The Long Road

Palin on earmarks

2008-09-14T16:22:00.003-05:00

Sarah Palin apparently is not in agreement with John McCain when it comes to earmarks. She demonstated this during the Charlie Gibson interview.

Watch the clip here.

According to Palin, as long as the public know about the earmarks it doesn't equal wasteful government spending.

McCain's Web site states:

John McCain will veto every pork-laden spending bill and make their authors famous. As President, he will seek the line-item veto to reduce waste and eliminate earmarks that have led to corruption. Earmarks restrict America's ability to address genuine national priorities and interfere with fair, competitive markets.

Sarah Palin:For country or for state?

2008-09-13T12:47:00.005-05:00

As we start to learn more about Alaskan governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, I find myself asking "Who is she in this for?" "Which does she care more about? Alaska or the US?"

The more I read and hear, the more it appears Palin accepted the veep nomination to help further Alaska.

She would favor a war with Russia. Smart move. That would eliminate Alaska's biggest foreign threat.

Soon after it was announced Plain was John McCain's choice for veep a video surfaced of Palin stating "What exactly is it the vp does everyday?" You can watch the clip of that interview on CNBC here.

While that remark shocked me, what really caught my interest was what followed that comment.

"We want to make sure that vp slot is a fruitful type position, especially for Alaskans and for the things we are trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the US",Palin said.

Her energy policy even favors Alaska.

"There have been a lot of misperceptions and misconceptions about what ANWR is all about,"she explained. "You see pictures, visual, from the naysayers, the critics, of the idea of opening ANWR and the pictures they are showing are of mountains, polar bears. Lost of different wildlife. They'll show moose in the streams and mountains in the background. That is not ANWR."

Here's a video of Palin talking about energy.

According to ANWR.org,

"Each-year thousands of waterfowl and other birds nest and reproduce the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk fields and a healthy and increasing caribou herd migrates through these areas to calve and seek respite from annoying pests. Oil field facilities have been located and designed to accommodate wildlife and utilize the least amount of tundra surface."

Keep in mind, ANWR.org appears to support drilling in the wildlife reserve to liberate "billions of barrels and trillions of cubic feet of recoverable gas."

Again I have to ask myself if Palin cares more about Alaska than the United States.

In the video where she talks about energy she states "drill, drill, drill" and talks a lot about cutting foreign dependence on oil by using domestic oil instead.

She does mention renewable sources of energy but never lays out a plan to cut the US dependence on oil.

Again, I would only assume drilling in Alaska would bring money to the large state up north.

She seems to love Alaska a little too much.

McCain: The Agent of Change

2008-09-07T06:52:00.011-05:00

During his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention presidential hopeful John McCain said he was going to bring change to Washington.

His remarks were eerily similar to another senator running for president.

Sen. barack Obama, at a recent rally in Indiana, challegned those remarks McCain made about being an agent of change.

Interestingly enough, McCain started out as a politician to change Washington. However, once he lost the primary to George W. Bush in 2000 McCain changed and not for the better.

McCain reversed his position on every major issue. He went from a more moderate/liberal view of an issue to a far right conservative stance on an issue.

Here are two examples.

In 2000 McCain said if Roe v. Wade was repealed thousands of women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations.

2008 comes along and he states "I do not support Roe v. Wade."

McCain made an appearance on Meet the Press in 2004 and said "I would clearly support not extending (the Bush) tax cuts."

Fast forward to a 2008 McCain radio address. "I would make the Bush tax cuts permanent."

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart illustrates this point perfectly.

While many people criticized this metamorphosis it was actually a smart play.

McCain took the values he was unable to win with during the 2000 primary, change them to the ones he could win with, add eight years of George W. Bush and presto! McCain wins the republican nomination.

Enter Sarah Palin.

Palin, who encompasses the far right, could allow 2008 McCain to drift back to 2000 McCain all the while keeping his campaign on the conservative track.

She would allow McCain to return to his former "maverick" status. The maverick who wants to work with democrats, the guy who thinks the Bush tax cuts are bad. A return to a more moderate John McCain.

He's already starting to move that way.

Today on "Face the Nation," McCain said, if elected, he would appoint democrats to his cabinet.

McCain might already be changing his view on a lot of issues.

Also, check this out.

After a week of gaing ground on the McCain campagin, Obama's lead has shruken to two points in the most recent poll.

What Palin's speech needs to convey.

2008-09-03T19:33:00.006-05:00

According to the CNN countdown clock we are less than an hour away from Gov. Sarah Palin's veep speech.

Ever since Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain selected the Alaskan governor as his running mate , there have been criticisms from both sides. Most of that criticism has come because of her lack of economic and foreign policy experience. But that's what advisers are for right?

Thus far, the Palin selection has amped up a lot of Republicans who have been upset with McCain coming out as the front runner on the Republican side.

So what does Palin have to do tonight?

She has been criticized for not having enough experience in the realm of politics to be a "heartbeat" away from the presidency.

Her political career started in 1996 when she was elected to Wasilla city council and then became mayor of the town in 1996. Palin became governor in 2006.

It is pretty evident that she does not have a lot of foreign policy experience. Then again not many governors do.

Our past two presidents have been governors. Our next president will be a senator. I digress.

Palin needs to prove to the American people that she has what it takes to be second in command. And possibly the "big cheese"

Palin is a self-proclaimed "hockey mom" and that should work to her advantage.

Looking at excerpts from her speech, Palin sees not having an illustrious political career as a positive.

"I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone."

And.....

"Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

Defending her experience is first and foremost.

Next, I would expect her to tout her strong conservative viewpoints on social issues. Second amendment, abortion, etc. This will be huge with social value voters.

I'm anxious to see if she mentions gay marriage.

Of course Palin will touch on energy and oil independence.

Interesting enough, Palin supports drilling in ANWAR. McCain does not.

Ill try to post a wrap up once the speech is over.

Outsourcing the media?

2008-04-28T21:22:00.002-05:00

A few weeks ago the NYT reported that CBS and CNN were discussing the possibility to "share resources."
There are a couple reasons off the top of my head why this could be a bad thing.
Essentially CNN and CBS would be sharing stories, reporters and anything else. This would just be like using a wire service and I believe it would severely diminish the news industry.
Don't misinterpret my statement, I do not hate wire service. I believe the AP is great and really help the news industries. But relying on a wire service will diminish the end product. Granted many of the MSM (mainstream media) carry the same stories, but each is covered slightly different.
If CNN and CBS somewhat merge we the people would lose a different perspective. Even though the media is supposed to be unbiased, bias does show through one way or another. Some more apparent than others FoxNews
A slew of media outlets can cover one event and each one will be will put out a different story with a different angle.
Wire services are used several ways. The Reuters or AP service stories made be run in their entirety because the a media outlet may not have been able to get a reporter to the story. Or the wire service may be used as a starting point but the media outlet weens itself off the wire service story and develops its own.
But if every news outlet runs the same exact story, what does the public gain?
Then again maybe this is the way the news industry is going. Maybe there only needs to be one large, super television news station.
Look at the newspaper industry.
Newspapers in general are suffering. However, the larger papers are suffering more in my opinion. The larger papers are covering the same stories the television news stations are covering. But the newspapers are losing because of the timeliness and the publics laziness to pick up a paper and read it.
Now, look at smaller newspapers. The Lebanon Daily's, the Press And Journal's and the Patriot News's.
Each paper has a smaller audience and a narrower focus. The LDN and PN are daily newspapers therefore have the opportunity to compete with TV news.
The P&J which is a weekly does not have less of an opportunity to compete with television news so the staff has to work harder to scoop TV and other daily papers.
However, lets look at what makes the three papers (which cover the same regions) are successful.
The LDN covers all of Lebanon County and is liked by its readers because of the "gossip" factor.
The PN is a larger circulation and covers most of Central Pennsylvania.
The P&J covers the Middletown area.
Now, one would assume the PN would be able to crush the LDN and P&J because it has more money and a larger staff ergo better stories.
However, the LDN and P&J with their narrow focus are able to successfully compete with the PN.

What's the deal with genocide?

