Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $31,010
Woo hoo!! And the first 35% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by DK Zimmerman

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Third Time

    06/01/2006 8:20:06 AM PDT · 23 of 63
    DK Zimmerman to Mr. Jeeves
    Partly disagree with your disagreement, re - falling for that trick..."Some" will always fall for it, an important qualifier. I don't, do you?

    As to the article as a whole, I think she does well to identify a growing swell of support, I just don't think the "seas" will break right for it. The RINOs are clearly strong contenders for any "middle 3rd" party. And most here (FR) would likely love to see their backs.

    The problem is twofold, they like it just fine where they are, because they draw independents and moderates to them, yet enjoy the support of conservatives faced with no other choices. And, the most vociferous types about needing a resolution (whether going elsewhere or getting rid of RINOs) appear to be folks found here (FR), and there's simply no indication there are enough of us to create a "Right 3rd" party.

  • Chavez in Russian arms factory deal

    06/01/2006 7:47:40 AM PDT · 8 of 11
    DK Zimmerman to from occupied ga

    Ya beat me to it. But I was interrupted by the phone....

  • Chavez in Russian arms factory deal

    06/01/2006 7:46:40 AM PDT · 7 of 11
    DK Zimmerman to FreedomNeocon
    Uh, folks, Kalashnikovs (sp?) remain a decent weapon, IMO. US troops are picking them up in Bagdad for personal use.

    In the big scheme of things, if I were an independent, objective consultant for the Venezuelan govmint, I would heartily favor building an AK factory over a Colt/M16 one.

    Ease and cost effectiveness of manufacture, ease of maintenance, sturdiness, and dependability without depot support all make it a favored choice. In short, AKs remain the ideal choice for third world nations. Have been ever since we went to M16s.

  • ANWR--Part of the Solution

    05/31/2006 1:06:50 PM PDT · 13 of 18
    DK Zimmerman to Ditto

    Well, other than, if we use it today, it won't be there tomorrow.

  • ANWR--Part of the Solution

    05/31/2006 12:46:20 PM PDT · 11 of 18
    DK Zimmerman to Ditto about piling on. What, my response in #8 wasn't good enough for you?

  • ANWR--Part of the Solution

    05/31/2006 12:13:20 PM PDT · 8 of 18
    DK Zimmerman to RightWhale; thackney
    I stand corrected on the issue of Alaskan oil exports. Dunno where I got the erroneous data, but since the majority of my eddification was over 30 years ago, gawd only knows.

    Interestingly, my research indicates the market distortion I mentioned was in fact real (but very dated). It depressed California production for years (in the 80s?) and the 5% number (foreign exports) may be a bit low. Apparently, some 25% of products from the Alaskan crude oil cannot be used in the California markets for which the refineries involved refine, significant amounts of this residual oil also "escapes" the US market. But "some" of 25% is still way lower than I thought.

    Mea culpa.

  • Is the border a line, or is it more of a place? (North American Union Alert)

    05/31/2006 11:13:13 AM PDT · 26 of 32
    DK Zimmerman to texastoo
    I read just fine. How you? "... problems generated by the North American economy can no longer be contained in the United States or Mexico or Canada."

    Now, according to my dictionary, North America is the contiguous land mass from Panama, north. While I will admit Canada joins us in the plus side of the equation, we're the economy driving the rest of the continent. Long before there was NAFTA or anything resembling it, Mexico has been a corrupt government, effectively run by rich robber baron types (although the same charge might be laid in our direction 100 years ago or so).

    Our economy remains the strongest in the world. How that ostensibly (according to Pastor) generates problems for the rest of the continent remains puzzling to me. NAFTA, if anything, would seem to spread some of that wealth around. Indeed, if we accept Hedge's claims, we're "propping" up the others - don't see how you can do anything resembling that, for "free."

    Now, Hedge doesn't (directly at least) make the claim I've heard others make - that by allowing Mexican poor to enter, we are serving as it's escape valve, relieving Mexico of the need to reform. But the essential need to reform remains the fault of Mexico. It does not trace its roots to NAFTA.

    I remain, I fear, highly dubious and suspicious of Pastor's rationale.

  • Is the border a line, or is it more of a place? (North American Union Alert)

    05/31/2006 9:20:59 AM PDT · 19 of 32
    DK Zimmerman to texastoo
    Look, I heartily disagree with the Bush/Senate plan on immigration. To my mind, the House plan (lock down the border) plus forcing employers to ascertain legal status before hiring (reversing the current law) is the way to go.

