Compromise- Redefined?

Something came to my attention recently... There are currently two fights going on that I have aligned myself with one side of. I'll try to be brief, but one is the current debate on firearms, both on a state and national level. The other is a very local issue in my home town where the local volunteer fire department (which my father used to belong to) has decided to build a training building on the property of one of their stations and now opponents are calling for a recall election of the members on the board of the department. In both of these cases I'm hearing a familiar word, but seeing a different definition to this word. The word is "Compromise." I thought I understood what this word means, but the use and context for this word by many leads me to believe either I'm mistaken or perhaps those using it in the context they are, do not know what this word means.

To start, here is what I believe compromise means, as defined in the dictionary: Compromise (n)- The settlement of a dispute by concessions on both or all sides.Concessions to mean "the act of conceding or yielding." In lay terms, compromise means that both sides (or all sides if more than 2) give something up to come to an agreement on something.

The current conflicts with which I have aligned on one side of, the opposing side is asking for compromise, yet they are steadfast in their refusal to yield in any way. To give a perfect example- the opposing side of the gun debate, those who want more gun control, more laws, and restrictions on ownership of guns, are asking for compromise, but have yet to present any concessions on their end. They wish to restrict what kinds of firearms, capacity, and other restrictions in terms of ownership. However, if the side I'm on gives that up, what is the opposition giving up in this "compromise." Short answer, in their proposals thus far, nothing. This is not compromise, this is sacrifice. The same can be said of the issue with the fire department in my town. The board has met with the community a number of times (57 to be exact), and reduced the size of the building, reduced the amount of use it will see (12 times a year), and even revised what kind of materials will be used to generate smoke for the building. Yet these concessions do not please the opponents. The opposition simply will not give in, unless the plans for the building are scrubbed. There have been many concessions on one side, but the other side will not give in. How is this a request for compromise?

The main difference between compromise and sacrifice is that in a compromise, both sides give something up. In a one-sided-concession only one side gives up something (or a lot of somethings) to satisfy the other side of the dispute. To put it simply, those who call for compromise, yet have proposed no concessions or refuse to yield in any way, are not asking for fairness in a dispute, they want their way and nothing else. This is why in modern use, compromise isn't the correct word.

Pissed off... [NSFW]

Okay folks, it's been a while and I'm back. And dammit am I ever pissed off! So I posted a picture on my facebook today that was mocking these cry-baby, pansy, liberal no-bodies from the Occupy Movement. You know the people I'm talking about. They post their whiny stories about how their in debt, they don't have a job, they can't afford this, they can't pay for that. Everyone has to pay for college, otherwise colleges fail, and education ends at high school. They cry that their in debt and won't afford this. Most of them are in college for bullshit degrees, take too long, and my bet is they're partying with that "non-existent" money. If you're worried about paying for college here's a grand idea: JOIN THE MILITARY. Do your time and they pay for all of it!

Now, a lot of folks have been berating me for being right leaning. I'm sorry if I don't want Shaniqua with her 12 fucking children to rape and abuse the welfare system with MY MONEY so she can put $8,000 DUBS on her fucking $200 minivan! I don't want Juan to get healthcare at the cost of my mom having to pay $100's for a mammogram because he's "undocumented" and stubbed his toe and can get it at no charge at the ER. In the meantime he works for a company that doesn't pay taxes on him, he pays no income taxes on his under-the-table wages, and then sends his money not to our economy, but back home to Mexico. How is that not theft? How is that right? And then we have an administration that refuses to hunt down and prosecute these people (both the illegals and the companies that hire them), and even wants to grant them amnesty? Fuck you! That is not the way it works. I'd move somewhere better if there was a place. If we could take over some land somewhere just like where I live and start up America the way it was dreamed of in 1776, I'd be all for it. Our current country is broken but so many think that the way to fix it is to make is near socialist. Socialism only works until you run out of other people's money to spend.

Now here is where I don't get it. President Obama, this bastion of hope and change (yeah right!) takes no responsibility for the actions of his appointed (not elected) officials. What happened to the days when president says "The buck stops here!" I guess George Herbert Walker Bush was the last one who believed that. Eric Holder, a criminal as far as I'm concerned, will probably keep his job. Why is he a criminal? I'll tell you. Earlier this year, BATFE agents blew the whistle on the big "Gun Walker" operation called Operation Fast and Furious (yeah, named after that Vin Diesel/Paul Walker film). What happened? Here are the FACTS (something so many are quick to dismiss): The BATFE instructed honest, hard working gun store owners allow illegal straw purchases to be made, claiming they were being monitored, and then just watched the guns "walk" into Mexico where they traded hands into the violent drug cartels. When agents said this is wrong, they were told to be quiet and carry on. Only after a US Border Patrol agent is killed do we see how this failure backfired so badly. Then both American and Mexican civilians are murdered by these very weapons the ATF allowed to leave and fall into the wrong hands. We also soon learn that Eric Holder knew all about the operation. Perhaps even the president knew. But do any of them take responsibility? No. The buck no longer stops here I guess. My advice? Prosecute these men for the crimes they've committed. Impeach Obama, because ultimately he is responsible. What happened to accountability? What happened to the actions of your subordinates falls on your shoulders? I guess we can't hold them accountable for their actions, or the actions of those they appointed under them. That is where we are failing, and will continue to fail. It's not some Wall Street or Corporate problem, it's the big problem sitting in the Oval Office. It's the problem with politicians refusing to serve their constituents. It's the problem with people not taking responsibility and doing their job.

