Bill Neinast
IN PERSPECTIVE
Several weeks ago, a radio commentator mentioned that he thought President Obama was a very smart man but that he was economically illiterate. That seemed harsh at the time.
Shortly thereafter, however, Speaker of the House John Boehner announced that he could no longer negotiate on the budget with the President. His reason was that Obama stated and believed that there was not a spending problem.
As if reading from the President’s script, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, in that inimical smile, announced February 10 on Fox News Sunday that America does not have a spending problem. “It is almost a false argument to say that we have a spending problem. We have a budget deficit problem,” Pelosi insisted.
Still on the same script on the same day on NBC’s Meet the Press, Senator Dick Durbin,a democrat from Illinois, claimed that the sequester was “designed as a budget threat, not as a budget strategy.” He stated that the only approach to solving the budget problem was to raise taxes again.
That commentator was right. All three of these leaders of the left are economic idiots.
Their clique includes at least one more. The other is the exuberant woman interviewed on TV just after Obama’s election in 2008. While gushing about all the goodies that were now going to come her way, she was asked where the money would come from for all that mana. Her answer was, “From Obama’s stash.”
Even people who are not rocket scientists know where to find Obama’s stash.
That cache is the pockets of American tax payers. More specifically, it is the pockets of productive citizens who are not paying their fair share of taxes.
Anyone with a check book knows that there has to be a balance between income and outgo. If they take more out of their bank account than they put in, they are in debt and have to pay a penalty.
They have two choices to avoid another penalty. They can spend less or earn more. If there is no practical way to earn more, their choices are cut in half. They will just have to quit spending so much. Conversely, if another source of income can be tapped, the spending can proliferate.
This simplistic lesson in personal economics applies equally to the government.
Currently, our Congress and President have spent over 16 trillion dollars more than they have “earned.” The red ink continues to darken by each passing moment.
The President says, however, “Don’t worry, we’ll staunch the flowing red ink, pay off the debt, and balance future budgets with revenue enhancements.”
The revenue enhancements he talks about is “newspeak” for taxes.
The term newspeak comes from George Orwell’s 1984. As noted in that book, the purpose of newspeak is to intentionally confuse and mislead a population so they will willingly accept ideas which, if fully understood, they would oppose. It is a form of propaganda.
With this newspeak, Obama can claim he is not going back on his words of just a few weeks ago while maneuvering the extension of the nation’s debt limit. Back then, it was, “Just let me increase the taxes on the wealthy now. Then we can talk about reducing spending to avoid sequestration.”
So here’s the prospective.
The President is about as honest as can be expected from a Chicago politician.
His revenue was enhanced by letting the taxes go back up on the middle class workers and by getting an increase of income tax rates on individuals with annual incomes of more than $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples.
Another revenue enhancement is rarely mentioned in the press. On Jan 1, a new tax kicked in under Obama Care. Now sales of medical devices are subject to a 2.5% tax. That revenue enhancement seems to be at odds with another promise of the President that Obama Care would reduce the cost of Medicare.
If the President adds more revenue enhancements to these two, and continues to insist there is no spending problem, he will prove the commentator’s point that he is economically illiterate.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
The One and Only Bob Hope!
For those of you too young to remember Bob Hope, ask your Grandparents..And thanks for the memories. WHAT A WONDERFUL E-MAIL.
I HOPE THIS WILL PUT A SMILE ON YOUR FACE AND IN YOUR HEART.
Tribute to a man who DID make a difference.
ON TURNING 70'I still chase women, but only
downhill'.
ON TURNING 80'That's the time of your life when even your birthday suit needs pressing.'
ON TURNING 90'You know you're getting old when the candles cost more than the cake.'
ON TURNING 100'I don't feel old. In fact, I don't feel
anything until noon. Then it's time for my nap.'
ON GIVING UP HIS EARLY CAREER, BOXING'I ruined my hands in the ring. The referee kept stepping on them.'
ON NEVER WINNING AN OSCAR'Welcome to the Academy Awards or, as it's called at my home, 'Passover'.
ON GOLF'Golf is my profession. Show business is just to pay the green fees.'
ON PRESIDENTS'I have performed for 12 presidents and entertained only six.'
