupy party, and would organize said party on their iPhones, using Facebook and Twitter. They are the kind of site that would never doubt anything that comes of Al-Gore-Jazeera’s mouth and most likely they have a framed and signed photograph of Van Jones in their break room. And yet, I still read. So enjoy the article and the site, till you can’t take it anymore, and try to work a little more quinoa into your diet, and a little less cool aid.

How to tie a gay square knot: The Boy Scouts of America and its compatibility or incompatibility with homosexuality

Hello readers. There is no shortage of topics to write on and talk about that is for sure. That being said, a topic in the news and one that was on Hawaii talk radio this morning was the Boy Scouts of America. An organization near and dear to my heart. They are considering changing the policy of no out homosexuals in their leadership or scout ranks. I think I can talk to this subject, so let’s go.

“…putting on the uniform does not make a fellow a Scout, but putting on the uniform is a sign to the world that one has taken the Scout obligations and should expect Scout-like acts from one wearing it.” from the Handbook for Boys, Third Edition, 1927

What is in the news and seems to be on the table is big Boy Scouts of America, that being the national policy makers for the Boy Scouts, want to let a level or two down from them make the call if homosexuals can be a part of the Boy Scouts. I think this will only break the Boy Scouts apart and eventually lead to the death or complete irrelevance of the Boy Scouts. The idea/policy of letting the councils or troops decide to allow homosexuals will tear the Boy Scouts apart and lead to ridiculousness. The California districts will change their flag and put a rainbow in it, and the Alabama group will ban gays and pray about it, and it will all be ugly. This needs to be a Boy Scouts of America policy if the Boy Scouts of America wants to emerge intact if at all.

Let’s talk about me. I am a former Scout. I was a Cub Scout (very short time I think), a Webelos (an acronym meaning "We'll Be Loyal Scouts"), and a Boy Scout, until just after I was 18 years old. I did not make Eagle, and to me, that really doesn’t matter. It is not an accurate gauge on your achievement as a scout or what you got out of Scouting. It is not a accurate gauge on future success as a human. There are many Eagle Scouts out there who earned it, and there are some who gun decked it. I was also an assistant scout master during my first tour in Hawaii and even went to summer camp with my troop on TAD orders. Yes, that is a good deal. I consider the Boy Scouts of America, the skills I learned, the confidence I learned, the leadership I learned to be a major factor in my enlisting in the Navy (even though one scout master straight up told me joining the military was the stupidest decision I could make, and I would regret it). A major factor/influence in my staying in the Navy and my continued interest in the outdoors and preparedness throughout my life. I was talked to, yelled at and smacked in the head by other Scouts and leaders, and am very thankful for and to all of them. It is good to make mistakes when they don’t really count in life, and the consequences are not as high as they are later in life. And it is good to learn from them then as well. The term Boy Scout is 100% positive to me, the memories, the experience the lessons, were all in one way or another positive. I can recite the Boy Scout Oath and Law and Motto and Slogan. I have even considered a scout themed or inspired tattoo! I am biased towards the Scouts. I am a Scout.

That being said, I am torn when it comes to the subject of their policy on homosexuality. The official policy as of today is this: The Boy Scouts of America's official position is to "not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals" as Scouts or adult Scout Leaders in its traditional Scouting programs. If you have been on the moon for the past decade, here is some background reading.

 

Here comes the torn part. They are private. Yes, some public stuff and land is used, but it is a private club. Like the Catholic Church. If you don’t like the rules, don’t join, don’t associate. The Scouts to me are also public. They are bigger then themselves. They make men who make out country. They make United States Navy Sailors like me. The idea of rank, discipline, familiarity with arms has been cited as a one of the reasons why the United States so quickly was able to grow their military during WWII. These were skills and ideas taught by the Boy Scouts. They make leaders. They have been around for a while. They span and unite generations of men. When their line in the sand was challenged and they said we will not change, they were well within their rights. But, they were fighting a slow battle that would only end with their own defeat down the road. They negative public relations campaign by homosexuals and those who support them, won this battle as soon as it started, but the Scouts didn’t want to admit it. They only outcome possible if the Scouts stand their ground would be for them to shrink so small and become so irrelevant for the rest of the country that only hard core traditionalists most of them motivated religiously would be left in scouting. There would be a few that would oppose the policy but want to be part of Scouts so bad that they would serve silently. Scouts would be small, and what they were and created would be lost.

So what to do? Do they just instantly change? They would lose some of their core membership on the other side of the fight that way. Do they change slowly? Maybe that is what they are doing. I don’t think we can talk about this change without addressing what I think to be the three big points of contention with people who oppose it for a myriad of reasons.

