Army

To my Family and Girlfriend,


Today, I enlisted in the Army and enrolled in the Combat Officer Training Corps. I had options, and I chose what I chose because I firmly believe that this is the pivotal point in my life where I can make the greatest difference. I have two apparent God-given gifts: I can play and write music, and I can shoot a rifle and lead people.

By choosing music, I may inspire people, comfort them, entertain them, or accomplish none of these. My family would most likely see financially difficult times due to the monetary consequences of a musician's lifestyle and I would graduate from college with thousands of dollars in debt and a pending job hunt.

By choosing to sign my name on the proverbial dotted line, I am keeping one other man home with his family every time I go away, I am securing a future of financial comfort for my family, I am paying for all of my schooling, I am helping to prevent the wars of today from becoming the wars of tomorrow, and (if I do my job as an officer) I can help bring more of our men home alive. Of course there are risks, but there are risks in everything we do. The worst thing that can happen is that I may finally get to put my down payment on the costly freedoms that I have enjoyed since birth. This is a privilege first and a sacrifice (distantly) second.

It's not like I'm being deployed tomorrow, so let's just appreciate this wonderful opportunity for what it is. Let's enjoy our guaranteed time together at all costs and just pray for the best. Even the worst isn't all bad. This is a family effort and don't believe for one second that your names aren't on that paper with mine. You are the ones with whom I will credit any success. Thank you for your love and support (We all saw this coming).


Your son,
brother,
nephew,
grandson,
cousin,
and boyfriend,

Joel James Kloster

My Ideal World

My roommates and I had one of our vigorous discussions last night. I am the resident realist-moderate, Mark is the resident idealist-moderate, and Matt is the resident idealist-liberal. They made the mistake of asking me (a realist) an idealistic question: "What is the ideal world like?" As a general rule, my ideals are based on a simple standard:

1. There IS a concrete, black and white code of moral rights/wrongs and WE are the ones who insert the gray areas for our own sinful convenience.
2. Each man should be held accountable for every decision he makes
3. Everything humane is subjective

The problems that I see in our society seem to be the good things that other people see. I see progress as a bad thing, because it has been mismanaged by human kind. Other people see progress as a good thing, because it "makes things easier." To me, life is never meant to be easy, but instead, it is meant to be a series of difficult lessons only to be understood at the very end. I have been called a cynic, but cynicism is synonymous with realism (un-idealistic). Reality is harsh, so a realistic perspective tends to be harsh. Many people claim to believe that the world is changing in a negative direction, it is the realists to choose to look past the human element of global change and see it for its absolutes rather than its man-made relativity.
This being said, my "Ideal World" would not allow for the development of convenient ideologies. People would recognize that there are concrete rules of existence that we are ALL subject to (i.e. the Ten Commandments) and that we are not entitled to our own opinions on these rules. Furthermore, each human being would be held accountable for his life decisions and efforts. In this world, people would be forced to live an active life, paying the price for, or reaping the benefits of, their decisions and efforts. Who lives the fuller life:

1. the man who lives a life void of any ambition, surviving to be 100 years old on welfare, but never holds a job, nor builds a family.

1. the man who works hard for everything he receives, builds and supports his family, and visibly sees the results of his actions, but survives to be only 50 years of age.

Are we so weak that we must be coddled by our government? Are we so weak that we find comfort in the availability of free lifestyles? And, are we so weak that we cannot conform to the greater rules of existence (nature or God) and must make our own out of convenience?
This is why I see progress as regression. We sacrifice the greater things in life by "making everything easier." We allow people to leech off of society and we support new laws made for convenience. We are slowly creeping into the fat suits of the human characters in the movie "Wall-e." Nobody is accountable anymore. People are only accountable when they choose to be and even then, it's is not true accountability but self standards that we hold ourselves to. It should never be a choice.

Either way, at least it's not HILLARY!!!

This election is a paradox on many fronts. Among the many issues are Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, gay marriage, abortion, civil rights, 2nd amendment rights, and immigration. Personally, I don't understand the comparison of the candidates. On one side, we have a man who rose from the ashes of Vietnam and fought against his own party to become more moderate in his ideals. Yes, he is "ancient" but if anything, his experience will serve this country well. On the other side, we have a professional politician. His diplomatic abilities are fueled by his charisma and his talent of manipulation. He is an excellent speaker and his overall persona is likable. But, he is incredibly inexperienced.
I am of the opinion that, no matter the level of charisma, no person should become commander in chief without a history of military service. There must be a balance between the president's diplomatic abilities and his military willingness/understanding. The harsh truth is that it is "we the people" that are sabotaging the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not a war of attrition, but rather a counterinsurgency. A counterinsurgency only occurs when the enemy recognizes the futility of direct combat and, instead, resorts to guerrilla tactics. They concentrate in small cells or groups and utilize terror and time to defeat the public support of their opponent (us). All in all, their only goal is to outlast us in our support of the military. The enemy has gained the support of our own (oblivious) population. They have effectively infiltrated our nation, not through commercial jets, the borders, or secret identities, but through our own media and ignorant conversations. It is the sad truth that the people with the loudest opinions seem to be those with the least understanding of the tactical situation. People seem to believe that they are owed an explanation for everything that occurs overseas. Until they don desert B.D.U.'s they are owed absolutely nothing but protection. We need a hard-liner with an thorough understanding of the tactical situation and the will power to protect us from ourselves. "Wars are started through politics, but must be prosecuted on military principle alone."

The economy is definitely an issue. What I don't understand is that people who claim that George W. Bush destroyed the economy with "his wars" are in support of the bail-out that was in fact designed by Bush. I am not the biggest fan of our current administration, but then again I'm not the biggest fan of politicians in general. The economic struggle is the result of corrupt individuals and not of the government. It seems to be transforming into a political witch-hunt reminiscent of Salem. We already know who caused the bank issues. I want to know why these individuals are still in business. From where I stand, all of these corrupt banks should be dealt with in the same manner as Washington Mutual. As long as the people's assets are safe, the economy will heal. Yes people made questionable lending decisions, but we are collectively responsible for our situation. The economy should be a source of national pride. We should be just as focused on our national finances as out own individual progress. The people responsible for our poor economy are those on welfare, extensive unemployment, taking financial shortcuts, cheating their fellow citizens... and even we who allow others to poison the economy. In short, we are all to blame and the issue lies in the lack of national pride... not in the spreadsheets.
Gay marriage is a ridiculous issue. The FACT is that marriage is (first and foremost) a religious contract and it is not in the governments power to alter religious contracts. The only alteration constitutionally possible is a (strictly legal) civil union allowing homosexuals to share finances and legal identities. Nuff said.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

- Thomas Jefferson

The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46

- James Madison

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

- Thomas Paine

When firearms go, all goes - we need them every hour. - George Washington.

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8

If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government --and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws. - Edward Abbey, in Abbey's Road, p.39 (Plume, 1979)

Immigration: there are two kinds... LEGAL & ILLEGAL. Here's the definition of "illegal" for the politically illiterate-

il·le·gal /ɪˈligəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-lee-guhl] –adjective

1.	forbidden by law or statute.

2.	contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.

Either way... at least it's not HILLARY!!!