Joseph Chez
August 31, 2010
This day marks the official end of U.S. combat involvement in Iraq, but is it over - and, was it necessary?
President Obama will go before the nation on national TV today and attempt to summarize the beginning and the end of war hostilities in Iraq. However, he will walk a fine line in not taking credit for a perceived success, but he will also not excuse the nation for a historic blunder in having invaded a sovereign nation under the guise of national security when in fact, such nation had nothing to do with the attack on U.S. soil on 9-11.
However, Republicans on the political right are openly taking credit for the war with Iraq and further reinvigorate their previous claims of Iraq having posed a direct and imminent threat against our national security. And yet, history has noted the blunder of such war against Iraq, a war which was premeditated and justified with distorted facts and dishonorable acts. Today, neo-cons will call it a "conservative victory" in Iraq, despite the dishonest reasons for the war.
So yes, the Republicans should be allowed to take credit for the blundering international piracy and discredit to our nation. They should take credit for the 4, 220 US soldiers killed in the war, plus, the 31,911 soldiers injured.
On the other hand, President Obama has done little to change the course of hostilities in the Middle East and in fact, continued what President Bush started. So, can he take credit in this drawdown of forces in Iraq, or should he also be an accomplice to the deceit of the war. I therefore argue that despite the drawdown President Obama must also take blame for taking the baton from former President Bush and having pursued the same failed policy, in like-manner and with the same fervor.
And yet, today President Obama will carefully muddle through, in explaining that U.S. involvement in Iraq is coming to a close. But, is it? No it is not. Fifty Thousand US troops will still remain in Iraq under the guise of being non-combat forces. Furthermore, we leave behind a behemoth US presence in that country, from private security forces, to the biggest US embassy ever built anywhere in the world. We also leave a government which is simply not Iraqi home-grown, but is a carefully planted cadre of Iraqi officials who were carefully seeded by the U.S. Government.
Thus, what may be perceived as an end of US involvement in Iraq, it is not? While neo-cons in this country see a victory, is it not. How can anybody make a claim that while we invaded the wrong country, oops, we continued until we vanquished? And after 7 years of war, casualties in Iraq continue with no end in sight. It seem to me that we are making it look like a win, when in reality, we are leaving Iraq quietly and without fanfare - because, it was a big blunder from the beginning and, we leave a country in disarray and ripe for political and sectarian conflict. Regrettably, we also leave a country which its military was well trained by the US, but sadly, will in the future; pose a bigger security problem regionally and against US security interest.
The truth Mr. President............
]]>
Joseph Chez
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is not waiting for the controversial law SB 1070 to take affect and so, he continues with police neighborhood sweeps under the guise of crime sweeps. This time, he will be carrying out his 15th sweep with over 150 deputies and Posse volunteers. No doubt, Arizona has become a police state where entire neighborhoods are corralled and its inhabitants are subject to police intrusion and arrest.
In previous sweeps, the unrepentant and embattled sheriff has been asked about what the cost is for these sweeps, but he fails to fully explain the cost and funding for these police raids. Although he argues that part of the cost is covered by private donations. Interestingly however, Arizona's controversial law SB 1070 will allow for private groups to sue governmental entities to force enforcement of the law. Additionally, these seemingly interested private parties in the law suits will also be able to recover any and all legal fees. But, what appears to be self-serving, is that the same law will collect fines and those funds will only go to a police fund for anti-gang units and anti-immigration control. Thus, the people of Arizona will continue to be under the thumb of a well funded police force whose motives remain in control of Sheriff Joe Arpio's private posse.
Clearly, while various police chiefs and other county sheriffs in Arizona will not enforce the law in question - as they believe it to be racially motivated, Sheriff Joe Arpaio continues with his so called "crime sweeps." So let cut to the chase; Sheriff Arpaio is being motivated not by love or affection for the rule of law, but simply - it's obvious. But as someone once said, "any excuse will serve a tyrant."
]]>Joseph Chez
Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi, today you celebrate your birthday and the nation also celebrates a victory. And yet, until recently the nation was disheartened with the state of affairs in Congress, especially with what was perceived as your apprehensiveness and lack of leadership.
Last year, during a time of heightened frustration by Democrats and a peak period of attacks against you from the opposition, I too asked for your resignation as Speaker of the House, as I did not see a robust challenge to the rising tide from the opposition - the Republicans.