ON WHY HE CHOSE SHOWBIZ FOR HIS CAREER'When I was born, the doctor said to my mother,
Congratulations, you have an eight pound ham.
ON RECEIVING THE CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL'I feel very humble, but I think I have the strength of character to fight it.'
ON HIS FAMILY'S EARLY POVERTY'Four of us slept in the one bed. When it got cold, mother threw on another brother.'
ON HIS SIX BROTHERS'That's how I learned to dance. Waiting for the bathroom.'
ON HIS EARLY FAILURES'I would not have had anything to eat if it wasn't for the
stuff the audience threw at me.'
ON GOING TO HEAVEN'I've done benefits for ALL religions. I'd hate to blow the hereafter on a technicality.'
Give me a sense of humour; Lord, give me the grace to see a joke, and to get some humour out of life.
The Greatest Play in Baseball - Ever!
Take a moment to watch this, even if you are not a baseball fan. Can this play be duplicated today, absolutely! Would this play be duplicated today, I hope so!
Is it any wonder baseball is consider America's sport! On April 25, 1976, in Dodger Stadium Rick Monday saved the American flag from a couple of wacko's in LA. God bless Rick Monday!
Marc
Sunday, February 17, 2013
The Unintended Consequences of Charity!
My friend, Bill Neinast, always writes thought provoking articles. He asks some tough questions in the following piece. Sounds like Toxic Charity is a book that should be required reading for all of America's elected and appointed officials and every citizen.
Bill Neinast
IN PERSPECTIVEToxic Charity is an excellent primer for anyone interested in charity. Whether interested in giving, planning, or participating, this short book is a must read.
Robert D. Lupton, the author, has been involved with charitable works in Atlanta for 30 years. As founder and president of FCS urban Ministries (Focused Community Strategies), he knows whereof he speaks when he discusses how churches and charities hurt those they help.
Upton is not anti charity. He is, however, concerned about how most charities in this country are planned and executed. In his opinion, charities bear responsibility with the federal government for creating a society of dependency.
Concomitant with that culture of dependency is a loss of the work ethic. Without that work ethic, the effective charities in third world countries that involve buy ins by the communities being helped have little chance of success in the U.S.
Several examples of the need for involving targeted communities in the help project that involves water wells in Africa.
In one area, women were walking several miles to get their daily supplies of water. A group of Americans decided to help. They had a well dug and fitted with a pump in the center of the village. When they returned to admire their gift a year later, they found the villagers trudging back to the old spring for water. The pump on the well had broken and no one knew or bothered to learn how to fix it.
Another group learning of a need for water in a village undertook their assistance differently. They involved the village in the project from the beginning. Villagers decided where to dig the well and who would be served by it. They developed a community system with water piped to homes, where it is paid for. That village is now piping and selling water to other villages in the area.
Upton also considers mission trips to be religious tourism. He illustrates this belief with examples of trips, usually by church affiliated groups, that provide no real or lasting benefit for the community being “served.”
The money spent on transporting and supporting the mission participants could be used more effectively. Money instead of bodies to help the target community accomplish a task internally like the water system mentioned above would be much better gifts.
A local pastor who has participated in some missions agrees. He believes, however, that the real benefit of such trips is the spiritual lift the trips give the participating parishioners.
Is that a valid trade off? Upton probably would answer, “No.”
He would cite in response the mission group that went to a third world country to tile the floor of a new church. None of the participants had tiling experience. When the mission left, local tile setters had to redo the whole floor at more expense than if they had done the job initially.
Was the spiritual lift for a small group of inexperienced tile setters worth the cost, regardless of the source of the money?
Locally, the Upton technique could have profound effects.
Take the Goodfellows give aways for the Christmas season. A new approach would be to buy the same toys and food with the donated funds, but not to be given away. The items would still be available for the identified families, but not as gifts. Instead, they would have to buy them at substantially reduced prices.
This should restore in the heads of households an appreciation of being able to provide for their own families.
So here’s the perspective.
Upton believes the best charity is the microlending described in the development of the community water system. Unfortunately, he believes that microlending and a buy in of Goodfellows discussed above will not work in the United States.
In his own words, “Experienced microlending organizations have identified three essential elements for successful microloans: The borrower must have (1) an ingrained work ethic, (2) a demonstrated entrepreneurial instinct, and (3) a stable support system. Like legs on a three-legged stool, all three must undergird the borrower or the transaction will not stand.
“In developing countries where people must constantly hustle simply to survive, a work ethic is almost a given. Not so in a culture like the United States, where the welfare system has fostered generations of dependency and has severely eroded the work ethic. Where a people assume that their subsistence is guaranteed, hard work becomes neither a necessity for survival nor a means to escape poverty. “ (pages 120-121)
When and how can we restore the work ethic in our homeland?
Bill Neinast
IN PERSPECTIVEToxic Charity is an excellent primer for anyone interested in charity. Whether interested in giving, planning, or participating, this short book is a must read.
Robert D. Lupton, the author, has been involved with charitable works in Atlanta for 30 years. As founder and president of FCS urban Ministries (Focused Community Strategies), he knows whereof he speaks when he discusses how churches and charities hurt those they help.
Upton is not anti charity. He is, however, concerned about how most charities in this country are planned and executed. In his opinion, charities bear responsibility with the federal government for creating a society of dependency.
Concomitant with that culture of dependency is a loss of the work ethic. Without that work ethic, the effective charities in third world countries that involve buy ins by the communities being helped have little chance of success in the U.S.
Several examples of the need for involving targeted communities in the help project that involves water wells in Africa.
In one area, women were walking several miles to get their daily supplies of water. A group of Americans decided to help. They had a well dug and fitted with a pump in the center of the village. When they returned to admire their gift a year later, they found the villagers trudging back to the old spring for water. The pump on the well had broken and no one knew or bothered to learn how to fix it.
Another group learning of a need for water in a village undertook their assistance differently. They involved the village in the project from the beginning. Villagers decided where to dig the well and who would be served by it. They developed a community system with water piped to homes, where it is paid for. That village is now piping and selling water to other villages in the area.
Upton also considers mission trips to be religious tourism. He illustrates this belief with examples of trips, usually by church affiliated groups, that provide no real or lasting benefit for the community being “served.”
The money spent on transporting and supporting the mission participants could be used more effectively. Money instead of bodies to help the target community accomplish a task internally like the water system mentioned above would be much better gifts.
A local pastor who has participated in some missions agrees. He believes, however, that the real benefit of such trips is the spiritual lift the trips give the participating parishioners.
Is that a valid trade off? Upton probably would answer, “No.”
He would cite in response the mission group that went to a third world country to tile the floor of a new church. None of the participants had tiling experience. When the mission left, local tile setters had to redo the whole floor at more expense than if they had done the job initially.
Was the spiritual lift for a small group of inexperienced tile setters worth the cost, regardless of the source of the money?
Locally, the Upton technique could have profound effects.
Take the Goodfellows give aways for the Christmas season. A new approach would be to buy the same toys and food with the donated funds, but not to be given away. The items would still be available for the identified families, but not as gifts. Instead, they would have to buy them at substantially reduced prices.
This should restore in the heads of households an appreciation of being able to provide for their own families.
So here’s the perspective.
Upton believes the best charity is the microlending described in the development of the community water system. Unfortunately, he believes that microlending and a buy in of Goodfellows discussed above will not work in the United States.
In his own words, “Experienced microlending organizations have identified three essential elements for successful microloans: The borrower must have (1) an ingrained work ethic, (2) a demonstrated entrepreneurial instinct, and (3) a stable support system. Like legs on a three-legged stool, all three must undergird the borrower or the transaction will not stand.
“In developing countries where people must constantly hustle simply to survive, a work ethic is almost a given. Not so in a culture like the United States, where the welfare system has fostered generations of dependency and has severely eroded the work ethic. Where a people assume that their subsistence is guaranteed, hard work becomes neither a necessity for survival nor a means to escape poverty. “ (pages 120-121)
When and how can we restore the work ethic in our homeland?
Saturday, February 16, 2013
The Travis Letter from the Alamo, February 24, 1836
For those of you who visit my blog and are not Texas natives or Texas History buffs you may not have ever heard of the Travis Letter.
Colonel William Barret Travis, Commander of the Texas forces at the Alamo wrote a plea for help. His plea is known as one of the most stirring documents in American history. Help came but in the end the Alamo was overrun by the invading armies of Mexican Dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.
