Powered by TypePad

« That Which Does Not Kill Me Makes Me Stronger | Main | Jersey Boy »

February 28, 2011



Fleebagger Erpenbach adamently said yesterday that they wouldn't dribble back to WI, but return as a group. Maybe they're hoping the "we had to return for Julie" excuse will save them from the wrath of the goons. The bogus PPP poll gives them cover to claim they won the argument, and Walker is now acting against the will of the people.


Interesting item on Fox right now.

There is a guy Jason Freeman on right now who was in charge of a Pentagon study, that the market crash of '08 was caused by financial terrorism. By possible international actors.

His conclusion was that it was very possible. The Pentagon was supposed to commision further study on that but didn't yet.

Ah hah! I told you all about this before, years ago. I was suspicious about the sudden housing collapse.

Not only that but cyber monkey business with voting and campaign fundraising as well. It makes sense, cyber hacking is too easy now. For individuals, or for countries. Witness our own troll as a small example.

The rules are: Sylvia is always right. If you doubt that, refer back to the first rule.

Melinda Romanoff

Soooo tempting.


She does seduce him, Frau, but he is a willing seductee. Once he's on board (after a minimum amount of ankle-flashing on her part) he pretty much takes charge of the operation.


Erpendrath is very much a Vizzini type, as his
pitiful interview with Megyn will attest.

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

Don't even think about it Mel.

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

I am very excited about the developments in Wisconsin. I just might win my bet!


Lol, Jane, I meant to mispell that name, what I was referring to, in theLUN


Fleebagger Erpenbach represents U Wisconsin & its environs. The connection of that district to reality may not exist.

Melinda Romanoff


The real game is the recall efforts on 13 out of 14 (the one from Milwaukee is like recalling a Dem in Chicago, not happening). The reason why? The full displeasure of the voters over the child-like State Senators will bring the adults back to lead.


A Madison judge ruled that removing the Capitol occupiers was/is unconstitutional. A hearing is taking place about now. Will the thundering herds be allowed in before Walker's budget speech at 4? Will they be foolish enough to try to drown out the speech? Do they believe the polls show voters want them to bring the speech to a halt if they can?

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

Got it Elliott, and replied!


I could vote for that after a few belts.

I can talk like that after a few.

Rob Crawford

A Madison judge ruled that removing the Capitol occupiers was/is unconstitutional.

Uh, the right is to "peaceably assemble". Illegally occupying a building and refusing to allow its normal use is not peaceable. Threatening people is not peaceable.

(Curious, though, how freedom of assembly only applies to left-wing groups.)

Jack is Back!

We are still in Wisconsin. It is still a very liberal state and we are in Madison which is just below Berkley, Boulder and San Francisco in the running for the newest member of the politburo. Why do we think that the MFM, pollers, man on the street are going to be rosy-scenario right-thinking taxpayers?

We need to let the Dems continue to stretch the rope and reach for the chair they were standing on.

Captain Hate

Does this mean the judge will never clear the courtroom of unruly people?


Can't we just run Allen West for prez and be done with all the 'nonsense'?

Sara (Pal2Pal)

One of the reasons the polls seem so whacky is that when explaining the WI flap, they do not differentiate between public employee unions, employees who are paid by the taxpayer, and corporate unions, where pay and benefits come out of corporate operating costs, cutting down on profit.


When I posted re Friedman's excellent article I never dreamed that anyone would be stupid enough to contest his sound argumentation. There's always an exception, however, and as usual in such cases a resort is made to misrepresentation and counterfactual hypotheses. To deal with that, I've selected some more Friedman, below. For my own part, I'll address briefly the issue of wars of occupation. Why does the US engage in wars of occupation, instead of punitive expeditions--destroying and then leaving? The answer is Colin Powell's: if you break it, you own it. Sometimes destroying an existing unfriendly state can leave a worse situation that previously existed, since world affairs are continually evolving. "Destroying" the Taliban and leaving may well have resulted in nothing of substance accomplished. Destroying the Saddam regime might have led to a Shiite Iraq closer to Iran than was Saddam's Iraq. Oh, wait... But you (or most of you) get the idea. Keep that in mind:

Given all this, the question is why the United States has gotten involved in wars in Eurasia four times since World War II. In each case it is obvious: for political reasons. In Korea and Vietnam, it was to demonstrate to doubting allies that the United States had the will to resist the Soviets. In Afghanistan, it was to uproot al Qaeda. In Iraq, the reasons are murkier, more complex and less convincing, but the United States ultimately went in, in my opinion, to convince the Islamic world of American will.

