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.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)