Ryan's profileMrRyManPhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
|
MrRyManLife is what you make of it... May 17 10 sex mistakes women make...
Quote
Tunnel Harry - Interesting
Quote
TELL THE SENATE TO STOP BLOCKING DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION
Quote TELL THE SENATE TO STOP BLOCKING DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION Misc...
Quote
Misc II...
Quote
Real change requires real honesty!
Quote
Reply from Senator Sherrod Brown (why we need to vote conservatives into office)!Thank you for writing in regard to the McConnell-Domenici amendment to the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act (S.2284). I support economically sound, environmentally safe extraction of our nation’s energy reserves and efforts to develop clean coal technologies. However, I believe our major focus should be on shifting away from fossil fuel dependence and toward the development and production of clean, renewable energy. The McConnell-Domenici amendment was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 42-56. High gas prices are hurting Ohio families and businesses, but drilling off the coasts or in pristine regions of Alaska would do little to relieve prices at the pump. In fact, it is likely we would not see a drop of oil from these locations for 10 to 20 years. While there is no cure all for our energy problems, I believe there are steps that can be taken to offer some short-term relief for consumers. I support temporarily suspending contributions to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, greater oversight of energy speculators manipulating the cost of oil, and tougher enforcement against energy cartels like the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. While you and I may not agree on all facets of our nation’s energy policy, I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue. I will continue to work for sound, sustainable energy production that benefits Ohioans. Thank you again for writing. Sincerely, Sherrod Brown May 04 Days of Infamy: Active History and the Teaching of HistoryDays of Infamy: Active History and the Teaching of History
Posted 04/29/2008 ET
This week our new novel, Days of Infamy, is being published by St. Martin's Press. Days of Infamy is the sequel to Pearl Harbor, (just released in paperback) and carries on the story of "what might have been" if a different, more aggressive commander -- Admiral Yamamoto -- had led the Japanese Fleet in their surprise attack at Pearl Harbor in December, 1941.
The Wrong Admiral for the Wrong JobIn real history, the Japanese high command assigned their Pearl Harbor strike force of six aircraft carriers to Admiral Chuichi Nagumo. If ever there was an assignment of the wrong man for the wrong job, it was this one. From the beginning of his forty-year career, Nagumo had been trained in surface warfare, especially the use of destroyers and cruisers as "hit and run" weapons. Thinking like a destroyer commander, he always saw the attack on Pearl Harbor as a "hit and run" raid: Go in, strike, then get out as fast as possible. He believed, as did most admirals in virtually every navy in 1941, that the battleship was the key to victory -- and that the aircraft carrier was just a vulnerable and limited auxiliary to the battleship. Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of VictoryThe real history of Pearl Harbor demonstrates the results of Nagumo's caution and traditionalism. After the two initial air raids, Americans forces on Oahu were wide open for total destruction. Our repair shops, dry docks, five million precious barrels of oil stockpiled in flimsy tanks, and especially our aircraft carriers (which luck, or fate, had placed outside the harbor that morning) were all vulnerable to renewed attack. The Japanese could have inflicted grievous additional blows. But a cautious "hit and run" admiral ordered an immediate retreat instead, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Thus our fascination with what we call "active history." Pearl Harbor asked readers to consider how profoundly different December 7, 1941, would have been if, instead of a cautious "hit and run" commander, the attack on Pearl Harbor had been led by Admiral Yamamoto, a man who understood the value of aircraft carriers and air power and whose goal was to wipe the slate clean on the first day of the war, sinking all of our carriers and gaining total air superiority across the Pacific. Days of Infamy picks up where Pearl Harbor left off and invites readers to imagine how the ensuing battle in the Pacific might have been different with a small but significant twist in history. Making History Come Alive"Active history" is a concept my co-author, historian William Forstchen, and I developed a few years back (along with Albert Hanser, a contributing editor of all our books) to get people more interested in the leaders and events that have made us who we are. We were tired of history being taught in a boring way that forces students to memorize dates and events. That method makes people think of history as something to "get through" rather than something to enjoy, think about, argue over, and discuss. As history professors (all three of us have doctorates in history and have taught with enthusiasm and excitement) we wanted to inject excitement and a dynamic sense of "what might have been" into the study and teaching of history. So we developed the concept of active history. Active history teaches readers the events that have shaped their lives by inviting them to compare what actually happened with what might have happened. It shows how the wisdom -- and the folly -- of decisions made in the past impact our lives