I read an article in the Austin American Statesman this Sunday on Monica Velez, a 30 y.o. from Lubbock who recently moved to Austin and planned to run at the Washington D. C. Marathon in honor of her two brothers, both who died in the Middle East http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/10/25/1025sister.html . One brother died in Iraq. The other committed suicide while serving in Afghanistan, distraught over his brother’s death. It’s a sad story that got me thinking about how inept Washington politicians are when it comes to U.S. ideology regarding foreign policy matters. Before I get started, let me get this out of the way: I served 10 years in the military and I served during Desert Storm. That doesn’t make me an expert on all military matters, but it doesn’t make me a communist either, because I’m about to say something that some military people will find offensive:
We need to quit being the World’s policemen.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the budget for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq this year is listed at $864 billion http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf , yes, that‘s billion with a “B” and for what, to continue the never ending “War on terrorism”? Somewhere around the turn of the 20 century, the U.S. government decided it needed to stick its Democratic nose in other people’s business which is fine, until Americans pay for it with their lives because that’s when I have a problem with it. The following are the only real good reasons to declare war or take military action:
1. Another country invades our country or territories (WWII,)
2. One country invades another country with no legitimate provocation (WWI, Kuwait 1991)
3. Anytime a communist country invades another country or sets up a puppet regime, which is akin to invading another country (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan 1980)
4. Anytime another country insults your mother (just kidding)
That’s it. There are no there are no other reasons to risk the lives of your sons, daughters, wives or husbands who are bravely serving in our military. I believe in a strong military that should be available and ready for legitimate needs, not for politicians who think they are ever going to find Osama Bin Liden. Forget about him. That guy has entered into the mythical category of legends like the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot. I’m sure one day we’ll see a grainy You Tube video of him walking through the California Redwood Forest or something like that.
Think of the billions of dollars we could be using elsewhere. Socialist President Obama could use some of those dollars to prop up his bogus health care reform program. I’d even rather see some of that money allocated to help fund social service programs, rather than fund a military action that is never going to end. In the history of the Middle East, please show me a time where the U.S. has come in or successfully propped up a democratic government? Not Iran pre-1978. Not Afghanistan 2001. In the meantime, I’ll continue to pray for the Marines and soldiers over there and also that our Washington leaders find their common sense soon.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Blog 4 Assignment
I reviewed a blog from a Mathew Yglesias who has a blog site named http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/. I read a blog he posted 10/13/09 at 2:31pm titled “Does Security do any good?” I skimmed through several of the author’s other blogs on this site and I could not get a fix on who is intended audience is. According to this course syllabus, his blog is listed as a liberal weblog, however, one of his articles clearly gives favorable marks to the Republican party on how it runs internal discipline amongst its congressional members (see blog: Republicans run their party the right way). Is the author credible? After clicking on the authors’ bio, the answer is clear: No. He has a degree in Philosophy and wrote one book, which means more than likely he’s a barista working at Starbucks who has nothing but spare time on his hands to work on his blog. My opinion is that he doesn’t like the hassle of going through security checkpoints. Too bad he failed to back up his argument up with any reasonable points.
According to Yglesias, American security agencies like TSA are worthless. He compares a recent trip to Europe and observed that not only is airport security more relaxed in Danish countries, they don’t make you take off your shoes when passing through the x-ray machine. His logic for the lack of any recent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil: Since many people in this country have access to some type of weapon capable of inflicting mass casualties to “soft’ targets at places where large numbers of people gather, there’s nothing really stopping someone from doing it regardless of any security that is present. So why have it in the first place since its costing the country billions of dollars yearly? Great point. While we’re at it, Why not disband all of the country’s police and fire departments because as we all know, any person could commit a crime or light a fire at any time and probably wouldn’t get caught. Oh I forgot, doing something like that would tear society’s fabric apart and have it spinning towards anarchy. Silly me.
Seriously, airport security programs are complex and complicated organizations that serve a vital purpose. They contain intricate intelligence gathering units and more than likely are not run by philosophy majors. Had the current airport security and intelligence systems been in place on 9/10/01, the twin towers would still be standing. While most people could cause a major terrorist event anywhere in the U.S. at any time and they don’t, it’s because the majority of society is not sociopathic, mentally ill, or into religious zealotry. Those are the folks the TSA people are looking for, not me or you. So Matthew, on your next blog, please attempt to use critical thinking instead of Platonic realism. Oh and next time, not so much mocha in my Venti triple-skinny-mocha-latte. It affects my writing by making my biting criticism seem sarcastic.
According to Yglesias, American security agencies like TSA are worthless. He compares a recent trip to Europe and observed that not only is airport security more relaxed in Danish countries, they don’t make you take off your shoes when passing through the x-ray machine. His logic for the lack of any recent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil: Since many people in this country have access to some type of weapon capable of inflicting mass casualties to “soft’ targets at places where large numbers of people gather, there’s nothing really stopping someone from doing it regardless of any security that is present. So why have it in the first place since its costing the country billions of dollars yearly? Great point. While we’re at it, Why not disband all of the country’s police and fire departments because as we all know, any person could commit a crime or light a fire at any time and probably wouldn’t get caught. Oh I forgot, doing something like that would tear society’s fabric apart and have it spinning towards anarchy. Silly me.
Seriously, airport security programs are complex and complicated organizations that serve a vital purpose. They contain intricate intelligence gathering units and more than likely are not run by philosophy majors. Had the current airport security and intelligence systems been in place on 9/10/01, the twin towers would still be standing. While most people could cause a major terrorist event anywhere in the U.S. at any time and they don’t, it’s because the majority of society is not sociopathic, mentally ill, or into religious zealotry. Those are the folks the TSA people are looking for, not me or you. So Matthew, on your next blog, please attempt to use critical thinking instead of Platonic realism. Oh and next time, not so much mocha in my Venti triple-skinny-mocha-latte. It affects my writing by making my biting criticism seem sarcastic.
Monday, September 28, 2009
I reviewed an article featured in the Wall Street Journal by Eliot A. Cohen. I read the article in the Dallas morning News http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/. The article is about the recent discovery of a hidden nuclear processing facility in Iran. The author is a counselor for the U.S. State Department and has immense credibility because the topic that he wrote about is an area directly related to his work at the State Department. This type of editorial carries a lot more weight than from a weekly columnist from employed by the paper itself.
Cohen’s audience is a substantial portion of this country. It includes the men and women currently enlisted in the armed forces, the family members of those serving, taxpayers, and basically anyone who owns a car, motorcycle or uses public transportation. There. I just covered every person currently residing in this country and includes those crossing into our borders as I write. For those of you who have never considered this, the United States is not very concerned about real democracy in the Middle East and never has been. However, because the Good Lord likes to make things interesting, he decided to place the bulk of the world’s oil supply underneath the most barbaric, uncivilized countries that have been at war with each other ever since they have been able to pick up stones and rocks and throw them at each other. Oil is very important to this country because we are dependent on it for just about everything.
Cohen’s declaration is this: Force economic sanctions or military force against Iran. Cohen actually breaks down both options. He declares that economic sanctions won’t work because that requires buy-in from all countries and rightly suggests that the evil empires of Russia and China will provide much lip service to NATO, but will do something else like maybe sell even more uranium to the Iranians.
Military strikes against Iran would also be problematic. If the U.S. allows the Israelis to go into Iran for an airstrike, the rest of the Middle East would explode because Israel has so many enemies nearby who are waiting for any reason to invade them. This would be a great reason for any country who has a grudge with Israel, which is basically every non-Christian country in the region. If the U.S. did its own military strike, there would be backlash from other oil producing countries against the U.S. and then we all get to watch the price of gas shoot up, forcing me to use Light Rail, er……. the Cap Metro Shuttle.
Cohen’s solution is awesome, if not discreet. He suggests the U.S. break from past policy and “Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard.” I believe he is suggesting this government use the C.I.A. or U.S. Special Forces to go in and snuff out Iranian president Ahmadeninejad and do it old school like they used to in the 70’s. If so, I would be like the Russians, shaking my fist in outrage in public but privately saying “good riddance”.
Cohen’s audience is a substantial portion of this country. It includes the men and women currently enlisted in the armed forces, the family members of those serving, taxpayers, and basically anyone who owns a car, motorcycle or uses public transportation. There. I just covered every person currently residing in this country and includes those crossing into our borders as I write. For those of you who have never considered this, the United States is not very concerned about real democracy in the Middle East and never has been. However, because the Good Lord likes to make things interesting, he decided to place the bulk of the world’s oil supply underneath the most barbaric, uncivilized countries that have been at war with each other ever since they have been able to pick up stones and rocks and throw them at each other. Oil is very important to this country because we are dependent on it for just about everything.
Cohen’s declaration is this: Force economic sanctions or military force against Iran. Cohen actually breaks down both options. He declares that economic sanctions won’t work because that requires buy-in from all countries and rightly suggests that the evil empires of Russia and China will provide much lip service to NATO, but will do something else like maybe sell even more uranium to the Iranians.
Military strikes against Iran would also be problematic. If the U.S. allows the Israelis to go into Iran for an airstrike, the rest of the Middle East would explode because Israel has so many enemies nearby who are waiting for any reason to invade them. This would be a great reason for any country who has a grudge with Israel, which is basically every non-Christian country in the region. If the U.S. did its own military strike, there would be backlash from other oil producing countries against the U.S. and then we all get to watch the price of gas shoot up, forcing me to use Light Rail, er……. the Cap Metro Shuttle.
Cohen’s solution is awesome, if not discreet. He suggests the U.S. break from past policy and “Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard.” I believe he is suggesting this government use the C.I.A. or U.S. Special Forces to go in and snuff out Iranian president Ahmadeninejad and do it old school like they used to in the 70’s. If so, I would be like the Russians, shaking my fist in outrage in public but privately saying “good riddance”.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Let's all laugh at the Statesman!
I decided to pick an editorial article from our local paper, the Austin American Statesman. I love to rip on the American Statesman. They’re an easy target mainly because they are such a left leaning liberal paper and they make a perfect compliment to the Peoples Republic of Austin, errrr…City of Austin. While it is somewhat sad that Austin is known as the “San Francisco of Texas”, it is clear that the Statesman fits Austin like a glove. I’ve lived in the Austin area for fifteen years and not much has changed when it comes to the Statesman’s approach to attract readers: write something negative about the Austin Police Department. I’m sure a weekly editors meeting goes something like this:
Editor: OK gang, sales are down AGAIN this week. What stories do we have lined up to get more paying readers?
Reporter: The Lake levels continue to decline
Editor: We’ve run that story to the ground. No good. What else?
Reporter: It’s very hot in Central Texas.
Editor: Thanks. No good. What else?
Reporter: I’ve got a negative story about the Longhorns…
Editor (with hands over ears): LALALALLALALALALALAL…can’t hear you!!!!
Tony Plohetski: Chief, I’ve got a story on how APD’s internal Affairs detectives are feuding with their bosses over the Quintana investigation, except that I’m short on evidence, facts, and my article is mostly opinion based….
Editor: PUT THAT PAGE 1!!!!! TODAY!!!
Plohtetski: But boss, it’s not really…
Editor: I don’t care!!! Print it!! Tony, as usual, you are gold!!
Seriously, the Editorial asks the question: If police complaints are made public, why shouldn’t the results be made public in cases where the Officer was cleared of any wrongdoing? The article goes on to whine about how the public should have access to information about all internal affairs investigations, regardless whether the officer was found guilty of any wrong doing. Although editorials are opinions, it’s a shame the writer doesn’t draw on facts to form his opinion.
The writer rails about how things should be, but doesn’t provide the reader with a plan on how to change the current laws that protect certain aspects of internal police investigations. So the reader is left with yet another griping article written by a bleeding heart liberal. Here’s the link: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/2009/09/09/0909internal_edit.html.
This editorial is worth reading because it’s an excellent example of biased and opinionated reporting whose thinly based premise is not supported by any facts.
Editor: OK gang, sales are down AGAIN this week. What stories do we have lined up to get more paying readers?
Reporter: The Lake levels continue to decline
Editor: We’ve run that story to the ground. No good. What else?
Reporter: It’s very hot in Central Texas.
Editor: Thanks. No good. What else?
Reporter: I’ve got a negative story about the Longhorns…
Editor (with hands over ears): LALALALLALALALALALAL…can’t hear you!!!!
Tony Plohetski: Chief, I’ve got a story on how APD’s internal Affairs detectives are feuding with their bosses over the Quintana investigation, except that I’m short on evidence, facts, and my article is mostly opinion based….
Editor: PUT THAT PAGE 1!!!!! TODAY!!!
Plohtetski: But boss, it’s not really…
Editor: I don’t care!!! Print it!! Tony, as usual, you are gold!!
Seriously, the Editorial asks the question: If police complaints are made public, why shouldn’t the results be made public in cases where the Officer was cleared of any wrongdoing? The article goes on to whine about how the public should have access to information about all internal affairs investigations, regardless whether the officer was found guilty of any wrong doing. Although editorials are opinions, it’s a shame the writer doesn’t draw on facts to form his opinion.
The writer rails about how things should be, but doesn’t provide the reader with a plan on how to change the current laws that protect certain aspects of internal police investigations. So the reader is left with yet another griping article written by a bleeding heart liberal. Here’s the link: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/2009/09/09/0909internal_edit.html.
This editorial is worth reading because it’s an excellent example of biased and opinionated reporting whose thinly based premise is not supported by any facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
