Interesting how things are turning out: jf kerry’s too stupid to get educated types are rolling up their sleeves, and putting down their M-4s to help another people make a life.

From a wonderful and detailed post by Michael Totten:

Capricorn One divx

“This is my hardest deployment,” Marine Sergeant Cooley said as he unfastened his helmet and tossed it onto his bed. “We weren’t trained for this kind of thing.” He’s been shot at with bullets and mortars, and he’s endured IED attacks on his Humvee, but post-war Fallujah is more difficult and more stressful than combat. He isn’t unusual for saying so. Many Marines I spoke to in and around the Fallujah area said something similar.

“We’re trained as infantrymen,” Captain Stewart Glenn said. “But here we are doing civil administration and trying to get the milk factory up and running.”

“We make up all this stuff as we go,” Lieutenant Mike Barefoot added.

While most Americans go to school, work traditional day jobs, and raise their families, young American men and women like these are deployed to Iraq, Kosovo, and Afghanistan where they work seven days a week rebuilding societies torn to pieces by fascism, terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and war. It is not what they signed up to do. Some may have geeked out on nation-building video games like Civilization, but none of the enlisted men picked up any of these skills in boot camp.
[..]

Go, read, absorb and put it in your memory banks, for those years from now, when you meet an OIF vet, long removed from that part of their lives, now just looking like almost any other person i our nation, not wearing a uniform. Shake their hand. Tell them how much you appreciate that they would take up tools, instead of weapons or war, for those half way around the globe, to save them, and to thereby save us from harm.

I remain in awe of the compassion and dedication of those who have been trained to use violence in defense of this nation, and can put that aside for a greater purpose for all mankind.

I’ll venture to say, it will not be in me to ever thank a Democrat for the role they have played in signaling the enemy it is acceptable to kill ours and their own to support the political end game of a few power hungry people to the detriment of the rest of humanity. More souls have been lost in their pursuit of power, while our service men and women clean up behind them. But then. how could we expect anything else?

The current events continue to highlight the friendship and mentoring relationship between Barack Hussein Obama and Pastor Jeremiah Wright. One man tells us (the younger one) he wants us to live together in peace. His mentor tells us to divide ourselves and continue to remind each other of a struggle that has gone from horrific to uncomfortable, but to keep in mind the horrific of past centuries, as though it may re-occur at any minute.

I have had mentors in my life, at various stages, and for both professional and personal matters. I was in such relationships because their experience and their counsel had common ground with my life views and philosophies. most of those still in the immature stages of development in my life (which was why I was seeking assistance to grow). Yes, their words and direction have become part of me, and I have been blessed with opportunities to use their wisdom and help others as a result. The end game? Their ideas, logic and morals have guided me.

That’s the upside. In one particular case a few years back, a situation arose and it became clear that the common life view we had in common was tossed aside by my mentor and his help in making a decision ran counter to the teaching we had both accepted on faith. In my readings, he and his group were wrong, and, essentially admitted it, but…the bottom line was about a money issue, and therefore, they said the decision had to stand. I politely listened and since that day, have not revisited my relationship with that man. He also happened to be one of the organizations top leaders. Not only do I not meet with him, or correspond, I found another place to invest in relations in, but not before spending time to find out what the new organizations leadership subscribes to, to assure myself I wasn’t associating with others who did not read the same documents throughly and understood the philosophy contained therein.

The issues I left one group over pale in comparison to the hate filled sermons of Pastor Wright, yet to me, putting aside the Bible for money was sufficient to have me make my decision. Why? It was wrong, and there is specific scripture to point out the danger of placing monetary decisions ahead of all other factors, let alone the plethora of teachings, from the Old and New Testaments that would also indicate it was a bad decision. When man begins to limit access to spiritual growth, to keep the money in the building, I cannot understand how the leadership will profit in the larger world view they are directly charged with keeping true to.

