Saturday - July 02, 2005

Supreme Court Quote Of The Day

“I cannot accept a man who is mediocre, who is racist and who is unethical, for membership on the U.S. Supreme Court”

This is a three part test:

• Who said that?


• When did he/she say it?


• Who was he/she talking about?

Posted by The Skipper     on 07/02/2005 at 01:16 PM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Hang ‘Em High

Posted by The Skipper     on 07/02/2005 at 12:56 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists •  
• Comments (24) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Fourth Of July Top Ten List

Top Ten Things You Don’t Want To Hear At A July Fourth Barbecue

10. “Beef is great, but squirrel’s so much cheaper”

9. “Take a photo of me lighting this cigar with an M-80”

8. “To give it a little ‘kick,’ I put charcoal starter in the punch”

7. “Oh God, The Skipper’s shirtless again”

6. I’d like to tell you why scientology is so important to me”

5. “Hey look, it’s Earnest Borgnine--oh, sorry lady”

4. “All right, detainees, line up over here for your gitmo-style powdered baked beans”

3. “I’m afraid the only fireworks tonight are between me and your wife”

2. “My hot dog has a knuckle”

1. “I don’t think that’s mayonnaise in the cole slaw”

Posted by The Skipper     on 07/02/2005 at 12:45 PM   
Filed Under: • Humor •  
• Comments (29) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Fourth Of July: Things To Consider

While you’re gearing up for the holiday weekend, here are few things for you to mentally chew over ....

• What would have happened if George Washington had accepted the will of a large number of the population and accepted the position of King of America?


• What if slaves from Africa had never been brought to America?


• They say Democracy is the worst form of government but it’s better than all the rest. How would you improve the current system of government we have?


• Do you think term limits on Senators and Supreme Court Justices should be imposed and how long do you think each should serve?


• Americans are complaining about Gitmo and the Patriot Act. How is this different from internment camps, rationing and other “inconveniences” we have had to endure in past wars?


• Would you consider a National ID Card that could be used in lieu of driver’s licenses, passports, etc. and allow for electronic voting with instant verification?


• If you bought your house five years ago and paid $200,000 for it and it is currently appraised at $240,000 and your city offered you $220,000 for the property in order to build a shopping mall, would you accept? How about if they wanted to build a bypass road that would ease severe traffic problems in your city?


• Where does it say in the Constitution that the government has a responsibility to take care of you in your old age and provide you with retirement money and medical care?

Posted by The Skipper     on 07/02/2005 at 09:05 AM   
Filed Under: • Philosophy •  
• Comments (36) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Photo Du Jour

“Dog Face”

Posted by The Skipper     on 07/02/2005 at 08:49 AM   
Filed Under: • Art-Photography •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Occasional Cooperation

_{Steve Kelley, The New Orleans Times-Picayune}

Posted by The Skipper     on 07/02/2005 at 08:04 AM   
Filed Under: • Politics •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - July 01, 2005

Keeping Tabs On Congress

Psssst! Wanna know a secret? I thought so.

Remember the vote in Congress yesterday that I reported on this morning where Congress voted to override the recent Supreme Court decision to approve land-snatching in the case of Kelo vs. New London? Sure you do.

Wanna see the text of the amendment? Here it is ....

H.AMDT.427 (A034)
Amends: H.R.3058
Sponsor: Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] (offered 6/30/2005)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment to prohibit use of funds in the bill to enforce the judgment of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. New London, decided June 23, 2005.

STATUS:
6/30/2005 12:49pm:
    Amendment (A034) offered by Mr. Garrett (NJ).
6/30/2005 2:37pm:
    On agreeing to the Garrett (NJ) amendment (A034) Agreed to by recorded vote: 231 - 189 (Roll no. 350).

Wanna know who voted against it? Or have you already guessed the Democrats are the guilty party? Here is Role 350 ....

Aren’t you surprised that most of the “NO” votes were Democrats? Gosh, I’m shocked .... shocked, I tell ya!

Posted by The Skipper     on 07/01/2005 at 03:12 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (22) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

One Down, Forty-Nine To Go

We regret to inform you that if you live in Minnesota, you have no state government for the next ten days. It appears the State ran out of money and the legislature couldn’t pass a temporary spending bill before the holiday recess. All citizens of Minnesota are hereby encouraged to pretend you are being governed lest lawlessness break out ....

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Minnesota’s government shut down Friday for the first time in state history after lawmakers failed to pass a temporary spending plan and left 9,000 employees jobless and highway rest stops unattended for the July Fourth weekend.

The shutdown came at midnight after lawmakers failed late Thursday to pass a temporary spending plan to keep the government up and running. The Senate adjourned 20 minutes after Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty said he hoped the two sides could agree on a stopgap measure to keep the state’s doors open for 10 more days.

