Dr. Mahmoud,
Please take me off of your mailing list. I do not wish to receive further solicitations from your organization. I would also like to point out that all of my phone numbers are registered with the national "Do Not Call" listing. You are not authorized to use or share my personal information.
Thank you.
Chris Farley
Dead Guy
posted by Chris Farley @ 7:05 AM
|
My main area of expertise in life is VistA. That is the Veteran Health Administration's computerized patient record. I am also expert in the many VistA off-shoots such as CHCS, CHCS II, RPMS and VOE. I am also very, very well versed in higher education administration (not teaching) but my experience base is slightly dated. I can talk on these two subjects - healthcare IT and higher education - for hours on end with anyone interested. But, since it is my day job, I find it boring to do so. I want to blog about things that interest me outside of work. I am, afterall, a hobbiest blogger.
You will see posts related to both healthcare IT and higher education when something particularly interesting is happening. However, there are a few areas with regard to blogging that interest me much more.
9/11 was a truly defining moment in my life - I heard the explosion and watched the Pentagon burn. So Islamic terrorism is very interesting. Charles Johnson is right up my alley, but I don't go much beyond that.
I've been a Radley Balko fan for a very long time. I'm especially interested in his views on no-knock police raids simply because I find it an egregious assault on personal liberty. I'm also interested in his overall take on the drug war - specifically the prosecution of pain doctors. You see, I have EDS and my primary issue, besides dislocating things, is pain.
Like every other person on the planet, I read Instapundit and The Drudge Report on a daily basis.
Because I am not an expert in the areas that interest me for blogging, I will cheat. I want to give credit where credit is due. The Agitator, Little Green Footballs, Instapundit, Powerline and Captain's Quarters are the inspiration for my blog - in that order. I've tried and failed to be a blogger on several occasions. This time, I plan to stick to it.
I'm going to follow a few simple rules:
1. Post what I want.
2. Unmoderated comments.
3. Engage the readers.
Many blogs hold back posting things. I'm not claiming to be an expert, so I'll say what I think and let any readers that happen by set me straight. Since I'm posting what I want and I want people to read, I can't put limits on what they post. And, since the whole point of blogging, I think, is to engage in a larger dialog, I plan to engage the readers and respond as much as I can.
Welcome to my little home on the Web. I hope you are entertained.
posted by Chris Farley @ 5:03 PM
|
This is all over the news. The Agitator has some interesting observations regarding the signatures on the warrant. They appear to be reproductions, rather than real pen to paper signatures.
Sign your name four times in a row, on separate pieces of paper, just like the judge would have had to do to approve the warrant, and they compare them. I suspect they'll look quite different from each other - even if you try really hard to make them match.
posted by Chris Farley @ 10:19 AM
|
As a Dead Guy, I often fervently wish for specific people to join me in the afterlife – meaning I wish people dead.
You may think me a bad person for it or silly or inhumane or even insane. But, I believe that this planet would be much better off if certain people could no longer dirty it with their presence.
This was a missed opportunity to make my wish come true.
The six Imams did the following things to get themselves removed from that airplane purposely:
I wish everyone that was at the little prayer sessions in both the Minneapolis Airport and Reagan National Airport were here with me now, in the after-life, so I could show them that my pimp-hand is strong.
An earthquake, lightning strike, tornado or a freak accident would put a smile on my face.
If a bunch of Catholics tried to hold mass at an airport in Saudi Arabia, what do you think would happen?
If a bunch of Baptists tried to hold a Bible study session at an airport in Iran, what do you think would happen?
If a generic Christian simply made the sign of the cross at an airport in Turkey, what do you think would happen?
In each case above, the cited example demonstrates what happens to people who aren't making a public political statement. If my theoretical examples came true, those people would likely die rather quickly. They would either be murdered outright, on the spot or put in a prison to die slowly. It wouldn't be done by some radical or terrorist. The people in the airport who just happened to be passing by would go nuts and mob them. If the protestors survived, the governments would take care of the rest.
These six Imams are pushing a political agenda and the Christians and Jews that accompanied them are too weak and foolish to see that. In all cases, I fervently hope that these people are planted quickly. I don’t want slow or horrible or painful. I’m just wishing for the “end” result.
