Recently the NAACP passed a resolution against the tea party condemning what it stated where racist elements within the tea party. Shortly after it was passed Ben Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP stated "Expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take the responsibility for them and their actions. We will no longer allow you to hide like cowards.'' Wow, how civil and open minded of the man.
Now lets get one thing straight. The Tea Party movement was founded on a belief in responsible government and as a reaction to the policies of the Obama administration which many Americans disagree with. While I have yet to see any supposed "racist" signs at any pictures of this rally I will proceed with the assumption that they are there somewhere on the outskirts of these events as more of a fringe element. Now most people will acknowledge that you have a few "crazies" and the fringe at just about any event, family, or organization and that they, the fringe, are to be considered representative of the movement as a whole. In fact in one interview with a NAACP rep he acknowledged that yes, they know it's just the far out fringe and that the Tea Party has little to no involvement in that part of their ideology, but gosh all the NAACP really wants is for some leader of the Tea Party, whomever that may be since it's a grassroots movement, to come forward and denounce these activities.
The accusation here is nothing more than a red herring and so far as I can see those who are identified as part of the Tea Party movement have done the right thing in calling it what it is and refusing to bow to the needs of some thin skinned race baiters. Let them go pound sand and shout to the heavens in indignation for all conservatives care. We will not bow down and ask forgiveness for a sin we have not committed no apologize for a wrong in which members of the NAACP organization acknowledge there is no proof of. If there is to be a discussion between conservatives in the tea party and the NAACP than it should center around the issues of fiscal responsibility. Sit down at a table and talk over these differences and see if some common ground may be found and the tea party will find a way to gain a more diverse crowd at their rallies. The first thing that will need to happen though is the NAACP will need to rescind their resolution condemning these elements because such a measure undermines any effort by either organization towards mutual respect.
Only when the rights of both are respected despite differing political views can progress be made in national dialogue in this country. No greater example of the good that such a dialogue can bring can be found in our own founder father's debate and discussion over the union of our great country. If the best of mankind can find that out and work together over the petty politicians this world will be a great place. Till than it will be the same snipes and gripes that do nothing but keep us all down and worse yet, divided.
-Zach
Ref: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/17/1734535/naacp-made-the-right-call-on-racists.html#ixzz0u38D7vqo
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
The Second Amendment. Why is this so difficult?
Recently the supreme court, in a case similar to DC V Heller, struck down a hand gun ban in Chicago in McDonald V Chicago. The vote on this case, again like two years ago, was split down the middle 5-4 with the court deciding that the second amendment allows individuals the right own firearms and that no form of government may take this right away.
WOW, amazing right? Truly revolutionary, or at least that's probably what our founding fathers were thinking when they made it the second amendment in the bill of rights. Those would be the same bill of rights that all states across the U.S. made clear would be required for them to ratify the constitution. You see they were concerned that without such a bill of rights a government might start to take their individual rights away. Those crazy overreacting colonists, like THAT could ever happen.
Anyway, what I wrote above any person with a high school diploma who has attended a basic US History course could tell you. It's that simple to understand that the second amendment is an individual right and yet for the second time in TWO years 4 very highly educated supreme court justices have answered in the negative when asked what the second amendment. In both cases it has been made clear that the four dissenting justices are applying their own personal views to how they will make their judgements with goes beyond their responsibilities as judges, which is simply to interpret and uphold the constitutionality of our system of government. Their actions have left us with a dangerous situation where if they acquire one more vote like them they have gone from a neutral arbitrating body to one that effectively is seeking to set policy and write laws themselves.
Folks, this is not something that should be taken lightly. If we as a country think it is unwise for people to own firearms than we have the option of repealing the second amendment through our representatives. THAT is the proper channel to make such a change and our constitution is set up as such to prevent government tyranny over individual liberty. When a Supreme Court has such a hard time making such an easy call as to what the hell the second amendment is we are very close to finding ourselves in a situation where that safety net the founding fathers gave us is now gone. I urge all that hear this to write to your local papers and your representatives making it clear that this kind of conduct from judges on this countries high court is simply not acceptable.