“I’d like to say I’m sorry to the people of Minnesota,” said Republican state Rep. Rod Hamilton of Mountain Lake. “This is disgusting.”

Posted by The Skipper     on 07/01/2005 at 01:47 PM   
Filed Under: • Economics • Politics •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Photo Du Jour

“Homeland Security”
-by-
Z Woof
Kodak Brownie

Posted by The Skipper     on 07/01/2005 at 01:34 PM   
Filed Under: • Art-Photography •  
• Comments (17) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Gird Your Loins

MoveOn.org didn’t wait five minutes after Justice Sandra Day O’Connor accounced her retirement before they splashed this ad everywhere. You all had better gird your loins and prepare for battle. The Liberals are going to fight this one tooth and nail because O’Connor was a “swing vote” on the Court and occasionally sided with the Left. The Liberals don’t want a conservative to replace her - that would tip the Court’s balance to the Right. They are already lining up every piece of ammunition they can. I predict Frist and the Republicans will have to go “nuclear” before this one is over. What say you?

Posted by The Skipper     on 07/01/2005 at 01:15 PM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (11) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

NEWS FLASH: Justice O’Connor Retires

This just in on the wire ....

Friday, July 1, 2005; 11:38 AM

Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court and a decisive swing vote for a quarter-century on major legal issues, announced her resignation today effective upon the confirmation of her successor.

In a brief letter to President Bush, O’Connor, 75, gave no reason for her decision to leave the court after 24 years as an associate justice and a key swing vote on major issues such as abortion and the death penalty. But a Supreme Court spokeswoman later said O’Connor was retiring in part because she “needs to spend time now with her husband,” who is reportedly in poor health.

Bush, appearing before reporters at the White House Rose Garden, hailed O’Connor as “a discerning and conscientious judge and a public servant of complete integrity.” He said he has directed his staff to compile a list of potential nominees.

“I will select a Supreme Court justice that Americans can be proud of,” he said. He said he would be “deliberate and thorough” in choosing a nominee and would act in a “timely manner before the new Supreme Court term begins.” Bush also called for a “dignified process” in the Senate to confirm the nominee “characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote.”

The resignation gives Bush his first opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice, a nomination that could trigger a political battle in the Senate, which must confirm the choice. Democratic senators have warned that if Bush accedes to his staunchly conservative base and names someone they consider out of the mainstream, the nomination could run into stiff resistance.

“This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor,” O’Connor wrote to Bush. “It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms. I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure.”

Her resignation creates the first opening on the Supreme Court in 11 years, one of the longest stretches without a vacancy in the two centuries since the court was founded. The court has not had such a lengthy period without an opening since the early 19th century.

There was no immediate word from the White House on a possible successor.

MORE EARTH-SHATTERING SCOTUS NEWS ....

The House of Representatives voted yesterday to deny federal funds to any city or state project that used eminent domain to force people to sell their property to make way for a profit-making project such as a hotel or mall. This will override the recent Supreme Court ruling in Kelo vs. New London ....

The House voted yesterday to use the spending power of Congress to undermine a Supreme Court ruling allowing local governments to force the sale of private property for economic development purposes. Key members of the House and Senate vowed to take even broader steps soon.

Last week’s 5 to 4 decision has drawn a swift and visceral backlash from an unusual coalition of conservatives concerned about property rights and liberals worried about the effect on poor people, whose property is often vulnerable to condemnation because it does not generate a lot of revenue.

The House measure, which passed 231 to 189, would deny federal funds to any city or state project that used eminent domain to force people to sell their property to make way for a profit-making project such as a hotel or mall. Historically, eminent domain has been used mainly for public purposes such as highways or airports.

The measure, an amendment to an appropriations bill, would apply to funds administered by the departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said they will push for a more inclusive measure that would apply to all federal funds.

Posted by The Skipper     on 07/01/2005 at 11:09 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (13) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Broadside

I received this from an anonymous source (hey, if Dan Rather can get away with it then so can I) who is deeply embedded in the Department Of Defense. I cannot reveal the source, other than to say the person is a retired Navy Chief who has an interesting observation ....

America’s military can win wars.  We’ve done it in the past, and I have absolute confidence that we’ll continue to do it in the future.  We’ve won fights in which we possessed overwhelming technological superiority (Desert Storm), as well as conflicts in which we were the technical underdogs (the American Revolution).  We’ve crossed swords with numerically superior foes, and with militaries a fraction of the size of our own.  We’ve battled on our own soil, and on the soil of foreign lands—on the sea, under the sea, and in the skies.  We’ve even engaged in a bit of cyber-combat, way out there on the electronic frontier.  At one time or another, we’ve done battle under just about every circumstance imaginable, armed with everything from muskets to cruise missiles.  And, somehow, we’ve managed to do it all with the wrong Army.

