Hello, It’s Me!
8 years ago
Friday, August 29, 2008
Is He Ready?
Seems to me that this video shows that not even the Democrats think Senator Obama's ready to be commander-in-chief and our Nation's leader; despite what they say now. But, more importantly did you catch that last clip? In 2004, Senator Obama, himself, said:
"You know, I am a believer in … in knowing what you’re doing when you apply for a job. Uh, and I think that … if I were seriously to consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there may be some people who are comfortable doing that, but I am not one of those people."
Well, since the Senator did "apply for a job" and did "consider running on a national ticket" and did "start...before having served a day in the Senate" it looks like he really "comfortable" being "one of those people." In 2004, even Senator Obama didn't think he was ready.....
h/t Ed Morrissey at Hot Air
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Who Serves in the Military?
Remember Senator John Kerry’s pronouncement in 2006 that “if you study hard and do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
I know that Senator Kerry intended it to be a joke, but humor (at least good humor) is based on either fact or a person’s perception of fact. Otherwise, it’s just not funny. Senator Kerry was trying to play to the commonly-held idea that people volunteer for the military because they’re from low-income, disadvantaged homes, they cannot find another job, or they’re too dumb to make it anywhere else.
Nothing can be further from the truth! The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis released a report on August 21, 2008 that took a look at the backgrounds of those who volunteered to serve in the military to see if there is any basis for the belief that military service disproportionately attracts minorities, those without an education, or those from disadvantaged backgrounds. They looked at four demographic characteristics of new Army recruits and new Army officers who entered the service in 2006 and 2007: household income, education level, racial and ethnic background, and national origin. The authors, Sheanea J. Watkins, Ph.D., and James Sherk concluded that
“The facts do not support the belief that many American soldiers volunteer because society offers them few other opportunities. The average enlisted person or officer could have had lucrative career opportunities in the private sector. Those who argue that American soldiers risk their lives because they have no other opportunities belittle the personal sacrifices of those who serve out of love for their country.”
In fact, enlisted recruits in 2006 and 2007 came primarily from middle-class and upper middle-class families (those families earning more than $40K a year). The study showed 49.3% of recruits in 2006 and 2007 came from in from these higher-income families. Only 10.6% of the 2006 recruits and 10.7% of the 2007 recruits came from households that earned less than $33K per year, although 18 to 24-year-olds from households with that income level represent 20% of the nation’s population.
Newly-minted officers show the same thing. The average officer graduating from ROTC comes from a neighborhood with a median household income of $64,083, well above the national median income of $50,428. The median income for the average West Point officer is even higher at $75,367. Only 7.8 of the ROTC graduates, and only 3.1% of West Point graduates, come from households making less than $40K.
A study of education levels for officer and enlisted volunteers shows that our military is more educated that the general population. Only 1.4% of enlisted recruits in 2007 do not have a high school diploma or a GED; compared to 20.8% of men aged 18 to 24 in the general population. The difference in educational levels between the officer accessions and the general population is even more striking, because ROTC and West Point graduates all have earned at least a bachelor’s degree. According to the study, 94.9% of all officer corps accessions have a 4-year degree, compared to 25.0% of 22 to 27-year-olds in the general population.
The statistics for race, ethnic background and ethnic origin demonstrate that the racial composition of the military is similar to that found in the civilian community, although both whites and blacks and American Indians are slightly overrepresented in the enlisted force while Hispanics, Asians and Pacific Islanders are underrepresented. For officers graduating from ROTC, the percentages are proportional to the general population, with blacks being slightly overrepresented. White and Asian demographic groups are overrepresented for West Point graduates, when compared against the civilian population.
All these statistics clearly demonstrated to the study’s authors that “The popular impression that many soldiers join the military because they lack better opportunities is wrong.” I agree! America’s fighting force consists of diverse and highly educated volunteers, whose background offered them many different career opportunities. These volunteers, instead, chose to serve, sometimes at great personal sacrifice. Now, if we could just attract more recruits or officers who plan a political career . . . maybe those in Congress would actually understand the military. Or maybe not.
I know that Senator Kerry intended it to be a joke, but humor (at least good humor) is based on either fact or a person’s perception of fact. Otherwise, it’s just not funny. Senator Kerry was trying to play to the commonly-held idea that people volunteer for the military because they’re from low-income, disadvantaged homes, they cannot find another job, or they’re too dumb to make it anywhere else.
Nothing can be further from the truth! The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis released a report on August 21, 2008 that took a look at the backgrounds of those who volunteered to serve in the military to see if there is any basis for the belief that military service disproportionately attracts minorities, those without an education, or those from disadvantaged backgrounds. They looked at four demographic characteristics of new Army recruits and new Army officers who entered the service in 2006 and 2007: household income, education level, racial and ethnic background, and national origin. The authors, Sheanea J. Watkins, Ph.D., and James Sherk concluded that
“The facts do not support the belief that many American soldiers volunteer because society offers them few other opportunities. The average enlisted person or officer could have had lucrative career opportunities in the private sector. Those who argue that American soldiers risk their lives because they have no other opportunities belittle the personal sacrifices of those who serve out of love for their country.”
In fact, enlisted recruits in 2006 and 2007 came primarily from middle-class and upper middle-class families (those families earning more than $40K a year). The study showed 49.3% of recruits in 2006 and 2007 came from in from these higher-income families. Only 10.6% of the 2006 recruits and 10.7% of the 2007 recruits came from households that earned less than $33K per year, although 18 to 24-year-olds from households with that income level represent 20% of the nation’s population.