-Zach
WOW, amazing right? Truly revolutionary, or at least that's probably what our founding fathers were thinking when they made it the second amendment in the bill of rights. Those would be the same bill of rights that all states across the U.S. made clear would be required for them to ratify the constitution. You see they were concerned that without such a bill of rights a government might start to take their individual rights away. Those crazy overreacting colonists, like THAT could ever happen.
Anyway, what I wrote above any person with a high school diploma who has attended a basic US History course could tell you. It's that simple to understand that the second amendment is an individual right and yet for the second time in TWO years 4 very highly educated supreme court justices have answered in the negative when asked what the second amendment. In both cases it has been made clear that the four dissenting justices are applying their own personal views to how they will make their judgements with goes beyond their responsibilities as judges, which is simply to interpret and uphold the constitutionality of our system of government. Their actions have left us with a dangerous situation where if they acquire one more vote like them they have gone from a neutral arbitrating body to one that effectively is seeking to set policy and write laws themselves.
Folks, this is not something that should be taken lightly. If we as a country think it is unwise for people to own firearms than we have the option of repealing the second amendment through our representatives. THAT is the proper channel to make such a change and our constitution is set up as such to prevent government tyranny over individual liberty. When a Supreme Court has such a hard time making such an easy call as to what the hell the second amendment is we are very close to finding ourselves in a situation where that safety net the founding fathers gave us is now gone. I urge all that hear this to write to your local papers and your representatives making it clear that this kind of conduct from judges on this countries high court is simply not acceptable.
-Zach
Sunday, June 27, 2010
The Follies of the Obama Adminstration's Afghan policy
Recently President Obama decided to relieve General McCrystal from overall command from US forces in Afghanistan. The move comes not because of the continued rising violence in Afghanistan. It comes not as a result of a stalled offensive in Helmland province or a delay in even beginning an offensive in Kandahar province due to lack of "local support." It comes not as it becomes more and more known that the ROE that our forces are operation with over there are making us a joke. No, none of these are the reasons for General McCrystal's removal. The reason the man is getting canned is because of a Rolling Stone article in which General McCrystal and his aides were noted not saying very nice things about people in the Obama administration.
Now while I will not defend what was in the article, it is ridiculous on the Generals part that he allowed this piece to be published, there were numerous reasons for the General to be canned. The biggest reason IMO was that the man either sucked at implementing a counter insurgency strategy in Afghanistan or he was forced to implement a policy he didn't himself believe in. In either case he should have been canned and Americans should be upset of the half hearted nature in which the Afghan war appears to have been waged during his time. If you can't do your job than man the hell up and resign so that someone else can and so that fewer of our men and women come home in boxes.
While I could go on and on about this subject I will cut it short for now because it's the morning and darn it, I'm hungry. I will only also note that the President has asked the head of CENTCOM and brains behind the Iraq surge policy, the one that President Obama refused to credit with success during his 2008 campaign, General Petreaus to step in and command the forces in Afghanistan and implement an insurgency strategy that will work. I am hopeful that the General will be able to get the job done both because of his proven ability and sway in Washington to make changes on the ground without much risk of being undermined by civilian bosses back home. It's already become known that Petreaus is reviewing the ROE which hopefully will be revised to allow our forces to actually go after insurgents when we find them.
-Zach
Now while I will not defend what was in the article, it is ridiculous on the Generals part that he allowed this piece to be published, there were numerous reasons for the General to be canned. The biggest reason IMO was that the man either sucked at implementing a counter insurgency strategy in Afghanistan or he was forced to implement a policy he didn't himself believe in. In either case he should have been canned and Americans should be upset of the half hearted nature in which the Afghan war appears to have been waged during his time. If you can't do your job than man the hell up and resign so that someone else can and so that fewer of our men and women come home in boxes.
While I could go on and on about this subject I will cut it short for now because it's the morning and darn it, I'm hungry. I will only also note that the President has asked the head of CENTCOM and brains behind the Iraq surge policy, the one that President Obama refused to credit with success during his 2008 campaign, General Petreaus to step in and command the forces in Afghanistan and implement an insurgency strategy that will work. I am hopeful that the General will be able to get the job done both because of his proven ability and sway in Washington to make changes on the ground without much risk of being undermined by civilian bosses back home. It's already become known that Petreaus is reviewing the ROE which hopefully will be revised to allow our forces to actually go after insurgents when we find them.
-Zach
The Obama Adminstration's Lawsuit against Arizona
Recently it became known that the Obama administration has decided to file a federal lawsuit challenging Arizona's recently passed immigration law on the grounds that enforcing immigration is a federal responsibility and not a state one. On a personal note this is disappointing because IMO, this is a "issue" that should have been dead and gone inside of a week. The other thing that is very disappointing is that this lawsuit will likely be unsuccessful, which the Obama administration knows, but they will waste the federal dollars anyway in an obvious ploy meant to rally the liberal base and distract from Obama's sinking poll numbers.
Talking about the Arizona law as an issue, the first thing that many opponents yelped about was that it would lead to the targeting of a certain group of people. Following up on this these same proponents of inactivity made inaccurate statements that this would lead the Arizona police to likely just walk up and ask any random Hispanic about their legal status. Even President Zero made this mistake when he lamented how some Latino grandfather who has lived in the US his whole life could now take this grandkids out for some icecream and be subject to harassment should the gestapo Arizona PD feel the need to "check up" on the old man.
The truth is that the Arizona law only allows for local police to check into a person's legal immigration status provided that the person is already subject to arrest and their is reasonable suspicion on the police officer's part that the person is an illegal. So the old Latino grandfather and take heart. Unless he has robbed a bank to pay for that expensive ice cream the dreaded Arizona local PD cannot just randomly question him or his grand kids.
The truth above is easily found by those that look into the law, but those that oppose it have and likely will maintain the position already mentioned about the poor immigrant now being a target in Arizona. It is unfortunate that the truth does not matter in this instance, but when dealing with the masses you need to make radical comparisons to the worst case possible scenarios, and as in this example, even lie in order to draw out opposition or support on a issue. For anyone who actually looks at the law there is no basis for this opposition which is likely why the Obama administration's lawsuit was over federal responsibilities and not over any supposed discriminatory practices by the Arizona state government.
Even so the lawsuit is likely to fail. Even though it is the federal government's responsibility to set up immigration laws it is up to the states to decide how best to enforce these laws. The only way this lawsuit would have a chance for success is if the law allowed for Arizona to create a different immigration process different from the federal government. Since it only allows for the state to enforce federal laws already in place there is little basis for this lawsuit. IMO the obama administration knows this and this is nothing more than a political ploy on their part in which they hope this lawsuit will serve to rally the liberal base in boost Obama in the polls after consistent sinking in the face of the oil spill in the gulf. In the end this will be just another waste of tax dollars all thanks to a couple of liberal morons who don't even take the time of day to read and understand the law they oppose.
Talking about the Arizona law as an issue, the first thing that many opponents yelped about was that it would lead to the targeting of a certain group of people. Following up on this these same proponents of inactivity made inaccurate statements that this would lead the Arizona police to likely just walk up and ask any random Hispanic about their legal status. Even President Zero made this mistake when he lamented how some Latino grandfather who has lived in the US his whole life could now take this grandkids out for some icecream and be subject to harassment should the gestapo Arizona PD feel the need to "check up" on the old man.
The truth is that the Arizona law only allows for local police to check into a person's legal immigration status provided that the person is already subject to arrest and their is reasonable suspicion on the police officer's part that the person is an illegal. So the old Latino grandfather and take heart. Unless he has robbed a bank to pay for that expensive ice cream the dreaded Arizona local PD cannot just randomly question him or his grand kids.
The truth above is easily found by those that look into the law, but those that oppose it have and likely will maintain the position already mentioned about the poor immigrant now being a target in Arizona. It is unfortunate that the truth does not matter in this instance, but when dealing with the masses you need to make radical comparisons to the worst case possible scenarios, and as in this example, even lie in order to draw out opposition or support on a issue. For anyone who actually looks at the law there is no basis for this opposition which is likely why the Obama administration's lawsuit was over federal responsibilities and not over any supposed discriminatory practices by the Arizona state government.
Even so the lawsuit is likely to fail. Even though it is the federal government's responsibility to set up immigration laws it is up to the states to decide how best to enforce these laws. The only way this lawsuit would have a chance for success is if the law allowed for Arizona to create a different immigration process different from the federal government. Since it only allows for the state to enforce federal laws already in place there is little basis for this lawsuit. IMO the obama administration knows this and this is nothing more than a political ploy on their part in which they hope this lawsuit will serve to rally the liberal base in boost Obama in the polls after consistent sinking in the face of the oil spill in the gulf. In the end this will be just another waste of tax dollars all thanks to a couple of liberal morons who don't even take the time of day to read and understand the law they oppose.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Random comments
Well it's once again been a long time since I posted anything on my blog. I hope my many fans will excuse me as I have been a very busy person over the past few months.
Looking over the news it looks like it's been all oil spill all the time for the past two months which really makes me thankful for my current situation witch allows for a limited intake of the national news media. We as Americans seemingly always need something to cry fowl over or to create drama. We are addicted to it and the news media lives off it and we as the gullible classless droolbots that we are lap it up and move from one "crisis" to the next. In the mean time the real world faces much bigger challenges.
In Krygystan I must say that I am surprised by the violence and chaos that has erupted in the southern part of the nation following the overthrow of Bakilev's(sp?) government which was replaced not by a dictator, but by a caretaker government that is busy drafting a new constitution and which hopes to hold elections sometime next year. I say I am surprised because the coup itself came and went rather quickly without much opposition in Bishkek. With that in hand I felt there maybe some opposition but figured that it would be disorganized and that it would go away quickly. It seems not though, in the south where there is a significant amount of Uzbek citizens, Krygs who had been supporters of Bakilev targeted the Uzbeks and have been systematically attacking and killing what appears now to be a couple thousand people and quickly creating a crisis in central asia. The interim government has failed to establish security in the south and has requested Russian military assistance, which the Russians have declined. How amazing it is that a group of people could live together for so long, be each others neighbor and than so quickly turn on one another for really nothing. Frankly it's just another situation that makes me shake my head at the callous and selfish nature of mankind.
That's about it for now, will post more later.
-Zach
Looking over the news it looks like it's been all oil spill all the time for the past two months which really makes me thankful for my current situation witch allows for a limited intake of the national news media. We as Americans seemingly always need something to cry fowl over or to create drama. We are addicted to it and the news media lives off it and we as the gullible classless droolbots that we are lap it up and move from one "crisis" to the next. In the mean time the real world faces much bigger challenges.
In Krygystan I must say that I am surprised by the violence and chaos that has erupted in the southern part of the nation following the overthrow of Bakilev's(sp?) government which was replaced not by a dictator, but by a caretaker government that is busy drafting a new constitution and which hopes to hold elections sometime next year. I say I am surprised because the coup itself came and went rather quickly without much opposition in Bishkek. With that in hand I felt there maybe some opposition but figured that it would be disorganized and that it would go away quickly. It seems not though, in the south where there is a significant amount of Uzbek citizens, Krygs who had been supporters of Bakilev targeted the Uzbeks and have been systematically attacking and killing what appears now to be a couple thousand people and quickly creating a crisis in central asia. The interim government has failed to establish security in the south and has requested Russian military assistance, which the Russians have declined. How amazing it is that a group of people could live together for so long, be each others neighbor and than so quickly turn on one another for really nothing. Frankly it's just another situation that makes me shake my head at the callous and selfish nature of mankind.
That's about it for now, will post more later.
-Zach
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Arizona Immigration law, facebook, and knee jerk liberals
Recently the state of Arizona passed immigration law which, gasp, allows local law enforcement officer to enforce immigration law. This of course has aroused the typical liberal angst against the largely conservative state. Epitaphs of racism, accusations that this will lead to racial profiling, etc. all have been leveled at this state. Frankly I'm happy Arizona has the good sense to pass such a measure and I shake my head that something so simple drives so many otherwise fine people to hate their neighbor and call them a racist. It's more par for the course though and I was content to let it pass, but a recent incident has caused me to decide to comment fully on it.
Yesterday after logging into facebook to see what my friends and family are up to back home I came across a posting by a cousin of my girlfriend, random thought, why do we make people we barely know friends on facebook? Anyway, her views trend to the left and I generally ignore it but saw this posted by her "WTF. Arizona immigration law?" It had quite a few responses and my curiosity made me check out the idiocy I knew laid inside. Sure enough there were the typical responses equating Arizona's laws to fascism. In fact in 12 responses all i saw as gestapo/nazi this and fascist that. So, being the nice guy I am I responded "yeah, a country that enforces it's laws, crazy concept." Along with another note taking a shot at such liberal use of a term like "fascist" by people who apparently had little to no knowledge on what it actually means. This morning I saw that my GF's cousin, well didn't appreciate it too much and asked me to refrain from posting my political views on "her wall." To be more exact it was keep my views on my wall and she will do the same. First signs of leftist tolerance i see. I also saw one of her friends gave the always delightful response to the tune of "if you don't agree with our group think, that STFU." No differing views allowed here. Another sign of that leftist tolerant attitude we hear so much about.
In the end of course I will respect her wishes as I would expect her to respect mine and I only baited the STFU guy a little, it's the most fun i can have right now. Really, this got me thinking though, what is the big deal about this? Is there perhaps something in this law that I have overlooked that would and should cause such protestations? There could be and so in the hopes of becoming better informed I looked it up and shockingly, it was exactly what I heard it could be. Basically it says that a cop my have "reasonable suspicion" that the person he is speaking with is an illegal immigrant. After having that the officer may than request that the suspect provide documentation proving he is a legal resident or immigrant in our nation. That is it folks.
Now if your looking for the outrageous part in all this, it is in the term "reasonable." That's right, reasonable is an unreasonable term that will inevitably allow those mean police officers to target Hispanic immigrants in this country. President Zero even expressed some concern about this by notice that this law would allow an immigrant to be here for generations and suddenly be stopped by those men no doubt wearing jackboots and have to answer their unreasonable inquiries. Oh the horror.
In the end folks, the law does little but assist the federal government in their enforcement of immigration laws. Other than that the State of Arizona will remain as serene as it always has been.
-Zach
Yesterday after logging into facebook to see what my friends and family are up to back home I came across a posting by a cousin of my girlfriend, random thought, why do we make people we barely know friends on facebook? Anyway, her views trend to the left and I generally ignore it but saw this posted by her "WTF. Arizona immigration law?" It had quite a few responses and my curiosity made me check out the idiocy I knew laid inside. Sure enough there were the typical responses equating Arizona's laws to fascism. In fact in 12 responses all i saw as gestapo/nazi this and fascist that. So, being the nice guy I am I responded "yeah, a country that enforces it's laws, crazy concept." Along with another note taking a shot at such liberal use of a term like "fascist" by people who apparently had little to no knowledge on what it actually means. This morning I saw that my GF's cousin, well didn't appreciate it too much and asked me to refrain from posting my political views on "her wall." To be more exact it was keep my views on my wall and she will do the same. First signs of leftist tolerance i see. I also saw one of her friends gave the always delightful response to the tune of "if you don't agree with our group think, that STFU." No differing views allowed here. Another sign of that leftist tolerant attitude we hear so much about.
In the end of course I will respect her wishes as I would expect her to respect mine and I only baited the STFU guy a little, it's the most fun i can have right now. Really, this got me thinking though, what is the big deal about this? Is there perhaps something in this law that I have overlooked that would and should cause such protestations? There could be and so in the hopes of becoming better informed I looked it up and shockingly, it was exactly what I heard it could be. Basically it says that a cop my have "reasonable suspicion" that the person he is speaking with is an illegal immigrant. After having that the officer may than request that the suspect provide documentation proving he is a legal resident or immigrant in our nation. That is it folks.
Now if your looking for the outrageous part in all this, it is in the term "reasonable." That's right, reasonable is an unreasonable term that will inevitably allow those mean police officers to target Hispanic immigrants in this country. President Zero even expressed some concern about this by notice that this law would allow an immigrant to be here for generations and suddenly be stopped by those men no doubt wearing jackboots and have to answer their unreasonable inquiries. Oh the horror.
In the end folks, the law does little but assist the federal government in their enforcement of immigration laws. Other than that the State of Arizona will remain as serene as it always has been.
-Zach
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Heros and the way we honor and remember them
Recently I received an e-mail from one of my friends. The e-mail was one of those chain e-mails that usually have some sort of story that is designed to be compelling and to cause the e-mail reader to forward it to many contacts. Normally I am always suspicious of these e-mails simply because whatever message they are selling is usually false, but sounds plausible enough to the casual reader that they will simply forward it without thinking.
The e-mail in question concerned the supposed recent passing of Capt. Ed Freeman (USAF retired) who was awarded the medal of honor for his actions in Vietnam. The e-mail gave a vivid description of the battlefield, of certain death for many young American men, and how many of them lived to come home because of Capt. Freeman medevacing over 70 wounded men, ignoring heavy machine gunfire while flying an unarmed helo. He would even keep flying after sustaining 4 bullet wounds to the leg and arms. Truly his actions were those that embody what we as a country expect in a MOH awardee and selfless acts of heroism like his are what inspire so many who have served this nation before. At the end of this e-mail it takes a few pot shots at the American media complaining about coverage given to Tiger Woods and Michael Jackson while this man died and received so little coverage. That alone should have and to some degree did set off a red flag about this e-mail to me, but being a bit lazy and thinking of the man's heroism I decided to forward it than check the validity.
Of course as soon as I typed in Capt. Freeman's name I found out that he did not pass away recently, but actually passed in August of 2008. I also found that one of the first links to come up was to snopes.com, a website that specializes in debunking these kinds of e-mails. Sure enough I found that while Freeman was a real man and his actions were not embellished in his e-mail, the rest had been circulating for some time with the original version coming out some six months after the man had passed. Frankly reading the snopes report on this e-mail had an effect of really pissing me off. This man was a hero and his actions were of such courage that I can not imagine what it was that kept him flying into that hell, but six months after he died some douchebag who apparently wanted to run his fucking pathetic mealy mouth about the American media used this hero's death for a very selfish purpose. The sad thing is the originator of such an e-mail probably considers himself patriotic and a "real American." At the end of the chain e-mail it stated "shame on you American media for not covering this man's death." Frankly I'm more inclined to want to find the originator of this e-mail so that i can knock his ass out for doing this. Not that I'm a fan of the American media, but like any seller of a product they are catering to what the public wants. If they are reporting on Jackson or Woods it's because Americans are dumb and pathetic enough to value that more. So in the end it should be shame on the American public for not having their priorities straight.
Back to the original point though. folks, this is not the way to honor those who have served, and this sure as shit is no way to honor a man like Capt. Freeman. Too many men have sacrificed their youth, their lives, their sanity, and their health so that we can as a nation continue to live our lives the way our founders intended. Almost everyone of them has served selflessly and given this sacrifice for their own reasons. For them the most that they would want is for their actions to be remembered and for it to serve to inspire those who serve today. To remember such a sacrifice and remember the valor that lives in the heart of those that serve is the best way to honor these men. It serves no purpose and no honor to these men to cheapen their work by using it for something as trivial as politics and the national media.
The only good thing about this e-mail is that the vast majority who have been exposed to it and forwarded it likely did so for the same reasons I did, they were amazed by the Captains actions and forwarded it without waiting to think about it. Their focus was in the right place and that was on furthering the story of the man's actions and in that sense the e-mail was a good thing. In the future though, lets honor these men and leave the politics out of it.
-Zach
The e-mail in question concerned the supposed recent passing of Capt. Ed Freeman (USAF retired) who was awarded the medal of honor for his actions in Vietnam. The e-mail gave a vivid description of the battlefield, of certain death for many young American men, and how many of them lived to come home because of Capt. Freeman medevacing over 70 wounded men, ignoring heavy machine gunfire while flying an unarmed helo. He would even keep flying after sustaining 4 bullet wounds to the leg and arms. Truly his actions were those that embody what we as a country expect in a MOH awardee and selfless acts of heroism like his are what inspire so many who have served this nation before. At the end of this e-mail it takes a few pot shots at the American media complaining about coverage given to Tiger Woods and Michael Jackson while this man died and received so little coverage. That alone should have and to some degree did set off a red flag about this e-mail to me, but being a bit lazy and thinking of the man's heroism I decided to forward it than check the validity.
Of course as soon as I typed in Capt. Freeman's name I found out that he did not pass away recently, but actually passed in August of 2008. I also found that one of the first links to come up was to snopes.com, a website that specializes in debunking these kinds of e-mails. Sure enough I found that while Freeman was a real man and his actions were not embellished in his e-mail, the rest had been circulating for some time with the original version coming out some six months after the man had passed. Frankly reading the snopes report on this e-mail had an effect of really pissing me off. This man was a hero and his actions were of such courage that I can not imagine what it was that kept him flying into that hell, but six months after he died some douchebag who apparently wanted to run his fucking pathetic mealy mouth about the American media used this hero's death for a very selfish purpose. The sad thing is the originator of such an e-mail probably considers himself patriotic and a "real American." At the end of the chain e-mail it stated "shame on you American media for not covering this man's death." Frankly I'm more inclined to want to find the originator of this e-mail so that i can knock his ass out for doing this. Not that I'm a fan of the American media, but like any seller of a product they are catering to what the public wants. If they are reporting on Jackson or Woods it's because Americans are dumb and pathetic enough to value that more. So in the end it should be shame on the American public for not having their priorities straight.
Back to the original point though. folks, this is not the way to honor those who have served, and this sure as shit is no way to honor a man like Capt. Freeman. Too many men have sacrificed their youth, their lives, their sanity, and their health so that we can as a nation continue to live our lives the way our founders intended. Almost everyone of them has served selflessly and given this sacrifice for their own reasons. For them the most that they would want is for their actions to be remembered and for it to serve to inspire those who serve today. To remember such a sacrifice and remember the valor that lives in the heart of those that serve is the best way to honor these men. It serves no purpose and no honor to these men to cheapen their work by using it for something as trivial as politics and the national media.
The only good thing about this e-mail is that the vast majority who have been exposed to it and forwarded it likely did so for the same reasons I did, they were amazed by the Captains actions and forwarded it without waiting to think about it. Their focus was in the right place and that was on furthering the story of the man's actions and in that sense the e-mail was a good thing. In the future though, lets honor these men and leave the politics out of it.
-Zach
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)