1. Religious. I don’t know or care if you agree or disagree with if homosexuality is wrong because of religious reasons. If you do, hey that is your right. If you don’t, you get the same treatment as those who do. Disagreeing with a practice or act is not hate. That whole tactic of the pro-gay side bugs the shit out of me. Disagreeing, opposing is not hate. Some that disagree do hate, but I think they are a small vocal group. Just as the homosexuals who hate the bible thumpers are also a small, vocal group. I personally think it has some choice involved, maybe a choice you cannot fight or deny. Maybe a choice that does something chemically or emotionally inside of you that makes you feel like it is not a choice. I don’t have those answers and either does anyone. I am fine with anyone liking anyone they want to. I am semi opposed to gay marriage on the basis that I think the state should not be in the business of marriage. It should be in the business of contract law. Churches, family and friends should be in the business of marriage. Just as with heterosexuals, marriage and the state are about benefits and legality’s. It’s about social security and health care. Love and religious tradition does not matter on your state marriage certificate or in a court of law. Side point two, if you bring homosexuality into marriage recognized by the state and law, then for equality purposes, you have to allow polygamy. You have to. Then if you allow three people to marry, you have to allow three hundred to marry. You have to. If you are in search of equality, you have to. Take the church out of it, make it a contract among people, any number of people, the only part the state needs to have anything to do with, and do what you want in your private or religious life. I digress, I will stop. There is a religious part to Scouts, but from what I can remember and from what I retained, it was one of tolerance. One that mirrored our nation’s religious tolerance guarantied in our constitution. To tolerate and or respect other beliefs, and with my knowledge of the world now, that would include Atheists. Even though I am not very fond of them, mostly because I feel they infringe on others rights to practice the religion of their choice. Slowly and sadly, Atheism is becoming our national religion. If it was Christianity there would be mangers at Christmas. We don’t because the religion of Atheism has won, their religion is nothing, and we have nothing. That is religion suppression not religious freedom. Boo. I digress, another subject for another time.

2. Fear. Right or wrong, probably wrong, parents are not comfortable with men who openly are attracted to other men and who are put in the situation with camping and mentoring and forming the minds and ideas of other young men. I think what the public does not talk about is there is a difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. They are not the same or related. Now, if you have a 25 year old gay leader and an 18 year old scout, and something happens, you have two consenting adults, by law. What if it was 25 and 17 and a day before his 18^th birthday, by the law busted, to humans, consenting, maybe. Now, let’s flip the situation. Let’s put a 25 year old straight man in the Girl Scouts, and have him with a 17 or 18 year old female. That too would make some uncomfortable. I do not see a difference. Because the person is interested in the sex that he or she is leading there is a chance, however remote that inappropriate behavior, although possibly legal, could take place. This is nothing new. This was most likely happening when Lord Baden Powell was Scouting and it was happening when I was Scouting and it will happen if they do or don’t let outed homosexuals serve. Is their fear justified, not really, but fear is individual. Have children, boys, men been harmed, yes, so it is not impossible. Chances are very low. But the chances are even lower that a public school child will be killed by an AR-15 but more than half our country believes that the chance, or fear of the chance, is high enough to ban that weapon. Very well made point Chris!

3. Tradition. This one kind of has a little bit of religion in it with maybe some fear. I don’t even know how well I can present this position. Old institutions do not change overnight. Even when their very own existence demands they do. The Boy Scouts have a long tradition of men making boys into men. Even though throughout history there has been homosexuality, both tolerated and not, for the time the Scouts have been in existence, homosexuality has not been an acceptable practice, at least by any large percentage of society. Yes, those numbers are changing. Those numbers are changing because of legal precedents. Those numbers are changing because more and more homosexuals are coming out, or never even been in. Maybe some young men are choosing to be gay. Just throwing it out there, can’t be proved either way. Anyway, there are more homosexuals present and acknowledged and accepted by our society. Not as a whole or a rule, but they are more and more accepted. To ask a private club, that has some religion injected into it, and has a good amount of religious people in it to do an about face on a policy that is very clear to them as wrong, right or wrong, is unreasonable. Our states, with similar constitutions and courts cannot come to the same conclusion about gay marriage and have not universally embraced it, why would we expect a cross section of Americans in the Scouts to be any different?

There are the three points and my two cents on each. Now let me propose some alternative endings. I think it would be positive for the Scout Executives to get a head of, in front of, this issue. They should have or should “come out,” no pun intended, and say this; Scouting is about making future generations of men. There are gays among us and has always been gays among us. This is not new or news. Any leader and scout engaging in inappropriate activities is and has always been wrong. Any leader and scout talking about sexual preferences is not appropriate but is also not inappropriate. A leader gay or straight should guide the scout the same way. If a scout feels comfortable enough to talk to a leader, whatever his orientation is, then that leader should handle that scouts confidence in him very carefully. He neither should encourage nor discourage his way of life. They should be a sounding board, they should be someone the  scout can go to and talk to and trust. And they should help the scout talk to his parents or church or teachers or coaches or friends. It is hard to put some of my ideas into words, but I am trying.

