Dave Vs Those Who Hate Chuck Norris

Small Minded People

So scrolling through my Facebook today, and I found a link to a site going on about how Chuck Norris hates gay people.  With a trail of disgusting comments all about him, and how hes a hateful evil person.

So I go to the link, and I discover something odd.  Despite supposedly trumpeting evil speech, no where was there a direct link so I or anyone could go and read his hateful words for my self.

Kinda suspicious if you ask me.  If Chuck Norris is such an evil homophobic prick, as the person who pointed the link to me said, wouldnt they want to provide his own speech all about it?

Apparently not, you dont need to read his words, I read them for you, trust me when I say its true.

But isnt internet technology so sophisticated that we can provide a link easily?  Perhaps the person running the blog didnt know how to complete a link.  Lets look at his site.

http://www.williamkwolfrum.com/2009/07/12/behind-chuck-norris-beard-is-another-fist-and-behind-that-fist-is-a-homophobic-prick/

Theres links there, so why dont we find the original quote?

So I go trolling through the internet, and I type in Chuck Norris hates gays.  And I find a bunch of different sites, all purporting to have the quote, and none of them could direct me to the original source quote.  However finally one site did say it was Chuck Norris speaking on the World Daily Net site.  So I went there and found the original letter and its entirety.

http://www.bibleinschools.net/About-Us/Chuck-Norris-Bringing-the-Bible-back-into-schools-WorldNet-Daily

Now Im sure that letter will upset anyone on the left.  The thought that people will be teaching the bible in schools.  But its not anti-gay speech.

Now maybe Im missing something.  Maybe there is a quote somewhere else, but even then hate speech legislation, has been used repeatedly in the past in my country to silence people critical of certain groups.  Both Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant were initially convicted of violations of the Hate Speech law in Canada, for daring to print joke pictures of Mohammed in there magazine.

http://brentwittmeier.com/2008/11/23/hate-and-human-rights-part-ii-ezra-levant-and-mark-steyn/

Being against flawed human rights censorship is not being anti-gay.

Given the government the right to tell you what you can say and what you cant say is a problem.

But I guess its easier to believe your pre-concieved notions than actually think for yourself.  Which is also a problem

Dave Vs Popular Myths

The Myth of The Successful Insurgency

Today begins the long awaited withdrawal from Iraq by the United States of America.  It seems to beginning with a whimper and low media coverage, when it was the center of much controversy only a few short years ago.  Though it was once considered a quagmire with no end was in sight, a hopeless mess, where the Greatest Military Force in history was defeated by a great insurgency, the United States is not withdrawing due to casualties of that terrible insurgency but by a lack of political will amongst the ruling elite. 

There has become a myth that no western democracy or power can possibly withstand the financial and casualty drain to defeat a determined insurgency, like that of Vietnam or Iraq.  This is clearly a fable created by those who have never studied the history of actual insurgencies during the 20^th century or those who for their own reasons seek to create such a myth.

The 20^th century is replete with forgotten stories of insurgencies fought and sponsored by countries fighting from sanctuary states that were completely defeated by determined and aggressive forces, and by those who decided to win.  These conflicts are often forgotten now but at the time were potent reminders of the true results of fighting such a battle. 

Many of the great colonial powers began to give up their holdings during the 1950 and 60s.  Countries like France, Great Britain and Portugal.  Those governments were still determined to make sure that friendly governments held control of those countries instead of them being swallowed up by their often rapacious neighbors or Communist rebels.  The British were the most successful of these great powers fighting three insurgencies that they won by defeating them through a combination of judicious military power and through hearts and minds campaigns.  The three wars conflicts that they fought were in Malaya, The Indonesian Confrontation and the Mau Mau Rebellion.

These conflicts were all defeated not just by brute force, but by a combination of hearts and minds campaign and reforms of the political and economic systems of the countries involved.  In both Malaya and the Mau Mau rebellion, the insurgencies were not being driven purely by ideology, but by the fact that the insurgents were oppressed minorities (Chinese in Malaya) or Majorities (Kikuyu).  The British governments to work with these groups to improve their living and economic conditions, to raise the people out of the third world conditions and to ignore the colonial elite that had been oppressing them led to the creation of not just friendly governments but to stable democratic partners. 

