End of Year Conspiracies

I have recently uncovered some conspiracies. They are all true. I have the evidence. I swear.

1. Pepsi is owned by Colombian drug lords. They were going to buy Coca-Cola instead, but thought it too obvious.

2. The Bush family selected their last name so they could remember the area to aim for when having sex. Apparently, some of their ancestors were "challenged."

3. Barbie left Ken for a simple reason: she already got his rib and he has no balls. Why wouldn't she?

4. 2000 Flushes was created by women to expose men with a lower sense of humor. Yellow and blue make green make dumb pissing guy laugh.

5. Barack Obama's real name is Benedict Arnold, but he "ethnicized it" in order to pull votes and keep people from asking questions about his past. Not sure that worked...

6. A woman's anus is right next to her vagina in order to prove how disgusting men are. And how much they like being disgusting. Love it, in fact. Oh, yeah.

7. Global Warming started out as a secret government project intent on preventing an encroaching ice age. Only they fucked up, and like a typical government screw up, decided to guilt the populace into taking the blame for it.

8. Circumcision was made popular because Abraham's wife decided she didn't like getting foreskin stuck in her teeth.

9. NASA's decision to send a chimp into space first was actually an attempt to convince the Soviet Union that the Space Race wasn't worth the effort. They were trying to imply that "hey, a chimp can do it; what's the big deal?" It failed miserably.

10. The real man behind the JFK assassination was

Presidential Qualifications

Several groups of people often complain that the Constitutional requirement that a person be born a naturalized citizen of the United States is anachronistic and unnecessary. As a result, these groups advocate an Amendment to the Constitution lifting that requirement.

I tend to agree, but I'm also in favor of more requirements for the Office of the President. A lot more, in fact.

No, I'm not convoluted enough to think it'll ever happen, but here's what I'd like to see in a Presidential Qualification Amendment.

1) Lift the naturalized citizen requirement. However, add the requirements that a candidate must (at the time of their inauguration) be a US citizen for no less than 35 consecutive years, and cannot have held a foreign citizenship in the last 21 years.
2) A candidate must have a minimum of 3 years military service (active duty).
3) A candidate must have been in public office at the State or Federal level for a minimum of 4 years.
4) This one's a kicker: a candidate must have earned a PhD (preferably from a public university).

Yeah, these are a bit extreme, but why not? Since they already have to be 35 years old, they have plenty of time to obtain all of those prerequisites. Indeed, the youngest President-elect to date was JFK at 43-years old (Teddy was younger when he took over, but he wasn't elected until he was older).

Since the President holds the position of Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces, the military requirement seems natural. Also, since most Presidents historically have met the public office criteria (with the notable exceptions of Washington, Taylor, Grant, Arthur, and Eisenhower - all generals in the Army), that also seems natural.

Sure, the PhD is admittedly a stretch, but wouldn't you want a President who is clearly highly educated?

Also, get rid of term limits. There are natural term limits to the Presidency; it's called an election every four years. If the man (or woman) is doing a good enough job that enough Americans approve and want that person to stay in office forever, then why not?

Getting rid of term limits would also allow former Presidents to serve as VPs, cabinet members, and other positions in the line-of-succession for the Presidency. I admit this would be a rarity (John Q. Adams is the only President I can think of who even bothered with public office after his term as President), but why eliminate the possibility? After all, these people are supposed to be our "best and brightest" (save the jokes, please).

Again, I hold no illusions that this would ever happen, but it would be nice, no?

The Contractor Problem

Blackwater. Halliburton. Blah dee blah. We all know who (or at least what) they are; most of us know what they do. But what we don't know is why they are even here.

The short answer is the one answer most of us turn to, since we lack the knowledge and interest to be able to answer the question in detail: corrupt government.

Unfortunately, this is not the accurate answer, nor is it even a relevant one (despite some truth behind it). Contractors exist because of the American way of life. And that is, for lack of better term, one of capitalism. For those of you who didn't know, our country runs on a business model in which any industry or service can be turned into a lucrative venture with which a clever entrepreneur can exploit.

In this case, it is known as the military-industrial complex. A complex, somewhat ironically, that we were warned against embracing by a former 5-star general and President, good ol' Ike. Unfortunately for Ike's successors, there were no laws governing the limitations of such a complex and now our military is paying the price.

Let me back up for a moment and posit a thesis: any military that is not entirely self-sufficient is doomed to fail.

And therein lies the problem.