2008-04-28T21:21:00.002-05:00

Ignoring the fact the I titled my first blog Jerry Seinfeld-esque this is a very serious topic, genocide that is. Also, ignore the fact that I started this post last year and am only finishing/posting it now.
Last year I read "A Problem from Hell": American and the Age of Genocide by Samantha Powers. As I write this blog I am only about halfway through the book, but nonetheless I have already been able to see patterns develop with U.S. foreign policy, mainly when it comes to dealing with genocide. Put simply, the U.S. likes to not use the word genocide. One reason being that if the U.S. did deem something a genocide then it would have to get involved in some way, shape, or form to stop it.
From what I gathered from my reading is that the U.S. does not like to get involved 1) the thought of sending troops to stop a genocide does not bode well for public opinion and 2) usually if the U.S. would have decided to step in during a genocide it would somehow end up hurting itself. Examples of this can be seen during the Cold War period.
One specific example is the Kurdish genocide in Iraq. This genocide was enforced by Ali Hassan al-Majid, Saddam Hussein's cousin and secretary-general of the Northern Bureau. The reason for the genocide against the Kurds was because of a ongoing war with Iran. The certain Kurds were allied with Iran and were considered "rebels" in Iraq, therefore, Iraq justified removing the Kurdish "rebels" saying that they were trying to bring down the government. The problem was that the "rebels" that the Iraqis were removing were not only men but women and children and then systematically destroying villages. The whole Kurdish genocide is much more complicated than that.
The reason the U.S. did not want to get involved was because the U.S. did not like Iran, therefore, the U.S. supported the Iraqi government. The U.S. feared that if they spoke up that they would lose an ally in the war with Iran.
Now fast forward 20 years and we are faced with another genocide. This time it is happening in the Darfur region of Sudan. So far 400,000 have been killed and more than 2 million people have been displaced. Repeatedly the U.S. and the world community has said "never again" would a genocide occur. In reality, countries continue to turn a blind eye to these types of atrocities. This time the U.S. is afraid to act because the Sudanese government gives the U.S. "valuable" intelligence in the war on terror. If the U.S. were to stand up to the Sudanese government they may lose that support for the war on terror, therefore, the janjaweed militias and government forces are able to continue killing Darfuris.

Go 2008 Beijing Olympics

2008-04-07T19:05:00.008-05:00

Today the Olympic torch made it to France.
The relay was run in a traditional fashion -- the runner, a torch, roller blading police officers and eventually the torch had to be taken to the next leg via bus.
Why?
Because of protesters and demonstrators, OH MY!! As seen here in the New York Times article.
And don't forget the photos.
They were protesting China's persistent suppression of Tibet -- especially after the most recent outbreak of violence which only occured last month.
While the most recent protests to the 2008 Olympics have focused on the Chinese government violently putting down the Tibetan protests, let's not forget people have been protesting because of China's ah-mazing human rights record.
Thousands (possibly millions) of people have called for China to stop supporting the Sudanese government's genocide in Darfur. China investment in the Sudanese oil fields.
A rally was held in October 2007 in Philadelphia where former Olympian Joey Cheek spoke out against the genocide in Darfur and China's involvement. The photos from that event are here.
Steven Spielberg was the creative consultant for the opening ceremonies until Mia Farrow called for his resignation on Nov. 8 2007. He resigned in February 2008.
A Save Darfur facebook group has already called on its members to protest the relay when it makes the only stop in the United States on April 9 in San Francisco.
Pres. Bush even said "not on our watch" would another genocide occur. Unfortunatly, not much is being done on the federal level. However, on the state level. governments are slowly but surly divesting from Sudan.
According to the NYT, Pres. Bush plans on attending the opening ceremonies.
So, much for not on our watch. Then again I guess it's only appropriate for the POTUS to pay respect to the country that lends us billions of dollars.

The day I joined the media circus

2008-03-31T19:36:00.003-05:00

Today I realized I joined the media circus.
Last night I went to the Forum in Harrisburg to cover Sen. Barack Obama's Town Hall Meeting. Nothing out of the ordinary, media wise. Lots of print and tv media on hand. Some faces I am starting to recognized like Brett Leiberman from the Patriot News and John Micek from the Morning Call.
Even though my first secret service was interesting (VP Dick Cheney coming the Harrisburg Hilton) I have become quite accustomed with the searches and bomb sniffing dogs even though today's event with HRC was only my third event. I don't care what anyone says, the secret service is alright.
While the forum was quite nice until the traveling press came in. Then things got cramped in the media section.
However, they were not as cramped as they were today at the Capitol Diner in Swatara Twp. Picture 25 plus media crammed into the back of a diner with cameras, computers, tape recorders and note pads trying to record everything being said.
It was tight. And of course myself being the "new guy" and not exactly sure what I shoudl be doing end up in the back behind all the TV cameras. Of course this doesn't make for a good photo of HRC.
But what's that? HRC is going to meet with the protesting truckers before coming in the diner? Huzzah! A chance for a good photo of HRC? Sure.
So, while everyone is awaiting for HRC to make her entrance the media and truckers are formed into two lines.
All of a sudden she here's and is enveloped by media.
I was lucky to get that photo.
Who knew HRC was soft spoken. Not I. It was really hard to hear her answer questions from the truckers. I must give credit to Brett Lieberman....he squeezed through a bunch of tv cameras and was able to shove his tape recorder into the mess. Go Brett.

The First Zombie Story??