For the record: Washington doesn't know how to win a war....

President Obama (our oh-so-glorious leader) recently had some issues with General Stanley McCrystal, the coalition commander in Afghanistan, and McCrystal was forced (for lack of a better word) to step down- or resign- as the theater commander. Now it seems General David Petraeus- the CENTCOM Commander- is being brought in to take the place of Gen McCrystal. Obama still claims a US Troop draw down by June '11 and this I believe is a mistake. Now, to get my cards on the table, I've never been to the US Military War College (like Generals Petraeus and McCrystal), I've never led troops in combat, and I've never studied Counter-Insurgency Tactics (COIN) in that great of extent, but in my experience as a US Army Intelligence professional, I do feel that I have a bit more ground to speak from than a man who ran for the office of the President after less than 2 years in the Senate, no military service to show for, and no real experience in studying our enemies, our enemy's Tactics and procedures. Having spent 12 months in Afghanistan, and seeing first hand what the hell is actually going on there- and having been subject to the Rules of Engagement (R.O.E.), I do know that the way things are going currently, a draw down by an means this time next year is a bad idea, and frankly, it's quite foolish. Now, with the way the situation is going, with 85 Coalition casualties this month so far, and several sectors of the country still controlled by the Taliban, I feel that there would have to be some very serious steps in the right direction very soon, and very swiftly in order for Obama to get his wishes.
One of the prime reasons McCrystal got in trouble for his criticism of his superiors was because they weren't giving him what he needed to win the war, they were not letting him lead the way he wanted, and they were partially tying his hands in terms of what policies and strategies he wanted to implement but couldn't. Personally, and with all due respect to our duly (sort or) elected leaders, these bureaucrats in D.C. don't know fuck all about fighting, much less winning a war. I'm also very insulted by people referring to Operation Enduring Freedom (IE: The War in Afghanistan) as "Obama's War." Really? So he was in office on Tuesday, September 11, 2001? He was the one that ordered TF Dagger, TF Ranger, and Tier1 into Afghanistan to make contact with the Northern Alliance and hunt down Bin Laden? I didn't think so. This is/was/and will be Bush's war, give the man some credit. Obama just wants to be known as the president who brought the troops home in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Iraq is much more stable than it was years ago, Afghanistan still has a long way to go, and 2011 is a little too soon to pass the buck over to the ANA and ANP (Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police, respectively).
So in conclusion, let the officers and NCOs on the ground, the ones who get the knowledge at face value, in full, without any delusion by advisors, aides, and directors, fight the war the way they need to. Allow Gen Petraeus to modify the ROE as he sees necessary, make the decisions he needs, and for crying out loud, GIVE HIM THE FUCKING RESOURCES he asks for, unlike his predecessor (McCrystal asked for 65,000 troops, Obama pledged 30,000). There is no way Washington can win a war being a bunch of armchair generals who have 2nd, 3rd or even 4th hand word from the field. Give the power to the commanders on the ground, let them fight without all the stupid red tape and bureaucratic nonsense, and perhaps, just perhaps, we'll win sometime before I have to worry about my children having to go fight the same damn war I did.
That's my opinion, and now you can consider yourselves enlightened.

Awesome Email

The following came to me in an Email from a friend who obviously thinks on the same wavelength as me:

This is very interesting and if Arizona can do it, why can't the rest of America ?MEXICO IS ANGRY !The shoe is on the other foot and the Mexicans from the State of Sonora, Mexico do not like it. The State of Sonora is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico . Nine state legislators from the Mexican State of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona's new employer crackdown on illegal's from Mexico. It seems that many Mexican illegal's are returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off.A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to state that Arizona 's new Employer Sanctions Law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state. At a news conference, the legislators said that Sonora, - Arizona's southern neighbor, -made up of mostly small towns, - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools that it will face as Mexican workers return to their hometowns from the USA without jobs or money. The Arizona law, which took effect Jan. 1, punishes Arizona employers who knowingly hire individuals without valid legal documents to work in the United States. Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license. The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on THEIR state government. 'How can Arizona pass a law like this?' asked Mexican Rep Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales .'There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona ,' she said, speaking in Spanish. 'Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and who were sending money to their families return to their home-towns in Sonora without jobs,' she said. 'We are one family, socially and economically,' she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona.Wrong! The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico, and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico's citizens. It's time for the Mexican government, and its citizens, to stop feeding parasitically off the United States and to start taking care of its/their own needs.

Too bad that other states within the USA don't pass a law just like that passed by Arizona. Maybe that's the answer, since our own Congress will do nothing!New Immigration Laws: Read to the bottom or you will miss the message...

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.

* * * * * * * *

2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.

* * * * * * * *

3.. All government business will be conducted in our language.

* * * * * * * *

4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.

* * * * * * * *

5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office

* * * * * * * *

6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.

* * * * * * * *

7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

* * * * * * * *

8. If foreigners come here and buy land... options will be restricted.Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

* * * * * * * *

9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.

* * * * * * * *

10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

* * * * * * * * *

Too strict ?The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO !These sound fine to me.NOW, how can we get these laws to be America's Immigration Laws?