Foodstuffs...

As with many issues, consumers all over the world are turning to the internet for information. This includes everything from movie reviews, political opinion, car part specifications, genealogical research and health information. There is a problem, however, and I call it the wikidization of information.

Wikipedia is an outstanding collaborative work of volunteers to catalog and define almost everything in the world. The problem is that it is not peer reviewed, it is subject to a loose editorial control at best and can be flat out wrong. This is not to say that it does not serve a useful purpose. It is a great starting point to frame a debate or determine the level of controversy around a topic. It is unacceptable as a research reference in scholarly work.

People rarely know how to reach out for source documentation on a topic. They often stop at the first piece of information which confirms their preconceived notions. Rarely do they consider the possible biases of information sources and too frequently distrust official sites, believing them to be dishonest or unscrupulous.

For example, many people seek out a low calorie diet. Concerned by the claims raised in the 1970s about saccharin, they seek out “natural” sugar substitutes. This can be unrefined sugars, molasses and products such as stevia. What few US citizens realize is that stevia is not a food.

Stevia is not approved as a food ingredient in the United States. However, it is sold as a “dietary supplement.” According to the provisions of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), which was passed in 1994, dietary supplements do not need FDA approval before they are marketed, in the way that new food additives or drugs do. Dietary supplements that contain stevia cannot legally be promoted as sugar substitutes in the U.S., and stevia cannot be used as an ingredient in foods. The sale of the supplements is legal, however. (ACSH Document 20060417_sugar_web)

This has led to uninformed decisions about food and how we eat. In my opinion, a balanced, sensible diet – coupled with exercise – is the key to a healthy, happy life. Individuals need to make informed decisions and resist being swayed by questionable or inflammatory information. The American Council on Science and Health encourages individuals to seek information from reliable sources. From the abovementioned publication;

Distinguishing between reliable and unreliable information sources on the World Wide Web can be challenging. Simply entering a topic into an Internet search engine is not the best way to obtain science-based advice. A better approach is to visit trustworthy health-related Web sites, such as the National Library of Medicine site, the U.S. government’s health clearinghouse site, the sites of government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration or the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or the sites of trusted professional organizations or voluntary groups such as the American Dietetic Association, the American Heart Association, or the American Cancer Society , and then search within the collections of documents at these sites for information on a specific topic. In instances where something sounds too good — or too horrible — to be true, it’s also a good idea to see whether the topic in question is discussed on the Urban Legends Reference Pages and/or Quackwatch. Both sites are reliable, and they are frequently updated with new information about various health myths and misinformation.

Caveat emptor.

Military Matters...

The recent dust up in the Straits of Hormuz between Iranian speedboats and US forces was extremely dangerous. The Iranians paint a more benign picture from the view of Iranian Events. Nonetheless, the danger was heightened by the interjection (possibly) of the notorious Filipino Monkey. This individual chooses to interject his thoughts into unsecured VHF (bridge to bridge) communication in this region of the world.

I was standing watch in the FCC (fleet command center) for the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain in the summer of 2004. During this period we were conducting a lot of MIO (maritime interdiction operations). We were looking for smugglers of all types. During the oil embargo days, the Iraqis got very good at smuggling large quantities of oil out and arms into their nation. At this time, the USSS KENNEDY was the carrier battle group in the gulf and we were intercepting a bulk freighter heading out through the SOH. During a routine BtB (bridge to bridge) query of the freighter the conversation turned dangerous.

US VESSEL – “outbound freighter, this is coalition warship XX. State your destination and cargo”

FREIGHTER – “we are carrying weapons of mass destruction…”

US VESSEL – “*what the* - outbound freighter, say again your last.”

Needless to say the center went from a sleepy afternoon watch to full pucker mode. Aircraft were diverted from patrol routes and an HVBSS (heliborne vessel boarding search and seizure) team was scrambled from one of the interdicting ships. Listening to the radio transmission again, I am more convinced that this radio prankster may be at the root cause of the near fatal encounter.