I do not think being a gay leader, if you act appropriately, like a scout leader, will have any negative effect on how you guide scouts in the skills, both life and actual, you are charged with teaching them. I specifically remember one leader or senior scout when talking about personal responsibility, bringing up the topic of condoms. Not bring up sex, as in who or how to, but sexual responsibility. That is a good guide of how to guide of how to lead.

If they, The Boy Scout Executives, got out there in front of microphones and on news shows and said this, they would sell the Scouts and its ideas, like the Marines sell the idea of being a Marine. The idea of being a Marine as enticed both gay and straight men to test themselves and give their lives for our country and other Marines. The Boy Scouts could do the same. They could be leaders on this subject and have more boys wanting to be Scouts then they would know what to do with.

How then will the scared and the religious deal with this? Well, how do they deal with it now in other aspects of their lives? How do they deal with a gay teacher or a gay doctor or a gay guy at Taco Bell. Some will pull their kids out of school others will be cautious, others won’t care. They will all care how the job is done. First they have to know he is gay. If he is leading as a scout leader it might not come up. When a leader is introducing himself, he does not need to say what sex he is attracted to when he gives his credentials as a leader or a former scout. I am not saying stay in the closet or don’t ask don’t tell. I am saying experience, knowledge of knots, merit badges, swimming, first aid, community service all have nothing to do with if you like chicks or dudes. They have to do with each individual subject of knowledge and activity. If and when it is known that a leader is gay, he will have credibility and respect because of his actions and not because he likes boobs, or not. If there is a problem either with the scout or the parents then there needs to be a conference with all involved and if they cannot come to the conclusion that everyone there is putting being and making Scouts first then they need to really consider if they want to be part of this organization or not. That will lose scouts, no doubt about it. But the Scouts standing firm and lifting up what Scouting is about is what will save the Boy Scouts. Excluding scouts and leaders because of one thing that some agree with and some disagree with, will surely doom the Boy Scouts. Those gay scouts and leaders live in our world and will become leaders and fathers. They will pass on their love or hate of the Boy Scouts. If the first gay president (he will be a conservative or libertarian I hope) had a great experience with Scouting and talks about that experience with the rest of the country and the world, well then the what the Boy Scouts did in 2013 and the years following will have not only saved Scouting, but elevated and secured it’s place in today’s American culture and society, where the ideas and ideals of Scouting are so badly needed.

Do not shun, do not promote. No special treatment for gay or for straight. Every boy and man is in the Boy Scouts for Scouting and that is what should motivate and guide them. Not if they like girls, or not. Scout-like acts.

Administrative Post #1

Let me address a few administrative issues.

Posting as Anonymous or getting a Google account

I have had a some posts in the few days that my blog has been up. I thank all my readers and commenters. It has come to my attention that some have posted comments using anonymous but then have contacted me saying they are or are not going to get a google account for future comments. You do not need to do that if you do not want to. Here is how to keep you privacy and still let people know who you are without letting everyone know who you are. After you comment when it asks you to select what you want to comment as simply select name/URL. This will allow you to sign you post however you want. Liberal Joe, Right Wing Joe, Libertarian Joe or just Joe. You do not need to enter in a URL. I say this to let people know they can sign their posts without letting the world know who they are. The NSA and the FBI will still now, but not the average Joe.

Blog post and comment “standards”

Low.

Well, that will be for you and I do decide. Here are some standards from another blog that I am going to loosly use to try to make sure this does not become like some dark corners of the Daily Kos.

Yes it is from a feminist web site. Just replace the word feminist with human or American or realistic or guns or the Constitution or what ever. That being said, this is not law, it is a guide, for me and you. Good ideas can come from anywhere and there is no reason to reinvent the wheel, unless it is a really shitty design for a wheel, then you might want to start from scratch. Will these ever be violated, yeah, but we have to start somewhere.

Insprierd by http://feministing.com/about/

Feministing is an online community for feminists and their allies. The community aspect of Feministing – our community blog, campus blog, comment threads, and related social networking sites – exist to better connect feminists online and off, and to encourage activism. We hope that the Feministing community will provide a forum for a variety of feminist voices and organizations.

In order to maintain a progressive and safe discourse on the site, anti-feminist comments, posts, and profiles are not permitted; the Feministing editors believe that racism, classism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, and hate speech constitute anti-feminism and have no place on the site. If you have a concern about a commenter or blogger, please use let us know using the “report” button.

Comments Policy

Feministing comment threads are a spaces to further feminist conversations and ideas. Please read our comments policy carefully before contributing to the site.

All comments from new users are held. Once users have commented on several posts in a productive matter, they may be “trusted” by the Community Moderator to have their comments post automatically. This privilege is solely given out at the discretion of the Community Moderator.

There is enough hate and oppression out there in the real world – we don’t need any extra of it here! While we can’t guarantee a completely safe space on Feministing, we can strive for an accountable space.  And though we love differences of opinion, there’s a way to disagree respectfully and thoughtfully. We expect civility, respect, and patience for your fellow readers and for this space – please remember that we are all here to grow and learn from each other.