For Barack Obama to continue a relationship, at any level with a man who would ask God to damn this nation, let alone speak the things he did about Hillary Clinton, indicates only one thing to me: He agrees with viewpoints presented at some significant level. Barack not repudiating Pastor Wright speaks more extensively of Barack’s “buy in” to the hate mongering of Jeremiah Wright. The word defined (from Dictionary.com: Colour Me Kubrick: A True…ish Story film :

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
re·pu·di·ate /rɪˈpyudiˌeɪt/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-pyoo-dee-eyt] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.
1. to reject as having no authority or binding force: to repudiate a claim.
2. to cast off or disown: to repudiate a son.
3. to reject with disapproval or condemnation: to repudiate a new doctrine.
4. to reject with denial: to repudiate a charge as untrue.
5. to refuse to acknowledge and pay (a debt), as a state, municipality, etc.
[Origin: 1535–45; < L repudiātus (ptp. of repudiāre to reject, refuse), equiv. to repudi(um) a casting off, divorce (re- re- + pud(ere) to make ashamed, feel shame (see pudendum) + -ium -ium) + -ātus -ate1]

I see definitions 2,3 and 4 would all help Barack understand why he must do so, or, if not, he is telling us he does not reject the teachings of Pastor Wright.

This case also helps me understand why Barack Obama does not place his hand over his heart at eh playing of the National Anthem, nor will he wear an American Flag lapel pin and he tells us why himself:

“The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin,” Obama said. “Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.

“I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest,” he said in the interview. “Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism.” (Fox News)

In reading those words from his own mouth, and putting in context of the present uproar, one might easily make the logical conclusion that Barack’s idea for America is to be punished and we should no longer be “patriotic” in the way we have. I suspect, after 20 years of close association with Pastor Wright, with no denouncement on record, Barack agrees all too much with the espouse positions.

Interesting, when we had a former governor in the race, who happened to have over a decade ago, had been a Baptist pastor, the left was unhinged and predicting a complete Christian theocracy if Governor Huckabee was elected. The media also continually reminded us that Governor Romney was a Mormon, strongly suggesting he would do the same as the Baptist Preacher he was running against. According to others, President Bush has let the “Right Wing Christians Conservatives” take over the country. Ron Paul was connected to Neo-Nazi groups, but that actually got very little play outside the conservative talk show circuit. No other candidates for office can come close to Obama’s supporters divisive viewpoints.

Here we have a Senator who has remained connected (and, as we all know, if there is a celebrity in the Church, they get some degree of special attention from “leadership,” whether they ask for it or not – they are known and they know the leadership well enough to know what underlying philosophy they hold), to a man who hates America. If Barack is so gullible as to have missed that message all these years, he had better be able to produce attendance records indicating he only set foot in the Church 3 times (a marriage and two baptisms), and only otherwise mailed in his checks for his offerings. He wants us to accept that he is smarter than GWB, yet, like Hillary’s “forgetfulness” spells over the Rose Law Firm, missing and Whitewater issues, that he honestly can’t recall such significant interactions with Pastor Wright.

I say it’s time to declare defeat in the war for social justice. The forces of integration have lost, the forces of division are alive and well, but this time, on the opposite end of the spectrum. The Black Supremacists are being given a pass, because “change” is important to have. As long as Pastor Wright is involved in Barack’s life, he will be accepting those views.

Free advice to Barack: Walk away now and tell us what you think in counterpoint, otherwise, prepare to become relegated to a label as a left wing divider. Sir, you are no John F. Kennedy and Paster Wright is no Dr. King. Move forward now, knowing that.

It’s time to abandon the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, and return to another time, but with an upending of the social order. I recall, many years ago, reading a scholarly study of the the Soviet Union and the quote something like “All the Russian Revolution did was put the top people on the bottom and the bottom people on the top.” Pastor Wright would most likely like to see that phenomena here…and it would be all about the money. How about Obama? Ah, the love of money is…..you fill in the blank.

Update:  It looks as if I was writing this, <a href=”http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=596″>Barack Obama has done the politically expedient thing,</a> putting distance between himself and Pastor Wright…and claims he never heard him say any of these things.  See my note above about attendance records.  I’d love to cross reference them with the recorded sermons, you know…just to validate Senator Obama’s assertion.  Still, as the link asks:  Why did it take so long?  Momentum, it’s a real force in physics, and a “realer” one in politics.  Yep, I want that guy for my President…he sleeps through “meetings” and can’t read people, and then freezes when it’s decision time….