If you have not had the chance to see this letter in person you can read the letter here but even better you can visit the Alamo between February 24, 2013 (177 years after it was written) and March 7, 2013 (177 years and 1 day after the Alamo siege ended in 1836), in San Antonio, Texas.
If you are Texan you you should not miss the chance to see Travis' actual letter in the Alamo, where it was written. If you are not a Texan you should use this event as a great time to explore our State and find out why living here and being part of the Texas culture is so very special.
Before you go be sure to watch the 1960 movie about the Alamo.
Marc
Good Bless Texas!
Colonel William Barret Travis, Commander of the Texas forces at the Alamo wrote a plea for help. His plea is known as one of the most stirring documents in American history. Help came but in the end the Alamo was overrun by the invading armies of Mexican Dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.
If you have not had the chance to see this letter in person you can read the letter here but even better you can visit the Alamo between February 24, 2013 (177 years after it was written) and March 7, 2013 (177 years and 1 day after the Alamo siege ended in 1836), in San Antonio, Texas.
If you are Texan you you should not miss the chance to see Travis' actual letter in the Alamo, where it was written. If you are not a Texan you should use this event as a great time to explore our State and find out why living here and being part of the Texas culture is so very special.
Before you go be sure to watch the 1960 movie about the Alamo.
Marc
Good Bless Texas!
Cowboy's Ten Commandments
I believe the Cowboy culture and value system is one of the many things that makes Texas the greatest place to live in the world. A friend sent me this, thought you would like it.
Cowboy's Ten Commandments posted on the wall at Cross Trails Church in Farlie, Texas :
(1) Just one God.
(2) Honor yer Ma & Pa.
(3) No telling tales or gossipin'.
(4) Git yourself to church meeting.
(5) Put nothin' before God.
(6) No foolin' around with another fellow's gal.
(7) No killin'.
(8) Watch yer mouth.
(9) Don't take what ain't yers.
(10) Don't be hankerin' for yer buddy's stuff.
You might be from Texas if . . . ."
Someone put together this little "You might be from Texas if . . . ." I got it from a friend, hope you enjoy!
If someone in a Lowe's store offers you assistance and they don't work there, you may live in Texas;
If you've worn shorts and a parka in the same day, you may live in Texas;
If you've had a lengthy telephone conversation with someone who dialed a wrong number, you may live in Texas;
If 'Vacation' means going anywhere south of Dallas for the weekend, you may live in Texas;
If you measure distance in hours, you may live in Texas;
If you know several people who have hit a deer more than once, you may live in Texas;
If you install security lights on your house and garage, but leave both unlocked, you may live in Texas;
If you carry jumper cables in your car and your wife knows how to use them, you may live in Texas;
If the speed limit on the highway is 55 mph -- you're going 80, and everybody's passing you, you may live in Houston, Texas;
If you find 60 degrees 'a little chilly,' you may live in Texas;
If you actually understand these jokes, and share them with all your Texas friends, you definitely have lived in Texas.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
The Two Minute Drill!
The Two Minute Drill
Marc Lockard mlockard@lockardandwhite.com
Have you ever noticed, while watching professional football,
how exciting the last two minutes of each half are? Two mediocre teams can play an entirely
boring game right up until the officials stop the game at two-minutes before
the end of each half of the game to notify the teams that there is now only two more minutes of playing
time left in the half. All of a sudden,
when the networks come back from commercial, the tempo of the game magically
picks up. Players that looked lethargic
when the network broke for commercial are all of a sudden are making great
plays and putting forth extra effort!
The quarterback makes use of every available second. Multiple plays are called, everyone moves
with new quickness, the clock is worked judiciously. The enthusiasm of the team, the crowd, and
even the television audience is raised to a new high. As a viewer I find myself asking why isn’t
the whole game played this way?
Then you realize that the really good teams do play the
entire game with the same degree of intensity and excitement for the entire
game that the mediocre teams do only in the last two minutes before each half. The teams that play with intensity and excitement
the entire game are the consistent winners.
Well the same is true in your life and your career!
Those individuals who put enthusiasm and excitement into
everything they do somehow always to be the same individuals who are given the
best promotions, who rocket through the corporate ranks or who own and operate
their own successful business. These
same individuals also seem to be the ones who have the best families, and enjoy
all the better things in life, and always seem to have what appears to a lot of
free time. Their success is simply not
an accident! Their success is a direct
result of the effort they put forth.