What isn’t tolerated (and if you’re unsure, err on the side of caution):

- Blaming the victim (here at TOA we don't blame the gun, we blame the shooter)

- Racist, sexist, ageist, transphobic, sizeist, ableist, homophobic commentary

- Plain malice (i.e.: comments that don’t further the dialogue, but instead just harshly imply to writer that they need to educate themselves or that they are stupid) and personal attacks. Even if most of your comment is constructive, if the last line is “so thanks for that, asshole” we will probably not post it.

- Dismissal, silencing (ie: anything along lines of “Ehh, i don’t think that matters too much” or “This isn’t an issue”)

- Questioning the feminist validity of a topic or post (ie: Why do you care about this? You should really care about x, y, z because its more important)

- Derailing: Anything way off topic or leads the discussion in a completely different and unproductive from the original post

Keep in mind this is not an exhaustive list, and that any of these issues can manifest in different – and sometimes, subtle – ways. Ultimately, it is up to the Feministing team whether a comment gets posted or not.

If you see a comment that violates our policy, please let us know by clicking on the “report” button.

If you have any questions about the comment policy, please email us.

Ok, so there is our loose guide. Four days, four posts, and one admin post. I expect like all blogs, we are starting out strong. A year from now, well let’s see if this internet thing catches on and is still around a year from now. That is if the grid does not get taken out by solar flares.

Shall Not Be Infringed

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.

This is an Orthodox American. He was the militia. That was his gun. This amendment was written to protect and ensure his rights. He understood the meaning and the reason for this amendment. Nothing has changed except for the technological improvements to the gun. The threats it protected him against are still as real in 2013 as they were in 1776. He would be very leery of a government that aspires to legislate away his rights to arm and defend himself as he chooses fit while at the same time arming themselves more and more, at tax payer expense. Very leery. As should we.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I hope everyone has a great weekend.

On Credibility And Partisan Hacks

Before I even start, I want to thank you all for reading the blog. With out readers it will be a journal, and I don't know how interested I am in journaling at this time. I want to especially thank one reader for leaving a comment on yesterdays post. Today’s post is a response and analysis of the comment that was left on yesterdays post. It helped me take a look at myself, so I thank him or her for that. I do not intend or desire for all posts to be this long, but from time to time, it will happen. This ended up being much, much longer than I expected.

The fact that you view Drudge as a place to "…get nice photos and quotes that let me know what I needed to know…” tells me all I need  to know.

You are judged by the company you keep, Chris, and Drudge is not good company. If you want to be a partisan hack, that is your choice, but you certainly will have no credibility.

I thank this reader for being concerned about the quality and validity of my information sources so much so that he or she would leave a comment. I am unsure if the commenter approved or disapproved of the other media outlets I sighted as news and information sources. Or if the commenter was so disappointed in my sighting of The Drudge Report that he or she disregarded my other sources. I am however slightly disappointed that he or she did not give me any advice on how to save my ill informed soul. They just left me out on my own to find these pure sources to gain and or enhance my credibility. I will make an attempt to show that The Drudge Report is a good and credible source of information, and maybe point out some other sources that are not so good and why. This will be both difficult and easy.

The following are a sampling of information sources that I assume many Americans go to to get their news, and what they get when they go there. 

Huffington Post. In my post yesterday I alluded to not seeing Huff as a valid or palatable news source. That was my intent. Let’s look at what the Huff thinks is “news.” They are very rarely critical of Obama, his administration or Democrats. Today, they had a story about the UN looking into the US use of drones. Not really critical, more skeptical. SECSTATE was 12 stories down at 0800 Hawaii time, and gone by 1000 Hawaii time. Guess that’s not a big story. When a democrat does wrong, they will report it, way down the bottom, they will also throw in a comparison to something just as bad a GOPer has done. They are very critical of any GOP elected official. They constantly post stories on how this GOP person got “owned” or “schooled” or “burned” buy this news anchor (normally from a liberal network). They often post how John Stewart “burns” GOP person or group because of (fill in the blank). They positively report on any group or cause that is Liberal or the position of Obama, or the Democrats (pro-abortion, pro-government, anti-gun, pro-LGBTxyz, pro-union, pro-tax the rich). They negatively report on any group or person in opposition to any group or cause that is lumped in to Conservatism or the GOP (pro-life, less government, pro-second amendment rights, pro-traditional anything, pro-right to work, anti-tax). So, to sum it up, Huff Post, positive reporting of Democrats, Progressives, Liberals. Seldom critical of Democrats, Progressives, Liberals. Negative reporting of Republicans, Conservatives and Tea Party. Constantly critical of Republicans, Conservatives and Tea Party. Verdict: Leans Left, supports Left. (Note: I am not saying any of those views stereotypically labeled Liberal or Conservative are right or wrong, I am just saying how this and others report on and group those views.)