The problem is clear, when there are confusing bits of information coming into the commander of a force (land, sea or air) their inclination is to act in a self preservation manner. During the cold war we installed a hotline between the US and Soviet command center to help defuse any potential “false” triggers.

With little or not such mechanism between forces such as the three warships and fast attack squadron – it was the careful training of the US forces which kept the Iranians alive.

Round up...

Way late – yes I am way late. No blogging for three weeks, only random trolling on some very nice sites.

UPDATE - Horrible spelling error corrected!!!

I wanted to point out a few interesting spots on my holiday travels, Lana Walker-Helmuth has a very nice site here. I spent some time discussing the various benefits of fluoridation and talking about Ron Paul – who appears to be destined for the dustbin of history. Laura seems to be an engaging person who has a genuinely bright outlook on life.

I found her site from this fabulous one, a sassy spot run by Connie Schmidt. Here she skewers the easily misled and the criminally dishonest.

I also trolled around the Respectful Insolence site (Orac’s joint) and Dr. Martin Rundkvist's place. He poses an interesting question about the definition of skepticism. I take a purists view and contend that skepticism is simply doubt of a proposed idea. On the site we talk about the role of words and the tendency of folks to label people. The term denialism is used to besmirch folks who argue against conventional wisdom. This is typically applied to folks who claim the Holocaust did not occur or that evolution is unproven. It is also applied to people who argue about global warming (GW) and anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

SPECIAL DISCLAIMER – I have several concerns about the causality of global warming. At one point I was an out and out skeptic of global warming, but I have warmed up to the possibility. I am simply not convinced that the human factor is as significant. Thus, I am a denialist according to Mark Hoofnagle’s definition.

UNITED STATES POLITICS

Hillary recovered, slightly, in New Hampshire and McCain knocked Romney for a loop in his own backyard. I am pleased that Edwards, Huckabee and Paul continue to drop behind. None of the aforementioned individuals should be considered viable candidates. This is notwithstanding the very questionable history of Paul’s alarming newsletters or Huckabee’s sermons. We live in a world where what you have said and written before starts to define you. I think that’s a fair measure to use when judging an individual. We can not all be Saul, subject to some monumental conversion and then given a pass on all our former behavior.

UNITED STATES NAVY

The Navy nearly lit up a squadron of Iranian Revolutionary Guard patrol boats . Most likely they were simply tricked out outboards, and not the truly lethal Boghammers which lurk in the NAG (North Arabian Gulf).

Side note: If you want to irritate an Iranian, call the Persian Gulf the Arabian Gulf.

The three warships in question were just about to open fire on the boats in question when they sped away. Having stood watch where FP (force protection) measures were in full force, the threat posed by high speed boats is all too real. Additionally, the risk to our vessels from mines (as described in the report) is likely the greatest in the PG. I do not want US Navy vessels to needlessly incinerate potentially hostile craft – but the reality of self-defense makes this circumstance likely – if not inevitable.

New Year's Resolutions...

Oh boy.

Here we go.

I am a firm believer in the "do over". Endless hours on the playgrounds of my youth taught me the value of a second chance. Missed the basket? No problem, call a "do over". Didn't get the grade you wanted? Call a "do over". Well, that last action is not as simple as I represent. However, we do live in a time of almost endless do overs. We can bounce back from almost any failure. Sometimes all that is required is a simple act of forgiveness. A mulligan on the golf course is easy enough to obtain, unless money is at stake. In short, almost anything can be subject to a "do over". If you apply yourself, you can recreate your self a thousand times over. Just ask Madonna, or Cynthia McKinney or Al Gore. Even perpetual harpy Pat Buchanan has performed the feat.