I am NOT advocating that anyone actually do something to cause the death of another individual. That is definitely wrong, immoral, evil and illegal - in most cases. But, I am hoping that nature will take its course quickly. A plane crash would be poetic.
posted by Chris Farley @ 8:55 AM
|
The Rocky Mountain News has an article by an alleged law professor where-in he expounds on economics and the military draft. Does anyone think he is a hack since he is completely wrong with every fact he uses to support his position? Personally, I'd be afraid to hire him as my lawyer or send my child to his classes.
I sent him the following e-mail:
You are horribly uninformed. Have you done any research on this subject at all? Have you at least reviewed the Heritage Foundation study that uses the census data to clearly demonstrate that the US military is exactly the opposite of what you described? Military recruits are more middle-class, more rural, better educated and whiter than the general population. Additional studies demonstrate that in combat jobs, all minorities are under-represented as compared to the general population.
To provide you with some anecdotal evidence, my household is in the top 1% of income earners in the US. I paid cash for my daughter’s first semester of college – tuition, books, housing, a car and $500 per month just to blow. But, she just joined the ROTC and was awarded the coveted full scholarship. That is a scholarship you have to work for by basically working with and for the military representatives on campus for free and then passing a board, examination and physical readiness test. In other words, you really have to want it.
My wife works for the US Army Corps of Engineers as a civilian. She is also retired military. Because she can’t serve any longer, she applied for and got the job and then volunteered to go to Baghdad for four months – all so she could feel as though she was doing her part.
Don’t belittle the military with your uninformed leftist propaganda. You really have no idea what you are talking about and are simply repeating talking points that are popular with the far left. I suggest you research this topic more thoroughly and write a follow-up column that is based on the facts.
I’m not saying your opinion isn’t valid. Rangel’s point that those in power might think twice if their children were forced to go to war is probably a good one. But, the facts you use to support that opinion are dead wrong.
I hope I get a response.
Maybe the government should re-instate the draft – but a better solution is a draft that centers purely on the families of congressmen and senators – the people that actually authorized the war.
posted by Chris Farley @ 5:37 PM
|
Via Instapundit, Jackie Daniki is looking for assistance in finding a low-life that allegedly assualted her. To be clear, I say allegedly because I have no idea who Jackie Daniki is and she wasn't very clear on what happened.
I had a similar experience when I visited London a few years ago...and I'm NOT a woman. I'm not even especially handsome. I'm 6'4" and have fairly average looks. Apparently, being tall is a real turn-on over there. On the tubes, I was physically assualted twice, by women, just looking to cop a feel. On several other occasions, women would make a remark such as "aren't you tall dark and handsome" in front of everyone and quite loudly.
My wife and twin daughters were also accosted almost constantly by men looking for a good time. They weren't "handled" in any way, but some of the young men were quite persistent in trying to get a date or just a few hours of thier time. Luckily, size works wonders in chasing off these punks. We stopped using the tubes and found that the open-deck tour buses were excellent transportation.
I came away from London with the impression that the people were very forward and not the least bit shy. According to Jackie, they are also getting more agressive.
posted by Chris Farley @ 5:58 AM
|
I'm glad to see that US Airways is sticking to its guns, for now, regarding the six imams.
I'm glad to see that Lebanon is standing up for itself again.
I'm glad to see that there are some reporters that are willing to call Saudia Arabia on all the BS.
I'm disappointed that people aren't listening to Radley about no-knock raids.
But, I'm thankful that I had a nice Thanksgiving. There was good food, family, friends and plenty of fun.
posted by Chris Farley @ 8:16 PM
|
Pray loudly, make a fuss and act ominously all to bait someone into complaining. Now, they can scream about discrimination and how they’ve been victimized.
This is a battle. If US Airways apologizes or Congress passes a stupid law, they win this battle and the world will become more dangerous.
posted by Chris Farley @ 8:47 AM
|
I want to wish all that happen upon my lowly blog safe travels and a Happy Thanksgiving.
No sappy sentiment and no nostalgia. Just be safe on the roads, patient at the airports and pleasant to the in-laws. Forget about your troubles and be happy for a day – you deserve it!
posted by Chris Farley @ 7:16 AM
|
When the kamikaze “craze” started, the outcome of the Pacific war was already clear. But, these pilots were convinced that they would be the Japanese equivalent of martyrs and that their deaths would save thousands of lives by delaying the US invasion of mainland Japan long enough for the Emperor and his generals to prepare the people to defend Japan. Serving the Emperor was tantamount in the Japanese culture of the time. The kamikaze pilots weren’t trying to win the war or kill sailors, they were trying to damage the war-fighting capabilities of the US and delay our Navy and Marines from continued island hopping.
This correlates to the purpose of the homicide bomber. They will be martyrs with all the trappings. They will help extend the caliphate across the globe and be rewarded in heaven for their effort. It is a very powerful reward to them. The key difference is that a homicide bomber’s goals are purely political. They know that the US military can’t be defeated.
The homicide bombing and political after-math shows the weakness. The calculus was simple and it is working. They bombed us on 9/11. We react by invading someone and looking askance at devout Muslims at home. The invaded country and the oppressed Muslims at home become victims. Victim-hood provides political status. Political status equals political power. Power equals more recruits. We just elected the first Muslim to congress – Keith Ellison from Minnesota. He has ties to radical Islam and the Nation of Islam. He is the first win in a larger war.
The homicide bombers are probing attacks that are designed to find our political weaknesses. As commenter Philip Cassini pointed out, there needs to be a follow up to exploit that weakness, but he is misses the form of the follow-up. Exploitation of that weakness is a three pronged attack that is already under way:
1. A soft invasion of Europe. They immigrate, breed hate and generally cause trouble. If they can get a strong response from somewhere, they can rally a billion Muslims world-wide to the cause of the oppressed Muslim minority.
2. Friday prayers. They imams to preach hate. They blame all the ills in the Muslim countries on an external force – the Jews, America or democracy. They encourage riots and protests to foment that hate into action and try to intimidate the rest of the world.
3. Power projection. They continue to work on a nuclear program and strive to get an atomic bomb. With that bomb, they can wield a tremendous amount of political power and dominate the Middle East. Just the threat of the bomb has Europe running to give them goodies to make them stop and the UN Security Counsel arguing over meaningless sanctions. Imagine the ruckus when they test a bomb – they’ll have real power and they can easily rally a billion Muslims to their cause.
The world is in trouble. Militant Islam is front and center on the political stage. If forced to choose between your God and your country – which would you choose? I am certain that anyone that is deeply religious would choose their God. Those that aren’t deeply religious will see the others that choose God and just go along for the ride. Many non-Muslims will convert out of fear - hoping to be "Muslim light" just to get by and not cause any trouble. I think we can count on Muslims throughout the world, regardless of how devout, to choose their God over thier country.
I think we’re all in for quite a spot of trouble. Maybe not today, tomorrow or even next year, but certainly within my lifetime. Personally, I hope it is all over before my son turns 18. I'd gladly serve my country again, but I couldn't stand to see him off to war.
posted by Chris Farley @ 6:44 PM
|
Via The Agitator.
You just lost the game...and so did I.
Radley sucks. I'll be doing this forever now.
UPDATE: I just lost again. Man, that sucks. But, to be nice, I'll only blog about it when I lose because of blogging - like reading Radley or review my own. Plus, I'll just keep updating this post. I don't want to annoy all those readers that I don't have.
posted by Chris Farley @ 5:28 PM
|
Instapundit links to Spengler and Simon discussing suicide bombers and selling women. They are all wrong about thier conclusion that radical Islam has already lost. Though I will give Glenn the benefit of the doubt, since his conclusion is only an implication through links, not a statement.
I am a former military medic. I was taught the cold art of triage. My job was not to save lives. My standing orders were “to keep as many men, at as many guns, for as long a time as is possible.” The distinction is important, so please bare with me.
Here is a scenario to describe how triage works.
A squad is hit by a mortar round and suffers casualties. One man has a dislocated shoulder, another has shrapnel wounds in his left thigh, a third has a large gash on his forehead and a fourth has a sucking chest wound. All four lives can be saved with quick medical treatment. If I was in the life-saving business, I would treat the most deadly injury first – the sucking chest wound. I would seal the wound and dress it and give the guy morphine and start an IV. I would then move to the leg and verify that it didn’t hit the femoral artery, put on a pressure dressing and give him a dose of morphine and immobilize the leg. The next patient would be the forehead gash and I would just give him a pressure dressing and clear his eyes. Finally, I would immobilize the dislocated shoulder and call it a day.
But, to follow orders, the flow would be very different. The shoulder would come first, because that guy could immediately pick up his gun and start shooting. Rather than immobilize it, I would reduce the shoulder and tell him to get back at it. The forehead is second, a pressure dressing and eye wash gets him shooting again. Third is the leg. He is third because it might be the femoral artery and he might be dead without knowing it. If it was the artery, I’d have to dig for it inside the wound, clamp it and then put on the pressure dressing – that takes time and likely won’t save him anyway. Luckily, in this scenario, it isn’t the artery, so he gets a pressure dressing and maybe a splint and he gets to fire from the prone position. As for the chest wound, if he isn’t dead yet, I’d first look around to make sure no one else could be patched up, then I’d deal with him – maybe. If we are advancing and I have to leave him behind, I’ll shoot him up with morphine and try to stop the suction and leave it at that. If we are retreating, I’ll just leave him – we can collect his body later. If we are in a holding position, I’ll treat him full throttle until something else comes up.
It all sounds rather cruel and calculated – and it is. As a medic under fire, I’m not in the business of saving lives – I’m in the business of making war. I explain all of this to make a simple point – just like medics, military generals don’t care about how many troops get killed in action because they want to preserve life, they care because they want to preserve war-fighting capabilities.
When a general orders a probing skirmish, he thinks that by sacrificing a squad or two to find the enemy’s weak point, he’ll preserve his war-fighting capabilities for subsequent battles by having fewer casualties in this battle. Here is the comparison:
I throw my army at the enemy and by chance hit a strong point of the enemy. I lose 50% of my troops, but win the battle. But, because of those heavy losses, I have to wait for reinforcements before the next battle.
Or, I send one percent of my troops at different points along the enemy lines and find the weak spot, exploit it and win the battle with 20% overall casualties. I can then chase the retreating enemy immediately, because I preserved my war-fighting power by sacrificing a few squads.
War is a very cold and calculating business. We don’t try to save lives; we try to preserve war-fighting capabilities. We go into battle assuming our purpose is clear and noble and then act to achieve that purpose. We know that people will die or be maimed, but we don’t try to minimize that for humanitarian reasons – war is not humane. We try to minimize casualties so we can continue to fight until the objective is achieved. Then, and only then, we’ll worry about the fall-out to all of those brave troops.
Why is all of this important? It explains homicide bombers. The enemy, in this case, Islamic militants, is probing us. They are looking to exploit a weak spot while suffering as small a loss as possible. If they confront the US head-on, militarily, they will lose and they know that for a fact. So, they recruit suicide bombers to probe for a weakness they can exploit – politics. Unfortunately, we don’t view terrorist attacks as what they are – probing attacks. We view them as a political tool that Islamic militants are using to challenge our politics. Terrorists are freedom fighters that are trying to preserve their rich culture and break the tyrannical grip of the United States and our evil corporate overlords. Sadly, too many Americans buy this vision. And, sadly, if we continue on this course, there are only two outcomes. Either we will all be enveloped in an Islamic Caliphate, or many, many Americans will die in a great cultural war.
Spengler and Simon are wrong because they don’t understand the cold calculus of war. Suicide bombers are not the desperate death throws of a defeated enemy. The enemy is using suicide bombers as a warm-up – and they are winning the battle with simple probing attacks precisely because people don’t understand.
posted by Chris Farley @ 9:58 AM
|
I can't believe how busy I am - like you people that don't ever read my blog care!
I've hosted dinner parties the past three weekends, this week is Thanksgiving (Happy Thanksgiving) that I'm hosting, next week is a work party that I'm hosting, the next week is a Christmas Party (Merry Christmas) that I'm hosting, the next week is a trip to Mexico for a Christmas Party (Merry Christmas, again) for work, the next week is Christmas (Merry Christmas for real) with family coming, the next week is New Years (Happy New Years) and the next week is my daughters' (twins, so the punctuation is correct, loser) birthday(Happy Birthday)! Man, I'm going to need a vacation. I think I need one just for writing such an incredibly long run-on sentence...or maybe a lobotomy would solve both.
