Is McCain fit to be President?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

There is a reason why it states to "PROVIDE" for the common defense versus "PROMOTE" the general welfare.

Exactly what is it about "promote" that precludes providing, if necessary?

In that PROMOTE means to encourage, whereas,
PROVIDE means to make available.

Another analogy would be that PROMOTING the general welfare means to advocate the idea or advance the idea that an environment which gives a "hand up" is what the federal government should be ensuring. In what I see, that means that federal government's role should be nothing more than a "coach" for the localities which are better suited to respond to their locales.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is a reason why it states to "PROVIDE" for the common defense versus "PROMOTE" the general welfare.

Exactly what is it about "promote" that precludes providing, if necessary?

In that PROMOTE means to encourage, whereas,
PROVIDE means to make available.

Another analogy would be that PROMOTING the general welfare means to advocate the idea or advance the idea that an environment which gives a "hand up" is what the federal government should be ensuring. In what I see, that means that federal government's role should be nothing more than a "coach" for the localities which are better suited to respond to their locales.

Alternatively, one could argue that provide implies *less* than promote.

[Something of a Devil’s advocate argument]

“Provide” suggests money & equipment, i.e., what is delineated and no more. And furthermore, per the precision interpretation view, it must be “common defence” not individual and not specialized.

“Promote” potentially suggests much, much more. There’s an advocacy connotation to promote that provide does not have. To promote is to pro-actively help or encourage some situation to exist or flourish. One promotes a campaign or promotes world peace; one provides what are the basic necessities. Promote includes not only paying for the basics but establishing programs to generate and insure the general welfare of the citizens of the US of A.

Of course, promote also means “to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc.” One might interpret the Preamble to mean that “general welfare” should be promoted above “common defence” based on a pseudo-linguistic analysis.

[/Devil’s advocate]

I’m not aware of any historical evidence to support either your or my speculative, quasi-linguistic interpretation. Part of the strength is in the ambiquity that also enables flexibility. There are few things that are very specifically called out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

One could also argue that provide also implies more privatization, as was the historical norm at the time of crafting the Constitution.

In some areas the Framers were intentionally precise (e.g., 2-year money for the Army, ages for elected officials) and in other areas intentionally ambiguous, such as w/r/t “general welfare.”

Why? It would interesting (to me at least) to explore how historically radical the idea of a standing, professional *federal* Army was at the time (as opposed to the English tradition of universal military obligation for all able-bodied free men at the will of the King or Queen). The Framers were concerned with regard to what the States (via their elected/appointed representatives) would approve, so Army was explicitly included. What was the ability/obligation/options available to the federal government w/r/t a professional Army under the Articles of Confederation? Why was the Army limited to 2-year money? A commitment from the States –- who resisted/feared strong centralized govt, a la England and who had their own “well-regulated militias” -- to support a standing *federal* Army (as opposed to the civilian volunteer force of the Revolutionary Army) must have been radical!

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[TankBuster 0]

Bill, you ignored my answer and made up your own. Look I know I'll never convince a liberal that smaller government is better government. My beef with SS is the same as with many government programs. I don't want it forced on me. I would like to decide what's best for me. Not GW, certainly not Ted the lifeguard, not any of them. I know I need to pay my fair share for Government services, and I'll do that, its just that my level of "services" is well below yours.
Defense spending is one I approve of, and it spikes at times. I don't "want" this war. I don't go around armchair quarterbacking the decisions that have been made.

Those people nearing retirment would have a lot more money to retire on if they had been allowed to invest it themselves in even a moderate portfolio.

Your comment about the government creating jobs is one of the major ideas that separate you and I. The free market creates jobs, the best thing the Feds can do is get the hell out of the way and get the hell out of our lives.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

In that PROMOTE means to encourage, whereas,
PROVIDE means to make available.

Making available is a way to encourage. There is nothing about the term promote that precludes providing.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

The Constitution also says nothing about a Space Exploration program, limiting stem cell research, oil industry subsidies, the Farm Bill, systematic signage on the interstate freeway system, nanotechnology, missile defense (there’s over $12B/y that some characterize as “corporate welfare” that I recommend eliminating), the internet, or the disposal of nuclear waste to name a few.

The Interstate System was built on the basis of national defense.

You pointed out multiple programs tied with national defense and items that have nothing to do with government.

For all of the items I listed, the federal (& some State) government has played some role.

Yes, the Eisenhower limited access freeway system (& the subsequent the Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET)), was created for national defense purposes.

But what about the signage … the signs, the set-up, the system is consistent across the country. It wasn’t always that way. It was work of the federal National Transportation Board (not the NTSB), as part of the Dept of Transportation, that eventually resulted in legislation mandating systematic signage (in order to receive federal highway dollars) because the private entities weren’t doing it. It’s something I took for granted – just don’t even really think about it -- because in my lifetime, it’s always been that way.

Quote

These are easily tied into national defense. Not a social handout. While the USAF could not find value in private contractors for maintenance, the Army National Guard uses private contracts for maintenance on all their fixed wing assets.

And that & the other successful examples are great! Nonetheless, the non-exahustive list of exceptions provided do provide counter-examples to the "every" assertion.

Quote

Quote

How about standards? Do we really want Beta vs VHS, HD vs BlueRay playing out w/r/t all things that depend on measurements and standards? From clocks to nuclear security?

I don't know what you mean by this. IEEE standards or DVD standards are not government mandates. Same with ISO. Those are not government programs.

Actually those are derived from or dependent on NIST &/or NIST laboratories. ANSI, which provides ISO accreditation, is a private, not-for-profit company that works closely with and receives government support ($). I would site that as an example of a very successful privatized function that promotes the ‘general welfare.’

It's not the video or the DVD standards that are of concern but the process that underlies hows those came about. See the history of rail gauges, and impact on national defense particularly in Russia.

Quote

CDC plays a critical role, and inherent to the defense of the country

Quote

Quote

Intelligence?

Defense.

Stepping back, one danger is that one could derive a strategy of “if I can connect it to ‘national defense’ then it’s acceptable for federal spending.”

A corollary of that is what has been observed since 2001. Private companies have been trying to market a range of goods and services for “Homeland Security.”

Some are legitimate and provide fantastic capabilities; some are good, sound ideas or products but do not provide Homeland Security capabilities; and others not-so-much (to put it diplomatically).

On Randall’s Island (“the Rock”), the FDNY has a closet full of gadgets that don’t work/don’t serve useful purpose for CBRN-detection & protection. The DoD, DHS, and local first responders really don’t need another 150lb ‘anthrax’ detector that has to be plugged in (220V), requires refrigerated consumables, requires a PhD to interpret the results, & btw has only been demonstrated to detect vegetative B. cereus & Bacillus subtilis (i.e., related non-select agent Bacillus species that are found in the dirt, cause food poisoning, not sporulated, and would result in an overabundance of false positives.) Companies are going to try to sell their ideas, their products, and their services; that’s what they are supposed to do. Yeah!

And to be explicit that is not in anyway to indicate a lack of support for extramural RDT&E programs to support and acquire. It’s illustrative of the need for smart people in the federal government - ‘cause when a fantastic private solution is offered, I want it to be recognized, supported, and used. And when a dumb one is put forward, I don't want limited federal funding wasted on it. Like most of the real world, it’s complicated.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

While the USAF could not find value in private contractors for maintenance, the Army National Guard uses private contracts for maintenance on all their fixed wing assets.

Considering the Army has very, very few fixed wing aircraft compared to the Air Force, and the Army National Guard (presumably) even less, that makes sense. On the other hand, if the Air Force found private maintenance of their fixed wing aircraft to be a financially sound choice, that might indicate that private industry could perform fixed wing aircraft maintenance more efficiently than the Air Force. By the same token, if the Army (or USAR or USANG) relied primarily on private industry to maintain its rotary wing aircraft, of which far out-number their fixed wing aircraft, that also might indicate that private industry could provide maintenance more efficiently.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

The free market creates jobs, the best thing the Feds can do is get the hell out of the way and get the hell out of our lives.

The free market is a good thing. But as Nerdgirl pointed out an unchecked free market is not. A true free market is inherently destined to fall victim to greed which, like a cancer, will eventually end up killing its host.

Free markets through deregulation or compromised regulation result in a lot of the problems that we see today with regard to our Federal government. We have a revolving door which allows lawyers, lobbyists and well heeled special interests to not only facilitate the election of the candidate of their choice but to also actually write the legislation that governs those special interests. Typically that results in legislation that hinders consumer protections while it uses taxpayer money to subsidize the industry via the Treasury. That's a double whammy against the taxpayer. See the Medicare drug program for a good example.

Robert Reiche had a good editorial this morning that deals with my point about the type of government that an unchecked free market will provide.

Robert Reich:
Now let me get this straight: Some of the dollars I'm sending to Washington this time of year are being used to backstop Wall Street investment bankers, hedge fund and private equity managers, and anybody else associated with a borrower that's too big to fail.

The reason they're too big to fail is they've borrowed so much from our pension funds and money-market funds that if they went bust, our savings would disappear. Even the danger of their going bust might make us so anxious we'd demand our money, which would close down the entire financial system.

Now, the reason they've been able to borrow so much from us without putting up much of their own capital is they're unregulated, and don't have to put up their own money. The tax code also rewards them to treat the earnings they get on the investments they make with the money you and I lend them as capital gains rather than ordinary income. So many of them are paying taxes at a lower marginal tax rate than you and I are paying.

Finally, when the risky investments they've made with our money go bad, we get a housing crisis, and the value of our homes -- our biggest assets -- plummets. And our pension funds get socked. Yet Wall Street executives continue to pull in whopping incomes. James Cayne, the former CEO of Bear Stearns, left the company with a $232 million pay package. That's because when they place risky bets that pay off, they get the windfall, and when their bets go bad, they're bailed out with our tax dollars.

This just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We want a tax system that rewards risk taking. But not any risks -- and not one where it's heads they win and tails we lose.

And finally, (this is a lot longer winded than I intended) my last and most egregious example of corporate/government inbreeding was something I read about last night.
John Snow, while he was running CSX presided over a period of aggressive cost cutting in infrastructure maintenance. During his tenure the railroad saved $2.4 billion. What it resulted in was a horrendous Amtrak accident that injured 77 people and killed 8. Most victims families settled quickly but one woman did not. She fought extremely hard (understatement) and was finally awarded a $56 million dollar settlement when CSX's policies of shoddy maintenance were exposed. So after it was all said and done, CSX paid out $0.04 in penalties for each dollar that they saved. And to top it off, CSX then pushed that meager cost off on Amtrack, which ultimately means that the money came out of our pockets.
John Snow also bragged a few years ago at how he was able to run CSX and pay less than zero in taxes.
So, how do we reward someone who runs a company in such a manner? We appoint him Secretary of the Treasury.
It strikes me as odd the type of people who we hold up as role models for our society.

Nuff said for now. Thanks for letting me vent.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

While the USAF could not find value in private contractors for maintenance, the Army National Guard uses private contracts for maintenance on all their fixed wing assets.

Considering the Army has very, very few fixed wing aircraft compared to the Air Force, and the Army National Guard (presumably) even less, that makes sense. On the other hand, if the Air Force found private maintenance of their fixed wing aircraft to be a financially sound choice, that might indicate that private industry could perform fixed wing aircraft maintenance more efficiently than the Air Force. By the same token, if the Army (or USAR or USANG) relied primarily on private industry to maintain its rotary wing aircraft, of which far out-number their fixed wing aircraft, that also might indicate that private industry could provide maintenance more efficiently.

You presume too much. The majority of fixed wing assets in the Army are in the National Guard. There isn't a vast difference in the number of aircraft either.

You'd also be interested in learning that the Army has more boats than the Navy, and the Marines have more aircraft than the Air Force.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Zarkon 0]

McCain scares the shit out of me. Iran training and harboring al-Qaeda? Ok maybe he mis-spoke, but what about sitting there with a straight face saying Petraeus travels in an unarmed Humvee in the streets of Iraq? I think he is either disconnected from reality or thinks we believe anything we're told.

[billvon 3,116]

>Look I know I'll never convince a liberal that smaller government is
>better government.

I think smaller government IS better government. But it will never BE a smaller government because no one will give anything up. You won't give up the war; that's a trillion dollars or so. Other people won't give _their_ favorite programs up.

Ask yourself why you refuse to abandon a trillion dollar war. And realize that other people have reasons that are just as valid to not give up _their_ trillion dollar program.

>and I'll do that, its just that my level of "services" is well below yours.

I doubt that. I suspect you use the roads far more than I do - and that's a huge expense.

>Defense spending is one I approve of, and it spikes at times.

I rest my case. Other people approve of _their_ favorite spending.

>Those people nearing retirment would have a lot more money to retire
>on if they had been allowed to invest it themselves in even a moderate
>portfolio.

Stock markets crash. The reason that we have something like Social Security is to guard against that possibility.

>Your comment about the government creating jobs is one of the major
>ideas that separate you and I. The free market creates jobs, the best
>thing the Feds can do is get the hell out of the way and get the hell out of
>our lives.

The free market creates jobs; so does the government. I think the free market does better overall at creating jobs. Occasionally the government creates jobs to restart a stalled economy (see the New Deal) and that's a way to _restore_ the free market to the point where it can take over.

That's a power that's used far too often, IMO, but it is a power that's available to the government.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You presume too much. The majority of fixed wing assets in the Army are in the National Guard.

Okay. Fair enough.

Quote

There isn't a vast difference in the number of aircraft either.

I didn't say there was. I said the Air Force (including its Reserve and ANG components) had many more fixed wing aircraft than the Army (and the UAAR & NG) has.

Quote

You'd also be interested in learning that the Army has more boats than the Navy, and the Marines have more aircraft than the Air Force.

I'm not at all surprised. That doesn't change the fact that the Army has few fixed wing aircraft compared to the Air Force.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Those people nearing retirment would have a lot more money to retire on if they had been allowed to invest it themselves in even a moderate portfolio.

Until another scam comes along like the stuff in the 80's with junk bonds...

Or if another neo con government allows the stock market to do any damn thing it wants.. and it all goes POOF.. and they say OOOPS.. Sorry.

[TankBuster 0]

You guys are always bringing up the highway system. Bad example. About 65% of that revenue comes from gas and disel taxes, vehicle taxes, and road use taxes, with the rest coming from the general fund. That's all fine with me, and I gladly pay my fair share.

You keep saying I won't give up the trillion dollar war (BTW its only half that). I never said that, but apparently that is one of your favorite rants, so I guess you can have it.

There are many ways to build retirement assets. Stocks, bonds, real estate, gold, even cash. The smart investor will diversify. Even the most conservative porfolio would beat the hell out of the rate SS "provides." Either way, I would rather be responsible for my own, and if I screw it up, I'll work longer. I don't want you or anyone else to have to support me, ever. Apparently another path where our philosophies diverge.

It IS interesting how you guys always want the nanny state to be there to wipe your ass, and then complain about the shitty manner in which it is done.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[billvon 3,116]

> You guys are always bringing up the highway system. Bad example.
>About 65% of that revenue comes from gas and disel taxes, vehicle taxes,
>and road use taxes, with the rest coming from the general fund.

Closer to 55%, but agreed. You want your roads, and you don't care how much gets spent on them. "I DEMAND that someone else build me free highways, reduce my travel time, and give me enough room to park my SUV! And don't increase my taxes!"

And again, that's fine. Ask the nanny state to wipe your ass and give you free toys at the same time. Just don't complain when other people do the same.

>You keep saying I won't give up the multi trillion dollar war. I never said that . . .

Then I will ask you directly. Are you willing to end the war, and thus end the costs (both human and fiscal) to the US?

>There are many ways to build retirement assets. Stocks, bonds,
>real estate, gold, even cash. The smart investor will diversify.

Absolutely - and that's how everyone _should_ invest for the future. Should the economy collapse, though, no matter how diversified you are, you'll be affected. Social security merely provides a bottom level of protection against such catastrophic events.

>It IS interesting how you guys always want the nanny state to be there to
>wipe your ass, and then complain about the shitty manner in which it is
>done.

I'd say it's even more interesting that when YOU want the nanny state to wipe your ass, you think that it's the best thing since sliced bread.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You keep saying I won't give up the trillion dollar war (BTW its only half that). I never said that, but apparently that is one of your favorite rants, so I guess you can have it.

Uh please do not forget all those nice little contracts awarded to.... OMG.... Friends of the Administration for all sorts of fun thing related to their nice little NEO CON Adventure.. but being billed to other agencies for all kinds of other reasopns to hide the real cost fo the right wing raid on the Treasury of the United States.. aka.. profiteering.

[TankBuster 0]

"I DEMAND that someone else build me free highways, reduce my travel time, and give me enough room to park my SUV! And don't increase my taxes!" Dude! Take a chill pill. And read that paragraph again, in it's entirety.

And again, that's fine. Ask the nanny state to wipe your ass and give you free toys at the same time. Just don't complain when other people do the same. Not asking for any free toys, Bill. Seems like you're arguing more with yourself than with me.

Then I will ask you directly. Are you willing to end the war, and thus end the costs (both human and fiscal) to the US? You're confusing entitlement spending and defense spending. If you're asking me if I prioritize defense spending over entitlement spending, I'll give you that one. Yes. Maybe that will keep you from busting a hemorhoid. This war? I don't "need" it. Apparently though, congress thought it was a good idea. Like all wars it will have an end. Probably pretty soon.

Absolutely - and that's how everyone _should_ invest for the future. Should the economy collapse, though, no matter how diversified you are, you'll be affected. Social security merely provides a bottom level of protection against such catastrophic events. So tell me, if the economy collapses, what freakin good is a social security check going to be? Here is another excellent point of philosophical diversion. Big Brother/Nanny will never be able to protect us from everything. If we keep trying, we'll destroy everything.

I'd say it's even more interesting that when YOU want the nanny state to wipe your ass, you think that it's the best thing since sliced bread. I don't know where you got this one, Bill. If I didn't make it clear that I want less gov't entitlements and more individual responsibility and freedom, then we have a language barrier.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[Lindsey 0]

If ya' want to talk about what we get for our taxes, how about AIRPORTS! And only a few people benefit from them....and we get to use 'em FREE! I think it's great!!! I'd probably also think it was great if I were less motivated and somebody sent me a check every month. But as it is, I'm highly motivated, so somebody sends me a much BIGGER check every month. :) I figure it all works out just fine in the end.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[billvon 3,116]

>>Are you willing to end the war, and thus end the costs (both human
>>and fiscal) to the US?

>You're confusing entitlement spending and defense spending. If you're
>asking me if I prioritize defense spending over entitlement spending, I'll
>give you that one. Yes.

OK, I asked you a direct question and you weaseled out of it. I'll take that as a "no" - you are unwilling to end the war and thus end the costs associated with it. (Feel free to correct that.)

>I don't know where you got this one, Bill. If I didn't make it clear that I
>want less gov't entitlements and more individual responsibility and
>freedom, then we have a language barrier.

I too think that the government should play less of a role in people's lives. Government overall should be smaller and less intrusive. That will not happen because of people like you, who support higher offensive spending and government support for roads. It will not happen because of the people nearing retirement who want social security. It will not happen because teachers think education should be our highest priority. It will not happen because of the people who are scared of Mexicans and want a hundred billion dollar fence to protect them.

In other words, it won't happen until EVERYONE (you included) is willing to give up their favorite government service. (To use your words, give up that nanny wiping their ass.) Until then, to find the person to blame for big government - look in the mirror.

>If someone begins to argue with themselves they should get back on
>their psych meds.

When the best you can do is personal attacks, generally you've conceded that you're out of intelligent arguments. Too bad; was interesting.

[TankBuster 0]

Until then, to find the person to blame for big government - look in the mirror.

No, I'm not to blame. I always vote for the most fiscally conservative candidates. It's just not working my way yet. I hope it will, soon.

You can call it weaseling or not, my priorities ARE different, but there is a difference in defense spending and entitlement spending.

My sincere appologies for the psych meds comment. I went back right after I posted and removed it. Apparently you jumped on the reply quickly.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[billvon 3,116]

>No, I'm not to blame.

Then there will never be any change. You will support your spending and blame other people's spending. They will support their spending and blame your spending. And while that's great for assigning blame, it makes no progress in terms of reducing spending.

>I always vote for the most fiscally conservative candidates.

That's great. Perhaps you have noticed, though, that this latest "fiscally conservative" administration has increased spending more than any other administration, ever. Why? Because "their" spending priorities (which, from what you've said so far, are somewhat similar to yours) were super duper important, of course.

About the only party out there that is truly fiscally conservative are the libertarians. Will they ever make an impact on politics? No time soon, unfortunately.

>You can call it weaseling or not, my priorities ARE different, but there
>is a difference in defense spending and entitlement spending.

I suspect you support your own version of entitlement spending as well. For example, I suspect you think that veterans are entitled to free health care via the VA hospital system.

And again, there's NOTHING at all wrong with that. But it does represent spending, and it is one of the reasons we are where we are today.

[TankBuster 0]

Bill, all I can do is vote, make my views known to my congressman and senators, and maybe run for office (won't happen). My opinions expressed here or elswhere are meaningless, though sometimes fun. I have faith that the "system" will work, but it is so painfully slow.

I identify more with liberarians than republicans.

I'm a veteran. If I had been wounded or injured, I sure would hope I would be given some care. Now that I'm in the private sector, I'm responsible.

I understand your main point, but sometimes I can't follow your logic. It doesn't matter. I'm willing to give up social security, most welfare, all earmarks. Case in point - Richard Shelby tried to get about 1.5 mil slipped into a bill so that we could refurbish our statue of VULCAN here in Birmingham (it's an old steel city thing). One of my customers would have gotten the contract, and I would have benefitted. I was against it, and voiced my opinion in a letter. See? We're not all corrupt. McCain caught wind of it and gave him a good old Navy ass chewing. It got pulled from the bill, but it was certainly an exception. Turns out, private businesses around the area chipped in and funded it, and my customer still got the contract. I just didn't think you should pay for it.

You know, the problem is not what programs I want vs what you want vs what someone else wants. It is that there are precious few real servants in DC who will have the guts to make cuts across the board, to make the tough decisions. Most want to buy votes with programs, and their short sightedness will be our ruin.

Now you guys have the last words on me. I really must shake this new addiction and get back to work. Come to Cullman and jump and I promise I will buy you a beer.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I always vote for the most fiscally conservative candidates. .

If you've voted Republican any time in the last decade and a half then you're most likely mistaken.

[billvon 3,116]

>You know, the problem is not what programs I want vs what you want
>vs what someone else wants.

In the end, that's the big problem.

>It is that there are precious few real servants in DC who will have the guts
>to make cuts across the board, to make the tough decisions.

And therein lies the problem. If he cuts war funding, you don't vote for him. If he cuts education funding, I don't vote for him.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I always vote for the most fiscally conservative candidates. .

If you've voted Republican or Democrat any time in the last decade and a half then you're most likely mistaken.

Fixed that for you - they're ALL pigs at the trough.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

You can call it weaseling or not, my priorities ARE different, but there is a difference in defense spending and entitlement spending.

.

Indeed there is, like there's a difference between killing or maiming someone and helping someone.

We spend just about 1/2 of the entire world's "killing/maiming" budget, in the process we have also produced a killing machine (aka the DoD) that is the world's single largest user of oil. What a magnificent accomplishment.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.