In 2007, when you became the first female Speaker of the House, you made history and there was nothing to indicate you were not suited for the job. However, there were some concerns then - that you wanted to be accommodating to the opposition in Congress as well as with the Bush Administration. Perhaps, it was prudence, perhaps it was calculating. Nonetheless, it was a big mistake of inaction and lack of oversight. From the beginning, Democrats on the Hill and a great majority of the democratic base wanted Congress to review much of what the White House was doing under cover, such as the secret U.S. prisons around the world, the much talked-about ongoing torture by the U.S. and the pervasive Bush Administration spying on American citizens. In fact, Democrats wanted a full review of the reasons for going to war with Iraq and more importantly, they wanted the war to come to an end. Moreover, with constitutional protections that had been eroded by the Bush administration, the nation wanted action to restore the civil liberties lost under the Patriot Act. Additionally, from the beginning, you set aside any notion of impeachment proceedings against President Bush for fear of offending the opposition, even though; there was clear evidence of wrong doing by the prior administration. I guess one can entertain the notion that you simply did not want a backlash from the Republicans, but Madam Speaker, the omission to take action against what was wrong only emboldened the opposition.
Now, after many months of much grief and ambivalence by Democrats on the Hill, we can now move forward - without the help or bipartisanship expectation from the opposition. We should not forget, that the American people in 2008 were looking for leadership and chose the Democrats to take the helm. And by the grace of the American people, the alignment of the planets and the (once in a) blue moon, Democrats were able to control both houses of Congress and the Executive Branch. Regrettably, Democrats and your office allowed for the opposition to become emboldened and they took control of the debate. In fact, the opposition almost had full control of Congress, even though they were the minority party. But, things have taken a turn for the better; you and your congressional colleagues now realize the dire consequences of not properly assuming your role of leadership. Inaction creates a vacuum and where there is lack of leadership, the opportunist will rise up. However, despite the intolerant vermin coming out of the shadows and hijacking the American debate on important issues, under your renewed leadership, Madam Speaker, Democrats have successfully passed "The Affordable Health Care for America Act." Thus, your hard work and persistent duty now prevails. For that, you have my renewed admiration and support. But we should not stop there yet; Congress must bring back the Fairness Doctrine, to give balance to the American debate. A one sided monopoly in the public airwaves only feeds extremism. We must further bring the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to a complete halt, in addition to ending the secret military involvements such as in Pakistan or Yemen. Yes, Madam Speaker, it is time to fund education in our own campuses rather than prop tyrant regimes or support religious states which conduct official assassinations and subjugate their neighbors. We need to clean up our environment and create new environmentally friendly sources of energy. We need to repave every street and highways in the country and create more jobs for the unemployed. We need regulation to end the shark loan and credit practices of the banking industry, but we also need regulation to stop the exorbitant cost and egregious business practices of the TV cable and cell phone industry. And not yet included in the health care reform, we need strict regulation of the pharmaceutical industry so the American people can have affordable medication. But more importantly, the American people want Congress to show leadership and results. We want Congress to work for WE THE PEOPLE, not for special interest.
Thus, on this special day of your birthday, Madam Speaker, I bid you good health, continued success and you have my renewed admiration for your leadership as Speaker of the House. May you find calm waters in your voyage and the wind behind your back. Keep a tight grip on the helm Madam Speaker!
]]>
By
Joseph Chez
Why should I be surprised that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for the above case, when at a private gathering, standing next to Justice Kennedy, I heard him say, "Anybody else but Hillary!" And yet, the U.S. Supreme Court just handed down a landmark case decision (January 21, 2010) which is a game changer for American politics. Further, political experts believe the Court placed its judicial weight - favoring the political right. The 5-4 decision now lifts campaign limits and restrictions on corporate spending in federal elections. But, the political left in the country is not surprised; under the Rehnquist court, in December 2000, in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of George W. Bush and simply gave away the 2000 presidential election to the republicans. This week, the Robert's Court ushered a new era of corporate America having a free reign to dominate all things political in the country. The rationale? I can assure you that the issues are rather complex, but I have briefed the recent Supreme Court ruling for the masses rather than for law professors, and thus, I have come out with this Chicken hawk legal brief:
________________________________________________________________________
CHICKEN HAWK -- THE BRIEF:
Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission
FACTS: A nonprofit corporation, Citizens United, released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then Senator Hillary Clinton and candidate in the 2000 Presidential Election, which potentially violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general funds for speech that is deemed "electioneering communication" and that is publicly distributed expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U.S.C. § 441b. Citizens United thus sought declaratory and injunctive relief fearing violation of election laws.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for which the three-judge district court denied appellant's motions for preliminary injunctions. Appellant is now requesting the Court for motion to dismiss or affirm.
