Telling it like it is

Just a quick post. I came across this piece by Patti Davis, daughter of Ronald Reagan.

I've never tried drugs. Of any kind. Never smoked a joint, never put anything up my nose, never even stuck a cancer stick in my mouth.

And I'm damn glad of it.

I couldn't imagine going through this kind of crap, just because I needed some way to keep awake for the whole night. Or whatever it is that prompts people to do drugs.

Robin Williams said it best years ago (paraphrase alert): Anything that causes paranoia and impotence? Sign me up.

It would be nice to see these kids get through it and fix their lives. But they seem to have the instant gratification gene. And on top of that, they also are young and successful enough to be indestructible, right?

Some time ago, I did a post on Britney Spears, and how tough things must have gotten for her. Now it seems Lindsay Lohan is in the same boat, more or less. But she has less excuse, I think. I still hope she can get it together, but I don't know. I'm not sure that Rehab is intended to be a mini-vacation. It should be a cast-iron bitch, methinks.

Maybe they should be tied down and have water dumped in their faces until they scream for mercy. Maybe that would work, maybe not.

Thank God I just don't know.

Later.

Another bit of progress

Here's a quick link to a story by Michael Yon, probably the best journalist of the entire Iraq war. Not for nothing is he sometimes compared to Ernie Pyle.

Does this show progress? Absolutely. Would CNN or Reuters do a piece like this? Doubtful.

Oh, and here's a nice little excerpt about our Al-Qaeda friends. Clearly, in their minds morality is for the other guys:

"...the Al Qaeda (AQI) terrorists who had brazenly made Anbar province a home base and slaughter pad with their marketplace car bombs, beheadings, and reputation for hiding bombs intended to kill parents in the corpses of dead children they’d gutted.

Over time, AQI provided ample demonstrations of their ruthless and reckless abuses of power over civilians, shooting people for using the Internet, or watching television, or other “moral transgressions” such as smoking in public. AQI’s claim of fundamentalist piety proved to be a thin veneer that was quickly eroded by blatant drug, alcohol and prostitute use. "

Did you notice the part about gutting the bodies of dead children in order to hide bombs and kill the parents? Or the part about using prostitutes?

Do as I say, not as I do. But hey, they're essentially abiding by the same rules as their prophet.

Sometimes I think that we need a better "final option" for these terrorists.... er, "freedom fighters" as so many people in the US call them.

Later.

History repeats itself

I just found a short article at Defensetech.org (with a hat-tip to military.com) about the weapons our troops are using in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It seems that many troops are requesting that the military ditch the M9 pistol ( a 9mm round) because it has insufficient stopping power. Some are specifically asking for a return to the venerable M1911 .45 caliber. In fairness, I've been hearing this for a couple years.

Well duh. The US adopted the 9 mm about 20 years ago (give or take) simply because our allies all use it, and this way we could have compatible ammunition. The .45 on the other hand was designed for the US Army during the Moro rebellion in the Philippines. It was designed specifically to give the troops a pistol with terrific stopping power, as a last-ditch defense.

Here's a little tip: When your military buys a new weapon, designed specifically to be used to stop fanatical Muslim guerrillas who are whacked out on their narcotic of choice, and it works brilliantly for about 80 years, think hard about replacing it for no good reason.

The saddest thing about this whole affair is that it's just so... obvious. I was in the Army when the switch to the newer pistol began (though I never used one). I clearly recall discussions with other officers and NCOs, in which we all-without exception- took the view that it was a mistake to switch, because the .45 was a more "lethal" round. But of course, the decision was made up in Washington (I assume), which someone once described to me as "where the rubber meets the clouds".

I just wonder how many of our soldiers were killed because they couldn't stop an enemy soldier, even with multiple shots. As the article says:

'"When speaking to experts and Soldiers on site, many commented on the limited ability to effectively stop targets, saying that those personnel targets who were shot multiple times were still able to continue pursuit," the report said.'

This is a tragedy. You need weapons that are lethal to fight a war. It's pretty simple. The .45 is one of the best weapons mankind has ever designed for close-range fighting, like that in a fight to the death (which is what our soldiers have to expect when fighting these animals).

I hope that none of the soldiers that have been captured by terrorists-like the 3 young men this month- were captured by assailants that had already been shot, to no avail.

That would be a crime.

Later.

A belated and quick note on Memorial Day

Here's a link to another article from Mark Steyn. I can't praise him enough. He's a brilliant writer, and I only rarely disagree with what he says.

Which I guess proves what a genius he is, right?

Anyhow, here it is. A little perspective on things.

Later.