today, and how our decisions, in turn, will effect our children and grandchildren. Gettysburg, Grant Comes East, Never Call Retreat, and Pearl HarborIn Gettysburg, Grant Comes East, and Never Call Retreat we developed an active history version of the Civil War beginning with Lee winning at Gettysburg (which General Bob Scales and Colonel Leonard Fullenkamp of the Army War College helped us develop and think through). In Pearl Harbor we began applying the model of active history to World War II in the Pacific. Many years ago we wrote 1945 as an active history of WWII in Europe involving Germany, but we decided that for a longer series we wanted to focus on the Pacific. Even as Asia is becoming more and more important to the United States economically and militarily, much of the history of twentieth-century Asia has not been fully explored and written about. Admiral Yamamoto: A Risk-Taking Air Power AdvocateIn real history Admiral Yamamoto was both the intellectual force behind the Japanese naval strategy in 1941 and a leading advocate of naval airpower. He had commanded an aircraft carrier and was head of the Japanese navy's aeronautics department. He had presided over the development of several Japanese naval aircraft and had thought long and hard about the use of aircraft carriers. From a novelist's perspective there is an additional aspect of Yamamoto's personality that is intriguing. He was a very successful gambler. He had won a lot of money at poker while serving in the United States and had been successful in the casinos of Monte Carlo while serving in Europe. A Dramatically More Aggressive and Daring Japanese AttackIn Pearl Harbor, our decisive, active history plot twist was to shift from the timid, battleship-oriented Nagumo to the gambling, airpower advocate Yamamoto. We showed the initial evolution of a dramatically more aggressive and daring air attack. Many students of the Pearl Harbor attack have wondered what would have happened if there had been a third wave of attack late in the day on December 7. In Pearl Harbor we give them our interpretation of that event. In our active history there is a third wave launched at the now virtually defenseless naval and air facilities. Virtually all of the American aircraft had been destroyed on the ground in the first wave, and those who had gotten into the air were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of Japanese aircraft. If Yamamoto Had Commanded, Would He Have Left After Just One Day?Now, in Days of Infamy, we ask a simple question: Would Admiral Yamamoto, knowing that he had complete air superiority, have left after just one day of attacks? We suggest that, unlike Nagumo, who wanted to leave as quickly as possible, Yamamoto would have planned for the possibility of staying two or three extra days. That means, for one thing, that he would have had to bring his tankers closer to Hawaii for the refueling needed for his destroyers. And how would Yamamoto have evaluated the first day's success? Where Nagumo focused on the sinking of the American battleships and felt very successful, we believe Yamamoto would have focused on the absence of the American aircraft carriers in the harbor that morning and would have felt very frustrated and almost in danger of failure. Two Different Leaders, Two Different HistoriesThese two different views of what happened on December 7, 1941, demonstrate the importance of personality and doctrine in leaders. Nagumo believed in a weapons system of the past. Yamamoto believed in the weapons system of the future. Therefore, they could look at the same evidence and reach exactly the opposite conclusions. Nagumo was timid, tended to avoid risks, and valued safety for his ships over damaging the enemy's ships. Yamamoto was a gambler, a calculating risk taker, very aggressive, and focused on how many American ships he could sink -- not how many Japanese ships he could keep safe. This intersection of personality and doctrine leads to a dramatic difference in how two different leaders would have fought at Pearl Harbor. The Hunt for the Saratoga, the Lexington and the EnterpriseIn Days of Infamy we carry the story to its next logical stage. Admiral Yamamoto, having achieved decisive surprise on Sunday morning and having established complete air and sea superiority over the America forces, is now in a position to hunt for the missing American aircraft carriers. The Japanese believe there are three American aircraft carriers in the Hawaiian Islands. Actually one of them, the Saratoga, has gone to Bremerton, Washington for refitting in such secrecy that the Japanese do not know it is gone (in real history, the Saratoga was actually pulling into San Diego on its way back from refitting on December 7). The Lexington is near Midway where it is delivering aircraft (it would turn back, keeping the aircraft with it). The Enterprise is on the way back from Wake Island, having delivered aircraft there. Halsey versus Yamamoto in the PacificAdmiral Halsey is in command of the Enterprise task force. He was America's most aggressive admiral. It is not surprising, then, that Halsey's reaction to the news of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor is to hunt the Japanese. Given Yamamoto's willingness to take risks and Admiral Halsey's confidence, it is easy to imagine the two of them aggressively seeking to destroy each other's forces in the battle that begins on December 8, the day after Pearl Harbor. And that is where Days of Infamy begins.... Your friend,