ISSUE:
1. Whether 2 U.S.C. §441b of BRCA is valid and applicable under
Austin v. Michigan as the lower court did not resolve the issue?
2. Whether the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) violated Citizen's United's free speech?
3. Whether disclaimers and disclosure requirements are valid and must be confined to "speech?"
RULING:
1. Speech within the reach of rules created for regulating political speech is chilled and functions as the equivalent of prior restraint, giving the FEC power analogous to the type of government practices that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit. A statute that chills speech can and must be invalidated. Sec. 441b's prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech. Austin v. Michigan is overruled. The part of McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission that upheld BCRA §203's extension of §441b's restrictions on independent corporate expenditures is also overruled.
2. Speech is of primary importance to the integrity of the election process. And, because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy - it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people - political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence.
3. Citizens United's contention that disclosure requirements must be confined to speech as it is the functional equivalent of expressed advocacy is rejected.
RATIONALE:
Case can not be resolved on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the First Amendment's meaning and purpose; however, Citizens United did not waive a challenge to the Austin ruling. Notwithstanding, even though speech itself is of primary importance to the integrity of the election process, Austin provides no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures. Hence, §441b's restrictions on such expenditures are invalid and cannot be applied to Hillary. Further, Government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity and no government interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.
Disclosure requirements are the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations.
DISPOSITION:
Applications of §201 and 311 (disclaimer and disclosure requirements) affirmed.
Reversed in part, affirmed in part (Austin ruling, §203 of McConnell), and remanded.
********************************************
In McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission, 540 U.S. 93, 203-209, the court placed limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge, relying on the holding of the Austin case.
In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, the court held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity.
********************************************
Of course, I wrote this brief in order to better understand the reasoning behind the ruling. However, having read the entire opinion, I still fail to grasp its practical approach and legal reasoning. And just like the rest of the country, I remain confused and flabbergasted. Notwithstanding, the Supreme Court's decision inadvertently thus leaves the country with more questions than it answers. In fact, one could aptly conclude that this ruling was deliberate and with purpose. Why you may ask? There is the belief amongst legal scholars, that the majority within the court is perhaps a judicial activist group which is pursuing a conservative agenda. Consider the following: perhaps this catechism majority within the Court is framing the issues before them in anticipations of over turning cases such as Roe v. Wade. Far fetched? Not so. For if corporation can be construed as legal participants, the same as individuals, within the scope of federal elections, it follows that fetuses may also have a "voice" duly recognized by stare decisis. Or, how about this; currently, nonprofit groups such as churches are tax exempt, but are barred from political campaign intervention under IRS Code §501(c)(3). However, since many churches today are heads of nonprofit corporations, can churches now openly campaign and influence elections on issues dear to their gospel? For example: Right to life issue, or gay marriage?
However, we must insist that while under the Citizens United ruling, if corporations are to be recognized, the same as individuals, that such enterprise also be held accountable, the same as individuals. What comes to mind is, "libel?" Thus, if the Swift Boaters of America, a nonprofit corporation/for defamation purpose group attacks the character of a political candidate, they should not be able to seek protection under the First Amendment.
In sum, the current Supreme Court decision does however: 1) provide for corporations to be treated as individuals; 2) does away with regulations prohibiting corporations (unions) from using their funds in federal elections; 3) corporations and associations can now openly campaign in favor or against a candidate; 4) also eliminates restrictions on campaign ads prior to a primary or election; 5) and last, it keeps regulations which prohibit direct contributions to candidates.
And of course, I do not want to leave you with any inference that Justice Kennedy ruled in favor of Citizens United because he may not like Hillary. Simply, standing next to him, after a dedication of a U.S. District Court (branch), a friend of mine asked Justice Kennedy how he felt about a potential woman becoming president of these United States of America. His statement and facial expressions said it all. However, I want to believe that despite his possible disdain for Hillary Clinton, that Justice Kennedy's ruling was entirely within the scope of jurisprudence and his judicial discretion. I will tell you however, why I decided to name the brief, the CHICKEN HAWK. Because, like they say in corporate office, when there's lots of money to spend and lots of politicians willing to take it - IT WILL BE EASY PICK'INS!