From the Telegraph in the UK:

Chief scientist in sports cars warning to women:

Professor Sir David King said governments could only do so much to control greenhouse gas emissions and it was time for a cultural change among the British public.
advertisement

And he singled out women who find supercar drivers “sexy”, adding that they should divert their affections to men who live more environmentally-friendly lives.

His comments were greeted with anger by sports car drivers who insisted that their vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions were tiny compared with those from four-wheel-drive vehicles.

Sir David, who is due to retire as the UK’s Chief Scientific Adviser at the end of the year, said individuals needed to change their behaviour.
[...]

I’m guessing the pilots, ESPECIALLY the real go fast guys, who can step it up that one more notch to “buster” speed, will be the next to fall form grace at the green alter of “Climate Change.” Gotta be lots of “bad emissions” from the raw JP-5 dumping into the afterburner section…

Will pilots have the “fortitude” to stand tall and defend their right to turn a liquid into bone rattling sonic booms?

Ya know, if the women are more concerned about staying cool than dating “cool,” they might want to heed the messenger!

Good thing Lex already has made his mark on the future of society…and needs no more fawning babes at his feet, begging for a “Tiger Cruise” of their very own.

On the other hand…think about a world where the Guv’ment tells you who to date…You think they blew it with Katrina? Yeah, standby to standby for that disaster…Yep, we need to tell women how to think, according to Sir King. Will the feminists come out to protest this round of patently obvious misogyny of this line of reasoning?

I think it’s just jealousy hidden behind the current “blame all” crisis of the moment…I bet Sir King never even owned a super car….

Welcome, any Lizards who stop by to critique my work!

I had a brief moment of clarity (at least I’ll call it that) yesterday, while listening to the talk shows once more going over the General Kerr issue at the Republican debate this week.

Here it is: The Clintons (past administration, and the one to maybe come) realize something about the military experience, and are intent on using it for that very purpose. I submit this is wrong. Yes, it’s a social experiment they are after. Why? Because that has been the very power of the organization in history.

I have blogged a lot about the society changing work of Eleanor Roosevelt, not directly, but through the stories I have put here about Ben Garrison, and other African-American units that served our nation well in WWII, and then allowed the true integration of the Armed Services, ahead of the general population.

The Tuskegee Airmen are well known. Add to that the USS MASON (DE-529), Subchaser PC-1264, the 761st (“Black Panther”) Armored Battalion and the 555th (“Triple Nickel”) Parachute Battalion. These units, set up by President Roosevelt, showed these men could fight for the country just as well as another other able bodied man in the US.

One thing about race: Throughout history, there has never been any doubt about whether you are born that way, or it is something you chose. This is the big disconnect we are facing. The jury is still out on which it is for homosexuality. Political pressures and the MSM would have you believe there is no choice about it. The “scientific evidence” is sketchy and from small sample sizes, so, at best inconclusive. There are those who, having lived the “life style” will adamantly tell you it’s a “nurture” thing, and you don’t have to be that way, others will say those people, like Andy Cominsky, have been “brainwashed.” I’ll say, that the discussion on the reasons for being homosexual being debated now, have only become a topic of public debate and concern in the last few decades. That, in my book, smacks of someone trying to make something factual that is not.

Here’s one of my observations of the scientific community in recent times: On one hand, they will regale you with tales of the long suffering individual, driven by a revelation, suffering public and peer disdain for years, and then, the “discovery” comes that completely vindicates them, and they are elevated from the ranks of the dregs of the community, and placed on high pedestals! They become revered and followed. Later, some small voice comes forward and says “I don’t think that’s it.” The scientists attack that impetuous one, who would challenge…but, the cycle repeats. At some point, the theory of the youngster is found to be more correct (those two words chosen specifically), the elder is de-throned, at the worst, or provided a place of honor for having provided some insight, at best, and the history of science continues.

On the other hand….the “scientists,” almost without taking a breath, will launch into a discussion of how. let’s say Darwin, is 100% correct and there is no need to revisit the “theory” of evolution any more, IT IS SETTLED!