I wouldn't mind it too much if my EDS didn't bother me so much right now. I can't seem to do anything without injuring something. Thankfully, I have a hot-tub. I think I'll write a blog post from there tonight.
posted by Chris Farley @ 4:18 PM
|
What was her name again? Wow, talk about light speed obscolecence! Mere minutes after unanimously confirming her as their choice for Speaker of the House, her own party lays down her first defeat! I can see why the Democrats didn't want to put Murtha in any sort of power position - being that corruption was the big issue that brought them to power.
I can't wait to see what happens with the Intel committee - an impeached former judge as the chair? Don't they need some sort of security clearance for that? Can he pass one? If he doesn't need one, why should I need one? I've never been impeached.
I'm also wondering why all the left side of the blogosphere and media thinks that the Iraq war was the defining issue, when all the exit polls from the election listed it pretty far down the list.
Do my huge quantity of zero readers know why?
I didn't think so.
posted by Chris Farley @ 3:32 PM
|
I'm glad that Rumsfeld is gone.
I was all for the reforming of the military. His ideas were great in both concept and application. We have the greatest fighting force on the planet. Faster, stronger and better is exactly what the military needed.
But, the ideas were short sighted in that they didn't anticipate the inevitable need for an occupation force. We can kick anybody's ass, but we can't occupy them properly. I'm sure the terrorists in Iraq are saying "you call that an occupation force? HA! Saddam would have been ripping out my fingernails months ago!"
We are failing in our occupation of Iraq. We need more troops securing more areas and staying there to ensure that security. Those snipers wouldn't make it very far if we had a machine gun at every intersection. IEDs would be much harder to plant with troops in foxholes everywhere. The problem is, we are more concerned about the politics - winning hearts and minds - than with force protection. We are trying to win hearts and minds in the near term. We are putting our troops at risk in the hopes that Iraqis will like us and decide not to kill us any more. But, we should be beating the entire populace into submission. Later, when the infrastructure is in place, we can lighten up. We can gradually turn over areas to the Iraqis and then they will love us when they see how nice things are - running water, electricity, sewer service and a real police force that protects citizens.
posted by Chris Farley @ 2:48 PM
|
Well, I guess I ruined my New Year's resolution of posting once per day.
I'm not kidding around this time, I'm going to blog as regularly as I can. Maybe, just maybe, one day I'll get a reader and it will all be worth it. My first post will be about Iraq.
Nancy Pelosi says that Iraq isn't a war: "If it were a war, we could win it by killing people and blowing stuff up. While security problems necessarily involve the occasional application of force, the dominant difficulties in Iraq simply aren't force-on-force problems. The remaining problems are sociopolitical. No amount of firepower is going to resolve the intractable conflicts of interest between the Shiites and the Sunnis, or between various subgroups. No US troop level will convince the rival Iraqi factions that pluralism is better than asserting their own interests. They'll either find it in their interest to moderate. . .or they won't."
That sure is a pretty and logical sounding sound-bite. She is right that we are past the phase of force-on-force problems. Now, we have the problem of building up the Iraq infrastructure - meaning the Iraqi military and police - so that they can deal with thier own problems. I think we have a responsibility to do that now. We broke it, so we have to fix it. In hindsight, it was a bad idea to disband the Iraqi military. But, now we have to build it again. We have to train them, we have to support them and we have to give them a chance to establish themselves with personnel, equipment, policies, procedures and everything else that makes a military. We can't just grab a bunch of guys off the street, slap some boots on them and hope it turns out okay. The middle-east is dangerous and there are far stronger militaries in the area. How long before Iran would invade if we pulled out without leaving a real Iraqi military behind?
She is also right that no amount of firepower is going to resolve the differences of the Shia and Sunni and the bad things that happen because of it. That will take police work. We also have to help Iraq develop a police force - along the same lines. Police work under a democracy is far different and more restrictive than police work under a dictatorship. In the old days, they just threatened, tortured and/or killed people to solve crimes, then disposed of the criminal. Now, there are civil protections, real courts and real freedoms to protect.
Until those two major tasks are accomplished, we need an occupation force.
posted by Chris Farley @ 2:06 PM
|
Rants, musings, deliberations and a healthy dose of BS from a real, live, dead guy!