They operate as if they are always in the last two minutes of the game
where every second counts. They approach
all aspects of their life with enthusiasm and excitement, and work consistently
to seek out additional opportunities and challenges.
So why don’t we all
participate in the two minute drill? We
all have the capability to do so; we just don’t always focus on the tasks at hand. Think about the last two days in the office
before you left on your last vacation.
You probably attacked every opportunity presented to you with
consistent, enthusiastic effort, and you persistently pursued each opportunity
as if every second counted. You knew
that those tasks not completed before you left would be there to stare you in
the face when you returned. Your pace
quickened, you didn’t waste anytime or energy.
You were committed to clearing out the back-log! Chances are you accomplished more in those
last two days before you left than you had in the last few weeks. The reason you were able to accomplish so
much is that you now HAD to complete those tasks
and you knew you simply couldn’t put off any task. You became focused!
So why don’t we approach all our opportunities and
challenges with this same degree of effort and enthusiasm? Honestly the reason
is that for most of us, without an absolute time limit (the last two minutes of
the game), we all tend to misuse our time and resources. After all, if we don’t get that task done
today, we can always complete it tomorrow!
But can we? There always seems to
be some new opportunity or some unexpected diversion! You know you just had to see that new YouTube
video everyone is talking about or check out the latest sports scores, or check
your Facebook or Twitter account or knock off a few “Angry Birds”.
But what if you practiced the two minute drill
everyday? What if you played the game of
life with enthusiasm and excitement?
What if you methodically and persistently attacked each opportunity that
presented itself, when it presented itself?
One way to find out, try it!
My bet is that you will feel better, discover a new level of confidence
in yourself, and begin to feel refreshed and relaxed!
Give it a shot!
God Made a Farmer - Texas Aggie Version
Giving new meaning to Farmers Fight! God made a Farmer - Texas Aggie Version
Gig Em'
Monday, February 11, 2013
Out of the Box Thinking on reducing Military Spending without Reducing the Military's Effectiveness
Written by Bill Neinast
IN PERSPECTIVE
Starting down a steep hill is the time to step on the brakes. The Department of Defense is at the lip of one of those hills. There are brakes to allow a smooth descent if there is only the will to apply them.
Some effects of the Defense descent are already appearing. The deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman to the Persian Gulf was cancelled. That halves the country’s military presence in that important and volatile part of the Middle East from two carrier groups to one.
As dark as that picture may be, the darkest night can be breached with the flip of a light switch. Now is the time to look for a switch.
One area of concern is a looming reduction in personnel. That could be the switch or impetus for some long needed reforms or realignments.
Personnel costs are among the smaller parts of the defense budget. Most of the dollars go for planes, ships, tanks, and the maintenance of that hardware and the large installations to house them.
Although personnel costs are not major players among defense dollars, the personnel front might be the place to start operating with a smaller budget.
Usually, personnel reductions start with eliminating large blocks or units from the rolls. Only identified positions or units are dropped from the rolls. Those elements can be reconstituted if there is a serious military emergency.
A better solution might be to implement the consolidation anticipated with the creation of the Department of Defense. Theoretically, the National Security Act of 1947 was to reform the military establishment under a single authority. The only real effect, however, was to impose one more layer of bureaucracy.
Consider, for example, legal services for the military. There are seven legal offices in the Pentagon. Each of the three services has a three star Judge Advocate General with a large stable of military and civilian lawyers plus a general counsel with a substantial office. These six offices are topped off with the office of the General Counsel of the Department of Defense.
To a certain extent, the seven offices are considering the same types of legal issues. Those functions could be performed more efficiently by consolidating all of them under a Judge Advocate General of the armed forces. Have all the military lawyers in a new colored uniform and have the JAG provide all legal services for the Chiefs of Staff, Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force and the Secretary of Defense.
Such a consolidation could establish a precedent for real reorganization. The same duplication of services is found in all the combat service branches. Why is there a need for three or more Surgeons General, Adjutant Generals, Chiefs of Engineers, etc? Put them all in “purple” uniforms and have them report to only one headquarters of their specialty in the Pentagon.
A move in this direction may already be under way. Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC), one of the major military medical facilities, no longer exists. It is now the San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC) at Fort Sam Houston and is the training hospital or facility for all American military medical personnel.