I see the current discussion on the condition of being gay as the second case, even while there is much to be looked at with true scientific discipline, untainted by any groups desire to elevate themselves to a special status, above the “all men are created equal” measurement.

Toss the entire “Global Warming Climate Change” issue in with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution model of “it’s that way because a POLITICIAN told me” category. Side note: Yeah, I waited all those months just so I could evacuate before the many Cat 5 hurricanes headed to the “plywood state” and they never came….

Now, back to the topic: Bill Clinton went for it first with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as a political payback for a voting block that went his way in 1992. It was a realistic compromise to get elected, with nothing to do with National Defense. Since end of the draft in 1971, the military had been an all volunteer force. There were adequate numbers of people enlisting. The DADT had nothing to do with abandoning a previous organizational ban, so we could put more manpower into the fight. We weren’t in a fight, and the Clinton Administration was drawing down the military as fast as it could.

Using the totalitarian management structure of the military, Bill Clinton, as the Commander-in-Chief, had pretty much Carte Blanche to make it happen, including the power to place his leadership at the top of the military to make sure they went along. That is the prerogative of any president, and I’m not faulting him for using the system in place, but I would argue about his motivation to repay a political debt, not to strengthen the military.

Thus began the change, were, as an analog to the service of the minority units in WWII, and the later full integration into service life by President Truman, it became a lever to show the general populace a better way to handle our social interactions. In that case, once more, I’ll point out it was over a matter of a fact of true, scientifically understood heredity.

Now, along comes Hillary. If she is to attain the office of President, she will most likely declare openly gay people will be allowed to enter the service. Why? Once more, to illegitimately use the power of the Commander-in-Chief’s authority to return a political favor for getting the gay vote.

What does that say about her (and Bill’s) view of the Armed Services? Those organizations, setup in The Constitution, to “provide for the common defense” are nothing more that dating services. Join the service and get to shower with people, without having to ask their permission. In any other part of society, doing so would have one arrested for a sex crime. It’s all about consent.

The only reason it is important is to get to power by promising access to the homosexual community.

What about the years of training the military has gone through, trying to prevent “fraternization.” That became an issue with the massive infusion of women in the service, and the incredibly deep rooted human desire for sexual contact. Why didn’t the military want this, even among heterosexuals? It makes for difficult, and many times impossible, decision making moments, where the leadership needs to be scrupulously fair. Sometimes that “fairness” needs to be played out in terms of making sure who you send to a dangerous situation is being done for the right reasons, and not because you are in a relationship with someone in your unit.

Adding openly homosexual people to the already PCed military environment is just one more obstacle to good order and discipline, which is detracted from by raging hormones left unchecked.

Once more, the “here’s your orders, now get on with it” methodology has the near term possibility to just making it more palatable for the military to take on more of the social interaction phenomena, rather than being focused on combat readiness. Maybe they see it as an offshoot for the “busy gay ‘professional,’ who doesn’t have time to set up a full time relationship.” Yeah, that’s the ticket – Join the military and let everyone around you in the barracks know you’re “like that” and let the shy ones come to you.

One thing this plan doesn’t include, is respect for the people, who joined the military to serve the nation, and not as a dating service, who do not want those who are sexually attracted to them staring at them in the head facilities.

At least DADT offers the gay person the opportunity to serve and all they have to do is take their “relationships” off base. The same is actually expected off all the other service members already. The reason a DADT policy for heterosexuality isn’t necessary is because the vast majority of all humans aren’t homosexual and therefore it would be pretty ridiculous to tell them not to say what their sexual preferences are. They don’t do it now. It wasn’t part of their enlistment contract and it serves no organizational purpose.

The only purpose of the Armed services are to serve the people by defending them. If that’s what someone wants to do, then keep it zipped. It’s expected of everyone. The UCMJ has all the “rules” and it applies to all in uniform.

And, don’t forget that the Democrats all want to scream and yell about the “waste, fraud and abuse” of the DoD. How about we begin to add up all the costs for the course development, the manpower and facilities, the contractor fees, and the hows spent byt real troops sitting in classrooms getting lectured on being sensitive and not using certain words. Can someone explain how that helps the US military defend the nation better? I’d like to hold that “metric” up for the “you’re wasting our money crowd and see what they have to say.