New year's is the time for everyone to look for their do over. Sometimes it's about how we look, or act or what we weigh or eat. We face the prospect of the year with the idea that a fresh slate has been created for us to claim our "do over". I have gone so far as to think of every day as a potential "do over". But rather than thinking about what we would do over again, shouldn't we be thinking about what we would do better now? If we recognize the past as complete, subject only to interpretation and immutable, then we can look ahead for opportunities. This seems a healthier option than bemoaning what we do or don't have.

I would like to start 2008 with a thought towards what can I improve. How can I learn? I have two proto-citizens who are really starting to accelerate in their own learning and growth. I find myself starting to jog just to keep up. Soon, I will need a New Years every month to maintain pace with them. I guess I could simply let them leap ahead. I suspect each of us has a comfortable spot where we like to live. It's pleasant, the fridge is always full, the remote close by and the slippers extra cozy.

It's possible to simply stop. The pace of the planet has never seemed faster. The flow of information and options nearly torrential as it cascades over our existence. Standing still or out of the stream is pleasant, for a while. But that spot soon becomes very lonely. It's up to each of us to look at every night as a New Year's eve. Our chance to recreate and renew happens all the time.

There is always room for a "do over".

Science is losing the media war...

In the conflict over extremist ideology, the United States is still behind the power curve when it comes to matching information and propaganda. This is not a good thing as any struggle is almost always won or lost first in the minds of the contenders. The same battle is being fought in the political arena, with claim and counter-claim being launched in all avenues of the media world. Regrettably, the greatest battle is being fought in the realm of scientific education and information.

A recent survey, for example, conducted by the University of Toronto identified the number of YouTube videos on vaccination and immunization and categorized them as to their perceived slant. Disappointingly, the overwhelming view was negative. This on a topic of science which has proven its efficacy and safety to the human species for nearly a century.

Like the perpetual pleas for money from Nigeria and bogus internet virus alerts, anti-science luddites continue to dominate the media war with half-truths, cherry picked data and emotionally charged claims. Science, a methodical process can not keep up. And so the slight defense of "full disclosure" falls to a handful of dedicated scientists, journalists and skeptics who doggedly point out logical flaws, falsehoods and other inconsistencies in the scaremongers tactics. And for their efforts, they are labeled "obstructionists" and worse.

The problem is compounded by a public mistrust of authority - blossoming in the 1960s. And a desire for solutions to really challenging problems. We are a hopeful animal and will stake our tents in any camp which promises answers to questions which keep us up at night, even if those answers are wrong.

NOTE - The short article is here

UPDATE - Why is this important you ask? In our post-modern anything goes, relatavist world shouldn't alternate (even minority) views be considered? The answer simply is no. It is all well and good to consider and debate fringe ideas, but to act on them is foolhardy in the extreme. Sen. Diane Feinstein, from the uber-nanny state of California, proposes to ban a set of key chemicals essential to the manufacture of plastics. Why, you may ask? Because of a misplaced fear of possible harm which is unsupported by science! This possible national legislation will have far reaching and unintended consequences from toy makers to dialysis patients.

Holy crap - do some research!

Contingency...

Remember this? Howard Dean riding high and then collapsing in a primal scream of goofiness. I can only hope the same holds true for the weight losing, Mike Huckabee.

The presidential race is certainly heating up. MSNBC, also known as Major Source of News for Backroom Communists, is predicting a wild turnover of events in the primaries. I am not surprised. With the duration of the campaign season, it is inevitable that cracks would appear in the heir apparent's armor. Personally, I am excited. Politics has seemed to come alive again in the American spirit and a more civil discourse of issues appears to be taking place.

Let me offer a few of my own plans for election day in 2008. As the selection of potential candidates is essentially out of my hands, I will present a simple IF-THEN approach to voting.

Fair warning, I am a registered republican. In college I worked on George H. W. Bush's campaign. I was a registered libertarian for a period in the mid to late 1990s, but never voted the party ticket. I abandoned them after better understanding their overly "hands off" approach to too many critical issues.