The personnel at SAMMC still wear Army, Air Force, or Navy uniforms. Does the color of the uniform matter when a bullet wound is being treated?
There is also consolidation of management and maintenance operations in cities or areas where posts, facilities, or operations of two or more military forces are located.
So here’s the perspective.
The consolidations and elimination of duplicitous services or operations mentioned here could absorb some pending cuts in the defense budget. Those savings, however, can go only so far.
What would happen, though, if that consolidation began to metastasize like cancer cells? What if there were only a Defense Force of the United States with all the personnel wearing one uniform style?
Not only would the one force concept eliminate a number of high cost general officer slots with their wedges of support personnel, it could result in substantial procurement savings.
For example, after the retirement of some hard headed old timers, competition for aircraft configurations to meet the proclivities of three different services could disappear. There might be acceptance of one fighter or fighter/bomber type that could operate off both land and carriers.
Converting to one defense force might be a cost saving maneuver that would still keep the country safe. If it did not work, a reversal of course is always possible.
Let’s try it.
IN PERSPECTIVE
Starting down a steep hill is the time to step on the brakes. The Department of Defense is at the lip of one of those hills. There are brakes to allow a smooth descent if there is only the will to apply them.
Some effects of the Defense descent are already appearing. The deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman to the Persian Gulf was cancelled. That halves the country’s military presence in that important and volatile part of the Middle East from two carrier groups to one.
As dark as that picture may be, the darkest night can be breached with the flip of a light switch. Now is the time to look for a switch.
One area of concern is a looming reduction in personnel. That could be the switch or impetus for some long needed reforms or realignments.
Personnel costs are among the smaller parts of the defense budget. Most of the dollars go for planes, ships, tanks, and the maintenance of that hardware and the large installations to house them.
Although personnel costs are not major players among defense dollars, the personnel front might be the place to start operating with a smaller budget.
Usually, personnel reductions start with eliminating large blocks or units from the rolls. Only identified positions or units are dropped from the rolls. Those elements can be reconstituted if there is a serious military emergency.
A better solution might be to implement the consolidation anticipated with the creation of the Department of Defense. Theoretically, the National Security Act of 1947 was to reform the military establishment under a single authority. The only real effect, however, was to impose one more layer of bureaucracy.
Consider, for example, legal services for the military. There are seven legal offices in the Pentagon. Each of the three services has a three star Judge Advocate General with a large stable of military and civilian lawyers plus a general counsel with a substantial office. These six offices are topped off with the office of the General Counsel of the Department of Defense.
To a certain extent, the seven offices are considering the same types of legal issues. Those functions could be performed more efficiently by consolidating all of them under a Judge Advocate General of the armed forces. Have all the military lawyers in a new colored uniform and have the JAG provide all legal services for the Chiefs of Staff, Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force and the Secretary of Defense.
Such a consolidation could establish a precedent for real reorganization. The same duplication of services is found in all the combat service branches. Why is there a need for three or more Surgeons General, Adjutant Generals, Chiefs of Engineers, etc? Put them all in “purple” uniforms and have them report to only one headquarters of their specialty in the Pentagon.
A move in this direction may already be under way. Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC), one of the major military medical facilities, no longer exists. It is now the San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC) at Fort Sam Houston and is the training hospital or facility for all American military medical personnel.
The personnel at SAMMC still wear Army, Air Force, or Navy uniforms. Does the color of the uniform matter when a bullet wound is being treated?
There is also consolidation of management and maintenance operations in cities or areas where posts, facilities, or operations of two or more military forces are located.
So here’s the perspective.
The consolidations and elimination of duplicitous services or operations mentioned here could absorb some pending cuts in the defense budget. Those savings, however, can go only so far.
What would happen, though, if that consolidation began to metastasize like cancer cells? What if there were only a Defense Force of the United States with all the personnel wearing one uniform style?
Not only would the one force concept eliminate a number of high cost general officer slots with their wedges of support personnel, it could result in substantial procurement savings.
For example, after the retirement of some hard headed old timers, competition for aircraft configurations to meet the proclivities of three different services could disappear. There might be acceptance of one fighter or fighter/bomber type that could operate off both land and carriers.