    But the idea that US prosperity, since NAFTA if you like (but why not since 1980?! or 1960, etc...), has caused this problem is standing matters on their head. Our success has "forced" Mexico and Latin America to have failing, often corrupt governments and economies, "forcing" illegal immigration? I would have to see a lot more argument and less hyperbole before I would even consider such a position as having any basis in fact. And no one else even thought it worth comment.

  • "Dear Lindsey..." An Open Letter To Sen. Graham

    05/31/2006 9:06:52 AM PDT · 43 of 84
    DK Zimmerman to Bryan24
    I don't disagree with much of what you said. (I'm witholding judgement on your witholding your vote for the guys still fighting the good fight.) But I am reminded of WFB's line: "you can logically win an arguement, yet lose the audience."

    If you're going to mail this, I would recommend extracting the different issues and make separate, stand alone letters, i.e. one on immigration, another on Rep Jefferson, etc. With subject lines.

    Assuming one or more recipients even begin to care, some staffer will undoubtedly be assigned the task to determine what your angle/gripe is, log same, maybe issue a response, and move on.

    The lack of a subject line, the multiple issues, and the length will all handicap that process. Most likely to the point it will be ignored or simply classified as "other." IMO.

  • Is the border a line, or is it more of a place? (North American Union Alert)

    05/31/2006 8:53:09 AM PDT · 14 of 32
    DK Zimmerman to texastoo
    "Robert Pastor, former Latin American adviser at the National Security Council, says the problems generated by the North American economy can no longer be contained in the United States or Mexico or Canada."

    Obviously, it's all the USA's fault, and by logical extension: Bush's fault. Again. Too. Once more. Yet again. /sarcasm

  • Iranian drone plane buzzes U.S. aircraft carrier in Persian Gulf

    05/31/2006 8:03:24 AM PDT · 61 of 64
    DK Zimmerman to finnigan2

    I agree that we do seem to "need" same. However, it is entirely feasible to fly a drone over a ship at sea without - in a variety of ways. Radio beacon, trailing a ship(s), or even being hand-launched from one, et cetera. Never assume technology is limited to what we have done with it (or how). Especially in the hands of tyros.

  • Calif. bill would change electoral college [toward direct popular vote]

    05/31/2006 7:14:10 AM PDT · 25 of 60
    DK Zimmerman to BlackRazor
    I concur with you on messing with original intent, but regrettably, this appears to be wholly legal. I see no illegal compact. Each state/legislature decides how its electoral votes are distributed.

    I daresay that the first time these electoral votes are cast against any state's internal results, some citizen will prosecute a suit over lack of representation and all hell could break out. Especially with a close vote, a la 2000, and some 13 states have similar bills in effect with different means of computing.

  • Iranian drone plane buzzes U.S. aircraft carrier in Persian Gulf

    05/31/2006 6:53:08 AM PDT · 57 of 64
    DK Zimmerman to finnigan2
    Hummm, p'raps you're unaware that the Israelis developed the first practical "UAVs" during the 73 war? (When exactly did GPS go up?) True, they were little better that a closed circuit camera on a model airplane, but they were responsive to the local commander and showed him what was over the next ridge with minimal risk.

    The US military proceeded to spend about a billion dollars and fifteen years or so proving what the Israelis had accomplished was impossible (Aquila et al).

    Without more details or a US response, frankly, it is impossible to tell how much of this report is fiction and how much is fact.

  • ANWR--Part of the Solution

    05/31/2006 6:26:55 AM PDT · 4 of 18
    DK Zimmerman to JLGALT
    I'm hardly an environmentalist, but I believe that there are a couple of good (conservative) reasons as to why we should not expand drilling/access to US fields.

    First, contrary to what the good congressman claims, simply opening Anwar will not produce a single drop of oil for domestic consumption. And if it did, it would only increase the cost of gas.

    Check out where the Alaskan oil already being produced is going. Japan and China. Once pumped, it enters the global marketplace and goes to the highest bidder(s) that can be supplied the cheapest (the highest delta/profit, dontcha know).

    To divert any of this or future Alaskan oil for purely domestic consumption would, therefore, be cost inefficient (more expensive). It would also require legislated interference in the marketplace. We're simply not that bad off, yet.

    On the other hand, in the future, there may well be a time at which the issue becomes one of national security and/or economic survival. Wouldn't it be nice to have these reserves still waiting to be tapped, then?

    Rather than rushing to tap these potential "life boats," we should be pushing nuclear energy plants.