In the case of Indonesian Confrontation, after easily defeated a small rebellion in Borneo to a direct confrontation with Indonesia who was seeking to puppet and conquer its neighbors.  A combination of military support, secret insertions into the Indonesian rear areas, and the continual drain on Indonesian resources led to the direct overthrow of the Sukarno government.  Which helps prove that insurgencies can also throw out the much more powerful and supposedly superior ‘Tyranny’ government model.

The most famous of ‘successful’ insurgencies is supposedly that of the Viet Cong insurgency which fought in Viet Nam.  This insurgency portrayed in such movies as Platoon and Apocalypse Now, as well as television shows like Tour of Duty, single handedly defeated the United States of America and proved the superiority of insurgency against the US Military.  However South Vietnam was not defeated by an insurgency repeatedly defeated first in the Mekong Delta, by a concerted effort of the US Navy and Army commands, and then later during the infamous Tet Offensive.  It was defeated by a North Vietnamese army supplied by the Soviet Union consisting of a tank force larger than that fought at Kursk in World War 2.  It was defeated by the OPEC embargo which had dropped its cash reserves to such a low it could not afford to buy the military equipment it desperately needed to fight the war, and finally by a corrupt government structure more interested in lining its own pockets than serving the needs of either its military or civilian populace. 

Insurgencies by themselves do not win wars and in fact have almost never won wars without significant intervention by other foreign powers.  Whether it was the American Revolutionaries assisted by the French and Spanish (the later contributing substantial and early support often forgotten today), the Afghans who defeated the Soviets with US support, or the Yugoslavs against the Nazis with British and American support. 

The United States can now look back upon the work they did in Iraq and indeed Vietnam that despite a myth being written by those who benefit by it that they succeeded in what they attempted to do.   They defeated and beat the insurgency.  Whether or not Iraq goes on and remains a democracy, falls to internal civil war or invasion by a foreign power, the soldiers who fought and died in that country did not do so in vain, they won.  Whether or not there victory is thrown away by others, it will not be they who are to blame.

Dave Vs The Idiocracy

So I have been meaning to start one of these for a long time now.

Im Dave!  Im a writer who actually has been published, and am looking to expand my range.  So basically Im going to write my blogs about me and my life, and all the stupid things that annoy me.

The Idiocracy is whatever dumb thing that happens, that annoys me and I feel the need to go on about.

Daves Friend Vs. Octogenerians!

Heres a story of the Romney Campaign, told to me by a friend of mine. 

She lives in the states.  Shes young just turned 31, working on a medical degree and as a medical translator.  She thinks Romney is going to win the nomination.  If nothing else hes going to win her state.  Shes young, pretty and successful.  You know the type of women you should use to get the younger voters out for you.

So she calls up the Romney campaign and is immediately rebuffed.  Cause she isn’t at least 65 years of age.  They only want old octagenerians who have proven themselves loyal to the party to participate in ‘their’ campaign.  The best she can get as a political operative is to deliver pamphlets or stuff envelopes.

So she calls up Obamas campaign for office in the state.  That day they bring her down and set her up at a desk.  They use her in publicity photos and as a signature star of the Obama campaign.  The perfect young voter that got him elected last time.  Hard workers who love Obamacare!  Her face is now on their literature, shes been made supervisor for two counties and is has been given an office and a budget.

If that’s Romneys plan, for how to go about winning the election its game over.

Dave Vs The NRO

http://www.nationalreview.com/

To which I replied, in a rather long way,

Hello,

Well I can see exactly why it was so hard for me to comment on this earlier when I first saw this an hour ago.  400+ comments on this thread show a sincere passion for the argument. 

Nominating Gingrich will not blow this opportunity.  Nominating someone who does not have the support of the base of the party, will guarantee a blown opportunity.  To many times the Republican party has elected someone the so called ‘winnable’ candidate and lost.  If we follow the advice of this editorial board once again we may elect one of this so called ‘winnable’ candidates only to loose in the General Election.

