There is a book published during the middle of the George W. Bush years titled “What’s The Matter With Kansas?” The general theme of this book and, as I understand it, much of liberal thought on conservatism, can be summed up with a conversation I had with a professor from The Johnson Graduate School of Management.

We were at an informal weekend seminar course the professor was conducting. We were eating lunch as a small group of about fifteen, and although I do not remember the exact context in which the discussion began, I will never forget her statement. She had made the assumption that I was of like political mind (as all good liberal educators are wont to do, in my experience), and she was relating an anecdote of her young son’s inquiry into the ignorance of low-income conservatives. I do not remember how old she said he was (although pre-teen comes to mind), but the gist of it was the son asked his mother why the poor farmers in upstate New York were overwhelmingly Republican when it was so clearly in their financial interests to vote Democrat. The professor proceeded to laughingly explain, in a very serious way, that it was because the farmers all thought they would be rich someday, and they wanted to protect their future interests. This reaction would be ridiculous on its face, not to mention extremely offensive, if it didn’t so aptly reflect the stated beliefs of leading liberal thinkers, as evidenced by the aforementioned best selling book to largely the same effect. So let me take this opportunity to offer a counter perspective.

The assumption is that poor, rural types who are conservative, to take another quote from our esteemed President, cling to their “religion and guns” at the expense of their economic interests because they are too ignorant to know any better. Further, it is the liberal’s job to break those social prejudices down until one day we can finally realize the great, liberal socialist utopia dreamed of for so long. But what if it is the exact opposite of those assumptions that is the truth?

Ask yourself why it is that conservatives would generally want to make voting more of a responsibility (trying to require crazy things like identification and possibly even a single day in which to vote, among other radical and obviously “racist” ideas) and less of a whimsical right (allowing voting anywhere, by anyone, at anytime, in any way, all in the name of “duty”)? Might it be because the very overly complicated and “nuanced” ideas from the left (to whit, a simplified[!] summary: “Leave it to us and we will provide everything to you from cradle to grave and you will barely have to lift a finger! We will make everybody equal! Hallelujah!”) are in fact appeals to our most base, heartfelt, and unthinking emotions? Might we consider giving those ignorant conservatives the slightest credit for thinking their very personal economic interests are actually better cared for by the self interests of macro free market economic principles as seen by even the most cursory–indeed, the most studied–of glances at history?

The answer is obviously an easy one for me. The liberal ideal is the most populist and basic appeal, that which tells us that if we just leave it to the smart people to run and organize everything (from Stalin’s Commanding Heights, if you will), all will be well for us, the common folk. Whereas the conservative message, the one that relies on millions of little, individual, disconnected, and self – interested (invisible) hands working in unsynchronized harmony to lift all of our lives into higher levels of comfort across all socio-economic, racial, and cultural lines and in all aspects of life, is the one that requires the greater understanding and analysis. You will, of course, decide for yourself which makes the most sense, I only ask you to give a little more credit to the farmers in both upstate New York and mid-west Kansas. Along with everywhere else they may try to cling to the very cultures and economic principles that have provided so much to so many, as maybe there isn’t anything wrong with them at all, if you think about it.

Way back when in the halcyon days of the debt crisis, I saw some interview by a jackass on MSNBC (I understand the description is self-evidentiary, much like the term ‘compassionate conservative’ but I repeat myself nonetheless) asking Rand Paul if he understood the public’s anger with politicians in not being able to get things done. This is a common theme among the pontificators (present company excluded – I think you all get just what you deserve; me, I am clearly a victim of happenstance), that if only the adults could get together and put all their silliness and egos and, most importantly, that evil word ‘ideology,’ aside, we could move forward with the perfect blend of government solution and all be the better for it. This is often the same impetus for that ever saving grace of the third party (you know, the party that will finally just do what is best without any personal bias involved at all) and the high esteem and glory in which the unsullied and beautiful ‘independent’ mind is held.

This last came to mind recently with some nonsensical article in the New York Times (I know, I know, always the redundant one am I) about a woman who talked about how rude Mitt Romney was on a flight that she happened to be seated next to him on, and how he wouldn’t listen to her ‘solutions’ on health care reform (her being a doctor, or medical expert or something, it was not clear what, but the basis was that she was a valid authority), but wanted to read instead. Now, putting aside the merits of his brush off (I am thinking 9 out of 10 voters agree the loudmouth plane passenger is a problem we all wish to avoid), the point was how the article tried to make it clear she did not have a political agenda and had voted for Republicans and Democrats and was politically solidly in the middle.

And this is what we have to destroy if we are ever going to move forward. The liberals will always be liberal. Some genetic defect that makes them think their wishes can come true if they can just manage to put it in writing. The same defect that enables them to disregard that everything they try to do, they do with the very force and weaponry, if in a much more subtle way, that they so publicly abhor and disdain. The same defect that enables them to live in such grossly hypocritical ways, well espousing and enforcing the very policies that destroy lives on a daily basis. Yeah, that trait will always be around.

But the independent has some faint hope, in theory. In theory they might be swayed to understand the folly in their allegiance to amorphousness (allegiance to amorphity had a better ring to it, but the dictionary tells me that is not a word, so, oh well, but feel free to go back and try it my way, it works better, right?). So lets try.

I have broken it down thusly after minutes and minutes of serious thought, and here is how I would put it (I have put it this way before; I never said the thought was recent):

The liberal looks at history, sees pain and sorrow, and believes what they believe and wants to legislate as such because they really, really want it to be that way.

The conservative looks at history, sees pain and sorrow, and believes what they believe because they see that this is the way that has provided the most security, freedom, and welfare for the most people, so it kind of makes sense to keep doing it.

The independent looks at history, maybe, sometimes, if they get a chance, and they might see pain and suffering, they might see elephants and turtles, or they might see a bright light, and although they are not really sure what they have seen or what they believe, they are definitely sure, that whatever it is, they want it to be for the best for everybody and why can’t people just get along and figure it out, already.

Yeah, that about sums it up.

Of course, this is ridiculous. And it needs to be spoken of as such by those who are involved in the business. The idea that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are even on the same planet of thought as Mitch McConnell or John Boehner defies rational thought. And basically this holds true for both parties and the vast majority of the people involved. If you think you can vote Republican one year and then Democrat two years later and not see a mess of gridlock, then you are a fool. And you need to choose a side. If it is the liberal side, God bless, lets get the destruction over quickly so we can start to rebuild again just as quickly. If it is conservative, then do it, and stop holding your nose because Brad Pitt or Tom Hanks can pretend to be something they aren’t and use their down time to think they know something else entirely unrelated.

The problem conservatives have, of course, is that politicians first and foremost, of all parties and all stripes, care about their job ahead of all else, some semblance of praise and adoration secondly, and then maybe actually helping the people who elected them. And because the media is dominated by the radical left, their only hope for that praise and adulation, not to mention their job if it is dependent on the sacred independents who take their cue from that very marxist media, is to talk and speak in terms of ‘compromise’ and ‘moderation’ and the ‘middle.’

People always talk about Reagan as being held in such high regard because of his optimism or conservatism, but I think it was because he genuinely didn’t care about appeasing the press or the middle. He might compromise if it was appropriate, but he did it on his terms, for his purposes, based on his beliefs, not because the press would then praise him and the middle would trust him further. The middle most certainly came to him, not the other way around.

So, what I wish Rand Paul would have said to those people who were so upset that the two parties could not agree was along the lines of you only have yourselves to blame. One side of the political debate wants us to be Europe. Not only that, they want us to be Europe without the protections Europe has been afforded by America. Not only that, they want us to be Europe without the benefits of the advances and developments that, the vast majority of which, come from the American free market and creative mind fostered by an independent and self reliant cultural ethos. Not only that, but they want us to be Europe without the 1000 year old art and architecture that draws the world on a constant basis to help sustain a corrupt and bankrupt economic model through $15 cups of coffee in a Venetian Piazza (no, I am not bitter about that bill at all). Sounds like a shitty place to me.

The other party wants to keep America the same America that has been the single greatest force for freedom, economic development, quality of life, length of life, and personal empowerment the world has ever known. The same America that protects all the world from the only other form of dominance the world has ever known, which is tyranny. The same America that has created the world’s economic, business, sporting, entertainment, fashion, food and cultural products that are enjoyed, practiced, and modeled on the world over (even the self styled elite 10% or so who hate Microsoft, Starbucks, McDonalds, Hollywood, Wells Fargo, The Gap, the NBA or whatever and the like probably use them quite frequently all the same).

Yeah, it is a tough choice, I know, but if you are an independent, it is the choice you have, it is not really very close, and you need to make it so we can get on with things one way or the other. It is not the politicians who are unclear or unable, it is that ever so sanctified independent, and that is the problem.

Now, I suppose if you wanted to be technical, Taipei is not exactly America’s to trade, nor Pyongyang China’s. However, if you think of it more in terms of support, both explicit and understood, maybe it makes a little more sense.  And in this regard I believe that the United States should approach China in a back room negotiation and work out a system whereby the United States would withdraw its support and military from Taiwan and in exchange China would no longer support or aid the North Korean government. Now because this seems to be an initial loss for the USA, as it would lose strategic military bases and be betraying a historic and important ally and in return still not be in that much better a position or have enough incentive or motivation to make any real changes in North Korea, I think there should be a kind of player to be named later, if you will, thrown in by the Chinese. But that can be worked out in the details.

But the bottom line is that Korea (north and south) is a historically aligned and culturally connected country as is Taiwan and China. And although the ideal scenario would be to maintain Taiwan’s independence and eventually unite North and South Korea under a united democracy, the fact is that both of those are likely never to happen because of the Chinese interests and influence. Therefore, if there is a way to get one of the two, with the main costs being the professions of a bunch of Taiwanese politicians, then I think it should be worked out. I know, I know, it is more than the politicians. But really, how much more? Assuming the same kind of integration that occurred with Hong Kong returning to China, how different are the lives of the citizens of that country since then? My guess is not that much.

And the flip side, of course, is that the lives of millions of people currently living under one of the worst regimes in the history of the world would improve immensely if action was then taken, knowing the Chinese would not aid or resist, to finish the evil that is North Korea once and for all. Would that action be taken and how would it is something that could be determined at a later date, but it certainly would change the dynamic in a significant way if the Chinese were no longer an issue when the USA addressed North Korea.

And in the end, it is truly only a matter of time before China eventually feels strong enough to call America’s bluff. And a bluff it most surely is, and everyone involved knows it. Yes, technically the idea of attacking America, even if just in the Formosa Straight, is not one to be trifled with nor taken lightly, and it has served its purpose well over the last so many odd years. However, in the end when it is a matter of taking on one of the most powerful countries (that would be China) in the world for a tiny island (that would be Taiwan) with historic and cultural ties to that power (China again), when that very confrontation would almost be the purpose of China’s eventual aggression, to allow that country to finally establish itself as the power it knows it will be, America will back down, there is no doubt. So we should try to get something out of it before the inevitable happens.

As for North Korea, well, I know what I think should happen, but that is an argument that  has been beaten to death over the years and certainly recently. But it does bring to mind another of my favorite ironic hypocrisies of the left. What I call the ‘Free Tibet’ liberal. These are the people you see with the bumper sticker proclaiming their desire to ‘Free Tibet!’ After all, it is a beautiful country of peaceful non-capitalistic monks, who, even if no liberal would actually live there, preserves the proper vision of what the liberal wants to think he believes in; and said monks live like, and keep the museum like atmosphere of the world that the liberal sees every impoverished ethnicity as their inherent right to keep impoverished, again for their ideal of purity and innocence in thought. And talking of freeing them from the oppressive domination of China also maintains their self delusion that they actually care for these things. But, as in entities like Amnesty International and the like who threw fits over Bush and others using their reports as justification for any kind of actual action (in that case in Iraq), the moment tanks and planes might take off to actually try to ‘free’ Tibet, these same people would be out protesting with all their might these actions as war crimes and their instigators as akin to Hitler and his ilk (well, they would if it was a Republican, anyway).

Which is yet another example of why I firmly believe that liberals in America are responsible for more unnecessary pain and suffering in the world in ways both big and small than the worst of the worst tyrants in history. If Hitler or Stalin or Mao or whomever killed tens of millions through purge, extermination, war, or starvation, then the liberal of America is responsible for a billion little cuts with a resulting body count at least as high if bodies can be counted through grotesque poverty, intense daily emotional pain and struggle, and constant and excruciating hunger and sadness. Which it undoubtedly can.

Pat Denayer A bit disappointing to see my fellow Sinjoren line up for bad overpriced coffee simply because it is a US chain. Here in the US, only idiots (and we have plenty of those) are convinced the cheap over-burned substance, served at Starbucks, is actually coffee. The result of good marketing targeted at a snobby uneducated audience. Hey, I guess we have plenty ‘I stand in line because … well there is a line and everyone else does it too’ idiots in Belgium too.

My favorite line in that is the idea that I am the snob because I like Starbucks (this was a posting on the Antwerp Starbucks Facebook page, which I visited after visiting the store and being particularly impressed with its size, comfort and service). I think the vast majority of us who like Starbucks like it because it serves drinks and food we like in an atmosphere in which we are comfortable. Definitely NOT because of some cool, chic cache that comes with doing so. Anybody who deals with anyone who thinks in those terms (unfortunately, some carry high school mentalities throughout life), knows without question it is definitively uncool and unhip to like Starbucks as far as those things go. Much better to like the dingy little local coffee shop that shows you know real coffee and you don’t sell out to the corporate kings and you have enough taste and class to look around for the real alternatives. Or something like that.

The point actually applies beyond Starbucks, of course, to anything that is both mass produced and popular to the masses. Whether that is Starbucks or Barnes and Noble or WalMart or McDonalds or PCs (or Britney Spears for that matter). Somehow the Apple family escapes this tragedy of success (which is more ironic in the light of how iPhones are made: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/arts/2011/10/18/2011-10-18_the_agony_and_the_ecstasy_of_steve_jobs_review_mike_daisey_tells_it_like_it_is_a.html). But I want to focus on McDonalds which often draws particular derision as the lowest of the low, but to my eyes is truly one of the greatest contributions to society of the 20th century, easily bettering any Apple product in terms of number of people who have benefited from it, of which the good liberal, as always, is too blinded by myopia to see.

I recently couchsurfed (www.couchsurfing.org) with a dude in Amsterdam. This man may have been certifiably insane by my political standards. But I wouldn’t want to give him that excuse as he already stays home on government income because he suffers from ‘anxiety’, which having spent a few days with him and seeing him perfectly strong willed, well informed, and physically capable, just was the perfect summation of the liberal dream; someone, somewhere will direct all the little people so that they will produce all our betters’ comforts, and they can stay home to write short stories or the like (his chosen hobby in betwixt couchsurfing and couchhosting).

But I digress, although I will certainly write an entire post on my stay with that gentleman, as I couldn’t have created a better caricature of liberal nonsense in totality if I had tried (i.e. his completely without irony or eye twinkling belief that Hollywood only produces crap movies, while it is the Nigerian film industry that is true art). But what brought him to mind was as we walked by a McDonalds (which surely caused him severe anxiety to see something that represented all he detested about America so vividly and constantly wherever he would go; maybe he should stay home and get his rest), he commented how awful it was that the poor African immigrants were so brainwashed by marketing into blowing all their money on such crappy food. Or something to that affect. Along the same lines I have many friends who won’t even walk into a McDonalds, or if they do grudgingly agree to go through a drive through for a friend (i.e. me), will only do so with their figurative nose pinched tight (hi if you are one of those and reading this).

Here is what I see when I go to McDonalds:

I see a place that children universally like and are excited by. Is it because they are brainwashed? Almost certainly, as they are brainwashed by Dora the Explorer or Sesame Street or their parents or whomever is trying to please, placate or teach them. And as far as brainwashing children go, I think something that gives these children joy as a place they can eat away from home, an exciting kind of food (for their admittedly developing tastes), and still be children (meaning not quiet) is a great thing.

I see a place where young travelers (and some older), usually liberal types – european, american, hispanic, or otherwise – who want to see the world on a shoestring, can have a clean place to sit and relax, have a cheap, but filling meal (can I be so bold as to suggest edible? tasty, even? no, no, I’ve gone too far), maybe use a clean bathroom, and maybe even pull out their laptop and get free internet access. And they do. In droves.

I see a place where the aforementioned African immigrants (not to mention the budget strapped family in Anywhere, USA or all over the world), can go to get out of the house, enjoy an evening out, and have a meal cooked for them at an inexpensive price.

I see a place where families the world over can experience international flavor (that would be the American hamburger – yes, even at McDonalds, which may not be a posh Thai restaurant in the cool part of town, but then again, most of us cannot afford nor do we care to visit such places).

I see a place where a man had a vision of providing a cheap hamburger, at an affordable price, in a fast and reliable manner, in a clean environment, and where you always knew what you were going to get. And for most of us, for most of the world, that is a great thing. It is only too bad that the liberal mind can only appreciate things in the context of their fantasy Utopia and looks at McDonalds, and its like, with such scorn and derision because the world just isn’t the way the want it to be.

But for me, thank you Mr. Kroc, you were truly a great man, and through your creation, millions of people the world over may smile a little more on any given day, even if in just the tiniest of ways, and for that you have earned the eternal scorn of our betters and elites. Interesting, isn’t it?

In James Clavelle’s ‘Shogun’ there is a scene where the captured Englishman is being taken care of in the Shogun’s palace and two of the women (one being the female protagonist and eventual love interest) are trying to tend to his needs as they would understand them. At first they offer him the comfort and companionship of two women, as if such an act is no different from offering him a good meal or comoftable bed. When he shows his puritan bred discomfort at this idea, they are confused, as no native Japanese would think or act in a similar manner. They then try to think of a better solution along the same lines (all without the benefit of like cultures or understandings) and offer him a boy or two instead. He then becomes enraged at the idea that they think he would be interested in such a thing. Again, to the Japanese they saw this as no different in terms of good or bad, just a matter of preference. At this point the Englishman is in a kind of rage at his perceived insults and the Japanese are confused as to how to please the foreigner. In an aside, the translator and the servant meant to please his guest discuss what the Englishman might want. At this point, in a side conversation, they take the approach that maybe he would be interested in a duck for his love considerations. But in fear that he will react the way he did to the idea of a boy, they think the best way might be to just put a duck in the room and let the man do what he wants with it, if that is his idea.

Now to western (and probably most eastern) ears, this of course seems anywhere from absurd to offensive to grotesque (much as it did or would to the character in the novel), and I have no idea how much artistic license the author took with Japanese norms and beliefs of the time, but I think there is a lesson there in terms of how we see the issue of marriage in 21st Century America. To me, it is enlightened. And no, it is not to denigrate or compare gay marriage to man-duck love, at least not anymore than it is to compare those to heterosexual marriage. The idea is instead, as all political discussion must, to understand what role government should play, if any, in our lives. And in this case, whether one wants to marry a man or woman, no matter ones sex, or a duck, the government should not play a role.

The idea that any government, of course, made up of nothing more than other people, who hold no right to decide my life’s moral basis or decisions, should have a say in this is antiquated at best, and simply another example of a long line of them of hypocrisies and outdated notions that are in direct contrast to the true meaning and beauty of the ideas and principles best laid out to date in the American Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.

If you believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman administered in a church by a man or woman of god, then that is what marriage should be to you. Therefore, if a man introduces you to his husband, you are free to counter, ‘Ah, but that is not a true marriage,’ at which point the two men are free to offer a counter-point of ‘Stick in your ass, you homophobe,’ at which the conversation can take any number of delightful paths. Likewise, if one believes that marriage is simply the commitment of two people, administered by any person of whatever credentialing, then one can use that as a barometer in judging ones judgers as worthy of consideration of one kind or another and equally draw the line of judgment on those human-duck cross species marriages and the like.

But the government should not be the tyranny of ‘truth’ one way or the other. The fallacy that the government should promote marriage as a means of societal stabilization is patently absurd on the face of the degree of seriousness taken by the large percentage of spouses as evidenced in the divorce rate. Looking at marriage for its aspirational meaning (not withstanding its actual uses), one shouldn’t wed for greater benefits in insurance or tax breaks any more than one should marry for money or looks alone (all of which undoubtedly end at the first lessening of those uses). And what marriage means is a matter of individual choice and belief, as is the subsequent admissions of legitimacy of other ‘marriages,’ not one to be decided either for the majority or in defense of the minority.

Go mary a duck, see if I care, just don’t try to demand some kind of financial compensation from me one way or the other as a result.

In the recent budget mess one of the compromises put off to the future involves a supposed poison pill type of choice for both the Democrats and Republicans in their magic committee. On the Democrats side it involves the choice between compromise or supposed mandatory type cuts in entitlement programs such as Medicare or Medicaid. For the Republicans it involves the choice of compromise or similar cuts to defense spending. Republicans should offer this reduction in defense spending themselves on a dollar for dollar basis for cuts in entitlements on a conservative based principle.

Plainly and clearly stated, the military’s existence as it has stood for over a century, or at the very least since World War II, in taking on the world’s defensive burden almost single handedly, has actually allowed for the world at large, and the liberal western governments in particular, to essentially ignore defense spending as a public need. This has in turn allowed these countries to inflate their social programs, supported and subsidized by American military strength and force, all the while simultaneously, and with unmitigated and unimaginable chutzpah and gall, lecturing America on that very military strength and projection of force. It is time to open the doors to Europe by withdrawing our inherent, implicit, and explicitly protective shield back, and let any two bit dictator with a little ambition to threaten a missile at the Louvre and thus have all of France drop to its knees in a genuflecting spasm of surrender. Isolationism has never looked so attractive. Let Russia re-emerge as a power by conquering Europe. I’ve seen all the old art and architecture I need.

The second irony about the military is the conservative’s love for the institution based on its mission and historical achievement for achieving, protecting, and guaranteeing of individual liberties and freedoms. It takes a special kind of mind to simply ignore the entire history of the world and disdain the very force that fought for, won, and protects  your very right to ironically disparage and disdain its existence. But we all know the liberal mind is a particularly ‘special’ one. Yet I believe that the military itself in its daily operation and ethos is the very essence and ideal of the socialist dream. At its core it is a socialist experience that illustrates, as all experiments in socialism do, all that is wrong with the precept. We should not allow its overall goal, of which nothing is more important, nor its historical relevance in a certain shape or make up, whether currently relevant or not, blind us to the overreaching flaws in its current construct and makeup which exist largely due to always ignorant misnomers like tradition and theoretical necessity.

To be clear, all special and urban forces should be maintained and enhanced. As should all mass missle attack and defense systems needed for deterrence and/or simply strategic annihilation. Also, any soldier who has faced actual bullets, bombs or any other such real danger stand separate and above the rest of the military which exists in a sort of hamster on the wheel daily game of nothing. Yes, they say that there are 33 MOS’s, of which 32 support the infantry. And when I joined the Army I was proud to be one of those support arms for the true warriors. But what I found is that the vast majority of that support is wasted, not needed, and basically exists so that Europeans can ignore their military responsibilities (and the Canadians and the Japanese and the Mexicans and most of the world that strives for free societies). What should be and must be trimmed to the marrow is the old make up of tanks and foot soldiers for massive land wars, and instead turning that focus to one of isolationist fortress america to the nth degree; primarily sea and air defense capabilities.