  • A reporter's shock at the Haditha allegation (Was embedded with Marines - different perspective)

    05/30/2006 1:07:53 PM PDT · 19 of 98
    DK Zimmerman to gondramB

    Re- commanders. Reportedly some 3-4 officers have been relieved/fired. Official version of matters seems to be that none of them had to do with the incident, directly, but supposedly "dereliction of duty."

  • Time to sink or graduate: At MIT, other schools, swim test is last barrier

    05/18/2006 6:17:16 AM PDT · 29 of 34
    DK Zimmerman to Rummyfan
    Interesting. Didn't know of "drownproofing" outside the military. We were told that drownproofing was the academy's response to losing a graduate to drowning during ranger school. Problem being, he had been the swim team captain. Really a different skill set from true "swimming."

    The class focus was, learning to cross deep (10-15 feet) water without swimming, disrobing in the water (laced boots et al), and inflating clothing. Each considered essential skills to survival around the water.

    For our final (as I recall it), we had to swim a longer lap with boots in a backpack, with a "rifle" complete with lead filled barrel. And, separately, after walking off a high dive board in uniform and boots, we had to swim a short length.

  • Defenders of the faith: Protesters will be there when 'Da Vinci' code opens

    05/17/2006 6:49:22 AM PDT · 26 of 36
    DK Zimmerman to 2Jim_Brown
    "What the movie and the book said … it’s all lies. It’s very offensive." Talk about confused. A lie requires knowledge of a falsehood, intent to deceive, and a deliberate communication of said falsehood, holding it forth as truth.

    As others have pointed out, this is fiction - and held forth purely for entertainment. It is plainly labeled and portrayed as such. It takes a peculiar twist of literary-luddite logic to be offended.

  • TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE(Michelle Malkin opines)

    05/15/2006 10:52:22 AM PDT · 268 of 431
    DK Zimmerman to Frank_Discussion
    What else is available? They've had Reagan, the Buckleys, and to a lesser degree Goldwater if they need educating. They asked us to trust them in '94. They stayed on the farm until they thought they didn't have to (contract actually was largely successful and now ignored).

    Today's GOP is way, way off the "conservative homestead:" not adequately insisting on/fighting for conservative judges; spending money hand over fist (both in the area of pork and government); growing government faster than the dems dreamed they could; and now, unwilling to stand together and defend the terminal deal, border security, or much of anything else..."let them hang separately" is sounding better and better.

    This prez and Congress, together, have squandered an opportunity it could be said took 25 years to bring about. The odds are, after this debacle, it will be another 25 years before it happens again. Shame on them and/or shame on me, because I voted for them, letting them do it to me(us).

  • TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE(Michelle Malkin opines)

    05/15/2006 10:42:21 AM PDT · 256 of 431
    DK Zimmerman to Frank_Discussion

    Frank, apparently you missed the point of my mentioning Pancho and BJP. You claimed no prez had ever sent any military to reinforce the border. I did not attempt to draw any parallel beyond the fact that we not only have reinforced the border militarily, we have taken the offensive across the border to ensure it, so I fear my postion stands, correctly.

  • TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE(Michelle Malkin opines)

    05/15/2006 10:36:25 AM PDT · 249 of 431
    DK Zimmerman to sinkspur
    To disagree with a particular position/issue is hardly grounds for - Make it a landslide. Go vote for the Democrats in your state and district so you can feel really good about driving the GOP out of office. You should be happy. You have delighted in trashing Bush and the Republicans, so indulge yourself and vote Democrat.

    On the other hand, failure to respond to repeated demogoguery (sp?), endorsement/acceptance of profligate spending (see No Child... and Medicare Drug for direct personal responsibility), failure to adequately(successfully) go after SS/IRS reform, and explosive growth of central much for "compassionate conservatism."

    At some point, serious conservatives will become disenchanted. Some sooner than others. What action they take will determine whether they believe in "enabling" or tough love. I'm definitely of the latter persuasion and getting there, faster and faster.

    Only someone brain dead can't understand that and accept it.

  • TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE(Michelle Malkin opines)

    05/15/2006 10:19:59 AM PDT · 238 of 431
    DK Zimmerman to Frank_Discussion
    And I'm afraid you have a very loose grasp of history. Somehow, you skipped over Pancho Villa and Pershing. But let's not squabble over your/our shortcomings.

    Is a temporary posting of NG an improvement? Yeah, but only temproarily. Long term, it will appear obvious to anyone south of the border that Bush blinked, when the NG goes home and there's nothing left behind of significance.