The United States has tried to shape events in the Eastern Hemisphere by the direct application of land power. In Korea and Vietnam, it was trying to demonstrate resolve against Soviet and Chinese power. In Afghanistan and Iraq, it was trying to shape the politics of the Muslim world. The goal was understandable but the amount of ground force available was not. In Korea, it resulted in stalemate; in Vietnam, defeat. We await the outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan, but given Gates' statement, the situation for the United States is not necessarily hopeful.

In each case, the military was given an ambiguous mission. This was because a clear outcome - defeating the enemy - was unattainable. At the same time, there were political interests in each. Having engaged, simply leaving did not seem an option. Therefore, Korea turned into an extended presence in a near-combat posture, Vietnam ended in defeat for the American side, and Iraq and Afghanistan have turned, for the time being, into an uncertain muddle that no reasonable person expects to end with the declared goals of a freed and democratic pair of countries.


The problem with all four wars is that they were not wars in a conventional sense and did not use the military as militaries are supposed to be used. The purpose of a military is to defeat enemy conventional forces. As an army of occupation against a hostile population, military forces are relatively weak. The problem for the United States is that such an army must occupy a country for a long time, and the U.S. military simply lacks the ground forces needed to occupy countries and still be available to deal with other threats.

By having an unclear mission, you have an uncertain terminal point. When does it end? You then wind up with a political problem internationally - having engaged in the war, you have allies inside and outside of the country that have fought with you and taken risks with you. Withdrawal leaves them exposed, and potential allies will be cautious in joining with you in another war. The political costs spiral and the decision to disengage is postponed. The United States winds up in the worst of all worlds. It terminates not on its own but when its position becomes untenable, as in Vietnam. This pyramids the political costs dramatically.

Wars need to be fought with ends that can be achieved by the forces available. Donald Rumsfeld once said, "You go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of war. You do not engage in war if the army you have is insufficient. When you understand the foundations of American military capability and its limits in Eurasia, Gates' view on war in the Eastern Hemisphere is far more sound than Rumsfeld's.



I think I want to nominate Boulder. In fact I documented an important 2006 hand-off from Madison to Boulder last week.

I have a feeling Joseph Dietzgen is about to become better known in the West.


Whoa. State patrol officers have replaced local le inside the WI Capitol, and the local sheriff is mad. Walker apparently is unsure sworn officers will obey lawful orders..or that they will take it upon themselves to decide what is lawful.


Deb, the Dane County Sheriff is an elected Dem. His campaigns are financed by the same unions as the fleebaggers (primarily through unreported soft money). Same thing with the DA in the prior post. I hope these are the last gasps of the losing side.


Henry, I'm flabbergasted. Sworn officers doing "whatever is right in their own eyes" is something beyond my experience.


Deb, in many ways they are following the examples set by Obama, Holder et. al., plus they share campaign advisors with Chicago.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

An eco-maniacal opera inspired by Elmer Fudd with music by Richard Wagner, for our musical aficionados.


Almost certainly "Sworn [unionized] officers." Which side are you on? Which is why unions and government employees are two things that should never meet.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

(Sun Sentinel) — South Florida Congressman Allen West branded the runaway state senators of Wisconsin a bunch of “cowards,” comparable to Army deserters.

“What kind of representative democracy have we become when elected officials run from executing their prescribed duties?” West said in a weekly newsletter to constituents and fans that begins, “Dear Patriot.”

“In the military we have General Order number one: ‘I shall not leave my appointed place of duty or post until properly relieved,’” said West, a retired Army lieutenant colonel. “If a leader takes off, we call it ‘desertion.’ What manner of person runs and hides instead of making a stand, making a decision?”

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

Has this been posted?

Eric Holder: Black Panther case focus demeans 'my people'

If I was president I'd ban "social justice"

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

And did you see where Darryl Issa has been feeding secret memos to the NY Times and even gave the NY Times an interview and said he was Issa?

Finally he has been fired.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Who was fired?


Jane, I think there is something wrong with the 03:22 PM post.

IMO, there is no more perfect example of why all aides need to be eliminated. There is no way to know whether you are hearing what a Congressperson thinks, or what the aide thinks. Get rid of them all.