Here it is: The Clintons (past administration, and the one to maybe come) realize something about the military experience, and are intent on using it for that very purpose. I submit this is wrong. Yes, it’s a social experiment they are after. Why? Because that has been the very power of the organization in history.

I have blogged a lot about the society changing work of Elanor Roosevelt, not directly, but through the stories I have put here about Ben Garrison, and other African-American units that served our nation well in WWII, and then allowed the true integration of the Armed Services, ahead of the general population.

The Tuskegee Airmen are well known. Add to that the USS MASON (DE-529), Subchaser PC-1264, the 761st (“Black Panther”) Armored Battalion and the 555th (“Triple Nickel”) Parachute Battalion. These units, set up by President Roosevelt, showed these men could fight for the country just as well as another other able bodied man in the US.

One thing about race: Throughout history, there has never been any doubt about whether you are born that way, or it is something you chose. This is the big disconnect we are facing. The jury is still out on which it is for homosexuality. Political pressures and the MSM would have you believe there is no choice about it. The “scientific evidence” is sketchy and from small sample sizes, so, at best inconclusive. There are those who, having lived the “life style” will adamantly tell you it’s a “nurture” thing, and you don’t have to be that way, others will say those people, like Andy Cominsky, have been “brainwashed.” I’ll say, that the discussion on the reasons for being homosexual being debated now, have only become a topic of public debate and concern in the last few decades. That, in my book, smacks of someone trying to make something factual that is not.

Here’s one of my observations of the scientific community in recent times: On one hand, they will regale you with tales of the long suffering individual, driven by a revelation, suffering public and peer disdain for years, and then, the “discovery” comes that completely vindicates them, and they are elevated from the ranks of the dregs of the community, and placed on high pedestals! They become revered and followed. Later, some small voice comes forward and says “I don’t think that’s it.” The scientists attack that impetuous one, who would challenged…but, the cycle repeats. At some point, the theory of the youngster is found to be more correct (those two words chosen superficially), the elder is de-throned, at the worst, or provided a place of honor for having provided some insight, at best, and the history of science continues.

On the other hand….the “scientists,” almost without taking a breath, will launch into a discussion of how. let’s say Darwin, is 100% correct and there is no need to revisit the “theory” of evolution any more, IT IS SETTLED!

I see the current discussion on the condition of being gay as the second case, even while there is much to be looked at with true scientific discipline, untainted by any groups desire to elevate themselves to a special status, above the “all men are created equal” measurement.

Toss the entire “Global Warming Climate Change” issue in with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution model of “it’s that way because a POLITICIAN told me” category. Side note: Yeah, I waited all those months just so I could evacuate before the many Cat 5 hurricanes headed to the “plywood state” and they never came….

Now, back to the topic: Bill Clinton went for it first with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as a political payback for a voting block that went his way in 1992. It was a realistic compromise to get elected, with nothing to do with National Defense. Since end of the draft in 1971, the military had been an all volunteer force. There were adequate numbers of people enlisting. The DADT had nothing to do with abandoning a previous organizational ban, so we could put more manpower into the fight. We weren’t in a fight, and the Clinton Administration was drawing down the military as fast as it could.

Using the totalitarian management structure of the military, Bill Clinton, as the Commander-in-Chief, had pretty much Carte Blanche to make it happen, including the power to place his leadership at the top of the military to make sure they went along. That is the prerogative of any president, and I’m not faulting him for using the system in place, but I would argue about his motivation to repay a political debt, not to strengthen the military.

Thus began the change, were, as an analog to the service of the minority units in WWII, and the later full integration into service life by President Truman, it became a lever to show the general populace a better way to handle our social interactions. In that case, once more, I’ll point out it was over a matter of a fact of true, scientifically understood heredity.

Now, along comes Hillary. If she is to attain the office of President, she will most likely declare openly gay people will be allowed to enter the service. Why? Once more, to illegitimately use the power of the Commander-in-Chief’s authority to return a political favor for getting the gay vote.

What does that say about her (and Bill’s) view of the Armed Services? Those organizations, setup in The Constitution, to “provide for the common defense” are nothing more that dating services. Join the service and get to shower with people, without having to ask their permission. In any other part of society, doing so would have one arrested for a sex crime. It’s all about consent.

The only reason it is important is to get to power by promising access to the homosexual community.

What about the years of training the military has gone through, trying to prevent “fraternization.” That became an issue with the massive infusion of women in the service, and the incredibly deep rooted human desire for sexual contact. Why didn’t the military want this, even among heterosexuals? It makes for difficult, and many times impossible, decision making moments, where the leadership needs to be scrupulously fair. Sometimes that “fairness” needs to be played out in terms of making sure who you send to a dangerous situation is being done for the right reasons, and not because you are in a relationship with someone in your unit.

Adding openly homosexual people to the already PCed military environment is just one more obstacle to good order and discipline, which is detracted from by raging hormones left unchecked.

Once more, the “here’s your orders, now get on with it” methodology has the near term possibility to just making it more palatable for the military to take on more of the social interaction phenomena, rather than being focused on combat readiness. Maybe they see it as an offshoot for the “busy gay ‘professional,’ who doesn’t have time to set up a full time relationship.” Yeah, that’s the ticket – Join the military and let everyone around you in the barracks know you’re “like that” and let the shy ones come to you.

One thing this plan doesn’t include, is respect for the people, who joined the military to serve the nation, and not as a dating service, who do not want those who are sexually attracted to them staring at them in the head facilities.

At least DADT offers the gay person the opportunity to serve and all they have to do is take their “relationships” off base. The same is actually expected off all the other service members already. The reason a DADT policy for heterosexuality isn’t necessary is because the vast majority of all humans aren’t homosexual and therefore it would be pretty ridiculous to tell them not to say what their sexual preferences are. They don’t do it now. It wasn’t part of their enlistment contract and it serves no organizational purpose.

The only purpose of the Armed services are to serve the people by defending them. If that’s what someone wants to do, then keep it zipped. It’s expected of everyone. The UCMJ has all the “rules” and it applies to all in uniform.

And, don’t forget that the Democrats all want to scream and yell about the “waste, fraud and abuse” of the DoD. How about we begin to add up all the costs for the course development, the manpower and facilities, the contractor fees, and the hows spent byt real troops sitting in classrooms getting lectured on being sensitive and not using certain words. Can someone explain how that helps the US military defend the nation better? I’d like to hold that “metric” up for the “you’re wasting our money crowd and see what they have to say.

Anyhow, a vote for Hillary is a vote to actually turn the US Armed Forces into a sexual experimentation labs of epic proportions and combat efficiency be damned. Not because a law says so, but because her character will allow her to do it, and the vote gives her the power. What sexual preference/proclivity/perversion will next gain the favor of Hillary and therefore be made “legal” in the military to gain some more votes?

I’d prefer the method they used when they started to vilify smokers in the late 80s: If any one person in a space objects to smoking, then no one can. How about we apply the same principle here for people who think they joined the military to fight for the country, and not to be ogled by gay people?

One one level, it’s a cheap way for the Navy to horn in on the USAF contract for the purchase of the F-22 Raptor airframe.

At another level, it shows a disconnect between society and the understanding of our military.

But…its’ sorta like being able to “zap” an AF jet with the bad manners and planning to land on a Naval location, only we’re imprinting the youth of America with the right model of the real aviators!

As the toll of US troops lost in the GWoT nears 3800, the AP is counting down the next few deaths.

For a moment, extract yourself from the steely eyed glare at that one metric and consider this:

Traffic deaths should top news
By Peter J. Woolley – Special to The Washington Post
Thursday, December 28, 2006
The nonstory of 2006 was also the nonstory of 2005. It is a nonstory every year going back decades. Yet the number of people who die in car crashes in the United States is staggering, even if it is absent from the agenda of most public officials and largely ignored by the public.

When all is said and done and the ball begins to drop on New Year’s Eve, 44,000 people, give or take several hundred, will have died in auto accidents this year. To put that number in perspective, consider that:

• At the 2006 casualty rate of 800 soldiers per year, the United States would have to be in Iraq for more than 50 years to equal just one year of automobile deaths back home.

• In any five-year period, the total number of traffic deaths in the United States equals or exceeds the number of people who died in the horrific South Asian tsunami in December 2004. U.S. traffic deaths amount to the equivalent of two tsunamis every 10 years.

• According to the National Safety Council, your chance of dying in an automobile crash is one in 84 over your lifetime. But your chances of winning the Mega Millions lottery are just one in 175 million.

• If you laid out side by side 8-by-10 photos of all those killed in crashes this year, the pictures would stretch more than five miles.

• If you made a yearbook containing the photos of those killed this year, putting 12 photos on each page, it would have 3,500 pages. If you wanted to limit your traffic-death yearbook to a manageable 400 pages, you’d either have to squeeze more than 100 photos onto each page or issue an eight-volume set.

Can you hear me now? Automobile deaths are the leading cause of death for children, for teen-agers and in fact for all people from age 3 to 33. Yet this annual tragedy is not a cause celebre.

Opinion leaders largely ignore the ubiquitous massacre. No marches, walkathons, commemorative stamps or fund-raising drives are organized. It is not brought up in the State of the Union address. It is rarely the subject of public affairs shows. Statistics aren’t updated daily in major newspapers or broadcasts.

Gruesome crashes are reported just one at a time, each as if it might never happen again. Little attention is paid to the aftermath: safety measures taken or not taken, the workings or non-workings of the justice system. These avoidable deaths, as well as more than 2 million nonfatal dismemberments, disfigurements and other injuries that go along with them, have become part of the fabric of everyday life in the United States.

Elected officeholders naturally take the path of least resistance. They are well aware that significantly reducing deaths on the roads requires radical solutions in the form of regulation, investment and enforcement. Roads need to be made safer, for example, by extending guardrails and medians to every mile of busy highways. Speeding and aggressive driving need to be much more rigorously controlled. Trucks need to be separated from automobiles wherever possible. And cars need to be built slower and stronger.

But every solution is readily opposed by someone: manufacturers, industrial unions, truckers, consumers, taxpayers — though all are potential victims themselves. The public is not to blame. It is hemmed in on every side by mind-numbing advertising and shouted stories of the moment. Apparently no medium is willing to bludgeon people — as they need to be — with statistics and trends on the dangers facing them every time they set out in their automobiles.

Only if there is a public outcry will this situation get the attention due it. Only when people fully realize the absurd and avoidable costs of the dangers that stalk them on the road — and then demand governmental action in the form of forceful intervention and strict regulation — will this become the story of the year, as it should be.

— Peter J. Woolley is a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University and executive director of PublicMind, a public opinion research group there.

Kinda puts some things into perspective, don’t you think?

Tracked back @:  <a href=”http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/09/22/open-trackback-saturday-3/trackback/”>SteelJaw Scribe</a>

Just a slice of life:

Driving in the pre-dawn traffic to work, and lo and behold….no warning on the radio stations, that breathlessly report accidents and traffic snarls.

I have come to believe by the time the radio news reports an accident, it’s just about been cleared up when you hear it.

So, heading south with the herd of fellow worker bees, I see smoke ahead, off to the left, but the road takes a turn that way. Traffic, is moving like it normally does, so I surmise the source may be on the northbound side….

As I come over the rise, there is a law enforcement vehicle behind the smoking one. Traffic is merging to the right of the four southbound lanes. I find, not being in the right already, have to begin moving over. The talk radio station news begins the 1/4 to the hour report. Nada on the smoking car. Speaking of smoking, the flames become apparent in the vicinity of the hood of the stricken vehicle. I begin to fear the authority on site will call us all to a halt, for safety reasons, but somehow, the traffic still flows, as drivers fairly politely allow others to enter their lane on the right, which also will quickly become a major exit.

I get moved, then have road space to get back over one lane to the left to continue on my normal path. As I pass the car stopped in the middle of this major artery, the entire front end is fully ablaze in the pre-dawn, almost sunrise light. Tires are flat and falling off the front rims, but I don’t slow more than necessary, still keeping my head on a swivel for the other vehicles around mine.