    As to the likelihood that what administration spokespersons are misportraying what the prez will say tonight. Possible, but not bloody likely. Could these have only been trail balloons to see how bad the wailing and gnashing of teeth is? Obviously. Unfortunately, the prez has had the ability to shut down the borders (or at least make significant improvements in security at the borders) since he was elected, reinforced by 9/11, magnified by recent events (< 2 months).

    He's been remarkable only by his absence.

  • TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE(Michelle Malkin opines)

    05/15/2006 8:17:02 AM PDT · 41 of 431
    DK Zimmerman to Frank_Discussion
    I'm afraid I concur with MM.

    Bush has deliberately drug his feet on securing our borders. With a Senate-defined amnesty program looming during an election year, he announces a temporary measure of some undefined size (but 10k wouldn't be sufficient to secure the borders)? Way too little and he's way late to the party.

    With the background of the border patrol management appeasing the Mexican government to the point of disclosing citizen led efforts to pick up the the slack of the federal government (sorry, it's a FED responsibility to secure borders, NOT the states'), he hastens to reassure the President of Mexico (first!), that what he's about to tell the public will only be temporary measure?! This screams of "eye-wash." Sturm und drang, to absolutely no long term effect.

  • Caring vs. uncaring

    05/11/2006 11:22:42 AM PDT · 24 of 26
    DK Zimmerman to Pelayo
    That's a terribly cynical view of things. Since we are talking about history here, who had Napolean or Van Gogh on the couch to determine their psychoses (or lack thereof)? Who kept count of Indians' (native Amercians) suicides (that literature would have us believe approached 100% by wandering off to die when terminally ill).

    "Despite material success the 20th century was more hideously bloody then just about all the rest of history combined." Well, I certainly haven't run the numbers and in gross numbers, you're probably right. More folks to die... But if we examine matters on a percentage basis, you may be wrong. While the 20th Century saw genocide in Europe, Africa, and USSR, the Monogl hordes put all who resisted to the sword (effectively depopulating vast areas). To pick a specific century, how about the 19th? Napoleon's mass levies lost on the steppes, Africa depleted by slavery, and our own Civil War, followed by "winning the West."

    For sheer horror and widespread atrocities, it doesn't get much better than the Western Hemisphere - before the Europeans arrived en masse. Mass sacrifices (thousands), all to harvest still beating hearts and widespread slavery, courtesy of Central American natives.

    And your cynicism overlooks the nobility of cause of those who fought the good fights of the 20th Century. Who was truly noble during the Crusades? I would entertain discussion that such was rare on both sides. But while the 20th Century saw gas chambers and the gulags, we also had the Flying Tigers and the Battle of Britain.

    "Capitalism is still ultimately responsible, for you cannot have Communism without it, it's all materialism." Cute lines, but what do they mean? Without going into the dialectic, I thought the latter was the/an antithesis of the former and proponents firmly believed Communism would replace Capitalism? Kind of hard to do, if Communism requires Capitalism.

  • Caring vs. uncaring

    05/11/2006 9:46:46 AM PDT · 20 of 26
    DK Zimmerman to MissAmericanPie
    Frankly, you're beginning to confuse me somewhat. From your previous, I thought you disagreed with the article, yet now you seem to agree with it?

    But to your specific points...I don't recall even implying one should settle for anything. I merely tried to point out that "poor" is a relative term and as such, "lower middle class" isn't exactly "hell." Especially given the standard of living those at and below the so-called poverty line enjoy, in this country.

    My old man is getting killed by Mexican and Chilean avocados - he's gone from a low annual 5 figure income from his grove to an equivalent 5 figure loss. So, it is time to get out of the business. He's not happy about it, but hey, it's his option and his call, just as it was to enter the business.

    I strove to point out that in the US, we don't have to settle for anything and have the ability to realize (and keep) gains from such an attitude, better than any other system. The old man owns his grove with relative impunity and keeps the profits he made over the years from it. Both of these facts are not universal benefits throughout the world.

    Taxes/redistribution have indeed become another form of government interference with free markets. I don't disagree with you on the subject of cars and vacations. But I haven't bought myself a new car since 1981 and while I have had two opportunities for extended periods in the sand, over the last coupla years, neither was what I would call a vacation.

    But then, the fabric and nature of society has changed at least as much as it's - what, 'normal,' traditional,' or whatever - autmobile purchases and vacation habits, over the past 40 years. Much of this is just different, some is worse, some is better.

    It's not clear to me whether you and I are in violent agreement or opposite sides. But I do think Walter nailed his subject in the referenced article.

  • Caring vs. uncaring

    05/11/2006 6:14:12 AM PDT · 5 of 26
    DK Zimmerman to MissAmericanPie
    Beg to differ, on almost all levels.