What would this cost us? Again, possibly the defense of our ‘allies’ who never fail to hold us in contempt for the very defense we offer them? The continued bloating and structural inertia of an antiquated beauracracy that has no room for meritocritous achievement or advancement and the vast majority of which do next to nothing on a daily basis? I understand isolationism is not a new concept, but I believe it is one all conservatives should embrace so long as our efforts at fighting for freedoms in the world are met with such derision and resistance by our purported allies and beneficiaries.

I joined the Army at the age of 35 largely because of my vision of a great fighting force for freedom and wanting to finally put my money where my mouth was so to speak. Only to find that the daily operation of that very entity went against everything I had learned in my extensive education, business, and real world experience as to what works and what makes the world better for everybody. Liberals are wrong; there are many smart, inspirational, and talented individuals in the military. Liberals are also right, that there are just as many ineffectual and uninspiring people in all levels of leadership and power. These are people who, either through being taught by fiat and example all that is wrong with military leadership from an impressionable age or through inherent desire to enhance their own wrong headed totalitarianism, and are at best misguided, or at worst dead wrong, and at the same time responsible for men, women, and equipment, that in any kind of merit based environment they would not be allowed within miles of. And liberals are really right, and should, based on their version of the world actually be super happy about, that there are many people who simply could not survive outside of a military environment that essentially takes the Forrest Gump view of the best soldier being the soldier who simply doesn’t think (or maybe isn’t capable). Now this is true in the real world as well. But where in the real world this person might, at best, be in some kind of transactional or simple, functional and non-influential position, in the Army they very well may have risen to positions of real influence and leadership, simply by continuing to breath and not committing any felonies.

Our Captain gave the example in wistful ways of how an infantry soldier told to stand guard at a post will do so come what may without thinking about it, questioning it, or challenging it. No matter what happens before given a countermanding order. Whereas the Military Intelligence soldier, given the same order, will unfortunately start to think whether that is best, what they could do to make it better, how long should they follow those orders, etc. Now however stereotypical and extreme this example might be for the sake of making a point, both by the Captain and this writer, there is no doubt that every rank would prefer that every rank below it would behave this way; that they all led an army of nonthinkers. To every General, Colonol, Captain, Master Sergeant, First Sergeant, Sergeant or whatever, every decision and every moment is that instance when you have to order those under you to charge the hill and you don’t have the time to negotiate or discuss, whereas in true fact, less than one percent of decisions in the army actually belong in that category.

The point of this is not to get into all the reasons why at every level having smart, thinking, competent people challenging you to always be at your best is ALWAYS the best way to run an operation; you probably already understand it or never will if you have read this far. But just like in the real world, never being challenged, never being questioned, being promoted simply by not committing felonies and continuing to breathe create an atmosphere of complacency and incompetence, all to varying degrees. Can you imagine any successful entity or business wishing itself surrounded by automans and dolts? I don’t apologize for my absolute belief that the very thing that works in business and any kind of free market environment and has allowed such prosperity in America, Western Civilization, and the rest of the world would work in equal measure in the military.

The Army as it exists today is a socialist utopia, one which liberals should wish its expansion until it envelopes the entire population so they can finally rule the only way the know how or can in a free world; by dictat and fiat and behind the barrel of a gun (which make no mistake, is how they force every ‘enlightened social contract’ down our throats and why they make no bones or secret of, at least in their more honest moments, their admiration for dictators and oppressors in the name of social equality from Lenin to Mao to Castro and Chavez).

Reducing the military budget allows America to move towards balancing its budget and improving economic conditions for growth and prosperity, it allows for equal negotiated reduction from entitlement programs from the left, and it forces the rest of the world to start contributing its fair share in military spending or face the consequences; no longer able to live in its bizarre parallel universe where they are afforded protection and the ability to focus its spending in other areas and simultaneously chastise and scold their very protectors in the smug safety of their provided cocoon.