Converting to one defense force might be a cost saving maneuver that would still keep the country safe. If it did not work, a reversal of course is always possible.
Let’s try it.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Now this is funny, and scary
Allegedly from a California newspaper! This could not be real . . . or could it!
Monday, February 4, 2013
IN PERSPECTIVE - Two Steps Forward, One Back for the Department of Defense
Bill Neinst
IN PERSPECTIVE
Two steps forward, one back. Those are the current dance steps of the Department of Defense.
The first hesitant step into the 21st Century was eliminating the restrictions on gays serving openly in the military services. Every suggestion to do this earlier was met with much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
The same shibboleths of the destruction of morale and unit cohesion were raised this time, but not as vociferously as before. If any of the predictions of disastrous results from allowing military gays to come out of the closet occurred, they have not received wide publicity.
The opponents of this policy have their heads in the sand. Unknown thousands of gays have served in the military with distinction, particularly during the many years of the draft. One of those is Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard, U. S. Army (Retired) of Austin. General Richard is a graduate of the Command and General Staff College and the U.S. Army War College.
He is a recipient of the Army Distinguished Service Medal, the Bronze Star with one Oak Leaf Cluster, the Legion of Merit with four Oak Leaf Clusters, Army Meritorious Service Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, Joint Service Commendation Medal, and the Army Commendation Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster. His service must not have been too disruptive of morale and discipline.
While stationed in Germany in 1970, I was the legal counsel for a major facing an administrative discharge without honor because of a lieutenant’s claim that he was the object of a homosexual advance by the major. I saved the major’s career with evidence and argument on the homosexual or gay panic defense.
I did not keep track of the major afterward. He had an outstanding record before this accusation, and I assume that he continued to serve with honor and effectiveness.
Those opposed to gays serving in the military might benefit from a bit of study of the use of gays in the Ancient Greek armies. According to Plato and other philosophers of that age, many Greek military units were formed around homosexual unions. They fought with vigor and passion.
The next step in the Pentagon waltz was integrating females into combat units. Here comes the gnashing of teeth again. According to the old timers, women just cannot handle the rigors of combat.
Those making that argument should have a talk with Tammy Duckworth. This lieutenant colonel in the Army National Guard lost both of her legs while piloting a helicopter in combat in iraq. She now serves illinois as one of its Representatives in the U.S. Congress.
Maybe they should discuss their views with the families of the 152 female service members who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan so far. If that would be too difficult, maybe visits with Shoshana Johnson and Jessica Lynch, the two female soldiers captured by Iraqi Army units, would shed a little light on their views.
Females are already serving on the front lines of combat, because those front lines are every cross roads in the countries where we have troops. The days of trench warfare and infantry division pitted against infantry division are long past and probably never will return. So, any female who can shoulder the rigors of today’s combat paraphernalia should be given the chance to go for the Combat infantryman’s Badge and all the glory and promotions that come with it.
Now for the step back. If the Senate confirms the nomination of Chuck Hegel to be Secretary of Defense, the nation’s defense posture will be slammed back to pre WWII days. Only Congress will be able to avoid such a disaster.
Hegel’s performance before the Senate committee last week was so abysmal that either he or the President should withdraw his nomination.
The only person other than Obama and Hegel who may think this is the right man for the job is Robert McNamara. The so called whiz kid of the Johnson administration is considered by many to be the worst Secretary of Defense ever. Accordingly, McNamara must be rooting for Hegel to take his place so that he can move up a notch in the ratings.
Defense is facing substantial cuts in manpower and materiel. Leon Panetta, who is leaving the defense post, says these cuts pose a serious threat to the country’s safety. So this is not the time for a politician who does not even know his President’s position on Iran to take the defense reigns.
So here’s the perspective.
The military is finally catching up with reality in personnel matters. What a shame that it may be pushed backward by an incompetent manager.
A lot more than fancy dance steps will be required to keep us out of this quick sand.
IN PERSPECTIVE
Two steps forward, one back. Those are the current dance steps of the Department of Defense.
The first hesitant step into the 21st Century was eliminating the restrictions on gays serving openly in the military services. Every suggestion to do this earlier was met with much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
The same shibboleths of the destruction of morale and unit cohesion were raised this time, but not as vociferously as before. If any of the predictions of disastrous results from allowing military gays to come out of the closet occurred, they have not received wide publicity.