Now in almost no traffic (for a change), i head towards work, and the hourly report comes on….not a word about a major car fire, but there are at least three other fender benders in the county.

Funny, with all the cameras and live feeds and helicopters…and cell phones…somehow the news didn’t get the story.

Some of the pitfalls of John Edwards mandated universal health care have been discussed in DJ’s post yesterday. DJ does point out this plan has been tried in England, and it’s a disaster…

I suggest the overall discussions on this topic of forced probing by doctors, or it’s off to the Gulag with you! hasn’t hit on one of the most critical points…following the money. My “angle?” John Edwards is a lawyer, Hillary Clinton is a lawyer. So are about every other person in the top level of elected government. A “healthy” (pun intended, why, yes!) sum of money is made by the legal profession in suing people. They also do not collect a portion of the money awarded in judgments, either. Bill Bennett’s brother, when hosting Morning in America one day, when asked how much he charged an hour commented that it was a lot, but you should see the ratio of collected to uncollected fees.

Puzzle piece #2: Lawyers, when given a case, do what? They chase the “deep pockets.”

Puzzle piece #3: The Federal Government self-insures. We don’t pay Lloyd’s of London to protect against risk…we hope we’ll find the money “somewhere” when we need to pay off a successful award against faulty/negligent/criminal behavior by those employed by the Government.

See where I’m going? I hope so.

If all doctors and medical professionals become civil servants, you won’t be able to sue them, just as you cannot sue a Government official, who was acting in the capacity of a Government employee now. If the wrong mangled limb is amputated in the operating room after an accident, sue the Government. If you are given a prescription that causes you to have an allergic reaction, one noted in your medical history, sue the Government. If your baby is delivered wrong, sue the Government.

Unlike doctors, who can give all their assets, exhaust all their medical malpractice insurance, and still come up wanting in the money they owe you, the Government has the deepest pockets of all of us, and…it’s not like they will take off to Hong Kong if they don’t feel like paying. There will always be a physical address, and a civil servant you can harass until you get your claim paid, with the added benefit of being able to call your Congress critter to ask them to sick their staffers on the unlucky civil servant, overworked and underpaid, to make sure you get front of the line privileged treatment…

Oh, just forget that not only will we pay for each other’s health care, we will pay for every and all claims against the “universal Health Care” system, regardless of how unfounded and/or frivolous they may be. Sort of a bigger version of when you take your car into the shop with a mangled fender “Are you paying for it, or is this an insurance claim?” philosophy, except it will be the millions of smaller wallets that will suffer…after all, who could deny a compassionate response from the Government, when one of it’s citizens has been wronged?

Think about it. Lawyers will love it…sue crazy America will love it. Judges will be even more overworked, along with the entire court system…and all of that will be a very, very big boost to the legal profession. WhatI ask you not to think about is how the cost, astronomical as it will become, will be buried deep within the Federal Budget’s pages…a mere “drop in the bucket” we will be told, of the over all trillions we need to run the country…so open your checkbook, IRS will be coming to you soon.

Better take up the local diploma mill’s offer to get your degree in paralegal services now!

Next idea: Universal Legal Service. Yeah, like we’d have a snowball’s chance of getting that passed into law by a bunch of lawyers…

‘Nuff Said…(got you thinking, didn’t it?)

Tracked back to: SteelJaw Scribe who joins the land of “OTB”!

Maybe we’ll have to begin paying farmers not to grow peanuts anymore, for fear a small segment of society will demand complete access to all venues, public or private, free from any responsibility to avoid situations that may, in fact be life threatening…

From a local franchise door…no kidding!How soon do we stop driving on roads because it’s too difficult for parents to pay attention, lean out the window and yell “GET OUT OF THE STREET BEFORE YOU GET HIT BY A CAR!” when little Johnny strays off the grass and onto the asphalt? When you see the signs in your neighborhood “No Motorized Vehicles Allowed – Children Might Be on Roadway” you’ll know we’re renounced all personal responsibility…