]]>
Joseph Chez
Ever since the attempted terrorist attack on Flight 253, the media and our government has been consumed with what is perceived as a systemic security failure. Consequently, reactionary measures are being put in place in hopes of keeping the country safe. But will we be safer with beefing up security without considering the cause and affect of what fuels terrorism?
On January 5, 2010 at a White House news briefing, the dean of the White House Press Corps and columnist for the Hearst Newspapers, Helen Thomas, asked Press Secy. Robert Gibbs the most profound, yet simple question to date concerning the attempted terrorist attack- and so she asked: "what is the core reasons they want to blow us up?" Not surprised, Press Secy. Gibbs responded consistent with our national denial and did not adequately answer Helen's question. Here's what he did say:
MR. GIBBS: I don't know that I'm the best person to speak for some of their actions.
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, again, I think that for whatever awful and murderous reason that people seek to get on planes and do innocent people throughout the world harm, I can't speak to the type of deranged mentality that leads somebody to do that.
Immediately after the White House news briefing that day, I contacted Helen and thanked her for having the determination to ask questions which are not being asked by the rest of the media, and questions which are not being addressed by this administration. Helen responded that it was important to get the administration on record that if they do know or acknowledge the cause of the new hatred against us, that it was important that we know what the authorities do know.
On January 7, 2010, during a White House Briefing by Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano, Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security Brennan, and Press Secretary Gibbs, Helen once again asked:
HELEN: ... what is really lacking always for us is you don't give the motivation of why they want to do us harm.
MR. BRENNAN: Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents. What they have done over the past decade and a half, two decades, is to attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that he's able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death.
HELEN: And you're saying it's because of religion?
MR. BRENNAN: I'm saying it's because of an al Qaeda organization that uses the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way.
HELEN: Why?
MR. BRENNAN: I think this is a -- this is a long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland.
HELEN: But you haven't explained why.
Of course, as in litigation, a lawyer should not ask a question for which he/she does not know the answer. In like circumstances, a news reporter should ask questions for which there is still no answer. Thus, Helen, the renowned journalist that she is, continues to ask "why" we are being targeted by terrorist.
As a young man, while in college, I worked for the USFS as a member of a hot-shot fire crew, and the most basic of fire science taught me that in fighting fire, one must get to the source of the fire - first and foremost. Simply throwing water at the flames is meaningless and does nothing to abate the fire. Therefore, in extinguishing a fire, one must first take out the source of the fire and second, whatever fuels the fire. Likewise, tackling the issue of terrorism, our national leaders must not only know the source of terrorism but must also tackle what fuels terrorism. Simply reacting with surprise, finger pointing and instituting tougher security measures does not address the issue of why such individuals are so willing to give up their lives in order to get to us. Can we really stop them? Not really. For example, while our government is focusing on tightening airport security, thousands of Iranians, Somalis, Iraqis, et al, are skipping the airports and are simply walking up to our border crossings and asking for asylum. After a short detention, they are simply let out - on their own recognizance- and are given a date for an immigration hearing (if they ever show up of course). Does anybody see a failure to connect dots.........?
And so I agree with Helen Thomas, that it is imperative that the core reasons for "why" they want to harm us be considered and answered by our government leaders. For if we deliberately disavow our uneven-handedness in the Israeli/Palestinian issue or our hostile involvement in the various, overt and clandestine wars in the Middle East, then, we are fooling ourselves and adding fuel to the fire which may consume us. Conversely, if we truly wish to be safe from terror, we must therefore resolve the issues which fuel the hatred towards our country.
]]>
Joseph Chez
The attempted terrorist attack on Xmas day is of course regrettable and troubling. However, we should be asking ourselves why such animus towards the United States of America continues? Did we not get another leader that promised change and the resetting of American foreign policy? Today, the hostilities in the Middle East continue and we are in constant panic at home because of attempted terror attacks on the country. I therefore argue, that having voted for change, there seems to be a disconnect somewhere. Perhaps, the reset button has yet to be pushed?