The opponents of this policy have their heads in the sand. Unknown thousands of gays have served in the military with distinction, particularly during the many years of the draft. One of those is Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard, U. S. Army (Retired) of Austin. General Richard is a graduate of the Command and General Staff College and the U.S. Army War College.
He is a recipient of the Army Distinguished Service Medal, the Bronze Star with one Oak Leaf Cluster, the Legion of Merit with four Oak Leaf Clusters, Army Meritorious Service Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, Joint Service Commendation Medal, and the Army Commendation Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster. His service must not have been too disruptive of morale and discipline.
While stationed in Germany in 1970, I was the legal counsel for a major facing an administrative discharge without honor because of a lieutenant’s claim that he was the object of a homosexual advance by the major. I saved the major’s career with evidence and argument on the homosexual or gay panic defense.
I did not keep track of the major afterward. He had an outstanding record before this accusation, and I assume that he continued to serve with honor and effectiveness.
Those opposed to gays serving in the military might benefit from a bit of study of the use of gays in the Ancient Greek armies. According to Plato and other philosophers of that age, many Greek military units were formed around homosexual unions. They fought with vigor and passion.
The next step in the Pentagon waltz was integrating females into combat units. Here comes the gnashing of teeth again. According to the old timers, women just cannot handle the rigors of combat.
Those making that argument should have a talk with Tammy Duckworth. This lieutenant colonel in the Army National Guard lost both of her legs while piloting a helicopter in combat in iraq. She now serves illinois as one of its Representatives in the U.S. Congress.
Maybe they should discuss their views with the families of the 152 female service members who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan so far. If that would be too difficult, maybe visits with Shoshana Johnson and Jessica Lynch, the two female soldiers captured by Iraqi Army units, would shed a little light on their views.
Females are already serving on the front lines of combat, because those front lines are every cross roads in the countries where we have troops. The days of trench warfare and infantry division pitted against infantry division are long past and probably never will return. So, any female who can shoulder the rigors of today’s combat paraphernalia should be given the chance to go for the Combat infantryman’s Badge and all the glory and promotions that come with it.
Now for the step back. If the Senate confirms the nomination of Chuck Hegel to be Secretary of Defense, the nation’s defense posture will be slammed back to pre WWII days. Only Congress will be able to avoid such a disaster.
Hegel’s performance before the Senate committee last week was so abysmal that either he or the President should withdraw his nomination.
The only person other than Obama and Hegel who may think this is the right man for the job is Robert McNamara. The so called whiz kid of the Johnson administration is considered by many to be the worst Secretary of Defense ever. Accordingly, McNamara must be rooting for Hegel to take his place so that he can move up a notch in the ratings.
Defense is facing substantial cuts in manpower and materiel. Leon Panetta, who is leaving the defense post, says these cuts pose a serious threat to the country’s safety. So this is not the time for a politician who does not even know his President’s position on Iran to take the defense reigns.
So here’s the perspective.
The military is finally catching up with reality in personnel matters. What a shame that it may be pushed backward by an incompetent manager.
A lot more than fancy dance steps will be required to keep us out of this quick sand.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Obama's Queeg Moment
Exceptional piece this morning from the American Spectator site by HAL G. P Colebatch! Enjoy
Marc
Marc
His Queeg Moment
A perspective on our president from Down Under.
In Herman Wouk’s classic World War II novel, The Caine Mutiny, there is a moment when a group of the ship’s officers are getting away from the increasingly eccentric Captain Queeq by relaxing ashore.
Suddenly the malcontent Lieutenant Keefer asks the others: “Does it occur to you that Captain Queeg may be insane?
In fact Queeg is not insane, at least not at that time. He is simply grappling, more and more disastrously, with a job too big for him. Come the crisis of a typhoon, he becomes paralyzed and nearly sinks the ship by failing to give the obvious orders. At the subsequent court-martial he appears quite normal until he breaks down under the pressure of cross-examination. Before this, the officers have searched the regulations for guidance, but the regulations refer only to a captain who is clearly and unmistakably insane, not one who is merely guilty of eccentricity and bad judgment. At a lower level of responsibility, Queeg might have performed adequately, but with Keefer’s question, the remaining respect for Queeg’s office has gone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)