    We have numerous examples of the kinds of disaster that occur when politicians/leaders forget the downside of trying to control free enterprise/markets. They run the gamut from the pograms of the Ukraine to Nixon's price controls.

    As Williams freely and willingly admits, it ain't perfect, but it remains the best solution. As to "corporations and stock holders aside most Americans are not in the stock market. Most Americans are scrambling to hold on to a lower middle class station in life."

    Well, yeah - all those with cars aside, no Americans own cars, but as a constructive comment it lacks a certain substance and meaning.

    As to scrambling to hold on to a lower middle class station in life..."lower middle class" in the US isn't to be sneazed at, if you've seen and can comprehend truly abject poverty (think subsistance rice farmer in China or unemployed in Cairo). But "holding on" is, according to all serious analysis I've seen, not an issue. The numbers of Americans who bounce around from bottom to middle to even higher is staggering, and suggests a "class mobility" unavailable anywhere else in the world.

    I don't know anyone who suggests our system is perfect, and certainly much of what you complain about in fact is not the result of "free market" but government interference, that of ours and others. But it's still the best thing going.

  • DHS: DENY, HEDGE, SPIN (Border Patrol Calls Squealing On Minutement Report "Inaccurate")

    05/10/2006 6:37:48 AM PDT · 41 of 264
    DK Zimmerman to Bear_Slayer
    One of us is seriously confused.

    As I understand things, the Minutemen do NOT apprehend anyone. They report to the Border Patrol and let them apprehend (when they -the BP- can spare the time).

    If this is the case, then at no time, does the Border Patrol have to report their (MM) positions, by treaty. Yet, said positions are being reported. According to Mexico and the BP. You can color this as "squealing" or simply un-American/anti-US security, but it is egregious in all instances.

    The case is far more clearcut with the San Diego area group, who only told their position to the BP and the Mexican government admits they know where they are.

  • Kellum (D-Candidate, VA-2) Plagerizes Web Issues Page

    05/09/2006 8:33:17 PM PDT · 9 of 10
    DK Zimmerman to CharlesWayneCT
    Great catch. Thelma's my rep, also.

    I went to his "community forum" which, although it does not allow for public posting, does let you ask a question.

    I cheated and asked two: just what state was he going to represent and why didn't his bio mention his time as an attorney in Montgomery County?

  • A car that could save the planet—fast [High-performance electric car]

    05/05/2006 1:04:20 PM PDT · 45 of 93
    DK Zimmerman to Publius6961

    Which, as I recall from "juice" class, could be significantly reduced if we would mimic the European, 3 wire, 220v system.

  • They've apparently spoken...

    05/03/2006 7:43:03 AM PDT · 5 of 17
    DK Zimmerman to pickrell
    Where to begin...

    One might consider the hopelessness of trying to run an ideology against an incumbant. The incumbant will win pretty much every time.

    One might generalize this to: "The easiest way to beat an opponent is to run a better candidate." Note, a better candidate does not guarantee a victory, but it makes it a whole lot easier.

    Without knowing the candidates or the locality, various factors in any election include: popular (local) politics, party, party support, funding, charisma, demographics, and platform, to name a few. Simple possession of "conservative" credentials is preferred, IMO, but hardly provides sufficient groundswell to automatically beat out all other factors. Better ideas, persuasiveness, effectiveness are usually useful, too.

  • A Virgin Market

    05/03/2006 6:52:45 AM PDT · 5 of 10
    DK Zimmerman to Cannoneer No. 4
    Now come on, be fair. Every Green Bean Shop I saw there was on a military (US) compound. Why not ping her for the Burger Kings, just down the way from most, too?

    As to "no one skis" - and they probably won't start soon as any slope they might want to use would have to be cleared of mines, first.

  • Congresswoman Runs Into Snag At Voting Booth

    05/02/2006 11:22:39 AM PDT · 28 of 31
    DK Zimmerman to Abathar
    P'raps you have some understanding that eludes me.

    The way I read it, the card simply did not have an expiration date, but they (poll watchers) determined by some "unspecified means" that it would expire at the end of her term, and consequently allowed it.

    Either the law doesn't require an expiration date be printed on it or it does.

    If it does, it sure would seem her vote was illegal. If it doesn't, then what is the story, here?

  • Congresswoman Runs Into Snag At Voting Booth

    05/02/2006 11:02:32 AM PDT · 26 of 31
    DK Zimmerman to Abathar

    Uh, Ab? From the text provided, it would seem the law requires the voter supply an ID with an expiration date. This would normally be required to be printed upon the ID. She doesn't appear to have had such. Why was she allowed to vote? Any ID that otherwise meets requirements without an expiration date printed on it is acceptable? Or is this just another case of some animals more equal than others? (Esp black congresswomen!)

  • 'American Hiroshima'linked with Iran attack

    04/28/2006 7:05:32 AM PDT · 61 of 69
    DK Zimmerman to All
    My sub-atomic education is somewhat dated. It did, however, stray into classified nuke stuff. I have noted with interest, two types of comments - no such things as "suitcase" bombs and -"suitcase" bombs are inherently unstable/unsustainably high maintenance.

    Gotta tell ya, that's not how I understand things.

    First, there is some "minimal" amount of material underwhich, a chain reaction cannot be created/maintained. (This reaction is what causes nukes to go "boom.") Although said material is not the only component to any bomb, it is sufficiently small that it could readily become a "suitcase" sized bomb. Remember, we had mass quantities of nuke artillery shells. Bigger than breadbox, yes, but much smaller than a footlocker (not to mention, two). Each a completely self-contained bony-fidy nuke.

    Are there such things? Beats me, but they are emminently feasible. And that minimal amount is small enough that it could be readily exceeded (for engineering safety/viability margins) and still qualify as "suitcase" sized.

    Secondly, nuke maintenance. Fascinating subject, one with relatively few experts. And they're not sure. Unclassified sources have claimed life span of a non-minimalized (so there's a safety margin of material that'll go boom, when required) at about 29 years. Which creates a whole slew of strategic issues/questions, given that Clinton essentially closed our last plant.

    My understanding, however, is that recent attempts to verify/refute that 29 year number leaves the question somewhat open. Apparently some nukes checked were still good. So the true experts are back examining their models and numbers to see what the real figure should be.

    To return to the "suitcase" maintenance issue...bottom line is we don't truly know how they were all made (if at all), don't truly know what their life-span would be (for same reason), and so cannot reliably conclude they "cannot exist." They could exist. And last I checked, no one sufficiently intelligent to make one, had made one such that it would have to be used within 1-5 years or be useless.

  • A Bright Career Unravels in Iraq (another female commander sacked)

    04/19/2006 11:19:02 AM PDT · 21 of 22
    DK Zimmerman to Wristpin

    Broadly, I would agree, however, once again, as my qualified comments were meant to explain, if her statements and claims are credible and correct, she was given permission to do so. Potentially proving to be the exception to the general rule you cite.

  • A Bright Career Unravels in Iraq (another female commander sacked)

    04/19/2006 10:52:42 AM PDT · 17 of 22
    DK Zimmerman to SCHROLL
    Apparently you translate - the government charge that she got $12,000, but fails to discuss whether she returned it, and her claim that she never made a dime (which the government never really appears to have charged, other than her nominal "directorship") - as she "seems" to have made money.

    Please re-look at my earlier...her statments, assuming any degree of correctness, the on-going support of Garner, and the "evaporation" of the court martial render the charges dubious at best.

    If she did pocket money, I'll join the firing squad, but this article suggests a certain stench is wafting about.

  • A Bright Career Unravels in Iraq (another female commander sacked)

    04/19/2006 10:43:33 AM PDT · 13 of 22
    DK Zimmerman to pabianice

    Oh, and she was an AF staff weenie, how does that make her a commander?

  • A Bright Career Unravels in Iraq (another female commander sacked)

    04/19/2006 10:42:23 AM PDT · 12 of 22
    DK Zimmerman to All
    Garner effectively backed her 100% and the court martial didn't even get off the is not impossible that she is, in fact, being railroaded here.

    If you take her statements as at least as credible as a bureaucracy trying to defend/justify its actions...she did not take any money nor make any money from all this, which leaves us with her trying to follow her boss's legal orders.

    Not saying she's innocent, but it could be.

  • The Military Battle against Terrorism: Direct Contact vs. Standoff Warfare

    04/17/2006 11:03:27 AM PDT · 7 of 13
    DK Zimmerman to Fee
    Not a prayer, I fear.

    While I concur with your initial analysis, i.e. weakness of US public over US casualties, you're completely ignoring the impact/will of the US and the world of wholesale civilian casualties. Not to mention just war/international law ramifications. We have few enough supporters as it is, we start ignoring accepted tenets of war to attack innocents, you can forget it.

    Also, as a direct consequence, we would lose any moral superiority our cause currently enjoys. We would be no better than the average terrorist and - the case could be made - we would be worse, since we would be "state sponsored."

  • Ex-union official's plea claims psychotic bouts

    02/10/2006 12:23:43 PM PST · 7 of 13
    DK Zimmerman to ncountylee

    Ohmigawd, she's suffering from Ally McBeal syndrome!

  • (Ithaca) Feminists encourage safe sex (hand out candy and condoms)

    02/10/2006 7:04:36 AM PST · 9 of 44
    DK Zimmerman to mlc9852
    Lest anyone assume I am proposing all sex be "unprotected" - let me say up front, it's all about choice. Disclaimer out of the way, reading this article caused a light to go off - does it strike anyone as an oxymoron that they are handing out condoms while insisting it is about taking control of one's own body?!

    Or, is the casual observer to assume there's something under their clothing that requires a condom?

  • Buchanan defends foreign aid – for Hamas

    02/02/2006 7:48:19 AM PST · 257 of 281
    DK Zimmerman to Thorin
    Re -'"Our" terrorist enemies?'

    If you read the GWOT and national security documents, you'll find the war is ostensibly against ALL terrorists, regardless of nationality. I assume the theory behind that is that even if they haven't yet made America/Americans a specific/priority target it is likely it will only be a matter of time. Kind of like genocide, US policy now creates an aura of "international criminality" around it and says we won't abide it.

    Theoretically, once Arab/Mid-East terrorists are back in their bottle, we would then turn to Ireland?!

  • Buchanan defends foreign aid – for Hamas

    02/01/2006 12:40:12 PM PST · 133 of 281
    DK Zimmerman to Irontank
    Well, I believe your factual quote is incorrect, but I concur Saddam got a mixed signal. On the other hand, given that nothing he has done since has made a great deal of sense to our analysts/common sense, I'm not sure an unequivocal response would have been correctly understood.

    So, in the aftermath of 9-11, we should have turned the other cheek? Sorry I don't buy it. I think Saddam got what he deserved, maybe not all of it, but enough, to date, pending the outcome of the trial. Only the perceptions of the moderate Arabs is of account - those of the zealots can only be changed at the end of a barrel/bayonet.

    As to the Iraqi perception of us, I truly believe it will be just fine, as long as we are moderately successful and withdraw. We can only do so much. They must eventually pick up the responsibility and I believe they are beginning to do just that.

    Second and third order effects are the result of any/all human interaction. Some foreseeable and/or good, some not and/or bad. If we hadn't acted in WWI, who knows where things may have ended up. But failing to have acted in WWII would have been catastrophic. Korea and Vietnam are a mixed bag. One might even claim the vote is still out on Korea. A pretty strong case has been made that Vietnam was only a problem because we lost political will.

    I fear I would concur that isolationism is not a good thing. To suggest it is necessary because all results haven't been perfect or that all have been bad, I think is intellectually dishonest.

  • Buchanan defends foreign aid – for Hamas

    02/01/2006 12:02:40 PM PST · 109 of 281
    DK Zimmerman to LowCountryJoe
    I concur with your last. That said, however, Pat seems to be suggesting that we reverse a course or two, to the point of supporting Hamas. That is just about the only course of action we should not do. A year's time is too much and pussy footing around them because of what Arabs may think of us is too much.

    Remember, theirs is supposedly a religion of "peace" and they not only can, but do blame 9-11 on us. Hamas is an Iranian creation. To continue your analogy, the poker table we're sitting at is rapidly filling up with Iranian team members. If we don't start blowing some of them up, we might as well fold and go home. Supporting/sustaining any of them is no way to come out a winner.

  • Buchanan defends foreign aid – for Hamas

    02/01/2006 11:35:28 AM PST · 101 of 281
    DK Zimmerman to lnbchip
    I won't deny the "carpet bomb" comment wasn't a tad tongue in cheek. But before you completely discount it - The Taliban was essentially imposed upon Afghanistan by external forces (Pakistan not the least). We deposed it/them.

    In Hamas, as a duly elected body, we have not only a terrorist sponsoring state, we have a state of, by, and for the people, wholly comprised of terrorists! Somebody there needs to learn that actions have consequences. It may be too soon to begin shacking up the grids...but a year from now?

  • Buchanan defends foreign aid – for Hamas

    02/01/2006 11:24:21 AM PST · 94 of 281
    DK Zimmerman to Irontank
    Before you pat each other on the back too much more...

    Please clarify...where do you suggest we went wrong? Holding elections in Iraq? Encouraging democracy? Invading Iraq? Desert Shield/Desert Storm? The creation of the state of Israel?