MSM (Main Stream Media). What is the MSM? ABC, CBS, NBC and somewhat CNN. If senior citizens watch it, it’s the MSM. It used to be the only place to get news. Now it is where you turn if you want a very vanilla view of anything. They were slightly critical of the Bush administration, more so towards the later years They are not at all critical of the Obama administration. They, as a group, report pretty much the same stuff. Day in and day out during the Bush years, they had body counts from wars, both innocent, enemy and US and questioned every move he made and word he said. Plus Bush gave more press conferences hence chances to be questioned. They had Democrats and Liberals being critical of how Bush did business. They don’t seem too interested in reporting how many bad guys or innocents Obama is killing. They don’t seem too interested in reporting on legitimate concerns and criticisms of Obama business practices especially from conservatives. Bush secret meetings, bad. Obama secret meetings, appropriate, a privilege of the office. They sometimes describe critics of Obama as fringe, obscure and irrelevant. If Obama wants to do something, it is a positive thing a positive goal. If Obama is against something, they present the evils of the thing and how Obama will solve it. Verdict: Supports left, but does it so gradually and gently it appears as though they are almost unbiased.

MSNBC. I don’t even know where to start. On the left right spectrum, the MSM is slightly left, well, MSNBC is left of them. They have anchors for specific demographics and special interest groups. Which makes for good fun. Ed, the union guy. What’s his face with the blond parted hair to the side, he’s the government can fix it guy. Martian, the foreigner pointing out the ridiculousness of the American right guy. Chris, the has been around for a while and can’t believe what the GOP is doing everyday and hearts Obama and Democrats guy. Keith, well he is not with them anymore, but he was the attack Bush and the GOP guy. Al, the give me credibility because I have a Rev in front of my name but all I really do is read what others write guy. And lastly, Rachael, oh Rachael. She went from a second string anchor and former radio show host on a failed liberal network to the matriarch of the Liberal Flagship news station because of attrition and elections. Good for her. To give her credit she is one of the most rational anchors on the network. But, she does promote and protect the Left, period. To give her more credit, she does criticize the president and his administration, but she does it in a constructive way. She pushes him and encourages him to be more left then he is acting. Something she does not do for the GOP or conservatives. If FoxNews (we are not even going to talk about them, one, because I did not list them as a news source, and two, they are slightly to the right, admittedly, end of story) is the network of the right or GOP (they are actually middle to slightly right) then MSNBC is the network to the left, of the left, for the left and by the left. Their viewers/followers are few, compared to FoxNews or The Drudge Report, and until old people die and stop watching the MSM, they will stay small.

(Note on MSNBC: I watched Chris Matthews yesterday and today on the SECSTATE hearings yesterday. He used terms to describe Republican Congressman asking questions as simpletons and pissants. Who’s side is he rooting for? Remember, this guy gets a chill up his leg anytime a Democrat wins an election)

The Drudge Report. Let’s get to the heart of the matter. What Drudge Report thinks is “news.” Well, since Drudge doesn’t actually make or produce any news, how does one describe what it is. They link stories from all over the news spectrum. Like I said yesterday. My union story. I saw the link on Drudge, it went to a story on Politico. Marketplace also reported on it. And today, as I watch MSNBC, they also reported on it. So is that pro or against right or left. What “company” does reporting that story keep? The left would say, since it is about how unions are doing poorly, then it is anti union, since it is promoting that story line. I see it as reporting the news. MSNBC told the story a different way. They did say union numbers were down, but it is the GOP’s attack on the middle class that is why unions are shrinking. So Drudge, just pointed me to the facts on Politico, MSNBC biased it up for me. There are some that have done analysis on Drudge and say it highlights stories that paint a negative picture of the President or Democrats. But it is still only linking to stories. Those stories are all out there. They would still be out there if Drudge didn’t exist. There was reporting last fall that Drudge ran more negative Romney stories than negative Obama stories. That would make sense. More of the MSM and Liberal media ran negative Romney stories, and Drudge just linked to them. Back to Drudge yesterday. They were all over the SECSTATE testimony to Congress yesterday, why, because it is big freaking news. So big, that let me start a new paragraph on the subject.

Ok. Lets lay down the “facts” on Benghazi. As I know them.

1. On September 11 (a day known for terrorism and protest) a US Consulate, in a county that was just liberated from a dictator with the help of the US, was attacked, and the Ambassador to that county was killed along with three other Americans.

1a. Ambassador Stevens had sent a message to the State Department weeks before about vulnerabilities and indicators of an potential attack, especially on the anniversary of September 11.

2. President Obama sent the US Secretary to the UN on to the Sunday “news” shows and over and over and over again she stated it was the anger over a youtube video that incited spontaneous riots (only a coincidence it was on the anniversary of Sep 11) that got out of hand and turned violent and that is how and why the Ambassador and the three other Americans were killed.