2008-03-23T10:34:00.004-05:00

Instead of my usual critiques and rants (when I actually write on this blog) I decided to take a less serious topic today in honor of Easter -- the holiday that unites holy figures and bunny rabbits.
Quite possibly one of the most iconic horror film character is the zombie. The being that was once dead only to rise from the grave to wreak havoc on a quiet rural small town and to feast upon the brains of the living. There is the occasional movie where zombies run a muck in a city.
The only way to dispatch of a zombie is a shotgun blast to the their head -- of course any blunt force trauma to the zombie's head will also get the job done.
Most people are familiar with the classics such as the Night of the Living Dead (1968) and Dawn of the Dead (1978) and again in 2004.
However, most people forget about probably the most famous zombie in history. In fact many people do not even refer to this person as a zombie, but rather as a "savior."
The story is set in Jerusalem during the spring of 33 A.D. A man by the name of Jesus was crucified for being a heretic. Three days later he rose from the dead and escaped from his tomb.
According to documents, a large rock was placed in front of the tomb to keep anyone from stealing Jesus. But the rock was moved. Many people may see this as a miraculous feat. However, if Hollywood has taught me anything it is that zombies have superhuman strength. Which is kinda odd because zombies usually are in the process of decomposing and you wouldn't think they would be very strong, but who am I to disagree with movies.
Another odd part of the story is the solider that guarded the tomb. There is no record of what happened to this solider. One could only assume this guard was killed by Jesus and thus transformed into a zombie. Again we do not know if this guard zombie went on a rampage.
I digress though.
Jesus makes a trip to visit his former followers and when he does that the disciples gain superpowers and speak in different tongues. This is very odd. It is my belief that what the documents meant was... "The former followers of Jesus were unleashed upon Jerusalem wreaking havoc until the Peoples Front of Judah fought valiantly against the zombies."

FIN

God Bless the United States

2008-01-23T21:04:00.000-05:00

I have been following this story.
What surprises me is that United States is saying very little or telling Israel to find another "punishment."
Israel has laid siege to Palestine. People were starving and forced to blow holes in the fence separating Egypt from the Gaza strip so they could get food. And why were the people of Palestine being punished by Israel? Hamas fired rockets into Israel.
The sad thing is that the U.S. is appears to be endorsing this act.

Image from the New York Times

Larry King you S.O.B.

2008-01-22T21:16:00.000-05:00

Alright, unless you have been living under a rock for the past couple of hours Heath Ledger is dead.
I'll be the first to admit that Mr. Ledger's untimely death shocked me. I think my jaw even dropped when I saw the headline on CNN.com. However, does this really need to command an hour of continuous news coverage?
Once again Larry King has changed his program to cover a celebrity death in a matter of hours. It first happened last year when Anna Nicole Smith died. Now Mr. King is dedicating his show to the coverage of Mr. Ledger's passing.
I am sorry but this is ridiculous.
If you want to cover "entertainment news" then join the E! network, Entertainment Tonight, or some other show. Please get off CNN which is supposed to be a respectable "news" organization. And don't get me wrong because CNN is my news network of choice...probably because I have a man-crush on Anderson Cooper.
Every day the media is assaulted and then Larry King Live does this.
I seriously want to shoot myself in the face listening to these "hard-hitting questions" that are being asked about the factors surrounding the death of Mr. Ledger.
Something is wrong when I would rather watch Fox News than CNN.
Remember: "The smarter the journalists are, the better off society is. [For] to a degree, people read the press to inform themselves - the better the teacher, the better the student body." -- Warren Buffet

Newspapers

2008-01-20T21:12:00.000-05:00

"The liberty of the press is essential to the security of the state" --John Adams

I've only been in the newspaper business for a little over a year and a full-time reporter for only five months and I am already asking "why am I doing this?"
It is just amazing when I hear feedback from the public from an article I wrote. They claim I "misquoted them" after I tape record almost every interview/meeting I attend.
I have sat at a council meeting and listened to a citizen say they read something in the Press And Journal [something I had written] and when they make their claim they miss entire point of the article.
Maybe my writing is too complicated and I am not writing at an elementary school level.
The Middletown borough manager wrote a letter to my editor stating that my article about his suggestion of licensing landlords was completely wrong [the letter was published in the P&J]. Even though that same borough manager said I wrote a good article but he was unhappy with the headline, which I do not write.
Naturally my editor was pissed off wondering how I could make such a mistake until she went back read my article, then re-read the borough manager's letter. Her conclusion -- I did nothing wrong because everything the manager's letter "corrected" was already in my article.
I just do not understand people. We are continuously ripped apart on local forums and the P&J's "Sound Off" feature.
Our staff [which consists of three people and a handful of freelancers] bust our asses week after week to put out a quality publication. [some would dispute that]
I truly think there is a love hate relationship between people and their newspapers. They hate the newspaper when they don't see something they like, but if the newspaper did not exist people would not know what to do.
I guess all I can do is just keep on doing my job.

A shocking expirence

2007-12-27T20:37:00.000-05:00

The past several weeks our editorial department has been working on a package of stories to gain a better understanding of the Taser, people’s thoughts on it, and whether or not the weapon is being abused.

Last Thursday, with the help of Middletown Police Chief Keith Reismiller and Officer Scott Yoder, I gave everyone in the Press And Journal office an early Christmas present: I allowed myself to be Tasered on camera.

My first experience with a Taser was definitely a shocking one.

Not only did I get to do cool things such as sit through training videos watching other people get Tased, but I even was allowed to fire a Taser at a training target. And just like every police officer that goes through the training, I too was Tased.
I was subjected to 50,000 volts surging through my muscles for five seconds – the five longest seconds in my life – and if it was not for the two South Central EMTs holding my arms firmly, I would have been on the floor.

When the probes penetrated my skin, every muscle in my body tightened up instantly. I could barely move. In fact, if you view the video of my Tasering, the only thing I did was stand on the tips of my toes. [The video will be posted on the Press And Journal Web site].

The training course and the research I’ve done assured me the Taser did exactly what it was supposed to do: make me less of a threat so I could be arrested. I definitely did not want to try to fight Yoder and be exposed to another five seconds.

Was I nervous?
Sure, I don’t think anyone wouldn’t be, especially after the national media reported on the deaths that have occurred from Tasers the past few months. The only side effect of my Tasering was soreness in my muscles. Hours later it felt like I put in a full day at the gym. Other than that, I was fine.

Going through this experience – not just getting Tasered, but talking to police chiefs and officers – gave me not only a better understanding of the device but of what a police officer experiences out on the street. Most of the time the officers don’t know the person they are arresting. For all they know, the person could be a psychopathic murderer. He or she might be Little Bo Peep, but police don’t know.

Officers told me their stories; they Tasered someone lying on the ground when the suspect wouldn’t put his hands behind his back. Why? Because the officer didn’t know if the suspect was lying on a weapon.

Highspire Chief John McHale and Middletown’s Yoder both summed up their goal. It is to do their job effectively, efficiently, safely, and make sure they go home to their family at night.

People sometimes complain that officers are Taser-happy because they are constantly firing or drawing their Tasers.

Every chief or officer I talked to said they sometimes have drawn their Taser simply as a visual deterrent, because it is likely to make the suspect back down.

I don’t believe the police want to Taser people; but they do when they become aggressive, combative, and refuse to be arrested. One deterrent to officers using Tasers is that there’s a lot of paper work that needs to be filled out after an incident. Also, if an officer abuses the Taser, he or she could be sued, along with the Taser instructor.

Let’s face it: Most Taser incidents in Middletown occur when the person is intoxicated. Throw in the occasional balloon vendor-style Tasering and everyone is angry with the police.

Many officers explained it to me this way: “It only takes one [really bad] cop to give the department a bad name.”

Click on the link to view videos of P&J staff going through Taser training. http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=PressJournal

Dream needs to be adjusted to environment

2007-11-29T19:00:00.000-05:00

Published in the Press And Journal

The American Dream means different things to different people. One person may see it as having the opportunity to vote. Another may believe having the right to practice any religion they choose to be the American Dream.

I think it is fair to say that most people see the American Dream as owning a piece of land and house they can call their own. But is it possible that the American Dream is actually destroying America?

What drives Americans to want their own piece of land to call their own?

Land ownership is a status symbol – perhaps the longest standing status symbol. During the Middle Ages the poor lived in cities and the rich lived in the country on vast estates. In the 1950s the middle and upper classes moved out of the cities and into the suburbs. If a family had enough money to move into the suburbs they had enough money to own a car so they could drive to their job in the city or to the grocery store. How could a dream like this be dangerous?

Well, if everyone in America – all 300-plus million of us – wants to have a house and piece of land to call his or her own, what would be left after everything was divvied up?

Take a drive in any direction and you will see development; whether it’s a new shopping center or a new housing development, one thing is certain, farmland is being consumed.

In Bethel Township, Lebanon County, 90 acres of farmland has one of two fates: rezoning to commercial so that a 1,000,000 square foot warehouse can be built or having 200 homes built on the land.

Citizens have turned out with support for both sides. One group argues the warehouse will create unnecessary traffic, pollution and cause harm to the citizens of the township. The other group argues the warehouse will generate enough money in school taxes to keep tax rates down for everyone else. That group also believes 200 more single-family homes will overburden the school district.

No matter what the board decides it appears the farmland will be lost.

Lower Susquehanna River Keeper Michael Helfrich explained to me that development has been one of the factors contributing to the high rates of nitrogen and phosphorous in the Chesapeake Bay, causing it to be polluted.

Helfrich explained how trees along the Susquehanna River are able to filter out some of the nitrogen and phosphorous naturally, but as development comes to sites along the river, the trees are cut down and never replaced.

Helfrich says farmland is also a place to dispose of waste from sewer treatment plants.

What can be done to stop the loss of farmland? Build up, not out, Helfrich says. It makes sense.

In Europe, many towns are self-sustaining communities. There are no Wal-Marts or other superstores. Stores that build in the towns do not take up massive amounts of land looking to serve thousands of people as shopping centers do in America. Instead, the stores located in a European town focus on servicing that town; it does not take up vast amounts of land to build a store.

If America keeps expanding at the rate it is, there will be nothing left for the American Dream.

Jeremy Long is a staff reporter for the Press and Journal. He graduated from Lebanon Valley College with a degree in historical communications.

War with Iran?

2007-10-30T19:43:00.000-05:00

Could we really be on the brink of another war — with Iran?

The Bush administration has not openly threatened a military strike against Iran, but Bush has said of a need to avoid “World War III,” and Vice President Cheney said the United States would “not stand by” while Iran continued its nuclear program. “We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” he said, The Washington Post reported.

Seeing how Iran has been adamant about building nuclear reactors it looks like the Bush administration is itching for another war.

Okay I’ll be the first to admit that Iran isn’t the best nomination for country of the year; with the suspected sponsorship of terrorism, but can we really even fight — much less afford another war?

Taking a chapter out of the history books Hitler fought a war on three and eventually four fronts — guess what — it didn’t work out too well for him.

Now another factor into a potential war with Iran would be the escalating oil prices.

“If war breaks out, anticipate that all hell will break loose in the oil markets,” said Robin West, chairman of PFC Energy, a District oil consulting firm, according to the Post.

What is scary is the comment Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made about Bush the other day.

“[Bush] committed to a diplomatic course on Iran,” she added that U.S. patience is “not limitless, and allies need to know that.”

Last time I heard the Bush administration was on a “diplomatic course” that was with Iraq and next thing I knew I was watching night vision shots of troops plowing through sand mounds.

Could Iran really be next?

Better Late Than Never

2007-10-23T21:23:00.000-05:00

When I first heard of the Sept. 16 shooting in Iraq that Blackwater USA was involved in I thought little of it. I knew Blackwater USA was a security contractor, well more mercenary than contractor, and have been involved in a lot of fighting in Iraq.

When I read that eight civilians had been killed during Blackwater’s firefight, I wasn’t’ surprised either.

The thing that caught my eye was that the Iraqi government had banned Blackwater from operating anymore in Iraq, although it was understandable.

At the time, the details were unclear and Blackwater officials said they were attacked and returned fire. The Iraqi government said Blackwater came upon a traffic jam and opened fire.

As weeks passed the details became clear.

The shooting started when Blackwater guards were evacuating senior American officials after an explosion occurred near the place where they were meeting, a New York Times article reported.

Some officials questioned Blackwater’s decision to pull the American officials out of the secure compound.

Blackwater appeared to be responsible for the shooting that lead to 11 Iraqi civilians being killed.

I became quite angry when I learned a Blackwater employee was responsible for killing a bodyguard for one of Iraq’s vice presidents on Christmas Eve last year, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. The Blackwater employee was drinking in the Green Zone and tired to enter an area where Iraqi officials lived, the report said.

What happened to the employee?

He was fired, but left Iraq without being prosecuted, the report said.

I couldn’t believe something like that could happen, until I read a Times article on Blackwater the next day.

In 2004 L. Paul Bremer III, who was the top official of the American occupation authority, signed an order that exempted all United States personnel from Iraqi law.
Also, these contractors do not fall under U.S. laws because they are not U.S. government employees or soldiers -- they are civilian contractors.

What justification is there behind something like that?

Correct me if I’m wrong but our brave men and women fought died for Iraq to be free, to become a democracy, yet when our soldiers are there we are impervious to Iraqi law? How is that a democracy? Maybe my teachers in school did a horrible job teaching me but I thought one of the founding principles of this great country was “justice for all,” a principle that our soldiers are dying for over in another country.

And this order that Bremer signed what does that teach our personal, “Do whatever you want. Don’t worry about the consequences.”

There are a number of American laws that could be applied to contractors overseas and in wartime. Also, the Department of Defense enacted a measure that would bring contractors under military law but has yet to put into effect the rules needed to do so.

On Oct. 4 the House passed a bill that would make all private contractors working in Iraq and other combat zones subject to prosecution by U.S. courts, the Washington Post reported.

I’m relieved that the government finally realized allowing private security firms to run around lawlessly was a bad decision. I’m just upset that it took three years to realize that it was a bad idea.

Is the "new" media a good thing?

2007-02-22T16:33:00.000-05:00

While I have always had my doubts that the new type of media (citizen reporting, 24 hour networks, etc.) may have its downfalls, the positives would always outweigh the bad. It was not until the past week or two that I have realized that the media is failing to do its job.

With the constant coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death, the coverage of the trial (which had decided who gets custody of Smith's body), and the coverage of Britney Spears shaving her head, it has just been too much. Events such as Al-Qaeda becoming reorganized in Pakistan and Iran not complying with UN's request to stop enriching uranium have slipped from the headlines.

One of the jobs of the media is to be a watchdog for the people. Over the past months there have been several salmonella out breaks in food processing plants and all the media did was warn people that it was happening. No investigative reports. No hard hitting interviews. At least from what I saw.

At a job interview, a man told me that the future of newspapers was in the local news. He continued to say that if people want to hear about what is going on in the world they can turn on CNN or FoxNews, watch it for a few minutes and get their fill of national and world news.
What he said is correct and wrong at the same time. He is correct in saying that after watching only a few minutes of CNN or FoxNews a person can get a good idea of what is going on in the world that day (mainly becuase the 24 hour networks only run a few stories a day over and over again). He is wrong because the couple of stories that the networks chose to show are not a complete picture of what is going on in the world. I can guarantee that no network had a story on the genocide in Darfur since around September. The BBC has had several stories (on their website) the past couple of months pertaining to troop levels and the ongoing negotiations between the Sudanese government and the UN. But who is to blame for the public's lack of interest in national and global news, unless it pertains to stars (not the ones in space)?

My proposal is unless the 24 hour networks do not start doing their job, acutally start informing people of the world around them, that they should be disbanded. Then sign control of those networks to MTV so we can watch countless hours of teenage reality television. But seriously, maybe the news media needs to take a step back and look at its roots. Look back to when there wasn't a constant need to fill 24 hours, a time when journalists took pride in their work and did a service to the people. I'm talking about the "muckrakers" and the Woodwards and Bernsteins of journalism.

Landmine Video

2007-02-21T19:17:00.000-05:00

This public service announcement was aired only for a few days in the United States last year. The reason it was pulled from the air was because people found it too traumatizing.
I agree that it is a very unpleasant scene, but it's only depicting what people in mine-laden counties have to deal with day after day. A farmer who plows his field [in a mine-laden countryl] hits a mine. He could lose a leg or even worse -- his life. Children playing in a field are often subject to the same fate. But what can be done to stop this?
People need to care. This commerical is one way to do that. It was the perfect commerical to get people to care. After it was aired, it made many people upset. But people once again chose to turn a blind eye to what was going on in the world.
The United States, one of the largest mine producing nations, needs to sign the internataional mine-ban treaty. This treaty is designed to stop the use, development, production, stockpile and transfer of anti-personel mines, and to stop assisting or encouraging individuals, private companies, the military, or non-state parties in violating the treaty.
Several organzations are already working to clear the world of land mines. For more information check out www.landmines.org and www.mineaction.org

Again the American Media Fails (Atleast the 24 Hour Networks)

2007-02-08T16:54:00.000-05:00

Today when I turned my television to CNN I was surprised to see that Anna Nicole Smith had passed away during the day. While she is a celebrity and in America celebrities do command a lot of our attention it was no surprise that CNN was devoting coverage to her untimly death. I did not have a problem with the American media covering her death. What I did have a problem with is this.
Larry King had already decided to devote an hour of his program to Smith. A entire hour. 60 minutes to hear about "life-saving efforts as family and friends reflect on her life."
What angers me is that her death is taking attention away from other important news worthy events. For example, Two Palestinian Factions Signed a deal today. This story will slip from the spot light due to the death of Smith. The New York Times website and BBCNews.com are the only two sites that do not have Smith's death as their lead. (the "other sites" are CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC).

Another example of a story that is not very important in the grand scheme of things is the apparent breakdown of Capt. Lisa Nowak who drove over 900 miles to confront a woman who was dating the same man that Nowak was. While this story was interesting and odd (mainly because of the diaper Nowak wore on her drive) what was the significance of it? By letting the American people know of this distraught astronaut what was the point? Did this story command that much attention because of the fact that Nowak was a astronaut?

This is not the first time that the news media has jumped on the so called bandwagon and covered events that will generate ratings thus producing more profits. But who is to blame? The media for listening to their audiences and covering "soft" news? Or is is the people who do not demand more substance in their news?

Sudan Not to Take Over AU

2007-01-29T18:06:00.000-05:00

The other day it was determined that Sudan would not be taking over the chairmanship of the African Union (AU) due to the current situation in Darfur, according to The Washington Post and BBCNews.com. As many know the current situation in Darfur, a region in Sudan, is a systematic killing of the non-Baggara. The killing is being carried out by the janjaweed: a militia group recurited from the tribes of the Abbala. The Janjaweed are being backed by the Sudanese governement, under the leadership of President Omar al-Bashir. The Sudanese government has denied supporting the janjaweed.

As chairman of the AU, Sudan would be able to cut funding and support from the AU's peacekeeping mission in the Darfur region.

The UN is asking al-Bashir to allow a joint UN/AU peacekeeping force in Darfur. There are already 2,370 AU troops in Darfur; the UN is looking to send a peacekeeping force of 22,000. According to an article from The Washington Post, Sudanese Presidential adviser Majzoub al-Khalifa said there was a consensus on the first two stages of UN support for a 7,500 strong AU mission in Darfur; however, there was no agreement to deploy a hybrid force. A Sept. 25, 2006 report from PBS Online NewsHour reported that the AU troop level would reach 11,000.

The Sudanese government did agree to allow up to 1,000 UN support personnel to boost the struggling AU.

Many nations, including the United States, have called what is taking place in Darfur a genocide. However, these nations still fail to step up and put more pressure on al-Bashir and his government.

Seeing as how Sudan was passed over for the chairmanship because of the situation in Darfur, it should send a message to the rest of the world. Why is it so hard for the international community to step in? Yes, the UN can not go in without the consent of the government or an unanimous security council vote. Still there are other things that can be done; unfortunately they are only being done by NGOs and they are not being successful in ending this genocide. Only military intervention will end it.

Stopping a Genocide

2007-01-21T23:00:00.000-05:00

By: Bill Rice and Jeremy Long

For the past couple of months we been trying to lead intelligent discussions, correcting people, and just downright arguing with people on several facebook discussion boards having to deal with the genocide going on in Darfur. These groups were created with the intent on spreading awareness but more often than not it brings in people who decide to post things such as "you people are dumb for supporting this cause. Nothing is going to stop it." Then there are the other people who post information in an attempt to educate the people in the group. And finally there are the people who have constructive debates which shed light on both sides of the issues. With that said we just wanted to vent on some things we have been noticing on these threads.

1) Darfur does not equal Iraq

Many times I have seen someone post "Everyone in this group opposes the war in Iraq but they want to send troops to Darfur. I bet you are going to oppose a war in Darfur." Or "Saddamdon't you support the war in Iraq?" We will admit that we oppose the war in Iraq; however, I would not oppose a troop deployment to Darfur. Reason being is that will be the only way to successfully stop a genocide. It would have to be a UN peacekeeping force or a NATO force. We would would also have agreed to sending troops to Iraq to stop the genocide back in the '80s when it was taking place. When the US invaded in 2003 it was to take Saddam out of power, not to stop a genocide.
These posters assume that anyone involved in the Save Darfu campaign are also people that are opposed to the Iraq War. This is not true. The Save Darfur campaign is nonpartisan and composed of Democrats and Republicans, and porbably some registered independents and third party memebers as well. The campaign to stop the genocide in Darfur has ntohing to do with Iraq.

2) Sending a military force to Darfur does not mean sending US troops.

If a NATO or UN force were to be deployed to Darfur it would be made up of troops from the international commuinty. These troops would most likely come from Belgium, France or some other European county. There are several UN peacekeeping missions going on in the world where there are no US troops deployed. Granted it is possible that some US troops could be deployed. The US could also find other ways to support a mission in Darfur. Sending supplies or providing logistical support for example to the African Union troops who are already there or to a UN/NATO force for example. The supporters of the Save Darfur campaign are calling for a multinational force whereas some of who were against Bush's rush to war in Iraq critiziced the President for his lack of an international support.

3) Saving Darfur is not an issue of trendiness

Many people have posted that supporting the Darfur groups is a way for people to be trendy. What is hard to comprehend is how somone could even make such an outlandish statement. For some reason people see celebrities like Goerge Clooney and college kids lending thier support to the campaign and they figure the "cool," nonconformist thing to do is criticize it as trendy. Not that the innocent men, women, and children matter here. What matters, apparently, is not conforming to the "trends."

.