The Editors claim we should not elect Newt because of his flaws.  Who is not among us flawed?  Certainly he will be running against one of the most flawed and incompetent Presidents in the history of the Country.  A man who is so pathetic he makes Carter look good.  They claim that no one who has a history of his has ever run for the position.  Hey guess what, his life is the future, more and more Americans resemble Newts life than most people.  So what if he looks like he should be running for President of France.  Most non-primary voters don’t care! 

The editors claim that the most conservative of his fellow congressmen kicked him out of the Speakership and that was for the better.  Really?  Have those editors actually looked back on what happened after Newt was no longer there?  What were the results of those the most conservative of Congressmen wrought for our benefit? We have Obama and the bailouts and a 5 trillion dollar deficit.  Their decisions led to the creation of Medicare part D and No Child Left Behind, a war spent by borrowed money paid for with money we didn’t have.  How was that Conservative?  The Era of Big government began again as soon as Newt was gone.  Those are some facts that you, the voter should consider.

As John Boehner recently pointed out that the Speakership and Congress has always been the whipping boy of the nation and never been held in high regard.  Gingrich was the most unpopular figure in popular life of the time.  So what?  Who cares what a then primarily still left wing main stream media made him look bad., that they shaped the message against him.  We now live in a digital age where most people get there news from sources other than the Main Stream Media.  As to the Left they are going to savage whoever is running for President.  Should it not be someone who at least will fight back and give as good as he gets?  Why do you care what they say, when you know what they are  going to say anyways? They are never going to like you or vote for you.  Get over it.

He may well be topping the polls because he is the best candidate for the job.  Did it never occur to this editorial board?  Or did it occur to you and that’s what frightens you?  You say that his qualities served the conservatives well when he led the Republicans to victory in 1994, over the long held democrats.  Don’t you think we need someone like that, who has a proven record of coming over the odds to get to victory, than someone that is all gushy, and wishy washy and well cant deliver a proper bet?

His Colleagues were right to bring his tenure to an end you say, but the end of his tenure ended real conservatism and brought the creation of so-called Compassionate Conservatism, the restatement of the Rockefeller Republican dream and the end of implementation of the  True Conservatism in the Party.  His opponents in the party were wrong to throw him out.  They caved to the temptations of all politicians to be wanted be loved and respected, rather than effective and principled.  They sold out to lobbyists and the special interests, and eventually led to the destruction of the banking system which happened on their watch.  These are the people who the Editors wish us to listen too.

I don’t know if time has ended Newts dark side.  Paul Ryans Medicare reform is right wing social engineering.  Its also despite everyones expectations, a wimpy middle of the road program.  Anything that expects to take decades to return to fiscal solidity is not enough.  Newt did help to defeat Communism, anyone who worked with Reagan did.  Are you denying that?  Newt is like Reagan and Thatcher.  He helped balance the budget and brought about the only time within the last 20 years when actual conservative principles governed the country.  Local boards should decide what to do with Illegal Immigrants, cause I trust them to do whats in my best interest than I trust any unelected, un-appointed, unaccountable government bureaucrat in Washington to decide so.  Unless it’s the belief of this Editorial board that the American people are too stupid to handle their own affairs, and that they need the helping hand of big government to make all their decisions for them.

Republican voters should not ask themselves which candidate will be best to answer the big issues.  They should not choose based on personal idiosyncracies.  They should choose someone who can beat President Obama, they should choose someone who has a proven track record of creating partnerships with Republican Leaders, who have formed winning coalitions, who have proven themselves capable of achieving and accomplishing the Conservative agenda.  Only one candidate currently in the race has that proven track record.  It aint Romney.

The one thing the voters should not do is take advice from a group of people who have a proven track record of being wrong.  They should consider the facts and make their choice on their own good judgment and intelligence.  They should not listen to a bunch of hacks claiming to wrap themselves in the arms of conservatism while selling them out for a progressive agenda.  They should not listen to a bunch of weak kneed writers and editors who have more in common with David Frum than Rush Limbaugh.  These are the same people who will ditch the Tea Party in a heartbeat if they could.   The new intelligentsia of the enlightened beltway insiders.  The same people who sold out the Conservative Revolution of the 1990s.  They are the weakest link.