3. A series of bizarre events, sickness and a concussion of the SECSTATE and a sex scandal in the CIA and senior military ranks, divert much of the attention off of what happened in Benghazi. We then learn that the head of the CIA and the SECSTATE will most likely not testify on the events in Benghazi. (was it a cover up or an intentional distraction, probably not, did it look like a cover up or an intentional distraction, yeah, a little)

4. Weeks later, the Obama administration semi admits they were wrong, well not them, it was the intelligence community that was wrong, about blaming the youtube video. That “someone” edited the talking points that Suzan Rice had to “go off of” and hey, they got it wrong. Kind of like a “our bad” but no big deal. (SECSTATE said in her testimony that she had nothing to do with the talking points Susan Rice had, I would have thought she would have had a chop or a say in those.)

That brings us to today, the SECSTATE (heir apparent to the Democratic nomination for President in 2016, former candidate for president, former Senator, former First Lady) is testifying in on the attack of a US Consulate and the killing of a US Ambassador and three other Americans. I say all that to say this. IT WAS A BIG FREAKING DEAL! Then for her to say “does it really matter” when referring to why the event happened. That is unacceptable. For her to say she did not see the Ambassadors message and no one in her office had seen the message, is also unacceptable. If it was a message from the Ambassador to Canada asking for more table cloths or napkins, I could understand it not being seen or addressed. But a message from Libya, on security, on the anniversary of September 11, I would hope they would notice that. I would hope they have a 24 hour watch on that email/message account. I am with the SECSTATE, this is tragic, errors were made, how we can prevent this again. But saying she takes responsibility, and being upset that anyone has any questions, now let me get on with my 2016 campaign, unacceptable.

Back to Drudge. He reported (made internet links) to what she said, from numerous and varying outlets. Why then would this commenter question the credibility of Drudge as a news source? Why would he or she suggest that if I get my information from Drudge, I am “not good company” and I have “no credibility” because of the source of my information? Why is Drudge “not good company?” Why am I a “partisan hack?”

On to “partisan hack.” What is a partisan hack? 

I found this definition, I think this is what the commenter was aiming at. “Someone who cares more about supporting a particular party or ideology than supporting what is morally right, or factually true.” 

I think knowing what is “factually true” pertaining to the events leading up to and after the attack and killing in Benghazi is nonpartisan if not bipartisan but for sure not partisan. Don’t you?

Here is a definition of partisan. I will admit, some of those words could be used to describe some of my traits, but as a definition, as a label, I would have to disagree. The word “party” keeps on coming up. And opposing one party (the Democrats) does not make one a member of the other party (the Republicans). But more on that later.

I come up with this definition (hack) unskilled or uninformed and (partisan) in politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. Well, I am not committed member of any political party, at least not the GOP, which I think you might have been referring to. Maybe the Libertarian Party, but more on that later. I don’t claim skill, well I have some skill, measuring it is another subject. If I get my info from a multitude of sources, and assuming all sources have a certain level of accuracy/credibility (some) and a certain level of bias/partisan leanings (some to a lot), how then could I be un or ill informed and have no credibility? I am just as credible as the numerous sites I collected my information from. What gives one (a person or news source) credibility? What gives one (person or news source) credibility enough to deem another (person or news source) to have no credibly?

The Drudge report is a great source of news/information from all different sources of news. Each of those sources have their own problems, or bias. But if you average them all, know their bias, and try, and I mean really try, to filter it out. I think you will be informed and have credibility.

I think I have made my case, a case, as well as I can, that Drudge can inform a person. Now let me make my case on why I am not a partisan, at least not in the traditional sense. I am not a Republican, period. I truly identify with the Libertarian Party and libertarian ideas. I have voted for and supported Republicans in the past, but only because of the semi misguided notion that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. A means to an end, and that end is not letting a Democrat win whatever it is he or she is running for. Our current broken political system of two parties is what it is. I do not like it. I want it to vanish. It won’t, not any time soon. I become more and more frustrated each election and have all but abandoned defensive voting. I supported Gary Johnson and Ron Paul but also Mitt Romney. I know that sadly those first two men did not stand a chance to win the Presidency, but Romney did. If Romney won, then Obama would have not. I have to support them, to help change the system, but once they are out, I have to do damage control. If I see the Obama presidency more of a threat to how I believe my country should be run. Then it only makes sense that I would support Romney. I do not like and do not support many GOP stances on issues. That being said, I am even more against many Democratic stances on issues. It is only natural then, in a two choice system I would side with the group I see as less threatening to what is important to me. I do not support their ideology because I see what the GOP is doing, to be factually true and morally right. I support the GOP, some of the time, because I see what the Democrats are doing as less factually true and morally wrong. That statement sounds horrible by it self, but let’s insert a subject. Guns. The Libertarian view, my view, is fairly simple and absolute. Personal rights and personal responsibility. The second amendment is simple and clear. The ability for a human to defend themselves as they see fit is simple and clear and absolute. There it is, The Democrats do not agree with any of that. The Republicans believe in some of that. I have to side with the GOP. If the GOP slithers closer to what the Democrats think, then I will oppose them both. I often support the GOP because they oppose the Democrats actions and aspirations that I believe to be factual wrong and many times morally wrong. I think the GOP also has many actions and aspirations that are also factually and morally wrong. I do not support them when they lose their minds.

Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, The Libertarian Party and Reason.com say things constantly that I can fully get behind. I cannot say that for the Republican or Democratic parties. The number one thing that I am for, that fits my ideologically, that could be seen as partisan, is Liberty, Freedom and CHANGE. Real change. Not Obama change. Change as in a reverse in spending. Change as in less or a reverse in borrowing. Change as in less or a reverse debt. Change as in less or a reverse in subsidies. Change as in less or a reverse in taxes and regulations. Change as in the government knowing its limited job and actually doing that job. Change as in people take care of other people, not the government. Change as in I am responsible for myself and my own actions. That is the change I am looking for and neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will give me that change. The Democrats are in power now and not doing what I want or heading in a direction I don’t want to head. The GOP is trying to stand in their way. I will support them in that role. If and when the GOP is in power again, and they want to do things I don’t want or I think is wrong, I will, at least I hope I will, stand with the Democrats (oh my god how hard that will be and I can’t believe I am putting it in writing) in opposition.

So there it is.

My question to the commenter. How would one have to act or think to not be labeled a partisan hack, and where would one have to go to keep company with good company and have credibility?

What’s On The Menu?

Similar to food, the media we consume has a big effect on us. As in life, I try to have a varied media diet. I occasionally watch MSNBC or try to read some articles on Huff Post. Most of the time, after a few minutes, no more than 30 at any one time for health and safety reasons, I chuckle and change the channel or close my viewing window. That being said. I am not a big consumer of FOXNEWS. I occasionally put it on in my office, but I don’t get much from it. If anything I just want to help keep their ratings high and keeping MSNBC and CNN looking like the boutique channels they are. It (FoxNews), as most TV, is not on in my house.

I get most of my information from the web, either actual news sites or news aggregates and blogs and now and then C-SPAN. Most of these blogs give the two cents of the blogger and then a link to an article. These articles are posted from all sorts of sites, from far right to far left to moderate sites, whatever that means. I am going to try to post links to some of the articles I consume each day. You will come to notice the subjects are all over the place. Some are hot topics of the day. Some are interesting long views on obscure things. One might be on unions, the next on executive orders the next on high fructose corn syrup. I am also going to try to list on this blog the sites that I frequent.

Today's menu consisted of…

On my way into work I listened to my daily economic podcast Marketplace for Jan 22. I am normally a day behind, but sometimes listen to a just published show on my way home as I did today for Jan 23. It's a great snapshot and both entertaining and informative, and only 25 minutes.

Nothing on the Secretary Clinton testimony. Drudge posted some nice photos and quotes that let me know what I needed to know, in the short term. I might read some later, but did not want to tie up my morning with this.

This article on unions from the Washington Examiner.

This one made me smile. From Politico, which seems to lean left and be neutral and or critical of Democrats only in spurts, but not as a rule. Knowing that Hillary thinks 2016 is hers for the taking, at least the Democratic nomination, hearing and seeing the VP acting like this, four years out. I guess he thinks that possession is 9/10s of the law. And hey, he’s closer to the seat then she is.

This blog post from a friend of mine from The Conservative Wahoo. I try to visit it daily or whenever I see he has a new post. Normally brought to my attention on Facebook. As I hope to do as well. This post was one of a few that led me to start this blog and change how I interact on Facebook.

Nothing on guns or the second amendment today. That dark cloud is, until passed or shot down, will always be looming.

Last but not least, women in combat. Two things. Selective service update? Also, I am so excited that Geneva can now join the Marine Infantry and hate her life just as so many young men have done over the years. No offence if you are or were ever a young man and loved being Infantry.

Welcome. Come in. Make yourself comfortable.

Thank you for stopping by my blog. I am glad my Facebook post was intriguing enough for you to follow the link to my blog. Let me state and explain what inspired me to take this step and why I am blogging here.

Inspiration. I am sorry to say, it was not a burning bush. No bushes were harmed in the inspiration of this blog. I think I can break it down to two things.

1. A lot of introspection. Why I think the way I think, why I comment, why I believe what I believe, why I criticize, why I like discussions, even light confrontations. Here are some of my findings. I came up with these ideas, these thoughts, and these criticisms on my own. I was raised to think for myself. I was allowed to do, for the most part, what I wanted all through life. I have read, and watched, and conversed with hundreds of people and came to these conclusions and these understandings on my own. I was a Scout, that influenced me. I am in the Navy, that has influenced me. As well as the random lessons and examples from people and from life. My ideas and positions are not all written in stone. Some are flexible, some are not. I have no guru. I was not indoctrinated. These are original or reinforced ideas. But the more I learn, the more I know I don’t know. The more I learn, the more similarity’s I see throughout history. Now, apply that to any subject and that is me. Politics, religion, government, child raising and so on. Back to my introspection. I have felt semi crappy since about last summer. Why, well the election. It all came to a head on inauguration day. Just as it did four years ago. Even though I know this and can recognize this, I can’t really stop this. Well, it might cure itself when we get some real Change.