    I mean, it's real easy to say democracy won't hold there. And I won't say you're wrong. There's substantive debate possible on the subject. But the options that spring to mind, leaving Saddam in power, establishing our "own" dictator, etc ALL seem far worse than trying and giving other peoples a chance.

  • Buchanan defends foreign aid – for Hamas

    02/01/2006 11:08:43 AM PST · 82 of 281
    DK Zimmerman to DK Zimmerman

    Er, nothing >wrong< with

  • Buchanan defends foreign aid – for Hamas

    02/01/2006 11:06:02 AM PST · 80 of 281
    DK Zimmerman to Publius Maximus; lnbchip
    This is not a if...then construct along the lines of "We endorsed free elections so we must accept the result." The process is a good thing, but actions have consequences. Citizenship (and voting) also entails responsibility. Somebody likened Hamas to the Nazis, above. Hoping to avoid oversimplification, I just note, BOTH won at least one key popular vote. Maybe even for roughly similar reasons. I assume you are not saying we therefore should have accepted everything the Nazis proceeded to do.

    In the case of Hamas, they have publicly and loudly proclaimed their desire to see the end of Israel and their support of terrorism. Palestinians elected these jokers in full knowledge. They will undoubtedly reap accordingly. And there is nothing wrong with that.

    Frankly, offering Hamas a chance to recant (which wouldn't be worth the breath required to claim it) is probably overly generous. Carpet bombing seems far more appropriate. I see absolutely nothing with condemning the Hamas government nor the Palestinian people suffering for their decision.

  • The Joel Stein never met a wuss he didn't try to emulate

    01/27/2006 1:13:50 PM PST · 3 of 3
    DK Zimmerman to lowbridge
    Maybe this just needs to die, because I'm not entirely sure I have anything new to add.

    I do know that on the occasion of the celebratory dinner after having pinned my kid (1/2) brother's brand new 2nd LT bars on (mid-DEC), I had the opportunity to brace his mother, a rabid Democrat.

    I told her in just about as many words that I was sick and tired of hearing Democrats rant and rave endlessly in what could have scripted in the late sixties by any anti-war activist, only to conclude, "But I support the troops."

    She was quite taken aback as I explained that it is essentially impossible to claim "the reason we are there is fraudulent," "the commander in chief has screwed things up beyond redemption," or even that "it's a civil war and we need to bring the troops home," without striking at the mission, morale, and the very spirit of those serving. Those over there have to believe in the cause and follow their leaders. Period.

    Any other situation will at the very least lead to the most miserable, terrifying tour imaginable and far more likely will probably end up in someone's death. The troop's, a buddy's, an innocent civilian's, or maybe a leader, non-com or commissioned.

    To follow up such comments with a "but I support our troops" is the sheerest, most obvious, and shallow hypocrisy I can imagine.

    Frankly, the lady was all set to flame me, only to hear her son (brand new butter bar) chime in to ditto everything I had said and lay into her even more.

    I frankly found Joel's piece refreshingly honest. And even humorous. Maybe I've been in the sandbox too long, but probably not. Again, I know this is not really new or original, having reviewed previous posts, but those sharing my sentiments appeared to be both in the minority and fairly loudly disclaimed. I had no idea there had been anything like the outcry I've just read about over this piece and had to add my two cents.

    Joel's at least admitted his feelings up front. We can have honest and open debate with him. How does one do that with a Kerry, Kennedy, or any other Democrat who rants for 30 minutes only to conclude, "but I support our troops?"

  • The Flying Crowbar [Project Pluto: nastiest weapon ever conceived?]

    01/26/2006 12:01:21 PM PST · 9 of 29
    DK Zimmerman to saganite

    Uh, this was a ramjet. Where you gonna get air for it in space?

  • No security hassles for certain fliers

    01/20/2006 11:52:42 AM PST · 16 of 22
    DK Zimmerman to Bound4Glory
    What you apparently fail to realize is, that you will undergo the inconvenience AND you WILL have another episode of attacks. It's inevitable.

    The 9/11 attackers bought the hype. They didn't board the planes on 9/11 with anything illegal at the time. If there is another attack using planes, expect the same. They will follow the rules, whatever they are at the time.

    The National Guard and the TSA are pure eye-wash. A waste of time and effort, except they fooled the public into thinking something significant was being done.

    Think hard now, where were 80% of the published pictures of the NG taken? I mean come on, when was the last security check point rushed by terrorists?

    The TSA has no standards and can't find weapons or bombs, even during announced practices! Don't expect the next terrorist attack to be announced.