1) I see no third party candidate of any interest. The fact that multiple parties still offer up candidates. However, the winnowing of candidates into two parties is efficient and effective. I am of the strong opinion that all politics is local.

2) If Mike Huckabee secures the GOP nomination or VP slot – I will vote against him, even for Hillary Clinton or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad .

3) Barack Obama, for all his naïve nature is VERY electable.

In general I am optimistic. Our foreign policy has not converted the world into a firestorm of US hatred – anymore than it was prior to September 11, 2001. The real challenges remain as global security and human freedom, the economy and managing growth (thus its impact on the environment).

Healthcare, in my opinion is a red herring. This goes for immigration as well. Both require detailed solutions to some of the programmatic and fiscal aspects, but from a policy perspective – no major change is truly warranted.

Holy retrospective...

Well it’s here. The baby boomer generation is indulging in its favorite pastime of navel gazing. The New York Times advertising section reports that advertisers are now increasingly tying their products to some whimsical representation of the 1960s. There is hardly anything wrong with categorizing any period as the good old days. As humans, we have a unique ability to emphasize any aspect of an experience over another.

Let’s just recapture the essence of the sixties. Political assassination was routine, even in the United States was common. Our armed forces were a last vestige of institutionalized slavery due to conscription. Many cities were reeling from racial violence and wide spread abandonment by middle class citizens. The threat of actual, all-out nuclear war was nearly made real with the Cuban missile crisis. The environment was NOT a top consideration of any mainstream party.

Some good aspects. The space race meant something. Civil rights were evolving for the good. Government control over the economy was waning. But the sixties were marked by chaos. The unpredictable result of decades of social unrest and overturning of the old order. There are a thousand different ways this period could have transpired. It could have happened with less violence, less pain and more insight.

But it didn’t. It happened the way it happened due to the actions and reactions of humanity. We will likely look back on this first decade of the 21^st century and make similar comparisons. I think I would vote for Obama if only to move the nation away from the false memory of the 1960s.

I was born in the middle of that decade. My memories are locked squarely in the midst of the 1970s. Those days, naturally, seem magical to me. I was growing up and forming my worldview. The Soviets were bad. Hijackings didn’t end with plunges into cities. The economy was in tatters and we were retreating from our initial push into space.

There were no good old days.

The only good old day is now.

Do your part to make it the best one possible.

By the way, I know some folks who are – Capt Jack Harkness and Sonic Frog are boldly entrenched in making sure the youth of the planet have a touchstone of sanity in an otherwise anything goes society.

Rock on.

A rose by any other name...

Citizen Prime raised an interesting issue about the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. She had read an editorial by Jonathan Tilove about the vitriol being used to attack Senator Clinton. The terms used in the article were related to misogyny, literally the hatred of women. The article goes further to describe the same tactic applied to other female figures.

Hillary garners special attention for several reasons. She is perhaps the most recognizable public figure on the planet. She is running for the most powerful position on the planet. She has a well known husband and a history for controversy. There is no doubt that she is a consummate politician. I have no doubt that she would be a capable president. I am VERY concerned about her approach to social programs, spending and taxation. I think her foreign policy would be practical and unspectacular – but I could be wrong. I would feel better about her if she had been governor of New York rather than senator. At this juncture in our history, there are NO senators who have the qualities required to be President.

So why the hate, players? The verbiage is particularly offensive – but not unusual. Our mixed culture of female empowerment / objectification has created a bizarre world of double, triple and quadruple standards. At present, one can find any number of sites denigrating the current administration (in the most personal fashion). Apparently there are a number of places where similar assaults are heaped upon Senator Clinton (and one would infer other candidates).

The predicament is that Senator Clinton is a woman and also someone’s mother. Does Condoleezza Rice receive similar attacks? A quick google will confirm that indeed she does. In fact, phrases reserved for the most uneducated and ignorant are heaped upon the present Secretary of State. Is there an additional level of horror reserved for the reaction to Hillary’s epithets due to her maternal status? Or is it because she represents the “progressive” side of politics? I have an unpleasant feeling it is the latter.