P.S. -- I've heard from many of you about my new ad with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. As I've said before, I believe that protecting the environment is an issue that conservatives must take seriously in order to promote innovative, entrepreneurial solutions to our environmental challenges rather than the regulation, litigation, and bureaucracy advocated by the left. If you have thoughts on this topic or would like to join in our ongoing discussion about Green Conservatism just click here. P.P.S. -- A big week of endorsements and adoptions for the Platform of the American people! The Nevada GOP held their state convention this weekend and adopted 13 planks/principles from the Platform of the American People into their party platform! They also pledge to hold Nevada elected officials and those running to be Nevada elected officials accountable to the items in their platform. This is an example of what conventions and platform building should truly be about. Read more about the Nevada convention and see which planks they adopted! U.S. Representative, Kay Granger (R-TX) endorsed the Platform of the American People this week! Join the excitement! Sign up to be a part of the movement! And, as always, stay tuned to americansolutions.com for more updates. Misc...Global-warming costing skeptics to lose funding... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353023,00.html
Blame Clinton & the Greens for gas prices... http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2008/hl_04281.shtml
Truckers take fuel fight to D.C.... http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080429/BUSINESS/238350450/1001 Mysterious light baffles town? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353116,00.html
Good news for XP! http://blogs.zdnet.com/computers/?p=161&tag=nl.e622
Again, what is up with this? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353059,00.html
Cher and Tom Cruise? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353340,00.html
More health care stuff... http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/april/0429_mccain_credit.shtml
The Supreme Court is rocking... http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/april/0429_voter_id1.shtml
Pushing drugs... http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2008/hrs_04281.shtml
McCain I or Bush III? http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/sparker/2008/sp_04281.shtml
Bush tweaks candidates... http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/april/0428_bush_candidates.shtml
Student loan bill... http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/april/0428_student_loans.shtml
Obama to support Petraeus? http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=699
Rev: Wright: The gift that keeps on giving... http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=701
Clinton: $2.3B in earmarks... http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-2.3b-in-earmarks-2008-04-28.html
Cig smuggling funnels $ to terror groups... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353017,00.html When will we admit the truth about Barack Obama?When Will We Admit the Truth About Barack Obama? If you interview someone for a job, you'll expect him to tell you what you want to hear. There'll be a facade, and his darker side will remain well-hidden. Now, let's say a requirement for the job is that the applicant likes children, and he does his best Captain Kangaroo. But then you find out he has a job history of indifference to and perhaps even abuse of them and that, during unguarded moments, he has expressed disdain for them. What will you believe, what he tries to sell you or history and hair-down revelations? Remember this when evaluating the profound discrepancy between Barack Obama's damage-control denials and flowery rhetoric, and his long track record. Understand that he, like the other candidates, is interviewing for the job of president with you, the interviewer. His job is to bend the truth; your job is to discern it. The only question is: Who will do a better job, he or you? Either Obama really is a savior for the third millennium, or the answer is that he is, thus far, besting many of you. Millions flock to him, registering oohs and ahs, fainting and fawning. Even critics and watchdogs heap praise upon him; Bill O'Reilly said he likes Obama and Sean Hannity proclaimed him a "good man." But what is the truth about this applicant? Let me tell you a story. In 2002, President Bush signed into law a bill titled the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" (BAIPA). This law was necessary because, believe it or not, infants were being born alive during attempted abortions and then, ancient Spartan style, left to die. Jill Stanek wrote about this last year, saying: (web site)
The act was so vile that even staunch abortion advocates would not oppose BAIPA. Stanek tells us that it passed the Senate by unanimous vote, garnering the support of senators Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton. She then pointed out: "The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme." But the state version of BAIPA failed for years in Illinois. Any guesses as to why? Stanek goes on to explain:
If asked about this, I'm sure Obama would be a very effective interviewee; he is good with words. (Of course, one is better with words when they're managed by a sympathetic media.) Yet, when you look beyond the rhetoric, a picture of Obama starts to emerge. There are his damnable associations. We know about William Ayers, the college professor and "education advisor" who, as a Weather Underground terrorist in the 1970s, planted bombs in a campaign against our government. You might point out that this was three decades ago, but know that Ayers is unrepentant and wishes that he had planted more bombs. What does this piece of history teach us? For starters, it is one thing to understand something is wrong; it is another to feel it. Emotion is a stronger motivator than logic (Captain Kirk had the passion, not Mr. Spock). My point is, given Obama's cordial dealings with Ayers - a man with whom many wouldn't break bread - I'm left to wonder how much terrorism really bothers the senator on a visceral level. If his tolerance for the Weatherman is any indication, we have to ask: As president, would his zeal match that of our Islamist foes? Or will Osama bin Laden be a department chair in the Ivy League? Then there is the now infamous Reverend Wright, the man of the cloth poised to move into a house with a 10-million-dollar line of credit. His bigoted, virulently anti-American bile has received enough press so that I don't have to provide a complete run-down, but this is a man who equated America with al-Qaeda, said we deserved 9/11, made anti-white statements, and called our nation "the US of KKKA." This prompted, as you know, a well-crafted and rendered speech on race by the interviewee (as the infanticide story, should it receive enough play, may inspire a speech on the sanctity of life), but, again, what is the reality behind the words? Obama called Wright a friend, mentor and uncle; he had a 20-year relationship with him, during which time he attended Wright's church; he was married and had his child baptized by the reverend; and last year he donated $26,000 to the church. Yet some would give Obama credit for not casting his friend to the winds. After all, the interviewee said that he "cannot disown him." But my question is: Why, Mr. Obama, did you ever own him in the first place? So we again have to wonder about his emotional constitution, his heart. Even if he doesn't share Wright's passion for the hate, he certainly was tolerant of it - and I suspect sympathetic to it. And a man is known by the company he keeps. The woman he marries is some indication, too. Michelle Obama vigorously advocated partial-birth abortion (which is also infanticide) in 2004, and we all know about her notorious pronouncement: "For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country." As for the comment, it has caused many to question her patriotism and apologists to counsel against rash judgment. But the truth is plain. As I'm sure Jesse Lee Peterson - a black minister and the president of B.O.N.D. - would tell you, anti-American sentiment typifies leftist blacks (it's quite common among leftist whites, too). Think about it: How many blacks on the left can you think of who don't fit that mold? It's a consequence of imbibing the philosophy of hatred and bitterness dispensed by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other racial hustlers. Then we have Obama's moment of honesty in San Francisco. As a refresher, here is what he said: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years . . . . And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Many have labeled these comments elitist, and Obama has been trying to explain them away. But, again, the truth is plain. Apologists have asserted that Bill Clinton expressed the same sentiments in 1992; in other words, the best they can muster is that Obama is just like Clinton. And that is the point. Obama is a leftist, Clinton is a leftist, and that's what leftists believe about "flyover country," just as Michelle Obama's statement reflects what they believe about the whole country. You needn't be clairvoyant to discern it. To understand what is most striking about those comments, though, you have to look more deeply. Notice he mentioned "religion" in the same breath as "guns" and "antipathy to people," sandwiched right in-between the two. It's hard to escape the conclusion that he draws an equivalency among those things, which speaks volumes. If you're a person of faith, you understand that we're supposed to cling to religion. After all, if you are serious about your faith, you must believe it is the Truth and that it is God's will that you should practice it. And why wouldn't you have the Truth at the center of your life? The only kind of person who wouldn't have this perspective is one who has little or no faith. That certainly wouldn't make Obama unique, but remember that he has often masqueraded as a man of faith, just as he now touts his support for second-amendment rights (in 1999 he supported a law (web site) that would have eliminated gun stores from virtually the whole country). But this bespeaks of a reality: There is Obama the myth, and Obama the man. If you want to know the former, listen to what he says; if you want to know the latter, accept what he is. And what is he? What is the truth about Barack Obama? You won't hear it from the Sean Hannitys of the world, who will tell us that he is a "good man" with bad ideology. Such people are simply telling you what they're supposed to believe; it's what "fair and balanced" commentators do, the stuff of "acceptable" conservatives. The truth about Obama is that he is not a good man. He is a bad man. Good men don't turn a blind eye to unrepentant ex-terrorists; support vile, anti-American bigots; lie about their core beliefs; and look down on traditional Americans. Most significantly, good men don't allow beautiful babies - the least among us - to be discarded like refuse and die miserable, lonely deaths in dark utility rooms. In fact, if we cannot call Obama a bad man, there is no such thing as a bad man. And calling him a good man doesn't just strain credulity; it puts it in the hospital in traction. Ah, yes, hope, change, unity, infanticide, bigotry, terrorism, Obama . . . good? We all know what is wrong with this picture. |
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