Danube of Thought

..or that they will take it upon themselves to decide what is lawful

What a crazy idea. Oh wait--there were those doctors...

Who has been fired for what, Jane?

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

No NONONONONo - Darrly Issa's PRESS SECRETARY. sheesh I apologize.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

When I worked for a Member of Congress, we were mystified at how the press was getting info on private meetings between staff where all kinds of crazy ideas were tossed around. These were being leaked to the press as done deals or official positions of the Congresswoman, when really they were just staff bull sessions. In the aftermath, it was discovered that our office manager was actually a registered democrat, not in itself a reason not to be hired, but it turned out that she was also the niece of the local news editor of our major newspaper who was one of my boss's biggest headaches and who had a personal vendetta against her. The rat employee defended herself by saying that all she had done was tell office anecdotes at family gatherings.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

You scared me Jane. Darrell Issa is my Congressman.


A question for the pedants among us.

In this Wisconsin budget blog post, the DA is quoted as follows:

Dane County DA Ismael Ozanne said he finds no evidence of criminal liability in Gov. Scott Walker's conversation with a prank caller last week, but he says some of the governor's comments are "very concerning and sometimes quite alarming."
Seems like we see this use of "concerning" a lot these days, but is it even correct? Isn't the right word "disconcerting"?
Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

WEll Issa can't get fired which should have been a hint. It was a stupid mistake on my part.


--The problem with all four wars is that they were not wars in a conventional sense and did not use the military as militaries are supposed to be used.--

Which is precisely my point, but counter to your earlier point that wars should not be punitive, hence my correct contention that Friedman and apparently your conclusions are incoherent;
Wars of occupation are bound to fail.
Our military is excellent at reigning destruction on conventional forces in a punitive war but should not be used in that way either, even though that's what militaries are made for.
That doesn't leave too many types of war our military can engage in. Pretty close to none as a matter of fact.


Donald Rumsfeld once said, "You go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of war. You do not engage in war if the army you have is insufficient.

You do realize you are taking that quote completely out of context by using it that way, right?

Captain Hate

I'd like to agree with you Ext, but it's correct in a "causing concern" kind of way.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Donald Rumsfeld once said, "You go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of war. You do not engage in war if the army you have is insufficient.

Sorry, this is a stupid remark, IMHO. If I'm attacked, I'm going to fight back whether my army is sufficient or insufficient. I'll use my trusty cast iron frying pan, a baseball bat, or even my bowling ball if I have to.

Isn't that one of the strengths of our special forces trained forces. They can find ways to cause the enemy much discomfort with very few "sufficient" weaponry, if necessary. But I what can you expect from a generation raised on the idea that dodge ball is too violent?


Sufficient vs insufficient armies.

It's like the "controversy" over Shinsheki's statement that the Iraq War would take "several hundred thousands" of troops.

Rather vague, wasn't it? "Several hundred" could be anywhere from 200-300 or 700-800.

Sandy Daze

2 March 2011

dear Sue,

We grieve for the loss of every man and woman, GI or civilian, part of the force or innocent bystander, who loses their life in the various campaigns in which we are engaged, across the world, in the War Against Islamic Extremism.

There is no rhyme nor reason to some of the losses. In any war, alas, good men lose their lives, they are ripped from our bosom.

The grief must be overwhelming for this Soldiers's wife, and their young family. Yet, if there be consolation in his loss it is that he stood strong where others feared to tread, that he displayed enormous grace under pressure, that he did his job, and did it well.

But where our desires are and our hopes profound,

Felt as a well-spring that is hidden from sight,

To the innermost heart of their own land they are known

As the stars are known to the Night.

He is not the first to have lost his life in these campaigns; we pray otherwise but know also, sadly, he will not be the last.

Fair Winds and Following Seas.

In your death, again you lead; you lead to that ultimate destination where we all hope to soon follow.

Rest In Peace.

Take good care,

Danube of Thought

"You do not engage in war if the army you have is insufficient."

We went to war in 1775 with virtually no army at all. Ditto 1812, with an insufficient navy to boot. We went to war in late 1941 and early 1942 with a woefully insufficient army and navy. Ditto 1950 in Korea.

Great Britain did the same in 1940.

And so on...


Heart breaking Sue, my condolences to your friend.

What do they need?

The comments to this entry are closed.