So let’s be honest. When sites like Democratic Underground, KOS, World Net Daily and other left and progressive site degrade and insult individuals (the ad hominem attack) – let us condemn them as strongly as we should Free Republic or similar sites on the opposite side of the spectrum. I have personally been kicked from off of each of the major left and right boards for "rationality".

No one, it seems, wants to talk about facts. Sad, really.

I deeply abhor the personal aspects of politics. I know that it has been around forever, but this behavior serves only to obscure reasoned discussion of issues and divide our nation further. A civil discourse, at least, allows one to see the humanity inherent in each individual. I would challenge those decrying the assaults on Hillary to equally decry the attacks on the other side of the aisle.

No one deserves to be insulted or degraded.

UPDATE - I just listened to Eric Idle's offering on XM Radio Comedy (entitled F*** the FCC) in which the normally humorous and erudite British citizen, refers to Secretary Rice as an "intellectual tart". This in addition to a series of unprintable (by me) expletives directed at any and all members of the present administration.

Coming into the first turn...

It is the end of November and I haven’t posted on the blog. Since I am not receiving any threatening e-mails, then I will presume your November was as busy as mine. I have been poking around the blogosphere noting some issues. Of interest is the resent tragic death of Sean Taylor. His murder was well commented on by FOX Sports writer Jason Whitlock. The choice of view by this author may be incendiary, but they are certainly worth discussing!

On a more insubstantial note, I am starting to think about who I will support in the 2008 election. I have perused the web for some good comparison sites and I think this one fills the bill. They catalog all the top candidates and even have an internet dating style match quiz! Which cuddly candidate will you be spending time by the fire with in 2008?

I took the match quiz and ended up in bed with John McCain. Now I like McCain on defense and other “hard” issues. I don’t think he represents enough of a change this time as he did during the old Straight Talk Express days. So, despite my respect for him and his service in the Navy, I must set him aside.

Sam Brownback doesn’t stand a chance. And as a rule I am not a fan of senators running for president. After all, that’s hardly any qualification. Then I arrive at Tommy Thompson, a good candidate four years ago – now too much in the past. At last we have Guiliani. He was a good mayor, but presidential? That’s tough to say. I like his stand on choice but am concerned that his economic approach may be too light.

Here is the surprise – Bill Richardson! But he’s a democrat! And yet he represents one of the best overall candidates in the field. He is experienced, intelligent and has an opinion which reflects a lot of my views. Now if I could only get him to run with McCain or Romney – but alas, he is destined to be steamrolled by the Clinton / Obama battle.

Here is my prediction – Romney gets the republican nomination. He selects a southwestern running mate (McCain is unlikely). In the democratic camp, Hillary ultimately wins the nomination – picks Richardson as a VP. Then the slugfest begins.