That’s right, America has the wrong Army.  I don’t know how it happened, but it did.  We have the wrong Army.  It’s too small; it’s not deployed properly; it’s inadequately trained, and it doesn’t have the right sort of logistical support.  It’s a shambles.  I have no idea how those guys even manage to fight.

Now, before my brothers and sisters of the OD green persuasion get their fur up, I have another revelation for you.  We also have the wrong Navy.  And if you want to get down to brass tacks, we’ve got the wrong Air Force, the wrong Marine Corps, and the wrong Coast Guard.

Don’t believe me?  Pick up a newspaper or turn on your television.  In the past week, I’ve watched or read at least a dozen commentaries on the strength, size, and deployment of our military forces.  All of our uniform services get called on the carpet for different reasons, but our critics unanimously agree that we’re doing pretty much everything wrong.

I think it’s sort of a game.  The critics won’t tell you what the game is called, so I’ve taken the liberty of naming it myself.  I call it the ‘No Right Answer’ game.  It’s easy to play, and it must be a lot of fun because politicos and journalists can’t stop playing it.

I’ll teach you the rules.  Here’s Rule #1: No matter how the U.S. military is organized, it’s the wrong force.  Actually, that’s the only rule in this game.  We don’t really need any other rules, because that one applies in all possible situations.  Allow me to demonstrate…

If the Air Force’s fighter jets are showing their age, critics will tell us that Air Force leaders are mismanaging their assets, and endangering the safety of their personnel.  If the Air Force attempts to procure new fighter jets, they are shopping for toys and that money could be spent better elsewhere.  Are you getting the hang of the game yet?  It’s easy; keeping old planes is the wrong answer, but getting new planes is also the wrong answer.  There is no right answer, not ever.  Isn’t that fun?

It works everywhere.  When the Army is small, it’s TOO small.  Then we start to hear phrases like ‘over-extended’ or ‘spread too thin,’ and the integrity of our national defense is called into question.  When the Army is large, it’s TOO large, and it’s an unnecessary drain on our economy.  Terms like ‘dead weight,’ and ‘dead wood’ get thrown around.

I know what you’re thinking.  We could build a medium-sized Army, and everyone would be happy.  Think again.  A medium-sized Army is too small to deal with large scale conflicts, and too large to keep military spending properly muzzled.  The naysayers will attack any middle of the road solution anyway, on the grounds that it lacks a coherent strategy.  So small is wrong, large is wrong, and medium-sized is also wrong.  Now you’re starting to understand the game.  Is this fun, or what?

No branch of the military is exempt.  When the Navy builds aircraft carriers, we are told that we really need small, fast multipurpose ships.  When the Navy builds small, fast multi-mission ships (aka the Arleigh Burke class), we’re told that blue water ships are poorly suited for littoral combat, and we really need brown water combat ships.  The Navy’s answer, the Littoral Combat, isn’t even off the drawing boards yet, and the critics are already calling it pork barrel politics and questioning the need for such technology.  Now I’ve gone nose-to-nose with hostiles in the littoral waters of the Persian Gulf, and I can’t recall that pork or politics ever entered into the conversation.  In fact, I’d have to say that the people trying to kill me and my shipmates were positively disinterested in the internal wranglings of our military procurement process.

The fun never stops when we play the ‘No Right Answer’ game.  If we centralize our military infrastructure, the experts tell us that we are vulnerable to attack.  We’re inviting another Pearl Harbor.  If we decentralize our infrastructure, we’re sloppy and overbuilt, and the BRAC experts, break out the calculators and start dismantling what they call our ‘excess physical capacity.’ If we leave our infrastructure unchanged, we are accused of becoming stagnant in a dynamic world environment.

Even the lessons of history are not sacrosanct.  When we learn from the mistakes we made in past wars, we are accused of failing to adapt to emerging realities.  When we shift our eyes toward the future, the critics quickly tell us that we’ve forgotten our history and we are therefore doomed to repeat it.  If we somehow manage to assimilate both past lessons and emerging threats, we’re informed that we lack focus.

Where does it come from: this default assumption that we are doing the wrong thing, no matter what we happen to be doing?  How did our military wind up in a zero-sum game?  We can prevail on the field of battle, but we can’t win a war of words where the overriding assumption is that we are always in the wrong.

I can’t think of a single point in History where our forces were of the correct size, the correct composition, correctly deployed, and appropriately trained all at the same time.  Pick a war, any war.  (For that matter, pick any period of peace.) Then dig up as many official and unofficial historical documents, reports, reconstructions, and commentaries as you can.  For every unbiased account you uncover, you’ll find three commentaries by revisionist historians who cannot wait to tell you how badly the U.S.  military bungled things.  To hear the naysayers tell it, we could take lessons in organization and leadership from the Keystone Cops.

