Or as one great orator might refer to it, the "Marine Corpse Memorial"














"Making the world a more offensive place one posting at a time"














* Update - Cross posted at Flopping Aces! *This story came up over the summer, and only showed up as a small blip on the blogosphere radar. I never quite found the time to write about it then, but with us on the verge of having President Obama's health care system imposed on us despite massive public opposition I though this was a good time to circle back to this topic.
To recap, over the summer, Rep. Eric Massa stated that he would vote against the interests/opinions of his constituents if he thought it would be "helpful". There was a small bubble of outrage that quickly passed, as our elected officials were kind enough to give us bigger reasons for outrage. Kim Priestap at Wizbang raises a good question about Massa's motives, but a greater question was left unasked. Her main point is that Massa made a freudian slip in asserting that he would vote against his district's interests, later changing his wording to say opinions, is stating that he would support the health care bill. Priestap goes on to state that the main difference between Bush's going against public opinion versus Obama's is that Bush was doing what was in the best interest for national security while what Obama is doing is merely an attempt to grab power and put America under the dependence of the government.Now, to take Kim's point a bit further, the heavy public opposition to both policies are for two very different reasons. Many liberals were opposed to the Iraq war simply out of hatred for George Bush. If you don't believe me look at how groups like Not In Our Name have folded up their tents, how the antiwar comic "Get Your War On" ended on January 20th 2009, or how Code Pink no longer dominates the news as opposed to back when they were exploiting Cindy Sheehan. Many additional Americans opposed the war because Bush did a poor job of making his case to the public as to why the war was necessary. Doug Feith's book "War and Decision" illustrates how this happened and how the opposition was able to frame the arguments to push public opinion against the war. By contrast, the American public is greatly opposed to the current health care bill because Democrats have done a poor job of obfuscating the disastrous effects that this bill will have on both the levels of health care we enjoy and on the American economy.
But a larger question remains unanswered. For the most part, people opposed to the war in Iraq are in favor of the health care bill and those supporting the Iraq War are against the government taking over the health care industry. Granted, there will be exceptions, but for the most part this principle holds true. Which leads me to the question - we elect our officials to act in our best interests. At what point should we entrust our elected officials to "do the right thing" even if the majority of us disagrees with their course of action? Conservatives know that Bush was right on Iraq and that Obama's health care plan will lead us to ruin. Liberals know that Bush was wrong about Iraq and that Obamacare will improve health care for all Americans. If we're applying public opinion as the litmus test, are we selling ourselves short in that a simple majority rule should decide any issue, no matter how complex? For that matter, are we all being hypocrites for praising the steadfastness of our leaders who champion issues that we support while condemning the leaders who back issues we oppose? This is one time I don't have a solid answer or a solid conclusion. Personally I find it refreshing to have a politician willing to be this honest with his constituents as Massa - I just hope he was as clear about his position during his last election campaign. I'd be really curious to hear what folks from both sides of the aisle have to say...

Tonight's Jets-Bengals game will be the final football game played at Giants Stadium, and I wanted to honor the occasion by sharing my memories of one of the rare football games I would attend at that venue.
On December 20, 1987, Miami Bob's cousin managed to score us tickets to the Eagles-Jets game. So the three of us trekked up to Giants Stadium on a cold, miserable day (over 70,000 no-shows) to watch two average teams. Neither was headed to the playoffs, although the Eagles were just starting to ride the tide of Buddy Ryan's reign in Philly. And most importantly, Reggie White was closing in on Mark Gastineau's sack record.
The game itself was nothing spectacular - the rain kept so many people away, but we were nicely tucked away in the back of a lower tier end zone and had cover. Although the Jets led at one point, The Eagles' won 38-27, and the game wasn't even that close. At one point, Santa Claus was walking around our section, and a few Jets fans were pleading for linebackers and a tailback. Reggie White had two sacks on the day, but would ultimately end the season one sack short of the record. Gastineau's mark would hold until Brett Favre would take a dive for Micahel Strahan to give Strahan the record for sacks in a season years later. Sorry Giants fans, not to take away from what a great player Strahan was, but that record is BS, and one more reason to hate Favre. But none of what I just mentioned are what made the game truly memorable.
Even though it was a near meaningless game between two non conference rivals, I played the role of "Respectful Fan in Hostile Territory". Of course, I stood up and cheered whenever the Eagles made a big play, but I wasn't obnoxious about it and didn't rub it in any of the Jets fans' faces. Which is more than I can say for a lone Eagles fan sitting down below.This one guy was sitting in the first row of the lower tier right behind the goal posts, and spent the whole game going nuts - cheering like a loon, pointing and taunting at the Jets fans, you get the idea. I remember watching him and thinking, "Dude, you can't do that." Sooner or later something was going to happen to this guy, and that time came in the third quarter. I noticed two massive Jets fans walking down the aisle, having a casual conversation. They walked up to Fanboy, and still having their conversation, nonchalantly picked him up and held him upside down by his ankles out over the drop. Granted, had he fallen it would only have been about a 15 foot drop, but a drop nonetheless. This didn't happen though, as the Jets fans continued to talk for about a minute before placing Fanboy back in his seat and kept on chatting while they walked away as if nothing had happened.
They only got halfway up the stairs when the Yellowjackets intercepted them and three both of them out. Five minutes later they returned and threw Fanboy out as well, probably for his own safety. Dude should have known better, and his fate was far more merciful than what an opposing fan like him would have received in The Nest of Death. Overall, I had a good time, am grateful I got to see The Minister of Defense and Lord Randal the Great play live, but I will never forget the coolest incident ever of fan on fan violence.