Candidate Summary

REPUBLICANS
George Allen (Former Virginia Senator): lost re-election; has PAC.
Mike Bloomberg (NYC Mayor): Undeclared; active draft movement; has campaign website. Re-registered as independent (instead of Republican) on June 19, 2007.
Sam Brownback (Kansas Senator): Announced.
Jeb Bush (Governor of Florida): Undeclared; denies any plans to run.
Bill Frist (Tennessee Senator): Withdrew Nov. 2006.
Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House): Undeclared; says he will decide in June 2007.
James Gilmore (former Governor of Virginia): Announced plans to file FEC papers.
Rudy Giuliani (former NYC Mayor): Has Exploratory Committee; filed FEC papers, Feb. 2007.
Chuck Hagel (Nebraska Senator): Undeclared; active draft movement; has PAC.
Alan Keyes (Radio talkshow host): announced candidacy, Sept. 2007.
Mike Huckabee (Governor of Arkansas): Has Exploratory Committee; announced candidacy, Jan. 2007; has PAC.
Duncan Hunter (California Representative): announced candidacy, Jan. 2007; filed FEC papers, Oct. 2006.
John McCain (Arizona Senator): Has Exploratory Committee.
George Pataki (New York Governor): Undeclared; has PAC.
Ron Paul (Texas Representative): Has Exploratory Committee.
Mitt Romney (Massachusetts Governor): Declared candidacy, Feb. 2007; has PAC.
Fred Thompson (former Tennessee Senator): Has active draft movement; has exporatory committee.
Tommy Thompson (former Wisconsin Governor and Secretary of HHS): Has Exploratory Committee.
Mark Sanford (South Carolina Governor): Has gubernatorial campaign committee; active draft movement.
Tom Tancredo (Colorado Representative): Has Exploratory Committee; has PAC; active draft movement.
DEMOCRATS
Evan Bayh (IN Senator): Withdrew Dec. 2006; Has PAC; has Exploratory Committee.
Joe Biden (DE Senator): announced candidacy, Jan. 2007; has PAC.
Wes Clark (former NATO commander): Undeclared; has PAC.
Hillary Clinton (NY Senator): Has Exploratory Committee; has PAC; has Senate campaign committee.
Tom Daschle (Former SD Senator): Announced not running, Dec. 2006; has PAC.
Christopher Dodd (CT Senator): Announced Jan. 11; has Senate campaign committee.
John Edwards (former NC Senator): Announced Dec. 27; has PAC.
Russ Feingold (WI Senator): Withdrew Nov. 2006.
Al Gore (former V.P.): Undeclared; active draft movement.
Mike Gravel (former AK Senator): Declared candidacy in 2006.
John Kerry (MA Senator): Has PAC; withdrew, Jan. 2007.
Dennis Kucinich (OH Representative): Announced, Dec. 2006.
Barack Obama (IL Senator): Declared candidacy, Feb. 2007; has PAC.
Bill Richardson (NM Governor): Has Exploratory Committee; has Gubernatorial campaign committee.
Al Sharpton (Reverend): Declared he is considering another presidential run.
Tom Vilsack (IA Governor): Announced & filed FEC candidacy, Nov. 2006.
Mark Warner (VA Governor): Withdrew Oct. 2006.


2008 GOP Presidential candidates: (Click on a candidate below for their issue stances)

John Cox (Chair of Cook County GOP) Rudy Giuliani (former NYC Mayor) Mike Huckabee (AR Governor) Duncan Hunter (CA Representative) Alan Keyes (former UN Ambassador) John McCain (AZ Senator) Ron Paul (TX Representative) Mitt Romney (Former MA Governor) Fred Thompson (former TN Senator) Tom Tancredo (CO Representative)

2008 Democratic candidates: Joe Biden (DE Senator) Hillary Clinton (NY Senator) Christopher Dodd (CT Senator) John Edwards (former NC Senator) Al Gore (former V.P.) Mike Gravel (former AK Senator) Dennis Kucinich (OH Representative) Barack Obama (IL Senator) Bill Richardson (NM Governor)

Citizen Deux’s VoteMatch Results – McCain!!! Oh no!!!
Scores & Analysis
Candidate
More Information
Click on 'Social' and 'Economic' for analysis of your answers compared to each candidate's answers.
Click on 'Answers' and 'Stances' for complete details of the sources of each candidate's answers.

Total 80%
Social 69%
Economic 88%

John McCainRepublican Sr Senator (AZ); 2000 Primary Candidate for President
Biographical Profile John McCain's answers John McCain's stances

Total 60%
Social 63%
Economic 58%

Sam BrownbackRepublican Sr Senator (KS)
Biographical Profile Sam Brownback's answers Sam Brownback's stances

Total 60%
Social 56%
Economic 63%

Tommy ThompsonFormer Secretary of H.H.S.; former Republican Governor (WI)
Biographical Profile Tommy Thompson's answers Tommy Thompson's stances