"We will not rest until we find all who were involved and are held accountable" is what President Obama said today in response to Al Qaeda's claim for the Xmas day attempted terrorist attack on the U.S. bound passenger plane. Interestingly, the President's warning to the terrorist was given with much bravado and unyielding determination. In fact, it was reminiscent of the same bravado given by former President George W. Bush as he addressed a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001- in which he unequivocally gave a stern warning to the 9-11 culprits and gave his "justice will be done" speech. So what's wrong with this picture? Certainly, it is not what we say in repudiating the terrorist acts or warning the enemy for what it may do in the future, but simply, the bravado in our responses which is simply chest beating - which does nothing to resolve the core issues between our national security and the terrorist's grievances. Thus, responding in a cowboy-swaggering behavior does little to inflict fear on the enemy and in the end, does not provide significant security for the country. Further, such assurance of finding "all involved" and holding them accountable is rather a tall order to fulfill, given that in the last nine years, the prime suspect and mastermind of the 9-11 attack, Osama bin Laden, has yet to be found. Further, the ones currently held in detention, the majority have been released (or about to be released) due to unfounded ties to terrorism. We therefore must ask, is the military option the answer to our national security, or, is it the cause of our problem?
Further, why carry on with the same unilateralism and preemptive militaristic mentality - which prevailed during the Bush Administration? Was it really necessary to start a clandestine war in Pakistan which now is in full bloom? Was it necessary to preemptively make strikes in Yemen this last week - which of course set a course of events in motion on Xmas Day - as claimed by Al Qaeda? Will Somalia be next? And how many generations will the war on terror continue into the future?
On November 4, 2008, the majority of the Americans people, who had concluded that the Bush policies on the war on terror were ill-fated and counter-productive, decisively and prudently chose a new national leader in hopes of changing the course of the country. President Obama was thus elected, as he had promised a new beginning in terms of foreign policy, inter alia. However, many now question why President Obama's promises have fallen short and change has been mistranslated to mean, more of the same, as during the Bush Administration.
We should not forget that during the eight years of the Bush Administration, the model for the war on terror became of global reach and its doctrine was one which promulgated a practice of unilateralism and preemption - against any and all which we deemed a potential enemy. President Obama on the other hand, began with extending a hand to the world, especially the Muslim world, and promised better relations. And yet, the aggressive military campaign that prevailed during the Bush Administration continues - unabated. Moreover, President Obama appears to have taken the baton from Bush and expanded the global U.S. military reach and has created a whole new war theater, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. This last week (Dec. 17) the U.S. launched cruise missile strikes against what was believed to be Al Qaeda training camps, in Yemen. But then again, just across the Gulf of Aden, is Somalia - another Al Qaeda stronghold. And last but not least, the young terrorist that attempted to blow up the Northwest Airline, Flight 252 on Dec. 25th, originated from Nigeria -another of many radicalized Muslim African regions. So where do we stop?
We therefore must conclude that our nation's state of affairs under President Obama's Administration is status quo ante, same as before. And as he stated today, that "We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat extremist who threaten us, whether they are from Afghanistan, or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the U.S. Homeland." Thus, we must also presume that the war on terror will continue, using Bush's terminology - way into the event-horizon.
But hold on Mr. President, did you not mean to push the reset button, thus changing the course of events and pave the way for peace? Or, did you mean to reinvent yourself while in office and deceive those who placed so much hope in you to become president? With all due respect Mr. President, you are taking us further into a path of self destruction. Yes, we can stop. Yes, we should take a big breath and reflect. Let's take this opportunity to stop all hostilities and you will find that the kinetics of war will stand down. Further military responses will only cause an untold number of attacks on the country and perhaps around the world. The alternative may be that we continue to live under further fear of terrorist attacks as well as live under the heavy hand of domestic security. What more are we to expect; more personal intrusion, cavity searches for everyone, at every public gathering, and are we to also embrace even more erosion in our civil liberties? No Mr. President, I did not vote for that.
Already, the political right in the country is publicly calling for no further political correctness, which is code for - just tell it like it is- and perhaps call for the internment of anyone who does not look Anglo-Saxon. There is historical precedence for this you know. Even more frightening, is the neo-cons who are calling for the expansion of the war on terror - to reach Yemen, Somalia, Iran, N. Korea and beyond. Thus, are we prepared for what may result from failure to reset? Mr. President, I distinctly remember not voting for the status quo. I voted for Change.
]]>Joseph Chez
The single most important issue concerning our involvement in a war in Afghanistan today is the planned increase of troops for that war, for it will determine the future exit strategy for the US and NATO member participants, or the way into the secret US war next door in Pakistan. That said, most experts would agree that the unknown elements of this war adds to a recipe for further conflict. What's more frightening however, is that, as we have asked NATO to supply more troops for the (wishful) final face of the war, the US has accepted the participation of troops from a "wannabe" NATO member, Georgia, whose former status was that of a former Soviet republic, while today, Russia continues to consider such break-away republics as part of its "near abroad" (sphere of influence). Therefore, allowing for Georgia to supply a token number of troops (300+) for the Afghan war is in itself inconsequential, if it were not for the consequences which may provoke. At first hand, the offer of troops by the Georgian government may seem innocuous but in reality, there is a deliberate move by the president of that country, Mikheil Saakashvilli, to earn a pay back in return for its participation and thus, force the United States to support a future challenge against Russia on the issue of South Ossetia. A softer message is perhaps a nudge to NATO that it wants to be brought in from the cold - as a full fledged member of the alliance.
Further, it bears repeating that the former Soviet break-away republic of Georgia has been at odds with Russia since 1991 when Georgia declared its independence from the Soviet Union. However, exacerbating the strained relations between the two nations is the rise of Mikheil Saakashvili who started his political life as a young reformer but has since become a pain in the Russians' buttocks.
Mikheil Saakashvili is American educated, having attended Columbia University and George Washington University. Moreover, Saakashvili was instrumental in the "Rose Revolution" which resulted in the bloodless coup in Georgia and inspired other populous movements through out other break-away former Soviet republics. In Addition, his love of the West has been further manifested by including young westerners in his government, but, further thumbing his nose at Russia, he has longingly courted the European Union and NATO for membership. In fact, he has become the darling for neo-cons in the US and it's believed that the CIA nurtured his political career. Immediately after the bloodless coup, President George Bush traveled to Georgia to give his blessings even though, many European heads of state refrained from visiting Georgia out of respect for Russia's "near abroad."
In August 2008, in an attempt to recoup its own break-away northern province of South Ossetia, Georgia's army began an incursion into the north but was forced to retreat once the Russian Army interfered militarily. In response, according to the Human Rights Watch, Georgian forces carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate artillery attacks on civilians in South Ossetia. In response, Russia's army invaded Georgia creating a tenuous situation for major regional powers, including NATO and the United States. Thus, the military skirmish between Georgian forces and the Russian Army may have been a regional conflict, but Mikheil Saakashvili skillfully pitted the security interest of bigger fish, such as NATO and the United States against Russia. The West could only issue strong condemnations but fell short of substantive assistance to Georgia. Cowboy GW however suggested to send troops as part of a UN/NATO peace keeping force, but Russia stood its ground and reality hit. However, Mikheil Saakashvili continued to sound the alarm, but strongly condemned the West for not having stepped in militarily. Luckily, GW, the "decider", he was "transitory" as he was about to leave office and by that time, much of the major hostilities subsided - the Russian Army withdrew from Georgia territory and receded back to South Ossetia. Yet, presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, both were quick to lend support to the Georgian people, lest they be thought of as soft on Russian aggression.
Today, Mikheil Saakashvili is considered by some as somewhat unpredictable, if not a loose cannon. Nonetheless, he considers himself to be the catalyst that will allow for Georgia to integrate into the European Union and ultimately, as a member of NATO. To emphasize his desire and determination, all public buildings in Tbilisi Georgia today fly the European Union flag next to the Georgia flag.
Currently, South Ossetia has acquired de facto recognition as a sovereign nation, even though; Russia is the only country to give its recognition. Yet, Saakashvili is hell-bent on recovering its disputed province to the north despite Russian forces which continue to operate in South Ossetia. Regrettably, continued hostilities persist at the border region and we can only suspect what cowboy Saakashvili may do in the future. One can only imagine that if Georgia were to become a member of NATO, would Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization be invoked by Mikheil in the event of further hostilities?
Bottom line, the question is not whether Georgia should not lend a helping hand to the cause in Afghanistan, but it should be asked, why is the United States accepting the offer of negligible number of Georgian troops when the risks of potential future entanglement with Russia is written on the wall. So is stupid is and stupid does?