We all know (or at least should) that our military is currently far too small. The Navy is comparitively small for our needs and continues to shed its logistical duties to (gasp) civilian contractors. The Army is undeniably tiny and is at its breaking point, and also continues to shed logistical duties in favor of civilian support. Additionally, however, the Army is even losing some of its tactical duties to civilian contractors. I know this is a few years late, but... what?

Obvious problems aside, private armies such as Blackwater look great on paper (at least in the pamphlets), but in practice are a horrific waste of money and a terrifying transfer of what used to be typical military duties. This entry is not the place to get into the minutae, but, in essence, taxpayers are getting screwed. For a job that a standard, disciplined soldier would have done 30 years ago, we are paying exhorbitant salaries for civilian contractors who, by the way, don't have the same accountability as a servicemember. $60,000 a year for an unaccountable "bodyguard" versus maybe $30,000 a year for someone who answers to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice? That's like firing your child who lives with you for mere room and board and hiring a replacement for room, board, and a $30,000 per year allowance. Oh, yeah, and a replacement who doesn't necessarily have to do what you tell him or her to do.

I don't know in what world the theater oversights are doing business, but that arrangement can't possibly sound good under any amount of propaganda.

Not only that, these very same private armies are recruiting our best and brightest soldiers and sailors out of our armed forces. In other words, the government is paying these companies to compete with itself. Which, as everyone should be able to figure out, drives up costs continuously and astronomically.

I could keep going, but the bottom line is: we're fucking ourselves.

I'll return to this subject again in the future, but on a closing note, I do need to point out that this phenomenon is not only the fault of the government and these greedy corporations, it's also the fault of the American people. It's no secret that finding people who actually want to serve is becoming harder and harder every day. Kids these days feel like they're owed something, and that's bullshit. Disagree? Then why are all these self-serving punks whining about not having free college?

JFK said it best: "Ask not what your country can do for you..." Well, you know the rest. And if you don't, you obviously don't give a shit anyway.

World War II: Pearl Harbor

Not too long ago (probably sometime in June or July), I had to listen to a rant by my roommate/landlord about how FDR knew the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor. This, of course, made FDR a complete rat bastard in the eyes of my roommate. However, while I can't lay claim to whether or not FDR was a rat bastard, I'm pretty certain that FDR had no clue that Pearl Harbor was the definitive target.

Oh, our government had to have been expecting something... there were too many rumors and warnings floating about... but I doubt he knew Pearl Harbor was about to be fucked all to Hell.

How do I know this?

Well, look at it this way: a little known fact about "The Day of Infamy" is that the Japanese didn't just attack one US territory (Hawaii was not a state at the time), they attacked THREE. 1) Hawaii, 2) Wake Island, 3) The Phillippines.

And in analyzing the supposed "reasons" that FDR "allowed" (I love quotations... can't help it) the bombing of Pearl Harbor, we actually come to the opposite conclusion.

Some say that FDR needed an American disaster in order to gain support for entering the war. As such, Pearl Harbor provided just such a disaster. Well, no. Pearl Harbor sucked, that's for sure, and in terms of loss of ships (permanent and temporary) it was a pretty bad hit (despite the fact that our aircraft carriers weren't there... I'll hit that point in a second), but in terms of disasters? I'd say, and most WW2 historians will probably agree with me, that the Philippines was a far worse disaster than Pearl Harbor ever was (Bataan Death March, anyone?). But, no, nobody is running around claiming FDR knew the Philippines were going be invaded, are they?

Some say the reason that the aircraft carriers weren't there is proof, PROOF I say, that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. Well, no. At the time, the US had two major carrier bases in the Pacific: Pearl Harbor and San Diego, California. And, in fact, all three carriers in theater at the time were on SCHEDULED deployments (to Midway, coming back to Hawaii, to San Diego, etc.)... deployments that were scheduled long in advance of December 7th (or December 8th by the Japanese calendar). In addition, US naval doctrine (not to mention WORLD naval doctrine... with the possible exception of the Japanese) still held the aircraft carrier BELOW the battleship in terms of naval superiority. If this logic was to be followed, FDR would've probably had the battleships mysteriously deployed, not the aircraft carriers.

There are many, many more subtle reasons as to why the "Pearl Harbor conspiracy" is a load of bullshit, but I don't really feel like going into those at this time. The two above should more than convince anyone who doesn't think Elvis is still alive and Marilyn was killed by the Kennedy administration. And, if not, I'm sorry you'd rather darken an already dark world.

Have a nice day... and vote for Clint Eastwood (an Army veteran).