2. Martian Luther King. As I’m sure you all know, it was his birthday Monday and a national holiday. MLK is many things to my people. There are no rules on inspiration. I am sure I am not the first person to be inspired by him, his ideas were not new to me, but I was reminded of them at the time when my mind and emotions were ready to receive. Some of those ideas are love, acceptance, sacrifice, persistence, action for change, living by example. Those are a few words that come to mind when I think of MLK. I don’t know that I will do any of those things, but I will try. This blog, this act, is me trying.

Now you know my inspiration, kind of, so why this blog.

1. Pissing people off. I have over the past few years, for one reason or another, either pissed off or turned off or just plain made people not want to connect with me on Facebook. I am not in the business of Facebook “friend collecting” but with each person I find I’m longer connected to on Facebook, I have to ask the question why. Was it what I said, how I said it, how it made them feel, mad or sad or scared? Did I make them question their own beliefs or did it strengthen their beliefs? I have opinions (some may even call them strong opinions), as many of you know, but I still consider myself to be very tolerant and open minded (my opinion). Are these people (the defrienders) not? I don’t know. Maybe they only use Facebook for fun and to be happy? I used Facebook for everything. Family, friends, politics, photos, religion and food, just to name a few. I have come to realize time and time again, some people just don’t want to know the truth or your opinion. Or some people just don’t want to have their world views questioned, or some people just can’t believe that others may have valid ideas and arguments that differ from theirs. Some people don’t want to know that their Nobel Peace Prize Laureate President has ordered drone strikes in foreign countries that have killed innocent children. MLK won the Nobel Peace Prize too, but so did Yasser Arafat, so what the hell does that prize actually stand for? I digress. Whatever the reason is that they didn’t like what I had posted, I am fine with. I am not only fine with it, but I ask for their forgiveness. I ask for their forgiveness for violating what they have designated a safe and happy place for them to scroll. Facebook and the world is a place of free association of people. Many of these people I have grown up with, or deployed with, good friends, good people. The world put us together, and Facebook allowed a venue for us to be pulled us apart. That is unfortunate. I see Facebook as a public square. Yes, you can say or talk about whatever you want in the public square, but sometimes you want to take your conversations to a more private venue. This blog is that venue.

2. So why blog. I am going to attempt to blog for the sole purpose of continuing the discussion on an array of subjects with those so inclined and to free my Facebook world for other things. Facebook will now be for such matters as; what I’m grilling, how awesome or sucky my garden is, my child’s art work or her astonishingly intelligent questions and observations. I might even throw in some photos of the subjects I just listed. Why? Because that is the world and the country we now live in. I would rather it not be that way. I would rather not have to resort to intellectual and political segregation. But in order to keep and maintain relationships with some people in this day in age, I have to play by their rules. This blog will enable me, within the boundaries of military law, to talk about politics and religion and whatever else I deem too controversial or too heavy for Facebook.

3. Free association of peoples. All are welcome to read and comment on this blog. If you are reading this, you came here on your own. Whatever the discussion is about, you sought it out. It did not punch you in the face while you were scrolling by photos of people’s kids or bacon or some dumb ass/smart ass some-e-cards. You are here because you want to be here. Maybe you will just read, maybe you will comment, maybe you will post your own manifesto. Maybe you will visit once, come to the same conclusion you did on Facebook (that I am crazy) and never visit this blog again. I truly hope that some of my most liberal and engaged Facebook friends will frequent this blog and contribute to the conversations. I have stated many times, and I truly mean it, I love conversations. Yes, I love being told I am right or that people agree with me, but I also love the challenge that people with differing opinions pose to me when they question my point of views. I really do enjoy it. I like to hear well thought out and presented points of views, especially those that differ from my own. I like to be mentally and intellectually challenged. That being said, if you come here and leave a comment on a post that is false or attacks other contributors personally, you most likely will be censored. But other than that, let it rip. I want ideas to be discussed, opinions to be defended and maybe even minds changed. Most of all, I want people who agree or disagree with me to be informed, and I think I am capable of that, I think we are capable of that. I am counting on my friends, my readers, to help me be informed. I don’t want to live in a world or country where everyone agrees with each other. I want to live in a world and a country where everyone can talk to each other.

So join me, or not. That is the choice, your choice. That is what this blog is doing, or attempting to do. Allowing people to have more of a choice to engage or not engage each other. It’s kinda what I thought being an American in America was all about.