What reason do I have to feel that an Administration of Senator Obama and Senator Biden will be bad? What makes me feel that they can’t work together?

Well besides the thoughts I have stated before in my post Obama - Biden: Where are the positives? I have another item to add.

When Senator Obama okayed political ads attacking Senator john McCain’s ability to work with computers it failed to mention that McCain has problems because of the wounds he received as a Viet Nam POW. Those injuries to his arms make it very difficult for him to properly use a computer. There may be other issues on the use of a computer, something that is more the tool of those 45 and under – as we grew up with these innovations – but I am not aware if that is a factor.

Senator Biden is aware of this limitiation to McCain. And he had this to say on the subject.



If he had known he wouldn’t have done it. That is critical. He wasn’t informed about the ad. So in this simple answer we get that Senator Obama does not confide or discuss his decisions with his number 2. And Biden disputes the decision of Obama.

It may seem like a little thing, but if they differ and disagree on political ads what about significant issues like Pakistan and international policy, healthcare, Iraq, and the other major issues that they debated before and through the Primaries? What kind of Presidential Administration will they provide if they don’t speak and discuss, and oppose the actions of each other?

That is an issue Democrats want to gloss over, and the major media refuses to acknowledge. But that is an important fact to me, and my vote. How about you?

Labels: healthcare, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Biden, Senator John McCain, Viet Nam

The question of the day has to be the fact that Gen. David H. Petraeus will be addressing Congress today. That report, being given as I write, has massive political ramification as well the long term effects on our nation. From what I have heard at this time, neither party will be completely pleased with the report I am hearing. But that leads to a bigger problem.

Overall the Republicans want to hear that the war is going well and that the Iraqis are taking over for U.S. troops. Democrats want to hear that the war is as they have long claimed a failed effort. The public though wants to hear that there is a timeframe by which they can expect to have our loved ones home.

The summary has been stated that ‘the surge has been effective, Iraqi forces are slowly making inroads to taking control of their own country, and it may be possible to see the start of a withdrawal in the summer of next year.’ That is a near direct quote from Gen. Petraeus as he has spoken live. In addition troops will be removed from December up to July 2008, to reach pre-surge levels at that time.

So what does this mean? We can expect that several of the Democrats, especially the leading 3 Presidential candidates will not be satisfied. Already Senator Clinton has stated

“There is no military solution,” Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said last night. “That is why I believe we should start bringing our troops home.”

And the other candidates have made similar comments.

On the other side will be the Republicans and their Presidential hopefuls. They have backed the President and the military from day one. Continuing to do so based on this report means that they will be identified for the continued fighting our soldiers will go through. Considering the large numbers of the public that is hoping for the end of this war in a relatively quick manner, this will not bode well for many during upcoming elections.

But why is this political at all? Did this nation learn anything from Korea and Viet Nam? Have we not realized that when politics override, or guide, decisions of an active war and the commanders waging it, that it inevitably leads to the wrong decisions and increased American deaths?

I was speaking with a philosopher (an actively teaching and writing philosopher) friend of mine over the weekend. She mentioned something that I thought was quite important. She seeks the ideal, the conceptual best path, and is upset that America does not try to attain more of that path. I can understand that and in part agree with it. I think much of the nation would also like to follow that path. But such a path is not completely feasible in real world actions.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Demcratic Party, Gen. David H. Petraeus, Iraq War, presidential election, Republican Party, Senator Hillary Clinton, Viet Nam

In the recent Democratic Presidential debate held at Howard University, an interesting question was brought up. What are the candidates going to do about HIV/AIDS. The question was posed to specifically address the fact that it is the leading cause of death for Black women age 25-34. But considering roughly half of the estimated 1.3 million people infected in America today are not African American it is a question that EVERY American should be concerned about.

With over a decade of knowledge and research posed on this one subject, most would expect that the government would have a defined plan in place. Goals and targets set, with periodic reports of status towards those goals. Yet none exist. Nor does a single candidate of either political party have an answer.

Probably the most powerful comment came from Senator Clinton

“If HIV/AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country.”

That may be a true statement, but we have learned a few things. HIV/AIDS is not a gay issue, nor an African American issue. It’s not something that is exclusive to the poor or uneducated. This is a medical problem that affects the lives of our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and children. That does not even touch upon the epidemic nature of these diseases in the rest of the world.

If we compare it to Viet Nam, which affected the entire nation, and is often quoted as affecting every 5th American in some personal manner, there were 58,209 reported dead, 305,000 reported wounded and 2,000 still considered missing. Right now there are at least 500,000 that have been killed and 1.3 million infected today. Viet Nam tore the heart out of America, and HIV/AIDS is killing us.

The fact that not one Presidential candidate has a plan, of any type, is remarkable and incredulous at the same time. This is an issue that does not go away in time or if we do not speak about it. If we do not act on this in a structured manner, it will grow and become more of an issue. If I were to compare it to a cancer, if you do not do anything about it it will kill you.

It’s not enough to hear a nice soundbite, that grabs our emotions on this issue. It’s not enough to make a statement that everyone can agree is true. We need a PLAN. We need LEADERSHIP. Isn’t that what the Presidential candidates are supposed to be presenting in these debates?

I’m glad that the issue of HIV/AIDS is more understood today than it was in the past. I’m happy that the rampant fear that came with the recognition of the disease has toned down a bit. But I’m not happy that there is no leadership in place, or seemingly forthcoming, to deal with this disease. Hiding our collective heads in the sand is not an answer.

Speaking in a Presidential manner is great. Looking Presidential is wonderful. Being a leader that can hold the position of President of the United States requires a bit more. Part of that is having plans for issues that affect 1 in every 300 Americans, and potentially could affect 1 in 10. And for those that think it’s not so bad the National Cancer Institute believes there are 8 million Americans with cancer today, that’s roughly 1 American in 150, and the second leading cause of death in America.

Don’t you think that an issue of such a magnitude deserves attention? Shouldn’t any potential President of America not only be aware that this issue exists, they should have a plan. One that takes more than 30 seconds to explain and get cheap votes on?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, AIDS, cancer, HIV, presidential candidate, Viet Nam

Continued from part 1...

If someone says “so and so just said you sleep with animals” and you hit so and so, it doesn’t matter that what you were told wasn’t true or only partially true. You will be in a fight all the same. I it’s known that you stop fighting once you get a bloody nose, I’d expect you will get hit in the nose. If you do stop fighting because your nose starts to bleed, it doesn’t mean the other person is going to stop fighting, in fact I’d expect them to kick your arse now that you stopped resisting. Every kid in elementary schoolyards understands that.

I try to understand the conspiracists that feel Americans staged the 9/11 attack on other Americans. I am lost at how anyone could agree with this. I am befuddled. Where is the logic in it? What is the gain? Is there anything of worth for America in Afghanistan? Did we need to kill Americans to attack Iraq? Didn’t we fight a war previously without any attacks on our soil?

I wonder how anyone can claim that EVERY Jewish person was out of the Towers and away from the area. I personally know for a fact that several I know where there and injured. I am told from friends of Jewish persons being part of those that died. I wonder how anyone could know the religion of every person that didn’t show up for work that day, or everyone that died to be able to make such a claim. I wonder how many Black Americans, Hispanic Americans and Whites and other minorities didn’t make it to the Towers that day. What are the percentages? If more women didn’t show up to work for the attack does that mean that N.O.W. organized the attacks? If that sounds ludicrous (which I feel it is) how is any other group of Americans more credible?

If it were Jewish Americans what could they gain? America already supports Israel. The Twin Towers were not owned by any Jewish corporations or persons at that time to my knowledge. If the profit were shared among Jews the payout from the insurance is worthless unless a handful of people were involved. If it were a handful, why would they need to kill thousands just to get a minor amount of money? Wouldn’t it have been easier to simply use hijacked planes that were empty and attack in the middle of the night?

Of course all Americans have a right to think whatever they wish. They have the freedom to make any movie, or help distribute any movie, they wish and can afford. But where is the logic in this theory? Where is the gain? And what consequence is likely? Wouldn’t EVERY enemy America use such a film to denounce the war in Afghanistan and Iraq? Wouldn’t EVERY militant Muslim group point to such a film to gain recruits and funds? Wouldn’t every terrorist use such propaganda to incite attacks against Americans everywhere in the world?

And I have to consider how different the actions of liberals today are from the actions of liberals during Viet Nam. How much support is shown by retreating from the fight now? How much respect is given to those that VOLUNTEERED to fight in IRAQ? How much confidence are we inspiring as congressmen and women seek to enact restrictions that would prevent soldiers from protecting themselves [part of the recent bill passed by 218 congressmen and women requires that there must be a 15 day prior notice to Congress before any troops can be moved into Iraq. Thus is troops need support from the air, they would need to wait 15 days to get a C130 in with supplies. This is a fact not a supposition. Read page 72 of the bill.] I wonder how long it will be before ultra-liberals call the troops baby-killers as they did to those that returned from Viet Nam.

These are things I wonder and see. What about you?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Congress, Iraq War, Twin Towers, Viet Nam

Continued from Part 1...

Further, the parable of a military coup, used by those on the extreme left to scare and justify their comments is hardly appropriate. To be on guard of such things is always a good thing. Questioning the authority and decisions of the government is always positive, when done with respect. The 2 are not mutually exclusive as Arkin infers. The threat of a government gone awry is a real question to be wary of, and the threat of terrorism is a fact of life in the 21 century. Arkin may wish to deflect his bile under the slipper slope of a fallacy but the reality of life today will not be deterred by such comments, rather they will be emboldened by them.

Arkin would have uninformed readers believe that the pay to those in the Armed Forces is extravagant. While there is some offset due to a lack of rent (if you live on base in barracks) and free food, and limited free healthcare, this does not extend entirely to any serviceman’s family. Basic pay starts at $14,000. A sergeant has his pay capped at $30,000 after year 12. That means that after 12 years and 5 promotions the pay has moved from poverty to slightly more than the average in America. Also the fact that the military is on-duty 24 hours a day and that means an E-5 (sergeant) makes $3.42 an hour. That’s half of minimum wage while doing almost 4x as much work after 12 years and 5 promotions. No wonder there are so many millionaires made from their pay, or why so many qualify for government pay to help their families survive.

Given all the above I must say that Arkin [yes I have purposefully not added the proper title of Mr. as I do not feel this individual deserves such recognition] is the ugly reminder of what some are capable of doing with the Freedom of Speech, that other bleed and die to protect. The fact that those serving in the Armed Forces are barely paid, and defend the principles of this nation with their lives as opposed to a person who writes commentary under the guise of a title that is unearned, for pay that is, comparatively, enormous and for the benefit of a few radical ideals shared by relatively few, seems to clearly show who is a mercenary.

Not only is Arkin mercenary and ungrateful in his words, he borders on traitorous. I say that as his words give aid and comfort to the enemy. They confer a theme last seen during Viet Nam. I’m speaking of the comments by General Giap, Commander of the North Vietnamese Army after the TET offensive. I’m speaking of how Arkin is setting the ground for other Americans to follow in the footsteps of those during Viet Nam. That mindset caused the hate that was inflicted on soldiers coming home; it caused the defunding of the war and 3,000,000 lives being lost after American troops pulled out. It was the reason why America lost the first war ever. None of these facts are positive for American citizens. In a world of terrorists, portable nuclear weapons, ricin, bioweapons and other threats losing a war means more than embarrassment, it can well mean the lives of innocent Americans. I feel that anyone who advances such an outcome, for nothing more than money and fame, helps our enemies and that is traitorous.

Lastly I wish to remind Arkin, and those that wish to make equally venomous statements, that if the acts of the government or the American Armed Forces (under direction from the government) are so contemptible then they may revoke their American citizenship and leave. Perhaps there is a nation that will accept them. But I would also warn them that the freedom to make such statements will not be allowed in any country I think will accept them. Still I would not mind the loss.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Armed Forces, Freedom of Speech, US military, Viet Nam, Washington Post

Have you read the comments by William Arkin? Published by the Washington Post on January 30, 2007, Arkin blathers on with one of the most insulting displays I have seen in quite some time. His comments are disrespectful, ignorant, disloyal, and incendiary. It is comments like this that give me concern both in the next election and the future of this nation.

The words of this individual are crass and smug. Perhaps he thought that only he and his friends could understand his words and their barely implied meanings. Perhaps he felt that those of us that are, or were, in the Armed Forces could not understand his insults. If that was the case he is sorely mistaken.

When he states in his article, “I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army” he either thinks he is being witty or we the readers are not. By making this statement he has implied that he is not for those who are in the military expressing their ideas. He would not have to make the emphasis if that were the case, nor would he exclude the Marines, Coast Guard, Air Force and Navy as well as the related reserves. From this alone he makes his position absolutely clear, and it is far from one of tolerance.

He later goes on to say that soldiers should be grateful that the public “still offer their support to them, and their respect.” He then purports that the American public should not support or respect the Armed Forces because, “through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.”

Perhaps Arkin was never taught a lesson I learned long ago from my father, a Viet Nam Marine, that respect is something that is earned. The entire American military has earned the respect of the citizens in the Revolution, War of 1812, Korea, Viet Nam, World War I and II, Gulf War, and now in Iraq and Afghanistan (it seems that the latter was completely forgotten about) among multiple other engagements around the world. Our Armed Forces have earned respect around the world for protecting the values and goals of our nation, and for defending the Constitution and Amendments that allow Arkin to make such comments. Were this another nation, perhaps like Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) or North Korea or Venezuela, Arkin would have the local secret police drop by and shoot him dead without repercussion or perhaps poison him with radioactive isotopes to keep him silent.

In addition, the Armed Forces are not pillaging rapists Arkin asserts. To my knowledge there has been one such occurrence of the accusations he mentioned, not the hundreds or more he barely implies. In the years of war we have currently gone through, with hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, there have barely been any incidents that do not express the efforts and actions to improve the lives of the Iraqi and Afghan people. For a purported ‘military analyst’ (that has never served in the military) located in Washington, D.C. I would expect he might have read that, or seen it on the news.

As for, “But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon,” perhaps Arkin failed to hear of the recent protest (where Mr. Tim Robbins and others were at) where protesters did spit on a serviceman [as reported on Fox News]. Perhaps Arkin is unaware of the violent protests at universities by students that have caused the cancellation of Career Days there. In both cases it is violence against the Armed Forces, reminiscent of what was done to our soldiers returning from Viet Nam. In addition even one ‘baby killer’ comment or epithet is far too much in my opinion. Were it not for these men and women, doing a job no one wants to have done and guided by the Commander-and-Chief for the benefit of the whole nation, there would be no such thing as Freedom of Speech.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Armed Forces, Fox News, Hanoi Jane, Iraq War, Viet Nam, Washington Post, William Arkin

Finishing post from parts 1 & 2...

...

The emphasis on change is fine. To question the plans in place is great. Of course that is based on being able to actually provide a plan in place of the one given. It’s of no use to cry sour grapes, in my opinion, when you have nothing to offer in its place. And as well worded as the comments may be, how hopeful for change, it is meaningless when not one Democrat has offered a single plan, in detail of any sort – including leaving, as a counter-offer to consider. I think the reference to Viet Nam and Korea is correct, though not for the reasons intended by the Democrats.

And lastly, I am offended. I do not believe ANY political party should have the indigence to threaten the President of the United States. How dare them. To state that if the President does not do what their party wants (not what the American people want or is in their best interest) they will ‘show him the way.” Who do the Democrats think they are? They are referring to the Commander-and-Chief. Respect is due. Whether or not they block everything the President wishes respect is called for. They have forgotten their place; they are one of 3 branches of government. They are no greater than any other part, just as is the President. To speak in such a manner is to not give the trust given to leaders in the past, to not seek out the best option for the nation, to be partisan above being patriotic and rude. That is what I think.

Senator spoke for the Democratic Party. Given that, the Democratic Party has spoken poorly. I am sure they are hoping for few viewers of they comments, few reading the newspapers and internet copies of the President and their response. I am sure they are counting on the few seconds long soundbites to be in their favor, promoted by the media, and convincing the general public that they have the ‘average man’ in mind. Well I am an ‘average man’ and I do pay attention. Their comments failed to sway me, rather they evoked my anger. Maybe my readers, you will think different. Somehow I think not.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Commander-and-Chief, Democratic Party, State of the Union, Viet Nam

Having just heard the President’s State of the Union speech, and the Democratic Response I feel compelled to respond. I will address the Democratic Response as it has me enraged. With all due respect to Senator Webb I feel that the response was an insult to my intelligence.

That is a strong accusation, I realize. I will back it up as well as I can.

In the first point, Senator Webb states that the economy is being viewed unfairly. He stated that the view of the economy should be seeing from the point of view of ‘Main Street.’ The senator went on to discuss the vast discrepancy in CEO pay vs. the average worker.

I have a problem with these comments. The fact is that unemployment is at a low. Profits for corporations are up. That is important as the money corporations make benefits shareholders, and helps with corporate taxes, and allows for higher research and development funding for future innovation. It is a fact that for the average corporation to make more money more of its product, or the same products at higher prices must be bought. The consumer must have the funds to buy those goods, at either the higher price or more goods. That to me is a direct example of the health of ‘main street’ health.

The fact that CEO pay is up is a good sign. Higher pay equates, or should, to better performance of a company. You can’t pay a massive salary if the money isn’t there. And the extreme of 400x more than the employees (I believe the statement was employee and not average employee which means the comparison could be versus the lowest paid person in the company) is the reason why people own businesses. Don’t we want to be our own bosses to be able to make more money? If you have built up a company, or improved an existing one, don’t you deserve to reap the reward? And if it is too much the company will suffer, the pay will be lowered or you will be replaced. Basic law of business as far as I know. On the other side of this thought is the fact that I, as the owner of my own business, do NOT want the government telling me what is the most I can make in my business. That is the essence of what the CEO pay comparison means. Government regulation of what I deserve to make for running my business. The laws may start off with the intention of affecting the top 1% of CEO’s but they will inevitably affect ALL CEO’s.

The question of corporate profits was further questioned later, as Senator Webb mentioned how the pay has increased since his time in college. Since we are aware of Senator Webb being in Viet Nam, I assume that his college years were in the late 70’s. Considering that, is his comparison adjusted for the rate of inflation? Does it consider how much a dollar bought roughly 3 decades ago as compared to today?

And when Senator Webb mentions how President Roosevelt worked on breaking corporate profits, did the senator consider the philanthropy that CEO’s did then? Did the senator consider the extremes in CEO pay vs. employees? And is that comparison better or worse than 30 years ago, or today?

What about the philanthropy that the top CEO makes because they have such an alleged extreme in pay? The Gates Foundation would not exist id CEO pay was capped. Mr. Warren Buffett may not be able to give away his fortune if he did not make as much, or his incentive (pay and profit) were limited or removed.

Continued in part 2

Labels: Senator Webb, State of the Union, Viet Nam, Warren Buffett