Total 58%
Social 63%
Economic 54%

Rudy GiulianiFormer Mayor of New York City; Republican Candidate for 2000 Senate (NY)
Biographical Profile Rudy Giuliani's answers Rudy Giuliani's stances

Total 55%
Social 63%
Economic 50%

Bill RichardsonDemocratic NM Governor
Biographical Profile Bill Richardson's answers Bill Richardson's stances

Total 53%
Social 38%
Economic 63%

Duncan HunterRepublican Representative (CA-52)
Biographical Profile Duncan Hunter's answers Duncan Hunter's stances

Total 50%
Social 44%
Economic 54%

Jim GilmoreFormer Republican VA Governor
Biographical Profile Jim Gilmore's answers Jim Gilmore's stances

Total 48%
Social 25%
Economic 63%

Tom TancredoRepublican Representative (CO-6)
Biographical Profile Tom Tancredo's answers Tom Tancredo's stances

Total 48%
Social 56%
Economic 42%

Mike HuckabeeRepublican AR Governor
Biographical Profile Mike Huckabee's answers Mike Huckabee's stances

Total 43%
Social 50%
Economic 38%

Mitt RomneyRetiring Republican MA Governor
Biographical Profile Mitt Romney's answers Mitt Romney's stances

Total 35%
Social 50%
Economic 25%

John Edwards2004 Nominee for Vice President; Former NC Senator
Biographical Profile John Edwards's answers John Edwards's stances

Total 35%
Social 63%
Economic 17%

Barack ObamaDemocratic Jr Senator (IL); previously State Senator
Biographical Profile Barack Obama's answers Barack Obama's stances

Total 33%
Social 44%
Economic 25%

Hillary ClintonDemocratic Jr Senator (NY); former First Lady
Biographical Profile Hillary Clinton's answers Hillary Clinton's stances

Total 33%
Social 38%
Economic 29%

Mike GravelFormer Senator (AK)
Biographical Profile Mike Gravel's answers Mike Gravel's stances

Total 30%
Social 19%
Economic 38%

Ron PaulRepublican Representative (TX-14); Libertarian nominee for President in 1988
Biographical Profile Ron Paul's answers Ron Paul's stances

Total 28%
Social 44%
Economic 17%

Joe BidenDemocratic Sr Senator (DE)
Biographical Profile Joe Biden's answers Joe Biden's stances

Total 25%
Social 25%
Economic 25%

Chris DoddDemocratic Sr Senator (CT)
Biographical Profile Chris Dodd's answers Chris Dodd's stances

Total 20%
Social 25%
Economic 17%

Dennis KucinichDemocratic Representative (OH-10)
Biographical Profile Dennis Kucinich's answers Dennis Kucinich's stances

Click on 'Social' and 'Economic' for analysis of your answers compared to each candidate's answers. Click on 'Answers' and 'Stances' for complete details of the sources of each candidate's answers.

So others need not...

It's Veteran's Day, well, it is the federally sanctioned observence. Yesterday was the actual event. I attended church with Citizen Prime. I was surprised, and a little humbled, to have the pastor ask for the veterans to stand and be recognized. There were about 200 people in attendance. Judging by the respective ages of those standing, I would place the number of current service members in attendance at less than 3.

My grandfather served in the war to end all wars, and then was promptly shipped overseas to serve in the sequel to that bloody conflict. My own father served as an artillery officer in the Korean War. That conflict, to this day, continues - as no peace treaty was ever signed.

I joined the service twice. I signed up as a NROTC scholarship recipient. I was unable to see that through as a college student, fortuitiously ti would prove later. I signed up again in 1997 as a direct commission officer in a Navy program. It was a time when everything looked very different from today. The discussion was to the necessity of large scale military spending. The hardest job was serving in the Balkans (we are still there). Reservists were struggling to serve in value added roles and contribute to their active commands.

Obviously, things have changed. I have always maintained that one of the primary reasons I serve is so that the two proto-citizens will not have to make that choice. I can not help but think that my father and grandfather thought the same things.