Newly-minted officers show the same thing. The average officer graduating from ROTC comes from a neighborhood with a median household income of $64,083, well above the national median income of $50,428. The median income for the average West Point officer is even higher at $75,367. Only 7.8 of the ROTC graduates, and only 3.1% of West Point graduates, come from households making less than $40K.
A study of education levels for officer and enlisted volunteers shows that our military is more educated that the general population. Only 1.4% of enlisted recruits in 2007 do not have a high school diploma or a GED; compared to 20.8% of men aged 18 to 24 in the general population. The difference in educational levels between the officer accessions and the general population is even more striking, because ROTC and West Point graduates all have earned at least a bachelor’s degree. According to the study, 94.9% of all officer corps accessions have a 4-year degree, compared to 25.0% of 22 to 27-year-olds in the general population.
The statistics for race, ethnic background and ethnic origin demonstrate that the racial composition of the military is similar to that found in the civilian community, although both whites and blacks and American Indians are slightly overrepresented in the enlisted force while Hispanics, Asians and Pacific Islanders are underrepresented. For officers graduating from ROTC, the percentages are proportional to the general population, with blacks being slightly overrepresented. White and Asian demographic groups are overrepresented for West Point graduates, when compared against the civilian population.
All these statistics clearly demonstrated to the study’s authors that “The popular impression that many soldiers join the military because they lack better opportunities is wrong.” I agree! America’s fighting force consists of diverse and highly educated volunteers, whose background offered them many different career opportunities. These volunteers, instead, chose to serve, sometimes at great personal sacrifice. Now, if we could just attract more recruits or officers who plan a political career . . . maybe those in Congress would actually understand the military. Or maybe not.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
"The Last Centurion"
What do you get when you mix a world-wide flu pandemic, epidemology, global climate change, agriculture, nationalization of essential industries, politics, media, and military tatics into an action-packed novel set in the near-future? You get The Last Centurion by John Ringo. Fantastic!
I loved this novel, and not just because it was written by one of my favorite military science fiction authors. (Yes, I love military science fiction. David Weber and the whole "Honorverse" epic is another favorite.) Anyway, The Last Centurion is different. Way different. It's written as if it were a personal blog of an American Army officer who is faced with helping the US survive and rebuild after the world is hit with both a pandemic and a mini-ice age. It's wonderful! The main character, "Bandit Six," is my new hero!
Bandit Six explains that the centurions were the guardians of Rome, and that they were educated when many were illiterate, that they were required to be in peak physical shape, and that they had to be able to perform every task required of a Roman soldier. "Becoming a Centurion required intense physical ability, courage beyond the norm, years of sacrifice and a total devotion to the philosophy which was Rome." Rome fell, in part, because Rome had less than 500 qualified centurians, because no one was willing to make the sacrifice necessary to become a centurian. Bandit Six is unwilling to let America fall, despite all the challenges facing her in this hypothetical near future. As Bandit Six so eloquently puts it,
If we cannot remember who we are, if we cannot comprehend what it means to be this shining light on the hill, this country of wonder and riches, this . . . America, then we shall surely slip into the long dark night that the enemies of our freedoms so richly desire.
We are told, always, that there is no black and white. that there are only shades of gray. This is a picture that is held up to us. But it is only a picture and it is false. Each day, each of us makes countless choices, and each of those choices is black and white. If we choose, over and over again, as we have for so long, to choose the black choices because they are easier, to choose "me" over "us," to choose division and strife over assimilation and trust, then we slowly slip into that black night.
I do not so choose. I am your Centurion. This America Shall Not Fall!"
I loved this novel, and not just because it was written by one of my favorite military science fiction authors. (Yes, I love military science fiction. David Weber and the whole "Honorverse" epic is another favorite.) Anyway, The Last Centurion is different. Way different. It's written as if it were a personal blog of an American Army officer who is faced with helping the US survive and rebuild after the world is hit with both a pandemic and a mini-ice age. It's wonderful! The main character, "Bandit Six," is my new hero!
Bandit Six explains that the centurions were the guardians of Rome, and that they were educated when many were illiterate, that they were required to be in peak physical shape, and that they had to be able to perform every task required of a Roman soldier. "Becoming a Centurion required intense physical ability, courage beyond the norm, years of sacrifice and a total devotion to the philosophy which was Rome." Rome fell, in part, because Rome had less than 500 qualified centurians, because no one was willing to make the sacrifice necessary to become a centurian. Bandit Six is unwilling to let America fall, despite all the challenges facing her in this hypothetical near future. As Bandit Six so eloquently puts it,
If we cannot remember who we are, if we cannot comprehend what it means to be this shining light on the hill, this country of wonder and riches, this . . . America, then we shall surely slip into the long dark night that the enemies of our freedoms so richly desire.
We are told, always, that there is no black and white. that there are only shades of gray. This is a picture that is held up to us. But it is only a picture and it is false. Each day, each of us makes countless choices, and each of those choices is black and white. If we choose, over and over again, as we have for so long, to choose the black choices because they are easier, to choose "me" over "us," to choose division and strife over assimilation and trust, then we slowly slip into that black night.
I do not so choose. I am your Centurion. This America Shall Not Fall!"
Senator Biden's Foreign Policy Judgment
It’s interesting to see that the Gallup Poll survey has found no significant “vice presidential” bump-up in Senator Obama’s polling numbers after his selection of Senator Biden as a running-mate. The poll found that 72% of the registered voters interviewed believed Senator Biden had no effect, positive or negative, on their decision whether or not to vote for the Democrat ticket.
