aSide Order

Just had fun simulchatting the Oscars with PNJ editor Julio Diaz and about a dozen others with nothing better to do. 😉

Netflix will be sending Hurt Locker. While watching Kathryn Bigelow accept her Oscar for best director, the scowl on old Barbra Streisand’s face was priceless.

Only saw the last half of the show which was good, for a change. Pleasantly surprised to not see any Bush bashing or war bashing. The other thing I liked was that everyone on stage was well dressed. Didn’t see anyone having to hold up their pants with one hand.

Sniper pickoffs in Afghanistan. Way better than in the movies.

3 thoughts on “aSide Order”

  1. I do Believe that other webmaster’s need to begin thinking like you. I actually like the way you care for your Blog visitors. Its looks like you have everything from an great writer to an good webmaster.I will like to follow you in twitter. You should really start a website where you should give personal training to student’s like me. Superb Value For Time spent on your blog.

  2. Here’s the deal with Liberals that now call themselves Progressives when it comes to defense spending.

    They can never have enough money. Since Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty in the 60’s, when the political geniuses in Washington decided it was OK to use Social Security money to spread around, we have spent trillions and trillions of dollars on this, that, and the other. Ostensibly ‘fixing’ all sorts of social injustices. The dirty little secret is that the only fix that happened was the fix of dependency on more government programs, forming a nice solidarity of a now dependent, victim class comprised primarily of Democrat voters. I’ll even allow that this was an unintended consequence in the beginning. But not now, 60 years later.

    Time has got to come when we say, OK, enough is enough, here’s the programs to help those that can’t help themselves. And for those that can help themselves, it’s time to do it. See my latest post The State Of The Welfare State to see what happens when countries spend more than they have on entitlement programs of one form or another. Health care and retirement being the two biggest.

    But I digress from the military aspect of it all.

    Fearing Democrats were losing favor with their party for supporting Bush in the first 70 days in the war on terror, Ted Kennedy put up the straw man over going into Iraq by saying that Saddam didn’t plan the 9/11 attack, as though Bush ever said that he did. After that, the next gripe was how much the war cost.

    It’s always been my opinion that whatever it costs to fight a war, that is the cost of fighting the war. The war budget is temporary, lasting as long as the war needs to be.

    When Kennedy and the Democrat chorus started bemoaning the cost of the war, it was clear that they saw that money as money they could use to spread around in more social programs of some sort. They were having wet dreams of spending that $10 billion a month in vote buying programs.

    So it all comes down to whether you can put a price on your life, my life, and that of thousands of other Americans. I maintain that there is no price, and keeping us safe and alive will cost whatever it costs. If Progressives saw it that way, they would not be complaining about the cost of the war in terms of taking money away from social programs that it could otherwise be spent on.

    I say war money is war money. When the war winds down, the spending stops. It doesn’t get shifted to social or other entitlement programs. The government returns to running on pre-war budgets and dollars just like it did before the stink’n war started.

    I find it hard to even be discussing this ‘war money’ as if it really existed in the first place. It is all borrowed money, another component that Progressives don’t seem too concerned about. And, another reason that the so called ‘war money’ should not be used anywhere else. Who knows, we might find ourselves in another war situation. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario between North Korea and/or Iran and some sort of military action. Hopefully it won’t go that far, but no one can guarantee that it won’t. So to even consider that all the money we’re spending on the war and military defense could or should be transferred to entitlement spending is reckless any way you look at it.

    I think by now you know my answer to your question “do you know how much it takes to get that guy over there to shoot those people?” I don’t know how much it takes, nor do I particularly care. It costs what it costs to put that sniper there to save our troops and kill theirs.

  3. Here’s some war-bashing for ya (I think Bush is a tired topic): Ross, as a Tea Party kind of guy, do you know how much it takes to get that guy over there to shoot those people? Think of the money that could be invested locally! It might enable cops to keep shifty kids out of other peoples’ houses!

    I am reading this thing (Martin L. Gross’s “A Call for Revolution”) that I thought might appeal to you. I haven’t got to the bit about the Military-Industrial complex yet (if there is one), but I bet Welfare and Defense/Offense compete for a huge portion of the giant, wheezing, fat and irritable thing that is the national budget.

    Every sniper’s bullet costs $$$ that could be spent at home on hoagies! If they didn’t tax people in the middle class a quarter of their yearly incomes to get those bullets, we could all buy more cheesesteaks!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *