Guess this is going to be a pretty mundane post since I don't have much to contribute, but it looks like Sen. Ben Nelson is going to support the latest legislation on healthcare after a few rewordings regarding abortion. In my own humble opinion i don't like this current legislation that much because it does nothing to address the need for tort reform which would bring down insurace costs that doctors have to pay and thus reduce cost for the care that they provide. While i think we can be happy that the public option was defeated i wonder how many years it'll be before the government again tries to insert this option through legislation under the guise of trying to help those who have difficulty affording private healthcare coverage.
That along with many more questions makes this a far from perfect legislation and one that i fear will do more harm than good.
-Zach
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Book Review: Sarah Palin's "Going Rogue"
I just finished reading Sarah's book and thought I'd do a quick review for those that maybe interested. Overall I thought it was a very pleasant read that lets people see Sarah in her own words talk about her accomplishments in government, her beliefs on the role of government, and the current challenges that face this country and where we should be going from here.
The book starts out with Sarah as an infant in her mothers arms as her father moved the family from Idaho to Alaska. From there she spends some time talking about growing up in different small alaskan towns before the family settled down in Wasilla. It would seem that in growing up Sarah was a bit of a tomboy who would go out with her father to hunt before school on occasion, and who enjoyed taking part in competitive sports such as running and basketball. The overall theme of this part was just to paint Alaska as a state that is a picture of the need to be self reliant. Being so isolated they don't have very many large grocery stores to call home so much of what they eat comes from what they hunt, fish, or grow themselves.
Forward past that and her college years and she discusses settling down with Todd Palin and starting a family in the late 80's. After Bristol was born she quickly became pregnant again to which her and Todd became excited and hoped for a son. They had went so far to already pick out a name and start planning for his arrival, only for Sarah to have a miscarriage. This was a very surprising part of the book for me not only because i was unaware of the miscarriage, but her reaction to it really seemed so overwhelming. It was the loss of a life that they had come to treat as though it were already there. Later in the book she would relate how she found out at a Governor's conference in New Orleans that she was pregnant with Trig. She found out initially that she was pregnant with a at home test and admits to a fleeting thought of being able to "take care of it" without anyone knowing since she was in New Orleans. At this point she again affirms her stance on abortion as pro-choice as she says this causes her again to think about how we as a society should place more value on life than on perceived "problems" they may cause.
Getting back to government, she talks a bit about her days on the Wasilla city council only to mention that it opened her eyes to the fact that many in charge did not use their positions of public trust as they should. Instead they often sat back, collected a paycheck without doing much for the public, or worse, were corrupt. It was in the spirit of trying to change that that she ran for and was elected mayor. During that time she re prioritized the city budget and was able to reduce property taxes and quickly became one of the more popular mayor's in the state. Later she would be offered a chairmanship in the state oil regulating committee which she accepted. Again she was faced with mounting corruption as she reported possible ethic violations to than Gov. Murkowski, only to have them dismissed or swept under the rug. Faced with little other choice she resigned her position and soon after the guilty parties were cleaned out of elected office in a massive FBI investigation. From here she would eventually be elected Governor on a platform of smarter government spending.
When she got into office she started renegotiating leases on oil rich land held by large oil companies which had so far refused to develop. After some tough negotiating she got these large oil companies to concede and start drilling in these spots, producing more jobs in the state and upping the domestic production of oil for our country. Even more impressive was the work on a project called AGIA, or the Transalaska pipeline that when completed will provide us in the Continental states with a large direct source of energy. This pipeline had been talked about for decades, but ineffectual governors did nothing about it until Sarah got into office and the plans for the pipeline became a reality.
Fiscally she is conservative and as governor she took pride in being able to cut out 85% of pork from the original budget first submitted to her. Over and over again she mentions the importance of letting individuals keep more of what they earn and about government only focusing on items that are necessary such as the maintenance or roads, hospitals, and education. Keep government's roles simple and allow people to keep their individual freedoms and they will flourish.
All in all it was a very good read IMO. Conservative readers will enjoy getting to hear about her accomplishments and her vision of proper government. Liberals may appreciate her open style of leadership where she did govern with an open door for all elected officials to discuss state issues with her. That's all for now.
-Zach
The book starts out with Sarah as an infant in her mothers arms as her father moved the family from Idaho to Alaska. From there she spends some time talking about growing up in different small alaskan towns before the family settled down in Wasilla. It would seem that in growing up Sarah was a bit of a tomboy who would go out with her father to hunt before school on occasion, and who enjoyed taking part in competitive sports such as running and basketball. The overall theme of this part was just to paint Alaska as a state that is a picture of the need to be self reliant. Being so isolated they don't have very many large grocery stores to call home so much of what they eat comes from what they hunt, fish, or grow themselves.
Forward past that and her college years and she discusses settling down with Todd Palin and starting a family in the late 80's. After Bristol was born she quickly became pregnant again to which her and Todd became excited and hoped for a son. They had went so far to already pick out a name and start planning for his arrival, only for Sarah to have a miscarriage. This was a very surprising part of the book for me not only because i was unaware of the miscarriage, but her reaction to it really seemed so overwhelming. It was the loss of a life that they had come to treat as though it were already there. Later in the book she would relate how she found out at a Governor's conference in New Orleans that she was pregnant with Trig. She found out initially that she was pregnant with a at home test and admits to a fleeting thought of being able to "take care of it" without anyone knowing since she was in New Orleans. At this point she again affirms her stance on abortion as pro-choice as she says this causes her again to think about how we as a society should place more value on life than on perceived "problems" they may cause.
Getting back to government, she talks a bit about her days on the Wasilla city council only to mention that it opened her eyes to the fact that many in charge did not use their positions of public trust as they should. Instead they often sat back, collected a paycheck without doing much for the public, or worse, were corrupt. It was in the spirit of trying to change that that she ran for and was elected mayor. During that time she re prioritized the city budget and was able to reduce property taxes and quickly became one of the more popular mayor's in the state. Later she would be offered a chairmanship in the state oil regulating committee which she accepted. Again she was faced with mounting corruption as she reported possible ethic violations to than Gov. Murkowski, only to have them dismissed or swept under the rug. Faced with little other choice she resigned her position and soon after the guilty parties were cleaned out of elected office in a massive FBI investigation. From here she would eventually be elected Governor on a platform of smarter government spending.
When she got into office she started renegotiating leases on oil rich land held by large oil companies which had so far refused to develop. After some tough negotiating she got these large oil companies to concede and start drilling in these spots, producing more jobs in the state and upping the domestic production of oil for our country. Even more impressive was the work on a project called AGIA, or the Transalaska pipeline that when completed will provide us in the Continental states with a large direct source of energy. This pipeline had been talked about for decades, but ineffectual governors did nothing about it until Sarah got into office and the plans for the pipeline became a reality.
Fiscally she is conservative and as governor she took pride in being able to cut out 85% of pork from the original budget first submitted to her. Over and over again she mentions the importance of letting individuals keep more of what they earn and about government only focusing on items that are necessary such as the maintenance or roads, hospitals, and education. Keep government's roles simple and allow people to keep their individual freedoms and they will flourish.
All in all it was a very good read IMO. Conservative readers will enjoy getting to hear about her accomplishments and her vision of proper government. Liberals may appreciate her open style of leadership where she did govern with an open door for all elected officials to discuss state issues with her. That's all for now.
-Zach
Thursday, December 3, 2009
A short review of the President's West Point Address
Ah back to the world of bloggin. I was hoping to keep this a weekly thing with myself just either reviewing something significant that happened in politics or posting about what i considered a significant news report for that week. Alas i missed my last Saturday posting in now must post on a Thursday to appease the Gods o bloggin. There, now that i have that ramble out of the way lets talk about President Obama's speech this past Tuesday.
For the past few months since General Stanley McCrystal went public with his request to the white house for additional troops there has been the consistent speculation over what the white house would do. It was assumed that some sort of troop increase would be approved by Obama as he had labeled Afghanistan "the forgotten" or "the neglected" war during his campaign a year ago and could hardly be seen dithering in the face of a clear and concise request from a general he appointed to fight this war. The trouble politically for Obama though was that he was also propelled to the Democratic nomination last year because of his stance on the Iraq war which he used in most circles to paint himself as a sensible leader who understood the folly of the war before most other politicians did. In the anti-war circle, they saw him as a man that perhaps would end the US involvement in both wars. As Obama took his time making his decision it seemed clear to me that the politics of the decision were clearly becoming a big consideration for Obama as I have a hard time believing that a military decision would have taken as long.
Prior to the speech when I was one of the ones vocal with my concern over the time being taken to make a decision I stated to some that when the decision was made I did not want to see a speech of half measures. A speech where Obama sought a solution that most would support instead of the one that gave our country the best chance for success. I wanted to hear that he was making this decision because he believed that it was one that gave our country the best chance for success in this war and I wanted to look and see in his eyes that he was in this war, that he was determined to win it and that defeat would not be an acceptable option.
So on Tuesday I sat down with my steak dinner and beer and listened as the President spoke. He first addressed the time taken to make the decision and stated that the earliest deployments brought to him would have sent additional troops no earlier than January 2010, so there was no delay in the time he took. Okay, I can accept that. He than went on to state that he would send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, 10,000 short of McCrystal's request. He said the first of these troops would be sent in January 2010 and that they, along with anticipated additional troops from NATO countries would accelerate training for Afghan troops and the police so that we could begin transferring the fighting responsibility to the Afghans by mid 2011. Alright a few problems here. First off I still haven't seen how exactly these extra troops are to be used. As far as I've been able to tell Gen. McCrystal hopes to use them as additional security to secure large population centers across the country while continuing the current planned pull outs from remote locations across the countryside. I don't like this plan as it cedes the territory to the Taliban for almost complete control on the ground where they may traverse, plan, and carry out attacks on the city. This will limit our ability to respond to the attacks and as they even occur will lower the moral of our troops and cause the Afghan citizen to doubt our commitment and their support for their government. This quite literally makes me think we are going to make the same mistake the British made in their failed attempt at occupying Afghanistan when their lead general summed it up nicely stating that their control of the countryside extended to the range of their cannon and no further. We need to project strength throughout the country and if we are to pull back their needs to be an alternate strategy for integrating these small communities into the country. You cannot hope to win by abandoning to the Taliban and hoping they'll just turn against them on their own.
Secondly, why the time table? Wars are fought in stages and as such we should not place a time table on our troop commitment until we are past the stage of securing the country to the point of transferring power. By announcing the time table for withdraw before a single additional troop is sent we let AQ and the taliban know that they can mark their calenders and sit us out. Heck, the President even tried to mention Iraq while trying to sell this on Tuesday. He mentioned that we are doing similar things there and that we should be able to turn it over to the Afghans as well. Of course he neglects to mention that we had a surge first, one he didn't support as Senator, and that once it was clear the surge worked, he still has never acknowledged it worked, the Bush administration negotiated the SOFA agreement with Iraq that set the current timetable for our eventual withdrawal of combat troops. Point being it was done in stages. You pull out once you have secured victory. You don't hope for victory and say when you're going to pull out at the same time.
All in all the speech did have it's good moments. Obama is a very good speaker and I believed him as he spoke about this war as one that cannot be abandoned and one that the US along with our NATO allies will continue to fight for as long as it takes. Those are very important things i needed to hear from him, but his actions have me questioning his ability to lead in this war. In the end I am left with the familiar feeling of hoping that I am wrong and that this decision and McCrystal's handling turn out as intended and the war turns around for this country.
-Zach
For the past few months since General Stanley McCrystal went public with his request to the white house for additional troops there has been the consistent speculation over what the white house would do. It was assumed that some sort of troop increase would be approved by Obama as he had labeled Afghanistan "the forgotten" or "the neglected" war during his campaign a year ago and could hardly be seen dithering in the face of a clear and concise request from a general he appointed to fight this war. The trouble politically for Obama though was that he was also propelled to the Democratic nomination last year because of his stance on the Iraq war which he used in most circles to paint himself as a sensible leader who understood the folly of the war before most other politicians did. In the anti-war circle, they saw him as a man that perhaps would end the US involvement in both wars. As Obama took his time making his decision it seemed clear to me that the politics of the decision were clearly becoming a big consideration for Obama as I have a hard time believing that a military decision would have taken as long.
Prior to the speech when I was one of the ones vocal with my concern over the time being taken to make a decision I stated to some that when the decision was made I did not want to see a speech of half measures. A speech where Obama sought a solution that most would support instead of the one that gave our country the best chance for success. I wanted to hear that he was making this decision because he believed that it was one that gave our country the best chance for success in this war and I wanted to look and see in his eyes that he was in this war, that he was determined to win it and that defeat would not be an acceptable option.
So on Tuesday I sat down with my steak dinner and beer and listened as the President spoke. He first addressed the time taken to make the decision and stated that the earliest deployments brought to him would have sent additional troops no earlier than January 2010, so there was no delay in the time he took. Okay, I can accept that. He than went on to state that he would send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, 10,000 short of McCrystal's request. He said the first of these troops would be sent in January 2010 and that they, along with anticipated additional troops from NATO countries would accelerate training for Afghan troops and the police so that we could begin transferring the fighting responsibility to the Afghans by mid 2011. Alright a few problems here. First off I still haven't seen how exactly these extra troops are to be used. As far as I've been able to tell Gen. McCrystal hopes to use them as additional security to secure large population centers across the country while continuing the current planned pull outs from remote locations across the countryside. I don't like this plan as it cedes the territory to the Taliban for almost complete control on the ground where they may traverse, plan, and carry out attacks on the city. This will limit our ability to respond to the attacks and as they even occur will lower the moral of our troops and cause the Afghan citizen to doubt our commitment and their support for their government. This quite literally makes me think we are going to make the same mistake the British made in their failed attempt at occupying Afghanistan when their lead general summed it up nicely stating that their control of the countryside extended to the range of their cannon and no further. We need to project strength throughout the country and if we are to pull back their needs to be an alternate strategy for integrating these small communities into the country. You cannot hope to win by abandoning to the Taliban and hoping they'll just turn against them on their own.
Secondly, why the time table? Wars are fought in stages and as such we should not place a time table on our troop commitment until we are past the stage of securing the country to the point of transferring power. By announcing the time table for withdraw before a single additional troop is sent we let AQ and the taliban know that they can mark their calenders and sit us out. Heck, the President even tried to mention Iraq while trying to sell this on Tuesday. He mentioned that we are doing similar things there and that we should be able to turn it over to the Afghans as well. Of course he neglects to mention that we had a surge first, one he didn't support as Senator, and that once it was clear the surge worked, he still has never acknowledged it worked, the Bush administration negotiated the SOFA agreement with Iraq that set the current timetable for our eventual withdrawal of combat troops. Point being it was done in stages. You pull out once you have secured victory. You don't hope for victory and say when you're going to pull out at the same time.
All in all the speech did have it's good moments. Obama is a very good speaker and I believed him as he spoke about this war as one that cannot be abandoned and one that the US along with our NATO allies will continue to fight for as long as it takes. Those are very important things i needed to hear from him, but his actions have me questioning his ability to lead in this war. In the end I am left with the familiar feeling of hoping that I am wrong and that this decision and McCrystal's handling turn out as intended and the war turns around for this country.
-Zach
Saturday, November 21, 2009
A quick review of Bill Oreilly's Sarah Palin interview
Sarah Palin has been in the news a lot lately as she continues to rebuild her image and to promote her new book. So far she has done a good job with her interviews with Oprah and with Barbara Walters and it appears that her favor ability rating among many Americans has started to rise. So far I haven't seen any of these interviews but I did catch her two part interview with Oreilly and thought I'd comment on a few things.
For the most part Sarah seems a good bit more media savvy these days as she seems very conscience of how her answers will be viewed and played over and over again. The interview started with Oreilly asking her about possible tension between her and John McCain's aides during the presidential campaign. She admits that she had many differing views on how the campaign should be run, but she deferred to the aides because "they were the experts" and so she went with what they asked her to do. She also brings up that she wanted to make Obama's connection to Wright a lot more of an issue during the campaign, but this idea was also shot down as McCain and his aides thought that it would backfire and lead to calls of racism on them. IMO that was a real boneheaded call. Any clear thinking individual could watch those tapes of Wright and come to the conclusion that these guy was off his rocker and yet Obama stayed in the pew for 20 years. That should have been an issue and as someone who was the running mate of the Presidential candidate Sarah should have pushed this issue a lot harder than she did at the time. The fact that she did tends to give me pause that as a leader she may defer too often on issues where leadership is needed, in other words give us a conservative version of Obama.
In part two of the interview Sarah discussed issues such as Iran's nuclear program and how she would seek to stop them. She gave the response that working with our counterparts in Europe and Asia would be the best approach, but when countered that Russia specifically would need to be brought on board and asked how she would deal with this angle she appears to give an answer that adds up to attempting to pressure the Russians into stopping their work with Iran. That was not a good answer IMO because there is little that the US can realistically threaten the Russians with. If we initiate that kind of diplomatic relations the Russians would react negatively at likely accelerate support to the Iranians just to prove they can. The correct way of dealing with the Russians is to offer them a legitimate alternative to that would allow them to back off their relationship with Iran while not appearing to be bowing to international pressure.
Sarah also gave a sort of broad viewpoint when asked about Afghanistan. While she was emphatic that we will need to send more troops over there she was unable to articulate how they should be used and what to do about the corrupt Afghan government which is not being seen as legitimate in more and more Afghan eyes. "Well we have to deal with them" was her answer when pressed on this issue. Her heart is in the right place as we will need to continue in Afghanistan, but as someone who seeks to continue as a political leader in this country I would like to see a much clearer articulated position on what victory is to her and how we will achieve it.
Overall though Sarah did well in this interview and I do think she has a solid foundation of fiscal and social conservative values. I think in government her honesty and devotion to these goals would help us reduce the massive spending we are currently on, but on world matters she still comes up a bit short to me, so at this point I am no Palin supporter for 2012 and should she be the nominee will likely vote third party.
For the most part Sarah seems a good bit more media savvy these days as she seems very conscience of how her answers will be viewed and played over and over again. The interview started with Oreilly asking her about possible tension between her and John McCain's aides during the presidential campaign. She admits that she had many differing views on how the campaign should be run, but she deferred to the aides because "they were the experts" and so she went with what they asked her to do. She also brings up that she wanted to make Obama's connection to Wright a lot more of an issue during the campaign, but this idea was also shot down as McCain and his aides thought that it would backfire and lead to calls of racism on them. IMO that was a real boneheaded call. Any clear thinking individual could watch those tapes of Wright and come to the conclusion that these guy was off his rocker and yet Obama stayed in the pew for 20 years. That should have been an issue and as someone who was the running mate of the Presidential candidate Sarah should have pushed this issue a lot harder than she did at the time. The fact that she did tends to give me pause that as a leader she may defer too often on issues where leadership is needed, in other words give us a conservative version of Obama.
In part two of the interview Sarah discussed issues such as Iran's nuclear program and how she would seek to stop them. She gave the response that working with our counterparts in Europe and Asia would be the best approach, but when countered that Russia specifically would need to be brought on board and asked how she would deal with this angle she appears to give an answer that adds up to attempting to pressure the Russians into stopping their work with Iran. That was not a good answer IMO because there is little that the US can realistically threaten the Russians with. If we initiate that kind of diplomatic relations the Russians would react negatively at likely accelerate support to the Iranians just to prove they can. The correct way of dealing with the Russians is to offer them a legitimate alternative to that would allow them to back off their relationship with Iran while not appearing to be bowing to international pressure.
Sarah also gave a sort of broad viewpoint when asked about Afghanistan. While she was emphatic that we will need to send more troops over there she was unable to articulate how they should be used and what to do about the corrupt Afghan government which is not being seen as legitimate in more and more Afghan eyes. "Well we have to deal with them" was her answer when pressed on this issue. Her heart is in the right place as we will need to continue in Afghanistan, but as someone who seeks to continue as a political leader in this country I would like to see a much clearer articulated position on what victory is to her and how we will achieve it.
Overall though Sarah did well in this interview and I do think she has a solid foundation of fiscal and social conservative values. I think in government her honesty and devotion to these goals would help us reduce the massive spending we are currently on, but on world matters she still comes up a bit short to me, so at this point I am no Palin supporter for 2012 and should she be the nominee will likely vote third party.
Monday, November 16, 2009
9/11 GITMO suspects being brought to NY and conservative histerics
Recently it was announced that Khaled Shiek Muhammed (KSM) and four other GITMO detainees would be transported to New York to face charges in a federal court stemming from their involvement in terrorism and in KSM's case, his role in planning the worst terrorist attack ever committed on American soil. On the same day it was also announced that 5 other detainees, notably Abu al Nashiri(sp?) would be tried via military tribunals over terrorism charges.
When this was announced I had mixed feelings. I have always felt that the proper way to try GITMO detainees would be by military tribunals held in GITMO. At these tribunals the hearings could be kept closed to the public to allow the government to present classified information as evidence against the defendents without fear of compromising our nations collection assets. For KSM though, I don't think this would necessarily be the case. The man has never made a habit of hiding his role in planning and coordinating 9/11 and in fact brags about it. The trial will likely feature KSM pleading guilty with the government presenting the evidence available in a push for the death penalty. Considering the man's actions and his own bravado, that won't be real hard to get.
Surprisingly though, this is not the note that many fellow conservatives have taken. I have had the shock of reading numerous pieces denouncing the move as a travisty that is being done in order to denoune Bush, as a move that puts an added risk of an aquital, and most shocking at all to me, an appeal that the trials not be held in NY because it may make Terroists angry and cause them reason to want to attack us. Folks, the case against KSM is airtight and the chances on him walking are so slim as to be absurd. Barack Obama has a better shot at bowling a 300 game than KSM has of walking. As for being a political move against Bush, I don't see that either. The Bush administration did it's part to push for military tribunals and they were unfortunatley overturned in a narrow vote by the Supreme Court. A case being held in federal court is one of the few options left, but not one all that unappealing considering our country currently has 200 individuals incarcerated on terroism charges to include Ramzi Yousef who was tried and convicted in a NY federal court over the 1993 bombing of the world trade center in NY. And lastly it is beyond absurd that people who would call themselves proud Americans and wrap themselves in the ideological cloak of fiscal and social conservatism would suddenly advocate for incarceration without trials based on the need to appease terrorists. Folks, we are America and we do not jail people without trials. Communist tyrants and third world dictators do this, not us and it's supposed to be something that we've prided ourselves on as a nation for over 230 years.
I frankly find it amazing that this case continues to draw such attention as a way of denoucing the Obama administration when I think this should be looked at as a good way to finally get this bastard the sentece he so deserves. I also am amazed that we would spend time complaining about this rather than more legitimate issues with our current administration such as the upcoming fight over the health care bill. These are issues of importance, not a trial where we decide how best to dispose of human trash.
When this was announced I had mixed feelings. I have always felt that the proper way to try GITMO detainees would be by military tribunals held in GITMO. At these tribunals the hearings could be kept closed to the public to allow the government to present classified information as evidence against the defendents without fear of compromising our nations collection assets. For KSM though, I don't think this would necessarily be the case. The man has never made a habit of hiding his role in planning and coordinating 9/11 and in fact brags about it. The trial will likely feature KSM pleading guilty with the government presenting the evidence available in a push for the death penalty. Considering the man's actions and his own bravado, that won't be real hard to get.
Surprisingly though, this is not the note that many fellow conservatives have taken. I have had the shock of reading numerous pieces denouncing the move as a travisty that is being done in order to denoune Bush, as a move that puts an added risk of an aquital, and most shocking at all to me, an appeal that the trials not be held in NY because it may make Terroists angry and cause them reason to want to attack us. Folks, the case against KSM is airtight and the chances on him walking are so slim as to be absurd. Barack Obama has a better shot at bowling a 300 game than KSM has of walking. As for being a political move against Bush, I don't see that either. The Bush administration did it's part to push for military tribunals and they were unfortunatley overturned in a narrow vote by the Supreme Court. A case being held in federal court is one of the few options left, but not one all that unappealing considering our country currently has 200 individuals incarcerated on terroism charges to include Ramzi Yousef who was tried and convicted in a NY federal court over the 1993 bombing of the world trade center in NY. And lastly it is beyond absurd that people who would call themselves proud Americans and wrap themselves in the ideological cloak of fiscal and social conservatism would suddenly advocate for incarceration without trials based on the need to appease terrorists. Folks, we are America and we do not jail people without trials. Communist tyrants and third world dictators do this, not us and it's supposed to be something that we've prided ourselves on as a nation for over 230 years.
I frankly find it amazing that this case continues to draw such attention as a way of denoucing the Obama administration when I think this should be looked at as a good way to finally get this bastard the sentece he so deserves. I also am amazed that we would spend time complaining about this rather than more legitimate issues with our current administration such as the upcoming fight over the health care bill. These are issues of importance, not a trial where we decide how best to dispose of human trash.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Ft Hood shootings, a tragedy for so many
This Thursday we all heard the news of the shooting on Ft Hood in Texas. The toll reported was 12 killed and 31 wounded to include the scumbag shooter himself. It is times like this that each of us have different reactions to the incident. For folks like me it's a mix of anger at the audacity of bushwhacking such brave men and women at home where they should feel more secure than any other place during their career. At the same time the other emotion that runs through me is a deep remorse for the ones lost and the somber knowledge that they are now gone, that someone has lost a husband, brother, son, father, mother, sister, and friend and that that person can never be brought back again. At the end I just find myself searching for a reason why this has happened, what events lead to this and how may we prevent future incidents from occurring.
As of today we know the shooter was born in Arlington, Va to Palestinian immigrants and raised here in the USA. He decided to join the Army against his families wishes, was commissioned an officer and served as a psychiatrist. He is described by some as quiet, reserved, friendly, and someone noted as being religious. By others it is recalled that he stated many startling things about the global war on terrorism to the point of near praise for shooting incidents against soldiers like the one last year in Little Rock, Arkansas. He was said to have had many incidents with co workers and with fellow soldiers who did not take kindly to his opinions of the war and of the enemies which many of them had just gotten home from fighting.
He never deployed during his career and was to be deployed for the first time shortly to Iraq. He was seeking to avoid this deployment through some sort of appeals process but instead set about a planning process where he at some point picked his target on Ft Hood, prepared his method of attack by buying a gun at a local store and picking a date when there was a mass of individuals at the target. He than arrived at his chosen date of attack and like all cowards, he walked to an area packed with unarmed soldiers and shot indiscriminately into them in an effort to kill as many as possible. The police at Ft. Hood reacted quickly and their shooting down of this man probably saved many more lives from being taken. And here we have the shock, the horror of the incident, but we still do not have the why or how did this occur.
For many who watched this unfold the first thing that they may ask is the why and the how when former co workers recall such disturbing statements made in the past by the shooter. For many mass shooting incidents there are similar recalls by many people who know the perpetrators and I suspect as with this case the general consensus is that people are just unwilling to believe that those they are close with could be capable of such horrific acts. It is only after it is too late do these same people go back and relive each conversation and recall the statements and actions of the individual.
The other thing to consider maybe what trigger this in this man who had served for around 9-10 years in the Army to suddenly snap. The most obvious reason appears to be his upcoming deployment to a war he was staunchly against. Morons like the writers at newsweek actually stated recently that they believe this may be a sign of a military "on the brink" as PTSD affects more and more. Maybe a good read if only for the simple fact that the shooter never deployed and therefore did not have PTSD. The shooter, while bright enough to earn a psychological degree, appears to have been a loner and unable to see his own faults as they began to mount. When people spend a protracted amount of time to themselves it takes away the concept of third perception, or reality as we know it. The shooter will take on his beliefs, in this case the belief that GWOT was a war on islam, and he will role with it and compound that belief as it remains unchallenged by the outside world. In instances where it was challenged it appears that he did nothing to defend himself and instead shut down, refusing to confront those that disagreed with his views. This refusal would do nothing to dissuade him of his belief's and the actions of those against him likely just helped build a small amount of resentment. I won't be surprised to learn as more comes out that he became even more of a shut in as the months built to this final act. Shooters will typically take a fatalistic approach to their actions and will reduce all contact with the outside world as more contact only causes them to realise they may have something to live for or otherwise distracts them from the decision they've already made.
In short we will see most of these signs in the man as his life becomes reconstructed. The sad thing is that this signs were there and that we only see them when they are too late. If you are reading this I hope you take away not the belief that you have to be suspicious of your neighbor, but that you should take time if you think something is wrong to talk to the individual. Try to draw them out to a social gathering, engage them in a discussion about their life and goals, get them thinking about life. It is likely that just these actions will either get a person back towards the right track, or will give you insite into how bad their situation may have become where you may recommend professional counseling.
-Zach
As of today we know the shooter was born in Arlington, Va to Palestinian immigrants and raised here in the USA. He decided to join the Army against his families wishes, was commissioned an officer and served as a psychiatrist. He is described by some as quiet, reserved, friendly, and someone noted as being religious. By others it is recalled that he stated many startling things about the global war on terrorism to the point of near praise for shooting incidents against soldiers like the one last year in Little Rock, Arkansas. He was said to have had many incidents with co workers and with fellow soldiers who did not take kindly to his opinions of the war and of the enemies which many of them had just gotten home from fighting.
He never deployed during his career and was to be deployed for the first time shortly to Iraq. He was seeking to avoid this deployment through some sort of appeals process but instead set about a planning process where he at some point picked his target on Ft Hood, prepared his method of attack by buying a gun at a local store and picking a date when there was a mass of individuals at the target. He than arrived at his chosen date of attack and like all cowards, he walked to an area packed with unarmed soldiers and shot indiscriminately into them in an effort to kill as many as possible. The police at Ft. Hood reacted quickly and their shooting down of this man probably saved many more lives from being taken. And here we have the shock, the horror of the incident, but we still do not have the why or how did this occur.
For many who watched this unfold the first thing that they may ask is the why and the how when former co workers recall such disturbing statements made in the past by the shooter. For many mass shooting incidents there are similar recalls by many people who know the perpetrators and I suspect as with this case the general consensus is that people are just unwilling to believe that those they are close with could be capable of such horrific acts. It is only after it is too late do these same people go back and relive each conversation and recall the statements and actions of the individual.
The other thing to consider maybe what trigger this in this man who had served for around 9-10 years in the Army to suddenly snap. The most obvious reason appears to be his upcoming deployment to a war he was staunchly against. Morons like the writers at newsweek actually stated recently that they believe this may be a sign of a military "on the brink" as PTSD affects more and more. Maybe a good read if only for the simple fact that the shooter never deployed and therefore did not have PTSD. The shooter, while bright enough to earn a psychological degree, appears to have been a loner and unable to see his own faults as they began to mount. When people spend a protracted amount of time to themselves it takes away the concept of third perception, or reality as we know it. The shooter will take on his beliefs, in this case the belief that GWOT was a war on islam, and he will role with it and compound that belief as it remains unchallenged by the outside world. In instances where it was challenged it appears that he did nothing to defend himself and instead shut down, refusing to confront those that disagreed with his views. This refusal would do nothing to dissuade him of his belief's and the actions of those against him likely just helped build a small amount of resentment. I won't be surprised to learn as more comes out that he became even more of a shut in as the months built to this final act. Shooters will typically take a fatalistic approach to their actions and will reduce all contact with the outside world as more contact only causes them to realise they may have something to live for or otherwise distracts them from the decision they've already made.
In short we will see most of these signs in the man as his life becomes reconstructed. The sad thing is that this signs were there and that we only see them when they are too late. If you are reading this I hope you take away not the belief that you have to be suspicious of your neighbor, but that you should take time if you think something is wrong to talk to the individual. Try to draw them out to a social gathering, engage them in a discussion about their life and goals, get them thinking about life. It is likely that just these actions will either get a person back towards the right track, or will give you insite into how bad their situation may have become where you may recommend professional counseling.
-Zach
Saturday, October 31, 2009
President Obama and race relations in the U.S.A.
Another old post being preposted here for my dozens and dozens of fans.
Original post date, July 25, 2009
Gotta say I kinda called this one, and I especially have to point this out to certain folks, who actually said that Obama's election would somehow help move this country past racial politics. It hasn't and if anything the President has only served to use diversive race issues for his own benefit whenever he can.
Lets recap some of the "lowlights" so far in his time running for President and some notable moments since.
Most folks remember Rev. Wright and the Trinity Church. If you missed it don't worry too much, the media did a pretty good concerted job of sweeping it under the rug, from downplaying Wright's comments to Obama's connections to the man. President Obama as a young community organizer in Chicago started attending Wright's trinity church around 20 years before his run at the Presidency. He had Wright baptize his children, marry him to his wife, described Wright as a his spiritual mentor and as the man that brought Christ into his life, and tittled one of his books after one of Wrights sermons.
Now to most folks this would seem like a pretty solid connection between two people. I mean, the only real way to establish more of a connection would be if someone got a picture of them frenching in time square, and considering President Obama's stance on gay marriage, that is unlikely to happen, but I digress. In the campaign trail Obama did the politician thing and simply downplayed what Wright said, at one point equating it to an confession by his Grandmother that she was sometimes nervous around black men. "I can no more disown this man than I can the black community." Is what President Obama said at the time. Now, Obama would not have had much political damage from this if Rev. Wright would have remained quiet, he didn't. three weeks later he appeared at the national press club here in DC and again affirmed himself to be the race baiting moron he appeared to be in most other clips played. The same day Wright did this Obama had a press conference where he denounced and disowned the man he could not disown three weeks prior. The press gladly ignored it.
Obama's troubles were not quite over though, around a month or so later audio of a sermon given by a white priest at Trinity came out in which Father Fleger(sp?) was heard denouncing Hillary Clinton characterizing her mindset by saying "I'm white, I'm entittled... there's a black man stealing my throne." Following this Obama formally left Trinity church. Again, the media happily held back on coverage of this, instead giving us another report on what a nice smile Obama has.
Following the election Obama first gave us his racial politics BS with his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. The same day as her nomination Senator up-chuck shumer of New York made the politics of the decision clear. Referring to Republicans Shumer stated "They oppose her at their own peril" making it known that any opposition to Sotomayor would be viewed as racially based, regardless of the validity of the opposition. Prior to her confirmation hearing Sotomayor created some controversy when comments highlighted a beleif by her that the Judicial branch is "where policy is made." The absurdity of such a comment should appear obvious to most. The other comments were one's in which she, in prepared statements over a 5 year period, stated that she would hope that a "wise latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, could more often come down with a better judgement than a white male that had not lived that life." During the confirmation hearing she downplayed the comments stating that the comments were not meant to target or maginalize any ethnic group and that she was unaware that the comments would offend anyone.
Really? 5 years of making these comments and it never occured that such a comment might not resonate with a certain group? 5 years and nobody said anything to you? Opps it was an accident over a 5 year period? Really? Yeesh.
And now we come to our present situation with the arrest of Professor William Gates for disorderly conduct. Now, after reading the police report on smoking gun, and reviewing the fact that all police and neighborhood witness accounts back the cop in this case I find it a bit difficult how anybody can back the professor here. This jerk was belligerant and insulting to a uniformed officer who was performing his duty by responding to a call and seeking to resolve a situation in which a neighbor mistakenly thought Gates home was being broken into. This situation could have been resolved so easily had Gates simply acknowleged the mixup, provided ID, and allowed the cop to leave. Instead he immediatly accused the cop of racial bias, stating many times "do you know who I am" and after the cop asked him to talk outside on the porch stated to the policeman "yeah, I'll talk to your momma outside." Wow, what a class act. While outside police officers again attempted to de-escalate the situation and asked Mr. Gates to calm down. When he refused they informed him that he becoming disruptive and could be arrested if he refused to calm down. He didn't and thus, he was arrested for being a moron.
And here President not so bright comes in. During his prime time news conference Obama was asked to comment on the situation. A fair question to ask the first black President of the US. Obama started off by stating he did not have a full understanding of the facts, and that his friendship with William "I'll speak with your momma outside" Gates might make him bias. With that the proper course would be to excuse yourself from making a comment until you know the situation, but instead President not so bright termed the cops actions as being stupid, and went on seemingly giving validation that this was some sort of case in racial profiling. The American public did not respond well to this stance by the President and as of Friday, July 24th, his approval numbers dipped below 50% for the first time in his Presidency. In response to this Obama did the politician thing where he stated that gosh, some of his comments may have seemed like they were criticism's of the police actions which they weren't intended to be. Really? Calling someone's actions stupid is no longer a criticism? Meanwhile race baiter William "Do you know who I am" Gates has made repeated appearances feigning outrage over the arrest, linking it to treatment of the black community in America and stating "in the end this isn't about me." This is the guy Obama still calls a friend today.
Folks, people like Gates should be ashamed of themselves. They went after a good cop to push a devisive agenda which does nothing to move this country ahead in race relations, but instead they are impowered by fools who need a scapegoat which as of today still appears to be our commander and chief.
Wow, I really didn't mean to make it this long, just kinda got a lifie of it's own i guess.
-Zach
Original post date, July 25, 2009
Gotta say I kinda called this one, and I especially have to point this out to certain folks, who actually said that Obama's election would somehow help move this country past racial politics. It hasn't and if anything the President has only served to use diversive race issues for his own benefit whenever he can.
Lets recap some of the "lowlights" so far in his time running for President and some notable moments since.
Most folks remember Rev. Wright and the Trinity Church. If you missed it don't worry too much, the media did a pretty good concerted job of sweeping it under the rug, from downplaying Wright's comments to Obama's connections to the man. President Obama as a young community organizer in Chicago started attending Wright's trinity church around 20 years before his run at the Presidency. He had Wright baptize his children, marry him to his wife, described Wright as a his spiritual mentor and as the man that brought Christ into his life, and tittled one of his books after one of Wrights sermons.
Now to most folks this would seem like a pretty solid connection between two people. I mean, the only real way to establish more of a connection would be if someone got a picture of them frenching in time square, and considering President Obama's stance on gay marriage, that is unlikely to happen, but I digress. In the campaign trail Obama did the politician thing and simply downplayed what Wright said, at one point equating it to an confession by his Grandmother that she was sometimes nervous around black men. "I can no more disown this man than I can the black community." Is what President Obama said at the time. Now, Obama would not have had much political damage from this if Rev. Wright would have remained quiet, he didn't. three weeks later he appeared at the national press club here in DC and again affirmed himself to be the race baiting moron he appeared to be in most other clips played. The same day Wright did this Obama had a press conference where he denounced and disowned the man he could not disown three weeks prior. The press gladly ignored it.
Obama's troubles were not quite over though, around a month or so later audio of a sermon given by a white priest at Trinity came out in which Father Fleger(sp?) was heard denouncing Hillary Clinton characterizing her mindset by saying "I'm white, I'm entittled... there's a black man stealing my throne." Following this Obama formally left Trinity church. Again, the media happily held back on coverage of this, instead giving us another report on what a nice smile Obama has.
Following the election Obama first gave us his racial politics BS with his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. The same day as her nomination Senator up-chuck shumer of New York made the politics of the decision clear. Referring to Republicans Shumer stated "They oppose her at their own peril" making it known that any opposition to Sotomayor would be viewed as racially based, regardless of the validity of the opposition. Prior to her confirmation hearing Sotomayor created some controversy when comments highlighted a beleif by her that the Judicial branch is "where policy is made." The absurdity of such a comment should appear obvious to most. The other comments were one's in which she, in prepared statements over a 5 year period, stated that she would hope that a "wise latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, could more often come down with a better judgement than a white male that had not lived that life." During the confirmation hearing she downplayed the comments stating that the comments were not meant to target or maginalize any ethnic group and that she was unaware that the comments would offend anyone.
Really? 5 years of making these comments and it never occured that such a comment might not resonate with a certain group? 5 years and nobody said anything to you? Opps it was an accident over a 5 year period? Really? Yeesh.
And now we come to our present situation with the arrest of Professor William Gates for disorderly conduct. Now, after reading the police report on smoking gun, and reviewing the fact that all police and neighborhood witness accounts back the cop in this case I find it a bit difficult how anybody can back the professor here. This jerk was belligerant and insulting to a uniformed officer who was performing his duty by responding to a call and seeking to resolve a situation in which a neighbor mistakenly thought Gates home was being broken into. This situation could have been resolved so easily had Gates simply acknowleged the mixup, provided ID, and allowed the cop to leave. Instead he immediatly accused the cop of racial bias, stating many times "do you know who I am" and after the cop asked him to talk outside on the porch stated to the policeman "yeah, I'll talk to your momma outside." Wow, what a class act. While outside police officers again attempted to de-escalate the situation and asked Mr. Gates to calm down. When he refused they informed him that he becoming disruptive and could be arrested if he refused to calm down. He didn't and thus, he was arrested for being a moron.
And here President not so bright comes in. During his prime time news conference Obama was asked to comment on the situation. A fair question to ask the first black President of the US. Obama started off by stating he did not have a full understanding of the facts, and that his friendship with William "I'll speak with your momma outside" Gates might make him bias. With that the proper course would be to excuse yourself from making a comment until you know the situation, but instead President not so bright termed the cops actions as being stupid, and went on seemingly giving validation that this was some sort of case in racial profiling. The American public did not respond well to this stance by the President and as of Friday, July 24th, his approval numbers dipped below 50% for the first time in his Presidency. In response to this Obama did the politician thing where he stated that gosh, some of his comments may have seemed like they were criticism's of the police actions which they weren't intended to be. Really? Calling someone's actions stupid is no longer a criticism? Meanwhile race baiter William "Do you know who I am" Gates has made repeated appearances feigning outrage over the arrest, linking it to treatment of the black community in America and stating "in the end this isn't about me." This is the guy Obama still calls a friend today.
Folks, people like Gates should be ashamed of themselves. They went after a good cop to push a devisive agenda which does nothing to move this country ahead in race relations, but instead they are impowered by fools who need a scapegoat which as of today still appears to be our commander and chief.
Wow, I really didn't mean to make it this long, just kinda got a lifie of it's own i guess.
-Zach
President Obama's amateur hour foreign policy
An old blog I made during the whole Honduran coup deal. I was a bit upset over our President's foreign policy decisions and his actions during that incident kinda snapped something in me so I wrote this up. enjoy.
Original post was on July 1sr, 2009
Lets recap our oh so great President's current foreign policy highlights.
First he announces the closing of GITMO within a year without a clear plan on what to do with the detainees. As of this writing there still is no clear plan on what to do with them and we are less than 6 months away from the planned closing. A fabulous start.
Second, he goes to Europe and begs forgiveness for America being an arrogant nation. The European nations thank him for his apologies by refusing to take any GITMO detainees and making no new contributions to the war in Afghanistan.
Third he bows while meeting the Saudi King
Forth, he fails to drive a wedge in Iran's ruling class and to create doubt across the world on the legitimacy of the Iranian government. What did he fail to do? Oh, just to say he disapproved of the regime crack down that's all.
Fifth, he follows up the Iran whiff by supporting the wannabe dictator of Honduras after he is ousted. The dictator was ousted with the unanimous approval of the Honduran congress after President Zelaya openly made it his intention to violate the constitution and to make and illegal seizure of power. The ousting was bloodless, with an interim President taking the helm until the next round of elections can be held in November. Somehow President not so bright has objected to these moves despite the very democratic motivations behind them.
Folks, as I list these Obama has been President for only six months. I'm tired of amateur hour, we need to call for protests nationwide to let this man know that we are not going to sit back and accept this garbage anymore. 2010 is not close enough, fix it now or there will be a way found to impeach him and get him of the white house.
Original post was on July 1sr, 2009
Lets recap our oh so great President's current foreign policy highlights.
First he announces the closing of GITMO within a year without a clear plan on what to do with the detainees. As of this writing there still is no clear plan on what to do with them and we are less than 6 months away from the planned closing. A fabulous start.
Second, he goes to Europe and begs forgiveness for America being an arrogant nation. The European nations thank him for his apologies by refusing to take any GITMO detainees and making no new contributions to the war in Afghanistan.
Third he bows while meeting the Saudi King
Forth, he fails to drive a wedge in Iran's ruling class and to create doubt across the world on the legitimacy of the Iranian government. What did he fail to do? Oh, just to say he disapproved of the regime crack down that's all.
Fifth, he follows up the Iran whiff by supporting the wannabe dictator of Honduras after he is ousted. The dictator was ousted with the unanimous approval of the Honduran congress after President Zelaya openly made it his intention to violate the constitution and to make and illegal seizure of power. The ousting was bloodless, with an interim President taking the helm until the next round of elections can be held in November. Somehow President not so bright has objected to these moves despite the very democratic motivations behind them.
Folks, as I list these Obama has been President for only six months. I'm tired of amateur hour, we need to call for protests nationwide to let this man know that we are not going to sit back and accept this garbage anymore. 2010 is not close enough, fix it now or there will be a way found to impeach him and get him of the white house.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
The starting point. 10/24/09
Well looks like I'm finally going to start blogging and become one of "those guys." This probably would have been better for me a year ago as I followed the news a bit more rapidly and found that writing out my thoughts on current events was a pretty relaxing thing to do. For now I'm kinda in the middle of a ton of work that has and no doubt will hamper my ability to track the latest news headlines will also limiting my ability to sit down and think exactly about how I wish to say something.
I will thank my friend Allen for suggesting that I start this blog and I will note for those who don't know me that I am someone who loves politics and who generally falls along the fiscal and social conservative ideological lines. My opinions are what they are, if you differ please do not hold back but always show the same respect with which you would expect to be treated and you'll be fine.
That's all for now. I have a Halloween party to get ready for, yeahhh!!! The whole lack of time really bit me in the butt though. I love creating my own costume but no time this year so I went out and got a costume as one of the "immortals" from the movie "300" simply because it's looks pretty bad ass on me.
Later
-Zach
I will thank my friend Allen for suggesting that I start this blog and I will note for those who don't know me that I am someone who loves politics and who generally falls along the fiscal and social conservative ideological lines. My opinions are what they are, if you differ please do not hold back but always show the same respect with which you would expect to be treated and you'll be fine.
That's all for now. I have a Halloween party to get ready for, yeahhh!!! The whole lack of time really bit me in the butt though. I love creating my own costume but no time this year so I went out and got a costume as one of the "immortals" from the movie "300" simply because it's looks pretty bad ass on me.
Later
-Zach
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)