We really only have one defense against this sort of mudslinging. Success.  When we fight, we win, and that’s got to count for something.  When asked to comment on Operation Desert Storm, the U.S.  Army’s Lieutenant General Tom Kelly reportedly said, “Iraq went from the fourth-largest army in the world, to the second-largest army in Iraq in 100 hours.” In my opinion, it’s hard to argue with that kind of success, but critics weren’t fazed by it.  Because no matter how well we fought, we did it with the wrong Army.

I’d like to close with an invitation to those journalists, analysts, experts, and politicians who sit up at night dreaming up new ways to criticize our armed forces.  The next time you see a man or woman in uniform, stop for ten seconds and reflect upon how much you owe that person, and his or her fellow Sailors, Marines, Soldiers, and Airmen.  Then say, “Thank you.” I’m betting you won’t even have to explain the reason.  Our Service members are not blind or stupid.  They know what they’re risking.  They know what they’re sacrificing.  They’ve weighed their wants, their needs, and their personal safety against the needs of their nation, and made the decision to serve. They know that they deserve our gratitude, even if they rarely receive it.

Two words—that’s all I ask.  “Thank you.” If that’s too hard, if you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge the dedication, sincerity and sacrifice of your defenders, then I have a backup plan for you.  Put on a uniform and show us how to do it right.

Posted by The Skipper     on 07/01/2005 at 10:50 AM   
Filed Under: • Military •  
• Comments (15) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Most Ridiculous Item Of The Day

Hooter Shooters. Your favorite adult beverage dispensed from your favorite adult dispenser ....

Posted by The Skipper     on 07/01/2005 at 07:24 AM   
Filed Under: • Miscellaneous •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

TOLL OF HONOR:  CONVOY PQ-17

THE CONVOY

Convoy PQ-17, the war’s worst disaster convoy, sailed from Hvalfiord, Iceland, on 27 JUN 1942 at 1600 hours, local time.

To famous actor Douglas Fairbanks Jr., USNR, Admiral Giffen’s flag lieutenant aboard the cruiser USS Wichita CA-45, the ships of PQ-17—thirty-five of them, along with three rescue ships and two fleet oilers—waddled out of harbor “like so many dirty ducks.” Fairbanks (among others) felt profound misgivings about the voyage ahead.  USS Wichita was assigned to the Cruiser Support Force that would accompany the convoy, and Fairbanks would keep a diary of his experience.

“No honors or salutes were paid to them as they passed, such as there are for naval vessels.  But every one who was watching paid them a silent tribute and offered them some half-thought prayer.”

Hardly were the ships clear of Hvalfiord when one of them ran aground, holed itself, and had to return to port.  More than one superstitious seaman saw this as an ill omen….

”What a cargo for the Russians; what a prize for the enemy!  Seven hundred million dollars’ worth of armaments—297 aircraft, 594 tanks, 4246 lorries and gun carriers, and over 156,000 tons of general cargo besides—enough to equip and army of fifty thousand men if it ever arrived in Russian ports.”

--David Irving, The Destruction of Convoy PQ-17

Northabout Iceland the ships would sail, and then steer northeast, across the dreary, heaving wastes of the Norwegian Sea, one of the most inhospitable expanses of water in the world.  They would pass the wastrel, volcanic rock of Jan Mayen Island, and then aim northabout German-occupied Norway, passing far north of the British Isles on the most savage, the most grueling, and the most hated ocean lifeline of the war.

”Do you know what it’s like up there, between Jan Mayen and Bear Island on a February night?….Of course you don’t.  Do you know what it’s like when there’s 60 degrees of frost in the Arctic—and it still doesn’t freeze?  Do you know what it’s like when the wind, 20 degrees below zero, comes screaming off the polar and Greenland icecaps and slices through the thickest clothing like a scalpel?  When there’s five hundred tons of ice on the deck, where five minutes’ direct exposure means frostbite, where the bows crash down into a trough and the spray hits you as solid ice, where even a torch battery dies out in the intense cold?”

--Alistair MacLean, HMS Ulysses

Since it was summertime and the Arctic pack ice was in retreat, the ships of Convoy PQ-17 would steer north of that humped upthrust of desolation known as Bear Island, roughly halfway between Norway’s North Cape and the Spitzbergen Islands.  They would thus put as much distance as possible between themselves and the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine bases in northern Norway.

Posted by Tannenberg     on 07/01/2005 at 06:23 AM   
Filed Under: • History •  
• Comments (12) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner