Rule 5 Blogging: Vive la France!

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Charlotte di Calypso in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude.

This week, the military women of France. After the Friday the Thirteenth massacre, some of them just might have to fight against Da’ish.

Training in marksmanship. Both of my daughters have scored as sharpshooters!

Training in marksmanship. Both of my daughters have scored as sharpshooters!

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: Vive la France!’ »

From Around the Blogroll The Paris terrorist attacks edition

From The Wall Street Journal:

Paris Attacks Make National Security Top Issue in U.S. Presidential Race

Democratic Candidates Set to Debate Saturday Night; Republicans Call for More Aggressive Approach to ISIS

By Colleen McCain Nelson and Beth Reinhard | Novmber 14, 2015 3:28 p.m. ET

DES MOINES, Iowa—National security issues moved to center stage in the race for the White House, as Democratic candidates prepared to weigh in on the Paris terrorist attacks in a debate Saturday and GOP contenders called for new strategies in the battle against Islamic State.

The Paris assaults quickly shifted the 2016 political debate, opening up new GOP lines of attack on the Obama administration and highlighting key differences among the Democratic candidates’ views on foreign policy.

In Iowa, the attacks scrambled plans for the second Democratic presidential debate, forcing a new focus on national security questions when the candidates face off Saturday night.

After a bloody siege left at least 129 people dead in the French capital, CBS News quickly altered its game plan for the debate, with moderators rewriting the script and crafting new queries focused on terrorism and U.S. leadership on the global stage.

Christopher Isham, CBS News vice president and Washington bureau chief, said he was in the middle of a debate rehearsal Friday when reports of the Paris attacks first emerged.

And further down:

Real-estate mogul Donald Trump seized on President Obama’s interview Thursday with ABC News—before the attacks—in which he described “making sure that ISIL continues to shrink in its scope of operations until it no longer poses the threat that it does.”

“President Obama said ‘ISIL continues to shrink’ in an interview just hours before the horrible attack in Paris. He is just so bad! CHANGE,” Mr. Trump posted on Twitter Friday night. “We need much tougher, much smarter leadership – and we need it now.” .  .  .

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz called for consulting with NATO allies and abandoning any plans to resettle Middle East refugees “who might have been infiltrated by ISIS” in the U.S.

“We must make it crystal clear that affiliation with ISIS and related terrorist groups brings with it the undying enmity of America – that is, in effect, signing your own death warrant,” he said in a written statement.

Think back to a couple of days ago, when the Administration was taking credit for killing “Jihadi John,” proudly letting us know that we knocked off one bad guy — along with the few other occupants of the vehicle in which he was traveling — and how empty that looks next to ten dozen and more innocent people killed in France by the Islamists.

Da’ish claimed credit for the Paris attacks,1 though how much direct involvement they had has not yet been disclosed, if Western governments even know yet. But one thing is certain: in both the United States and democratic Europe, the public will tell the political leadership, loudly, that accepting Middle eastern refugees is the wrong thing to do. The Europeans will demand not only that their governments allow in no more Middle Eastern, primarily Syrian, refugees, but that they send back the ones who have already made it to Europe. Americans will protest against President Obama’s cockamamie plan to allow 10,000 Syrian refugees to settle in the United States.2 The President agreed to sign the FY2016 Defense bill, despite the fact that it prohibits closing the prison for terrorists at Guantanamo, in part because it passed with overwhelming Democratic support. The Wall Street Journal noted that this means that the President will try to ignore the Congress’ will and release all of the terrorists by executive authority alone.

It doesn’t matter what the Congress says, or what the public want: Barack Hussein Obama will do everything in his power to weaken the United States and subject our people to more and more risk every last day of his presidency. And I’ll say it directly: if you voted for that idiot, you are just as responsible as he is for his actions!

Really, every blog, conservative or liberal, has something on the Paris attacks. But this is the kind of silliness we can expect from the left:

Can you imagine if today’s left were in charge during World War II? We’d never have dropped a single bomb on the Third Reich or the Empire of Japan, because innocent children might have been killed. We’d have lost those wars if today’s left were in charge.

  1. Your Editor is not particularly fond of the initials ISIS, and the reduction to just IS, for Islamic State, seems even worse. Da’ish is an acronym for the Arabic al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa al-Sham, and, according to the BBC, the group “objects to the term and has advised against its usage.” Therefore, I shall use it! The Editor shall not edit comments using other commonly-used terms, but the use of Da’ish is now the accepted form in The First Street Journal’s stylebook.
  2. In an amusingly timed press release, just a day before the Paris attacks, Human Rights First called for the United States to accept 100,000 Syrian refugees.

Top 10 Rock Songs of all time

Top 10 Rock Songs of all time

1. Sweet Emotion (Live) – Aerosmith
2. Everybody Wants Some! – Van Halen
3. Midnight Rambler (Live) – Rolling Stones
4. Smokin’ in the Boys Room – Motley Crue
5. Flirting With Disaster – Molly Hatchet
6. Heavy Metal – Sammy Hagar
7. Dragula – Rob Zombie
8. Dr. Feelgood – Motley Crue
9. Love Rollercoaster – Ohio Players
10. Great White Buffalo (Live) – Ted Nugent

I got to see the doctor right away! And that's because I use the private health care system

For some unknown reason, I developed some significant pain in the pall of my right foot last Friday. I was simply toughing it out, when my darling bride (of 36 years, 5 months and 24 days) noticed it and insisted that I make an appointment to see the doctor. She’s a registered nurse, so I do listen to her about these things.

On Monday, I called the physician’s office and asked for an appointment with Dr E______ as late in the day as could be scheduled. I was told that Dr E______ wasn’t in the office that day, but one of the other physicians could see me late that afternoon; my doctor wouldn’t be in until Tuesday. Well, since Dr E_____ already knows me, and she has the prettiest green eyes in the world,1 I said that I’d wait until Tuesday, and an appointment was scheduled for me for 4:40 PM. Simply put, I could have seen the doctor that day, but chose to wait one additional day.

Then there is single=payer Canada and this report is from the Canadian Institute for Health Information:

Access to care—particularly wait times—is often the focus of intense media coverage and public debate. Although still far from perfect, the information available on wait times today is much better in terms of quality and quantity than in early 2006 when CIHI released its last overview report on the subject. Health Care in Canada, 2012: A Focus on Wait Times presents what is known about wait times in Canada, within the context of access, across the continuum of care.

The report opens by acknowledging that Canada’s current wait time performance is poor compared with that of other countries, and presents a brief history of the evolution of wait time measurement in Canada. A discussion about waits for routine care follows. Although access to primary care is important for preventing and managing most conditions, Canada fares poorly when compared with other countries. For example, a 2010 comparison of 11 countries showed that Canada ranked lowest for wait times to see a doctor or nurse when sick. Canadians also reported the longest waits for a specialist appointment, with 41% reporting waits of two or more months.

Despite access to and waits for family physicians in Canada being long by international standards, most Canadians report that their wait times are acceptable. It is access to and waits for specialists where Canadians were more likely to report challenges. Despite the best preventive efforts, many people still require care in hospitals. The report next presents information on waits in emergency departments (EDs) and acute care settings. Waits in Canadian EDs are longer compared with those in other countries, and compared with ideal response times recommended by the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Among 11 international comparators, Canada has the largest proportion of adults waiting in the ED for 4 hours or more before being treated (19% higher than the international average). Overall lengths of stay in the ED are just over 4 hours, with 90% of visits completed within 8 hours.

And the numbers2:

Although not alone in its challenges to providing appropriate and timely access to health care services, Canada lags behind other countries. A 2010 survey ranked Canada lowest among 11 countries for wait times in the following areas:

  • Seeing a doctor or nurse when sick: 33% of patients surveyed reported waiting six days or more for an appointment, 5% more than the country ranked second-lowest;
  • Seeing a specialist: 41% reported waiting two months or more, 7% more than the country ranked second-lowest; and
  • Having elective surgery: 25% reported waiting four months or more, 3% more than the country ranked second-lowest

The government’s own inspector general recently reported that over 300,000 veterans have died while awaiting care from our own single-payer Veterans’ Administration, but Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton doesn’t really think it’s all that serious. From The Wall Street Journal:

Hillary Clinton Vows to Fight VA Privatization

But Democratic hopeful says private providers should deliver some care

By Laura Meckler and Ben Kesling | Updated Nov. 10, 2015 9:11 p.m. ET

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton offered her vision for veterans’ health care Tuesday, promising to fight full-fledged privatization while allowing the government to contract with private providers for a range of health services.

In her proposal, Mrs. Clinton struck a balance between support for traditional government-run veterans health programs while acknowledging that many veterans want to access care from private providers as well, given the system’s failings.

The former secretary of state also promised a continued push for changes in the management of the embattled Department of Veterans Affairs, which has been excoriated for long waiting times, inconsistent care, and a bloated bureaucracy.

After appearing to play down problems in a recent television interview, Mrs. Clinton is now describing the agency’s troubles as deep-rooted.

“These problems are serious, systemic and unacceptable,” Mrs. Clinton said at a discussion with veterans in Derry, N.H., a day before the nation marks Veterans Day on Wednesday. “They need to be fixed and they need to be fixed now.”

There’s a lot more at the link, but these two paragraphs further down indicate her mind-set:

At the same time, she emphasized her opposition to outright privatization, as some Republicans have proposed.

“Privatization is a betrayal, plain and simple, and I’m not going to let it happen,” she said.

Remember, this is the same Hillary Clinton who wanted to impose penalties for wealthy people using their money to “get around” waiting times in the system in her 1993 health care plan proposal! Yet we are supposed to trust her to put together a plan to reduce extended waiting times at the VA, for veterans who have served our country, while I was able to get an appointment almost immediately in the private care system.

Here is Mrs Clinton telling us that the problems have “not been as widespread as it has been made out to be:”

The problem is really very simple: in a single-payer system, the government has to attempt to control costs, and that is why appointments at the Veterans’ Administration have been dragged out so long. If a veteran who needs four appointments in a year can have his appointments stretched out so that he is seen only thrice, the VA saves the money his fourth appointment would have cost in that fiscal year. And, to be blunt, if the patient happens to die, the VA saves even more money. This can’t be “fixed,” because it isn’t something wrong with the system but an essential part if it: that’s how single-payer systems work!

  1. Hey, I’m a normal male, and I notice and appreciate things like this!
  2. On page 20 of 108 in the report.

The Great Debate The solution to most of our problems is simple, but none of the candidates have addressed it

From The Wall Street Journal:

Republican Debate Analysis: A Pivot to Policy From Personality

Elected officials get a chance to reassert themselves over anti-establishment campaigns

By Janet Hook | November 11, 2015 12:01 a.m. ET

Republican presidential candidates decided to try something different Tuesday in the latest nationally televised debate: focus on policy.

After three presidential debates that were marked by personal attacks and sniping, the candidates gathered in Milwaukee for the most concerted test yet of their mettle on economics, finance and foreign affairs.

The result was a spirited debate that was a refreshing contrast from the shouting matches and backbiting that have been a major part of campaign ads, stump speeches and the first three debates of this long primary season.

The turn to policy gave a fresh opportunity for elected officials such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio to reassert themselves over the political novices whose anti-establishment campaigns have set the tone of the primary contest.

In the process, the debate laid bare fundamental differences that face the Republicans, not just in attitude and style, but in policy directions.

There’s more at the link, but I wish to stress something which never seems to get any attention: the only way to deal with illegal immigration is to reform welfare! The candidates clashed over Donald Trump’s stated position that he would “uproot the roughly 11 million immigrants in the country illegally and deport them to their countries of origin,” but offered no real solution to the problem. As long as we have a system in which American citizens who are physically and mentally able to work can still survive, on government largess, without having to work, we will have illegal immigration.

The point is simple: when we are told that the illegal immigrants will do the work that Americans will not, it is because able-bodied Americans have the choice of not working at all and still surviving. As long as the option of not taking that unpleasant job, if it is all that is available, exists, we will have illegal immigrants to fill those jobs. Make it a choice between taking the undesirable job and starvation, and Americans will take those jobs.

Sound harsh? Well, I’ve done some of those hard, hot, nasty jobs. I’ve stood in a field at the Yorktown Naval Weapons Station, in August, squaring out the bottom of a footing with a square-end shovel, because that was what had to be done. I’ve poured concrete when it was 95º F out in the sun, and 12º F in the winter, because that was what had to get done. I’ve roofed a house, I’ve worked on high steel, forming and then wrecking the forms, for bridge decks, and if I could do it, then so can anyone else. Even today, at my near-retirement age, I still have to shovel under conveyor belts, strip and reset concrete block forms, clean out dust collectors, grease equipment and climb up and work on the tops of high cement silos, and if I can do it at 62½ years old, then so can anyone else who is not actually handicapped. As you might guess, I have a great deal of respect for men and women who go out and work for a living, and none, none at all, for those who could, but will not.

From 2 Thessalonians, Chapter 3:

7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

In our zeal to do good, to be charitable, we have lost our way. In our desire not to let the infirm suffer, we have allowed the willfully idle to leech off of those who will work.

The solution to illegal immigration is simple: if we require able-bodied Americans to work, they will displace the illegal immigrants who have jobs, because it is a lot simpler, and safer, for an employer to have workers who speak English and do not leave him in the position of having to worry about ICE.1 If we restrict welfare to solely those American citizens who are physically or mentally unable to work, the illegals will self-deport, because they will be unable to survive in the United States.

Real, serious welfare reform really is the solution to most of our problems. Requiring American citizens to work or starve means greatly reduced federal expenditures, as welfare costs are dramatically reduced, and government revenues would rise as American workers paid taxes. Having the illegal immigrants leave would reduce the expenditures on state and local governments, as they would no longer have to provide educational and other services to their children. And having all able-bodied Americans working would mean that we would have more community respect and sympathy for all of our neighbors.

  1. The American workers who would need those jobs would help in this by reporting employers who keep illegals on the payroll.

University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe wimps out If you are unwilling to fight for your job, you do deserve to lose it

For the Social Justice Warriors, the responsibility for any offensive act must be pushed up to the highest ranking normal white male1:

U. Missouri president resigns over handling of racial incidents

By Susan Svrluga | November 9 at 12:01 PM

University of Missouri president Tim Wolfe resigned on Nov. 9 following protests and strikes over his handling of racial incidents on the Columbia, Mo., campus. “Use my resignation to heal and start talking again,” he said. (University of Missouri System)

The president of the University of Missouri resigned Monday amid escalating protests over racist incidents on campus and how he had responded to students’ concerns.

Tim Wolfe announced Monday morning at a special meeting called by the Board of Curators, the university system’s governing body, that he would step down immediately.

“My motivation in making this decision comes from love,” Wolfe said. “I love MU, Columbia, where I grew up, the state of Missouri.” But after thinking greatly over the situation he concluded resigning “is the right thing to do.”

Tensions were high on campus Monday — with a student on a hunger strike, others camped out in solidarity, faculty members canceling classes and members of the football team threatening to boycott the rest of the season. In the morning, the MU undergraduate student government association formally called for the removal of the university’s president.

There’s much more at the link.

So, what happened that has cost Dr Wolfe his job?

Was Dr Wolfe a decent President for the University? I really don’t know, but his job performance wasn’t bad enough for the Board of Curators to have met about it prior to the “strike” by the black players on the Missouri football team; that got some attention. How Dr Wolfe was supposed to be responsible for the actions of some people, who may or may not have even been Missouri students, in a red pickup2 is beyond me. but, for the SJWs, apparently he is. How Dr Wolfe is in any way responsible for the death of Michael Brown, 116 miles away, or would have any knowledge about the events beyond what the rest of us can read in the media, escapes me completely.

But, he’s apparently a heterosexual3 white male, and that makes him responsible for the acts of other people who are not under his authority, and thus he had to go! Considering that he was unwilling to fight for his position, perhaps he really should have resigned.

Nevertheless, this incident shows just how poorly American colleges are preparing students for the real world. Payton Head, the Student Government president who had been called the horrible “n” word, will eventually be graduated and have to leave Mizzou to begin a career in the business world, and there won’t be any university president to blame when the next red pickup drives past and someone yells offensive stuff to him.4 He’ll have to just man up5 and get on with his life.6 When he finds himself competing with other people to move up the corporate ladder, to get that next promotion, if he is unable to simply disregard insults, if he gets all flustered and upset, he won’t be able to compete to the best of his ability,7 and he will fall behind. That’s life in the real world! Whining and bitching and complaining does not get you ahead; in the end, it gets you left behind.

  1. Note that this formulation excludes President Barack Hussein Obama from any responsibility whatsoever.
  2. It must have been a Chevy or a Dodge; General Motors and Chrysler make pickups, but Ford builds trucks!
  3. He has a wife named Molly, and two children.
  4. Mr Head has apparently been called names for being homosexual as well, but the article is unclear as to whether he is actually homosexual.
  5. Apparently, telling someone to “man up” is offensive at the nearby University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
  6. If an actual threat is made against him, he would have the basis for a complaint to the police, and action could be taken against someone who threatened him, but simple name-calling, regardless of how offensive, is not a crime.
  7. Making complaints to Human Resources that someone is being mean to you might work one time, but it tells the top management that you are an employee who needs to go away.

Rule 5 Blogging: American soldiers!

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Katy Perry in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude. This week: American soldiers protecting our county.

Lance Corporal Kristi Baker, 21, US Marine with the FET (Female Engagement Team) 1st Battalion 8th Marines, Regimental Combat team II patrols with other Marines on Nov. 20, 2010 in Musa Qala, Afghanistan. (Paula Bronstein/ Getty Images) Click to enlarge.

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: American soldiers!’ »