I’ve criticized Senator Obama’s judgment on this blog before. I really don’t think he has any, and it appears his choice of vice presidential candidates supports my opinion. A lot of the political pundits (especially in the mainstream media) seem to think that Senator Biden is a great choice; since he’s the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he must have foreign policy experience in order to bolster the Democratic ticket’s admitted weakness in that area. BUT . . .
Look at Senator Biden’s IDEAS on foreign policy. It quickly becomes apparent that Senator Biden gets it wrong more times than he gets it right. For example, an article by Amir Taheri in the New York Post documents some of Senator Biden’s lack of judgment in the foreign policy arena:
** In 1979, Senator Biden agreed with President Carter that the fall of the shah in Iran represented progress in the area of human rights. He agreed with the President that we shouldn’t use force, or react strongly, to the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy and the parade of blindfolded hostages. Carter’s namby-pamby response is the reason we had so many days of the Iranian Hostage Crisis on late-night TV.
** Senator Biden opposed President Regan’s “hard line” stance against the Soviet Union. He believed that we should continue the failed policy of “détente.” President Reagan’s policies won the Cold War. If we had taken Senator Biden’s approach, we may still be paying subsidies to the “Evil Empire.”
** After Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Senator Biden voted against the use of force to kick Iraq out of Kuwait in what became known as the Gulf War.
** Although Senator Biden did vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom, he has since been a vocal critic of the war in Iraq. He’s stated that the war has been lost and opposed the surge strategy.
** Senator Biden proposes to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home by partitioning Iraq into three separate, semiautonomous regions; one for the Shi’ites, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Kurds. He calls it the “Biden Plan.” He apparently got the idea for partitioning a sovereign country, despite their wishes, from the partitioning of Bosnia in the 1990’s something he was also involved with. (Look how successful that’s been. The US military is still there.)
** In 2004, Senator Biden spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and trashed the US as a democratic country. In his speech he claimed the US had no moral authority to preach democracy in the Middle East. He said, “We don’t have much of a democracy ourselves. Remember our own presidential election; remember Florida!”
** Senator Biden, like Senator Obama, supports entering into a dialog with the leaders of Iran, without preconditions.
I agree with Mr. Taheri when he says that “experience is no substitute for judgment” and I question Senator Biden’s judgment like I question Senator Obama’s. In my opinion, neither man has the judgment to be President, or vice president. As Mr. Taheri says, “had Biden had his way, ‘the Evil Empire’ would still be around and Saddam Hussein still in power. The US would still be begging the mullahs of Tehran for forgiveness of unspecified ‘past sins’ – and more American hostages would be seized in the Middle East while the mullahs celebrate their first atomic bombs. . . . By choosing Biden, Obama, the candidate of hope, has transformed his promise of change in to a back to the future pirouette – back to Jimmy Carter.”
I’ve criticized Senator Obama’s judgment on this blog before. I really don’t think he has any, and it appears his choice of vice presidential candidates supports my opinion. A lot of the political pundits (especially in the mainstream media) seem to think that Senator Biden is a great choice; since he’s the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he must have foreign policy experience in order to bolster the Democratic ticket’s admitted weakness in that area. BUT . . .
Look at Senator Biden’s IDEAS on foreign policy. It quickly becomes apparent that Senator Biden gets it wrong more times than he gets it right. For example, an article by Amir Taheri in the New York Post documents some of Senator Biden’s lack of judgment in the foreign policy arena:
** In 1979, Senator Biden agreed with President Carter that the fall of the shah in Iran represented progress in the area of human rights. He agreed with the President that we shouldn’t use force, or react strongly, to the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy and the parade of blindfolded hostages. Carter’s namby-pamby response is the reason we had so many days of the Iranian Hostage Crisis on late-night TV.
** Senator Biden opposed President Regan’s “hard line” stance against the Soviet Union. He believed that we should continue the failed policy of “détente.” President Reagan’s policies won the Cold War. If we had taken Senator Biden’s approach, we may still be paying subsidies to the “Evil Empire.”
** After Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Senator Biden voted against the use of force to kick Iraq out of Kuwait in what became known as the Gulf War.
** Although Senator Biden did vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom, he has since been a vocal critic of the war in Iraq. He’s stated that the war has been lost and opposed the surge strategy.
** Senator Biden proposes to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home by partitioning Iraq into three separate, semiautonomous regions; one for the Shi’ites, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Kurds. He calls it the “Biden Plan.” He apparently got the idea for partitioning a sovereign country, despite their wishes, from the partitioning of Bosnia in the 1990’s something he was also involved with. (Look how successful that’s been. The US military is still there.)
** In 2004, Senator Biden spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and trashed the US as a democratic country. In his speech he claimed the US had no moral authority to preach democracy in the Middle East. He said, “We don’t have much of a democracy ourselves. Remember our own presidential election; remember Florida!”
** Senator Biden, like Senator Obama, supports entering into a dialog with the leaders of Iran, without preconditions.
I agree with Mr. Taheri when he says that “experience is no substitute for judgment” and I question Senator Biden’s judgment like I question Senator Obama’s. In my opinion, neither man has the judgment to be President, or vice president. As Mr. Taheri says, “had Biden had his way, ‘the Evil Empire’ would still be around and Saddam Hussein still in power. The US would still be begging the mullahs of Tehran for forgiveness of unspecified ‘past sins’ – and more American hostages would be seized in the Middle East while the mullahs celebrate their first atomic bombs. . . . By choosing Biden, Obama, the candidate of hope, has transformed his promise of change in to a back to the future pirouette – back to Jimmy Carter.”
More Georgian Info
It looks like Michael Totten's getting some interesting information about Georgia, including some in-depth background to the current Russia-Georgia conflict. Good stuff!
Monday, August 25, 2008
Modern Pentagonese
Kate Bateman, a South Asia analyst at the State Department, has written a wonderful article found in this Month's Proceedings, a journal published by the US Naval Institute. In the article, titled War on (Buzz) Words, Ms Bateman declares, "Bad writing isn't just poor form, it's a national security issue." She's absolutely correct; we allow poor writing to obscure issues, alienate those with whom we need to communicate, and suffocate ideas. Bad writing wastes time and money, and can have a deterimenal impact on communication. And if we have a "failure to communicate" national security policies, goals, and plans to the appropriate people, we could end up with a national security problem. I love the way Ms Bateman introduces her article. She asks her readers to consider this Shakespearean quote from Henry V:
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blod with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
when compared with the same information written in "modern Pentagonese."
The smaller and more agile forces collected here represent a select and elite band of highly motivated warfighters. In the event of adverse battlefield consequences, senior leadership will ensure that participants are suitably recognized in thier next quarterly evaluation. Regardless of the maladaptions of combatants, the current operational environment will leverage their inherent capabilities and capacities and enhance total-force interoperability. Non-participants will regret that they did not have an integrated vision of our potential for full-spectrum dominance.
Proves her point, doesn't it.
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blod with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
when compared with the same information written in "modern Pentagonese."
The smaller and more agile forces collected here represent a select and elite band of highly motivated warfighters. In the event of adverse battlefield consequences, senior leadership will ensure that participants are suitably recognized in thier next quarterly evaluation. Regardless of the maladaptions of combatants, the current operational environment will leverage their inherent capabilities and capacities and enhance total-force interoperability. Non-participants will regret that they did not have an integrated vision of our potential for full-spectrum dominance.
Proves her point, doesn't it.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Question Everything!
UPDATE Check out this post on Blackfive for some interesting background on Georgian-Russian relations from a Georgian woman now living in the US.
On August 14th, I wrote a post about propaganda where I agreed with one of the bloggers at Castle Argghhh, Kat, who wrote that “all information is propaganda. Official information is official propaganda. Thus, it always deserves to be challenged. Paraphrasing Socrates, question everything.” I truly believe that we should question the information we’re given, particularly when it’s information that is “fed” to us through the news media, the government, or other secondary sources. If the person feeding the information isn’t “there,” or isn’t “involved,” in otherwords isn’t a primary source, then the information may be screened or spun or shaped in some way. That’s the reason I started reading blogs, particualrly milblogs, in the first place; because I wanted to get the story from those who were writing it. Having said that, there’s nothing wrong with getting information from secondary sources and passing that information along, as long as you identify the secondary source so that others can make their own judgments about the information you’re passing along. After all, it’s all propaganda and we chould question everything.
Now understanding that all information is propaganda and that we should question everything, I wrote a post on August 21st discussing the Russian invasion of Georgia and asking whether anyone else thought it was getting colder along the former Iron Curtain. I discussed information that had been reported in FoxNews, clearly idenifying the source of my information. I received a very interesting comment to that post from a person identified as “Chris.” In this lengthy comment Chris takes me to task for relying on FoxNews for my international news, emphasizes that I don’t really know the facts about the conflict because I was not there, and points out that he believes that news from English speaking, North American focused media” is useless. Chris then goes on to outline the problems he has with my post, giving what appears to be a Russo-centric point of view for the reasons behind the conflict in Georgia and the increased tensions between Russia and the former-Soviet republics in the region.
Okay. After reading Chris’ comments I wondered if, like the Armorer, another milblogger who posts on Castle Argghhh, I’ve think I’ve found myself in the midst of the Russian InfoOps campaign. Perhaps I’m being too suspicious (I am an attorney) and Chris is just an open-minded guy who likes to play the Devil’s Advocate. But I don’t think so. Although I took care to indicate that I got my information from a secondary source, Chris doesn’t. I don’t know where he got the information for the facts he provides. I don’t know if he’s developed his opinions because of personal experience, or if he’s relying on secondary sources just like I am. I do, however, think that Chris is somewhere in the area involved in conflict. In one part of his comment, Chris talks about why Russia has a right to be nervous about Georgia and the Ukraine moving closer to the west and he says, “What if Canada and Mexico joined China in an all binding military agreement? How would the U.S feel? Surrounded. Think about WHY THE OTHER SIDE IS MAD for once. Does "They hate us for our freedom" sound familiar??? Same thing being spouted here. I don’t know where the “here” Chris refers to really is, Chris doesn’t say, but in context it sounds like Chris is either in Russia or working to advance the Russian point of view. Now, Chris is correct that I’m not there and cannot gather the facts for myself. But, hey, I’m just a blogger and my posts are just my opinion based on information I’ve gathered, questioned, and analyzed. I’m not a reporter and don’t pretend to be one. I’ll leave that for folks like Michael Totten, who is in Tblisi and is blogging about it.
So, maybe I’m seeing InfoOps when there really isn’t one (after all, I’m just a blogger giving my opinion based on what I’ve learned from other people, why would there be an official need to address my opinion?). Maybe Chris is just a concerned citizen of whatever country who wants to give the other side of the equation. Either way, I think it’s great. Bring it on, Chris! As I said earlier, it’s all propaganda and we should question everything; including who is commenting and why.
On August 14th, I wrote a post about propaganda where I agreed with one of the bloggers at Castle Argghhh, Kat, who wrote that “all information is propaganda. Official information is official propaganda. Thus, it always deserves to be challenged. Paraphrasing Socrates, question everything.” I truly believe that we should question the information we’re given, particularly when it’s information that is “fed” to us through the news media, the government, or other secondary sources. If the person feeding the information isn’t “there,” or isn’t “involved,” in otherwords isn’t a primary source, then the information may be screened or spun or shaped in some way. That’s the reason I started reading blogs, particualrly milblogs, in the first place; because I wanted to get the story from those who were writing it. Having said that, there’s nothing wrong with getting information from secondary sources and passing that information along, as long as you identify the secondary source so that others can make their own judgments about the information you’re passing along. After all, it’s all propaganda and we chould question everything.
Now understanding that all information is propaganda and that we should question everything, I wrote a post on August 21st discussing the Russian invasion of Georgia and asking whether anyone else thought it was getting colder along the former Iron Curtain. I discussed information that had been reported in FoxNews, clearly idenifying the source of my information. I received a very interesting comment to that post from a person identified as “Chris.” In this lengthy comment Chris takes me to task for relying on FoxNews for my international news, emphasizes that I don’t really know the facts about the conflict because I was not there, and points out that he believes that news from English speaking, North American focused media” is useless. Chris then goes on to outline the problems he has with my post, giving what appears to be a Russo-centric point of view for the reasons behind the conflict in Georgia and the increased tensions between Russia and the former-Soviet republics in the region.
Okay. After reading Chris’ comments I wondered if, like the Armorer, another milblogger who posts on Castle Argghhh, I’ve think I’ve found myself in the midst of the Russian InfoOps campaign. Perhaps I’m being too suspicious (I am an attorney) and Chris is just an open-minded guy who likes to play the Devil’s Advocate. But I don’t think so. Although I took care to indicate that I got my information from a secondary source, Chris doesn’t. I don’t know where he got the information for the facts he provides. I don’t know if he’s developed his opinions because of personal experience, or if he’s relying on secondary sources just like I am. I do, however, think that Chris is somewhere in the area involved in conflict. In one part of his comment, Chris talks about why Russia has a right to be nervous about Georgia and the Ukraine moving closer to the west and he says, “What if Canada and Mexico joined China in an all binding military agreement? How would the U.S feel? Surrounded. Think about WHY THE OTHER SIDE IS MAD for once. Does "They hate us for our freedom" sound familiar??? Same thing being spouted here. I don’t know where the “here” Chris refers to really is, Chris doesn’t say, but in context it sounds like Chris is either in Russia or working to advance the Russian point of view. Now, Chris is correct that I’m not there and cannot gather the facts for myself. But, hey, I’m just a blogger and my posts are just my opinion based on information I’ve gathered, questioned, and analyzed. I’m not a reporter and don’t pretend to be one. I’ll leave that for folks like Michael Totten, who is in Tblisi and is blogging about it.
So, maybe I’m seeing InfoOps when there really isn’t one (after all, I’m just a blogger giving my opinion based on what I’ve learned from other people, why would there be an official need to address my opinion?). Maybe Chris is just a concerned citizen of whatever country who wants to give the other side of the equation. Either way, I think it’s great. Bring it on, Chris! As I said earlier, it’s all propaganda and we should question everything; including who is commenting and why.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Service & Intellectual Elites
I’ve often wondered if our society is heading for a break between those who believe themselves to be the intellectual elite and those who serve in the military. I’ve even tried to convince my talented daughter to write a novel about a “future America” where there is a military caste, where only members of military families are permitted to join, which is in conflict with an elite caste, responsible for political decisions the military caste must enforce. I think it would be an interesting novel . . . but I digress (again). There is some basis for my speculation. There are very few members of either Congress or the Senate that have served in the military, and very few of their children have volunteered. Some universities do not permit ROTC units on their campuses, and deny ROTC instructors faculty status. Some parents groups have actively worked against high school recruiters; and then there is Code Pink and their demonstration against the Marine Recruiters in Berkley. Finally, who can forget Senator Kerry’s political gaffe during the last election cycle when he said that only the disadvantaged and those too stupid to go to college join the military. These are all examples of how some who consider themselves intellectually superior look down on the military.
So it was a real treat for me to read an article published in the August 18, 2008 edition of the National Review. The article, titled A Call, and an Answer was written by two 2008 graduates of Dartmouth (Michael Knapp and Ethan Mefford) and explains why they chose to join the Marines. These two young men write how they made a deliberate choice to join the military, as do all who are members of our all-volunteer forces. They relate how their decision was prompted a number of reasons. They were struck by the news stories of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the concept that this struggle was a defining moment for their generation. They found support for the idea of military service from their study of history and government, and were inspired by stories of “generations of men and women who have exhibited similar courage and struggled, often selflessly, for a greater cause. . .” These two young men recognized that,
“By virtue of the upbringing that this society had allowed us, and the myriad opportunities that had been extended our way simply because we are Americans, it was incumbent upon us to offer our services to our country. The privileges we have enjoyed endow us with a responsibility, an obligation, to fulfill President Kennedy’s charge: To this country that has given us so much, it is our turn to give back. We reject the pernicious belief, commonly held at our most highly esteemed institutions, that fighting our nation’s battles is someone else’s job.”
Wow! I have hope! These two young men from an elite university get it. Perhaps not all is lost, and there isn’t such a big divide between the intellectual elite and those who enter the military. Service is not something you ask of “the other guy,” it is something you should require of yourself. These two young men recognize that service is a “great equalizer, bringing together people of all different backgrounds and teaching them to work as a team.” They recognize that they both have “something to offer” and that they “have what it takes.” Would that more young men and women recognize the same things.
So it was a real treat for me to read an article published in the August 18, 2008 edition of the National Review. The article, titled A Call, and an Answer was written by two 2008 graduates of Dartmouth (Michael Knapp and Ethan Mefford) and explains why they chose to join the Marines. These two young men write how they made a deliberate choice to join the military, as do all who are members of our all-volunteer forces. They relate how their decision was prompted a number of reasons. They were struck by the news stories of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the concept that this struggle was a defining moment for their generation. They found support for the idea of military service from their study of history and government, and were inspired by stories of “generations of men and women who have exhibited similar courage and struggled, often selflessly, for a greater cause. . .” These two young men recognized that,
“By virtue of the upbringing that this society had allowed us, and the myriad opportunities that had been extended our way simply because we are Americans, it was incumbent upon us to offer our services to our country. The privileges we have enjoyed endow us with a responsibility, an obligation, to fulfill President Kennedy’s charge: To this country that has given us so much, it is our turn to give back. We reject the pernicious belief, commonly held at our most highly esteemed institutions, that fighting our nation’s battles is someone else’s job.”
Wow! I have hope! These two young men from an elite university get it. Perhaps not all is lost, and there isn’t such a big divide between the intellectual elite and those who enter the military. Service is not something you ask of “the other guy,” it is something you should require of yourself. These two young men recognize that service is a “great equalizer, bringing together people of all different backgrounds and teaching them to work as a team.” They recognize that they both have “something to offer” and that they “have what it takes.” Would that more young men and women recognize the same things.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Is It Getting Cold In Here?
“[The Russians] are making fun of the world,” says Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. He may be right. The Russians have promised to leave Georgia (the country, not the state) by Friday, August 22nd. In fact, a Russian General says that they’re withdrawing troops so that all their troops will be back in the area controlled by Russian peacekeepers by Friday. According to some reports, there have been troops and equipment moving back toward Russia, , but it looks like the Russians do not intend to completely comply with the European Union-brokered agreement to move back to the area they held before the August 7th invasion of Georgia. Instead of beginning a complete withdrawal, FoxNews reports the Russian army has instead settled down in several strategic spots. They’ve build trenches and fortifications in several key areas. They’ve dug trenches, set up mortars, and blocked a bridge at the entrance to Georgia’s port on the Black sea, Poti. They continue build permanent earthen berms strung with barbed wire in at least three areas along Georgia’s main East-West highway, one of which is only 30 miles from Georgia’s capitol city. Russia may be saying it will comply with the agreement; but it sure looks to me like they’re settling in for a long stay in Georgia and thumbing their noses at the rest of the world. Perhaps that’s why Russia sent a diplomatic note to NATO saying they were halting any international military cooperation with NATO under the 2002 agreement that established the NATO-Russia Council “until further instructions.”
Why is Russia even in Georgia? There’s a lot of debate about why. According to Russia, the invasion was a necessary response to Georgian “disproportionate use of force” against ethnic Russians in South Ossetia and the unfortunate Georgian decision to send troops into the disputed area patrolled by Russian peacekeepers. According to most, however, the Georgian use of their military to try to settle a “break-away” province was an excuse to discipline a former-Soviet satellite state. It appears that Russia has become increasingly unhappy about Georgia’s continued effort to develop Western ties and the small country’s attempts to join NATO. Many believe Russia’s desire to “slap down” Georgia was the underlying cause of the military invasion and the South Ossetia situation only a pretext. Why else would the Russian military continue into Georgia and establish what appears to be a permanent presence in a sovereign country, when all it needed to do was respond to Georgia’s incursion into South Ossetia? Talk about taking care of a fly with a sledge hammer.
There are other signs that Russia intends to flex its muscle in other former satellite states. Russia is extremely unhappy with Poland’s decision to permit the US to establish missile defense sites, along with a supporting garrison, inside Poland. A Russian General has even warned that “Poland, by deploying [the system] is exposing itself to a strike – 100%.” The General also mentioned that Russian doctrine permitted the use of nuclear weapons in such situations. Russia is also claiming that both Latvia and Estonia discriminate against Russian speakers. They also demand that Latvia and Estonia recognize the heroism of Soviet soldiers. Could it be that Russia is just looking for more provocations to send troops into these former-Soviet republics, as they did with Georgia?
Does anyone else feel like it’s getting increasingly cold along the former Iron Curtain?
Why is Russia even in Georgia? There’s a lot of debate about why. According to Russia, the invasion was a necessary response to Georgian “disproportionate use of force” against ethnic Russians in South Ossetia and the unfortunate Georgian decision to send troops into the disputed area patrolled by Russian peacekeepers. According to most, however, the Georgian use of their military to try to settle a “break-away” province was an excuse to discipline a former-Soviet satellite state. It appears that Russia has become increasingly unhappy about Georgia’s continued effort to develop Western ties and the small country’s attempts to join NATO. Many believe Russia’s desire to “slap down” Georgia was the underlying cause of the military invasion and the South Ossetia situation only a pretext. Why else would the Russian military continue into Georgia and establish what appears to be a permanent presence in a sovereign country, when all it needed to do was respond to Georgia’s incursion into South Ossetia? Talk about taking care of a fly with a sledge hammer.
There are other signs that Russia intends to flex its muscle in other former satellite states. Russia is extremely unhappy with Poland’s decision to permit the US to establish missile defense sites, along with a supporting garrison, inside Poland. A Russian General has even warned that “Poland, by deploying [the system] is exposing itself to a strike – 100%.” The General also mentioned that Russian doctrine permitted the use of nuclear weapons in such situations. Russia is also claiming that both Latvia and Estonia discriminate against Russian speakers. They also demand that Latvia and Estonia recognize the heroism of Soviet soldiers. Could it be that Russia is just looking for more provocations to send troops into these former-Soviet republics, as they did with Georgia?
Does anyone else feel like it’s getting increasingly cold along the former Iron Curtain?
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
It's Official
So it’s official. (Actually it was official a week ago, but I think I needed some time to consider what that meant.) My daughter, Sevilla, has been selected to deploy for 365 days. I’m not going to say where she's going, or what she’ll be doing, since I have no idea what is (or isn’t) covered by OPSEC (operational security, for those of you who don’t speak military acronyms). She won’t deploy for a while, so I have some time to get used to the idea; but she will deploy.
Now being who I am, I’ve already started looking at the practical impacts of her deployment. Sevilla’s a single parent, so obviously the biggest concern was her daughter. Of course, we will be ready, willing, and able to look after the Princess while her mom is serving her country. It won’t be much of a change, since the Princess lives with us anyway. She’ll attend the same school. She’ll sleep in the same bed. She’ll enhance the lives of her Grandparents; just like she does now. The only difference will be that her mom will be away for a while. I’ve already started to make plans on how to minimize the impact to the Princess. Sevilla and I have already considered a blog for the Princess (restricted to family and friends) as a way for her to post her thoughts and pictures and “stuff” in order to communicate with her mom. I also know that communication these days is quite different from when I was a kid and my dad had to rely on flimsy airmail paper and reel-to-reel tapes to communicate with his family. With the internet, email, webcams, and telephones, it should be fairly easy for Sevilla to keep in touch with the Princess. I also know, though, that it’s not the same and that my husband and I will have to try to fill a place in the Princess’ life that can be filled by only her mother. From the practical side, it will be tough; but thousands of kids, mothers, and grandparents have already dealt with a deployed parent and survived. We will, too.
Being who I am, I’m having a lot more trouble dealing with the “inside” impact. I’m not sure why. After all, my husband and my son have already deployed, and I was able to deal with their deployment (eventually). I know that I am proud of her and her choice to serve. I know that I think she’s doing the right thing for the right reasons. I know that I envy her the chance to do something that both of us consider very important. What I don’t know is how I really “feel” about it. For some reason, I seem to have decided not to feel. I don’t know why. Perhaps it is because there is still some time before she actually leaves. Perhaps it is because I know it will be difficult for me. All I know is that I don’t want to “feel” anything about Sevilla deploying to a dangerous place until I have to. Is it a defense mechanism? Maybe. I just know that when I do allow myself to “feel,” those feelings will be extremely complex and will cover a wide-range of emotions. In the meantime, I’ll continue to plan for the practical “outside” aspects of Sevilla’s deployment and try to let the “inside” aspects sort themselves out. I’ve was able to do it when I watched my son go off to war. I can do it again as I prepare for my daughter to do the same.
Now being who I am, I’ve already started looking at the practical impacts of her deployment. Sevilla’s a single parent, so obviously the biggest concern was her daughter. Of course, we will be ready, willing, and able to look after the Princess while her mom is serving her country. It won’t be much of a change, since the Princess lives with us anyway. She’ll attend the same school. She’ll sleep in the same bed. She’ll enhance the lives of her Grandparents; just like she does now. The only difference will be that her mom will be away for a while. I’ve already started to make plans on how to minimize the impact to the Princess. Sevilla and I have already considered a blog for the Princess (restricted to family and friends) as a way for her to post her thoughts and pictures and “stuff” in order to communicate with her mom. I also know that communication these days is quite different from when I was a kid and my dad had to rely on flimsy airmail paper and reel-to-reel tapes to communicate with his family. With the internet, email, webcams, and telephones, it should be fairly easy for Sevilla to keep in touch with the Princess. I also know, though, that it’s not the same and that my husband and I will have to try to fill a place in the Princess’ life that can be filled by only her mother. From the practical side, it will be tough; but thousands of kids, mothers, and grandparents have already dealt with a deployed parent and survived. We will, too.
Being who I am, I’m having a lot more trouble dealing with the “inside” impact. I’m not sure why. After all, my husband and my son have already deployed, and I was able to deal with their deployment (eventually). I know that I am proud of her and her choice to serve. I know that I think she’s doing the right thing for the right reasons. I know that I envy her the chance to do something that both of us consider very important. What I don’t know is how I really “feel” about it. For some reason, I seem to have decided not to feel. I don’t know why. Perhaps it is because there is still some time before she actually leaves. Perhaps it is because I know it will be difficult for me. All I know is that I don’t want to “feel” anything about Sevilla deploying to a dangerous place until I have to. Is it a defense mechanism? Maybe. I just know that when I do allow myself to “feel,” those feelings will be extremely complex and will cover a wide-range of emotions. In the meantime, I’ll continue to plan for the practical “outside” aspects of Sevilla’s deployment and try to let the “inside” aspects sort themselves out. I’ve was able to do it when I watched my son go off to war. I can do it again as I prepare for my daughter to do the same.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Disparity at the Washington Post
Deborah Howell, an ombudsman at the Washington Post, has recognized (and documented) the wide difference in how her paper covers the two Presidential candidates. It's interesting. According to Ms Howell, presumptive Democrat nominee Senator Obama "has a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post page 1 stories" since June 4th. Although trying to justify the disparity by noting that Senator Obama's Presidential run is historic because he's the first black man to be his party's presumptive nominee; but she does admit "the disparity is so wide it doesn't look good." In what seems remarkably similar to the "but everyone's doing it" mantra that my kids tried to use to get out of trouble, Ms Howell also acknowledges that the Washington Post is not alone in its less-than-balanced coverage of the two candidates. The Washington Post's assistant managing editor for politics apparently thinks there's nothing wrong with the disparate coverage. As he explains it,
"We make our own decisions about what we consider newsworthy. We are not garment workers measuring our product every day to fulfill somebody's quota. That means as editors we decide what we think is important, because that's what our readers look for us to do -- not to adhere to some arbitrary standard."
The assistant managing editor for politics at the Washington Post obviously thinks that the Post's readers want to think the same way he does, and will find the same things "newsworthy." (Perhaps this type of "group-think" is why I refuse to buy the Post.) Ms Howell does "get it" in the end. She concludes, "Numbers aren't everything in political coverage, but readers deserve comparable coverage of the candidates." Amen! I do not believe in the "fairness doctrine," but I do think that editors should consider the "other point of view" when deciding what is, or is not, newsworthy.
"We make our own decisions about what we consider newsworthy. We are not garment workers measuring our product every day to fulfill somebody's quota. That means as editors we decide what we think is important, because that's what our readers look for us to do -- not to adhere to some arbitrary standard."
The assistant managing editor for politics at the Washington Post obviously thinks that the Post's readers want to think the same way he does, and will find the same things "newsworthy." (Perhaps this type of "group-think" is why I refuse to buy the Post.) Ms Howell does "get it" in the end. She concludes, "Numbers aren't everything in political coverage, but readers deserve comparable coverage of the candidates." Amen! I do not believe in the "fairness doctrine," but I do think that editors should consider the "other point of view" when deciding what is, or is not, newsworthy.
"Above my pay grade"
This weekend, Senator Obama used the response as part of an answer to Pastor Rick Warren’s question, “when do babies get civil rights.” Good question. How a candidate answered that question will tell us a lot about the candidate; and not just the candidate’s position on abortion. The candidate’s answer will also tell us whether the candidate values civil rights for citizens of this country. It will also tell whether the candidate’s positions are consistent. (Consistent positions indicate that the candidate’s views are based on firmly held values and not just stands taken to appeal to a segment of the voting population, based on whatever poll results say.)
So how did the candidates answer? Senator McCain’s answer was simple and direct. He said a baby has civil rights, “at the moment of conception.” The answer reflected his personal beliefs, and although he may have to struggle with supporting the current state of the law, in light of those beliefs, he let us know that he had thought the issue through and reached a conclusion. In contrast, Senator Obama’s answer went something like this:
“I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
OK . . . why the “squishy” answer? What’s so hard about telling everyone when you think that a baby (or child) gets civil rights? Is the answer based on what theologians say, or what scientists say, or is the answer based on a person’ s own judgment? Obviously, Senator Obama wants to give the answer that will appeal to the most voters, not the answer in which he truly believes. His resort to the “above my pay grade” answer is nothing more than a cop-out. How can Senator Obama not have faced the question of when babies gain civil rights, when he’s consistently supported abortion rights; including voting against the partial-birth abortion ban? If he doesn’t know when a baby is entitled to civil rights, how does he justify voting to let viable child, who is partially delivered before being aborted, die?
We ask our young members of the Armed Forces, some no more than 18- or 19-years-old, to make snap judgments about using deadly force based on very restrictive rules of engagement. Those young men and women, most with a very low pay grade, have the moral courage to think things through, to do their best to apply the rules that constrict them, and to live with the consequences of a quick decision made under often difficult circumstances. Why, then, do we let Senator Obama get away with a “above my pay grade” cop out answer? We shouldn’t. Obviously, we shouldn’t elect him to the grade of President! He doesn’t have the judgment for it.
So how did the candidates answer? Senator McCain’s answer was simple and direct. He said a baby has civil rights, “at the moment of conception.” The answer reflected his personal beliefs, and although he may have to struggle with supporting the current state of the law, in light of those beliefs, he let us know that he had thought the issue through and reached a conclusion. In contrast, Senator Obama’s answer went something like this:
“I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
OK . . . why the “squishy” answer? What’s so hard about telling everyone when you think that a baby (or child) gets civil rights? Is the answer based on what theologians say, or what scientists say, or is the answer based on a person’ s own judgment? Obviously, Senator Obama wants to give the answer that will appeal to the most voters, not the answer in which he truly believes. His resort to the “above my pay grade” answer is nothing more than a cop-out. How can Senator Obama not have faced the question of when babies gain civil rights, when he’s consistently supported abortion rights; including voting against the partial-birth abortion ban? If he doesn’t know when a baby is entitled to civil rights, how does he justify voting to let viable child, who is partially delivered before being aborted, die?
We ask our young members of the Armed Forces, some no more than 18- or 19-years-old, to make snap judgments about using deadly force based on very restrictive rules of engagement. Those young men and women, most with a very low pay grade, have the moral courage to think things through, to do their best to apply the rules that constrict them, and to live with the consequences of a quick decision made under often difficult circumstances. Why, then, do we let Senator Obama get away with a “above my pay grade” cop out answer? We shouldn’t. Obviously, we shouldn’t elect him to the grade of President! He doesn’t have the judgment for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)