We are at a strange crossroads in our society. We live in a world where we can truly insulate ourselves from the misery and danger of the non-civilized world to a large degree. Aside from countries actively embroiled in war (Israel) the remainder of the developed world can operate without fear. And yet the balance is a fine one. The Balkans, previously mentioned, existed as a civilized state under the aegis of the Yugoslavian government. Once that veneer was torn away, centuries of ethnic hatred boiled over into Europe's worst war in half a century.

So, as I sit here in Atlanta airport, I reflect upon the young Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines who trek unnoticed between flights in this massive transportation center. At the security gate I watched a young, female private kiss her daughter good bye. I don't know where she was bound, but she carried the sadness of her separation cradled inside a hope that she served so that her daughter would not have to make that choice.

Sister, I know the feeling.

Happy Birthday USMC...

On this date in 1775, in a tavern, the United States Marine Corps was born. Since that time, they have served our nation unfailingly. Semper Fidelis I raise a toast to you, Mud Shark - and to all Marines, past, present, and future.

Vegas baby...

Citizen Prime and I are sitting in 24/b at the Palms in Las Vegas. It is a surprise trip to help celebrate a good friend's 40th birthday. I am not a fan of Vegas. I don't gamble, but I do love the desert. We took a sidetrip to Hoover Dam. It is perhaps one of the most potent renants of the WPA projects. During that period whole families took incredible risks in search of work and hope. How little we remember those sacrifices.

If you can't build it...

The Navy, like a most of the military, is keen to be efficient. Whether it is in the prosecution of a mission or the acquisition of a weapons system. I am pleased to see the cancellation of LCS 4. I am NOT a fan of the littoral ship program. I think there are conventional systems already available which will more than meet the need of the Navy in this regard. Specifically, these systems are currently called "helicopters". They can operate with little regard to sea state, can remain on station for sufficient periods of time and have the capability to avoid pesky hazards like mines.

The Coast Guard uses helicopters to great effect in the littorals. The Navy needs to look at their model and adopt the same. We could quickly deploy air assets against a small waterborne threat and actually interdict them, vice trying to move (even at 50 kts) a 1000ton vessel.

Navy Terminates Littoral Combat Ship (LCS 4) Contract
Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:31:00 -0500

IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 1269-07 November 01, 2007

Navy Terminates Littoral Combat Ship (LCS 4) Contract Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead announced today that the Department of the Navy is terminating construction of the fourth littoral combat ship (LCS 4) for convenience under the termination clause of the contract because the Navy and General Dynamics could not reach agreement on the terms of a modified contract. The Navy had not yet authorized construction on LCS 4, following a series of cost overruns on LCS 2. The Navy intended to begin construction of LCS 4 if the Navy and General Dynamics could agree on the terms for a fixed-price incentive agreement. The Navy worked closely with General Dynamics to try to restructure the agreement for LCS 4 to more equitably balance cost and risk, but could not come to terms and conditions that were acceptable to both parties. The Navy remains committed to the LCS program. "LCS continues to be a critical warfighting requirement for our Navy to maintain dominance in the littorals and strategic choke points around the world," said Winter. "While this is a difficult decision, we recognize that active oversight and strict cost controls in the early years are necessary to ensuring we can deliver these ships to the fleet over the long term." "I am absolutely committed to the Littoral Combat Ship," said Roughead. "We need this ship. It is very important that our acquisition efforts produce the right littoral combat ship capability to the fleet at the right cost."

---

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)

On the Web: http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/

Media Contact: +1 (703) 697-5131/697-5132
Public Contact: http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.html or +1 (703) 428-0711 +1

Update your subscriptions, modify your password or e-mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your User Profile Page. You will need to use your e-mail address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please e-mail support@govdelivery.com.

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of the U.S. Department of Defense · 380 Jackson Street, Suite 550 · St. Paul, MN 55101 · 1-800-439-1420