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!!!

R.I.P. Tylar

I grew up with you, man. From kindergarten all the way through our years at Capital, we were just stupid together. Always pushing the limits and laughing whether things went right or wrong... through tee-ball, soccer, basketball, baseball, swimming, football, "extreme-sledding" (haha), snowboarding and everything else, we made some outrageous memories. Rest in Peace, breh... we miss you here.

"Remembering is an act of resurrection, each repetition a vital layer of mourning, in memory of those we are sure to meet again."

"He who has gone, so we but cherish his memory, abides with us, more potent, nay, more present than the living man."

Shooting Videos on YouTube

The videos on this page are from YouTube and were filmed by either Mark, or Courtney using Mark's digital video camera. The video entitled Sunday Afternoons was shot in early October on one of our routine Sunday excursions up to Jackass Gulch while the video entitled Shooting Shenanigans was more recent. We spend every Sunday on the mountainside pushing lead downrange. When darkness falls, we pull out a hickory-smoker and grill steaks to the ambient sounds of coyotes, crickets, and random stories told between friends. The trips have become longer and longer as the weather cools and the trips become more fun and relaxing. We bring a Marlin M-25N, a Browning .22WMR BPR, a Roebuck 12 gauge, and our newest addition, the custom Savage M-12, to the hill. Mark enjoys destroying anything in sight with his 12 gauge and often does destroy everything he sees. Mark's probably the most easy going guy I've ever met and he's never in a bad mood, so his wild shotgun antics are a bit of a surprise. James is our tag along buddy who is more than content with getting off campus for a day every week. While we offer to let him shoot every time, he simply declines and goes back to cracking jokes and making video suggestions. Courtney (my girlfriend) recently asked me to teach her to shoot. Her first taste of the sport was Christmas break of our Freshman year, when she came to Illinois for a week. We got her the Marlin M-25N and slapped a Redfield Scout scope on it. While I had doubts of her actual reasons for picking up shooting, she's proven to me that she's in it for herself and that she's really beginning to love shooting every bit as much as I do. With every trip, she moves her targets further up the hill and becomes more and more consistent. Mark is enjoying exploiting my shooting for videos. He buys random things to shoot and brings them along. His real passion on these trips (other than blowing things up) is his video camera. He sets up the shots and video tapes them, thus, the videos you see on this page. If you visit YouTube and type in my full name, you will find any shooting videos that I haven't posted on this site. The next time we go up (26th October) we plan to coordinate and tape a shot that I will take with the 5.56mm Savage from approximately 600+ yards. As I will have cell phone reception from where I am shooting and they will not (accross from where the target is) we will have to use hand signals or walkie talkies to make the video work. A 600+ yard shot is nothing new to me, but coordinating it with Mark's camera work will make it interesting!

Custom Precision Rifle:

I'm building a custom precision rifle chambered in 5.56mm (.223). Here are some of the components being integrated:

1. Action: Savage M-12 Bolt Action (short), the ejector resembles the Mauser 98
   
2. Barrel: M-12 (5.56mm) 1" diameter HEAVY, 26" in length, Button Rifled (1:9 RH) to stabilize yawing bullets up to and including 70+ grains
3. Optics: Mili-radian reticle, range estimation, 4-24X40
4. Stock: CHOATE ("ultimate-sniper") carbon fiber, pistol grip, adjustable cheek-piece and butt-pad, mono-pod adjustment beneath butt of stock, serrated fore-stock with contoured grip, angled nose-piece with sling swivel stud, bi-pod attachment and accessory rails.
5. Trigger: since Savage's (non-accutrigger) triggers tend to be "creepers" I'm installing a Rifle-Basix target and sniper trigger assembly. While the accutrigger is amazing, it's not what I'm looking to put on this rifle.
   

Arguing against Gay Marriage without reverting to religious doctrine:

1. Most arguments for the legitimacy of homosexuality have to do primarily with the assumption that it is a natural tendency that people are born with. This can be countered easily, because society has given us umpteen prime examples that closely parallel this theory. Certain "natural tendencies" (even hereditary tendencies) have been black-flagged as unacceptable by our society today. The tendency to commit horrible crimes without remorse is called sociopathy. This is probably the most extreme and easily understood example. Some others are cannibalism and murder. Anything regularly occurring in nature will do. The ultimate pincer movement would be to follow from the opposite direction. Pointing out that homosexual trends occur nowhere else in nature forces the oppostiong to admitt a fundamental flaw in the "natural theory" or they may revert to one of the following...
   
2. Another argument in support of gay marriage is the separation of church and state. Some say that the suppression and limitations of marriage licenses excluding all relationships outside of those between man and woman are caused solely by the influence of the religious establishment upon the sovereign government. Marriage was introduced solely by the religious establishment and continues to be a religious bond (first and foremost) today. The legal equivalent (separated from the church) is a civil union. Marriage is also listed in article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the language: MEN AND WOMEN of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (this demonstrates that your point of view is still a WORLD point of view)
   
3. The third argument is based on the ambiguity of the noun, love. To say that any relationship founded on legitimate love constitutes marriage, is to make a claim that intimidates the opposing side. It would seem that the only way to dispel such a claim would be to attack the true definition of love, but there is no concrete definition of the word. The best argument that I have found is the introduction of grossly extreme hypothetical situations that push the "pro-gay marriage" side further and further to their own extreme to the point that they become uneasy with their own logic. You might suggest that anybody that falls in love with their own mother or father should be entitled to a legal incestuous marriage. Polygamy is another great example. Anything leading up to and including beastiality will do as long as it parallels and allows for a mutual bond founded on "love." (i.e. an inanimate object cannot love a person back, so it is not a good example)... This is NOT a diversionary tactic nor a tangent, but an attack of their logical support for gay marriage. Once they say that incest, polygamy, or beastiality is wrong, all you need to do is tie each relationship to "love" and demonstrate that one cannot simply draw the line where it is convenient. Either "love knows no bounds" or there are natural boundaries in place. Forcing them to deal in absolutes pushes them into discomfort with their own logic. If you attack the reason for their belief, you attack the validity of their belief.
4. It is apparent that liberal views are much more popular these days. This is NOT because they are all morally right, but because they are trendy. It's more popular to be "progressive" these days. People want to affect change no matter what the cost. Certain terms have been popularized and tied to gay marriage: open mindedness, free thinking, accepting, ignorant (negative term describing those against gay marriage that can be countered as long as you present your argument intelligently), and many others... most of the time all that is necessary to deflect the above terms are their own true definitions. Educate yourself on what these terms truly represent. The reason these terms are popularized is their ambiguity and the ease with which arbitrary definitions can be tied to them.
5. There are many more points on your side of the discussion, but I don't care to post any more tonight. These are mostly to get you started thinking. I know that, to the religious individual, reverting to your faith seems fool proof, but it is largely ineffective. You have to discuss these topics on a purely secular basis to make forward progress with most people. The beauty with this subject is that it is so fundamentally black and white that the discussion can remain just as clear. Introduction of religious doctrine can blur the black and white subject into a gray enigma if introduced too early. Let me know if you have any questions (assuming you actually read this and/or care about it)... anybody care to guess what my position on gay marriage really is?