]]>Joseph Chez
No one questions President Obama's process in realigning the policy for the war in Afghanistan, just the consequences of his actions. We know that it has taken several months for his administration to carefully consider Gen. McCrhrystal's analysis of the war and his recommendations. And despite criticism for dithering, as war enthusiast "Dick" Chaney has called it, President Obama has impressed many policy experts, such as Gen. Colin Powell, for taking all the time necessary in order to come up with a sensible and effective policy for turning the Afghanistan conflict to a successful withdrawal from that war. In the process, Pres. Obama sought the unique and specific advisement from Pentagon officials as well as from other foreign policy experts, including two cents worth from American allies abroad; Israel, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Russia and India, but leaving out the objectionable posture from Pakistan and other Middle Eastern countries.
Resetting the future:
Thus, on December 1, 2009 President Obama will address the nation and convey to the American public why it is necessary to remain in Afghanistan, his plans for a troop surge for the war, and a road map for extracting our nation from the liquefaction in the sands of Afghanistan. Accordingly, President Obama will point out that winning the war in Afghanistan is imperative for our national security. He will argue that increasing troop levels is a necessity in order to stabilize the country and to have adequate troop proportions to cover a wider area of the country. But more importantly, President Obama will give the nation specific details for his expectations for achieving the insurmountable goal of achieving victory and sensibly bringing the troops home.
Foreseeable future:
No one can predict the future but one can prognosticate what will result based on facts and acts of the past and present. In the case of the war in Afghanistan, President Bush promised the nation retribution for those who did harm to the nation on 9-11, but, he never worried about and end-game since it was a "given" that we would kick butt and have a mission accomplished. Yet, eight years into the war and a protracted insurgency continues with no signs of abatement. And, while the proper response to 9-11 should have been a deliberate but appropriate retribution of equal proportions, the U.S. government under the bush Administration veiled opportunism with patriotism and instead, invaded Iraq in a frenzied "shock and awe" while declaring in 3-15-02: "the Taliban is out of business." Today the Taliban is stronger than ever and not only poses a danger to the current government; it also challenges the U.S. coalition.
Tomorrow, President Obama will reset the course of the war in Afghanistan in hopes of getting the upper hand and finding an honorable exit. Yet, there is an eerie parallel with the Viet Nam War; much like Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama ran for the presidency on a platform of bringing an end to the war, but also, wining the presidency by contrasting the hawkish views of his political opponent. And just like his predecessor Lyndon B. Johnson, President Obama has rebuked the (Afghanistan's) government policies of corruption and own efforts to protect their country. Although, Lyndon Johnson promised, and Barack Obama will echo, the U.S. would remain in their country to fend off the aggressors, until such time that a stable and self sustaining government is present.
Inexplicably, candidate Obama did however believe that the war in Afghanistan was a war of necessity. However, he realized that the handling of the Afghan war was not properly handled by the Bush Administration - a false assertion that has led him to believe the war is winnable if only confronted properly. Thus, after careful review of the present Afghan war circumstances, insistence from the Pentagon and input from corrupt interested parties in the US military industrial complex, as well as Afghan government officials, President Obama has decided to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. Up to 30 thousand more US troops will be deployed in Afghanistan: a country which is considered the second most corrupt nation in the world and a country which produces 87 per cent of the world's opium; a country which is mainly Pashtun, the Taliban are mostly Pashtun and the neighboring country of Pakistan initiated and continues to influence the Taliban; a country which is larger than Iraq and with the greatest concentration of high mountains, making the war far more difficult; a country which is riddled with political, religious and ethnic strife; a region of the world which has seen foreign mighty armies but only to defeat them; and a war in which eight years of conflict has only widened the conflict and has not produced a more perfect society in the likes of its invader.
Inadvertently or deliberately, the U.S. will again embark in a wider mission under the cause for freedom and sense of security. President Obama will again reassert the mission against the enemy. In Afghanistan however, it was Al Qaeda who initiated plans for the 9-11 attack on U.S. soil, not the Taliban. The Taliban were and are only an Islamic fundamentalist movement with puritanical interpretation of Islam - and have no interest in religious expansion or incurring harm on the U.S. Al Qaeda on the other hand, has moved on to Pakistan and India - the next chapter. Thus, even though President Obama wishes to make corrections, it is befitting to note that believing that because the war started incredibly badly, as Charles De Gaulle would say, "therefore, it must be continued", is a precarious move which may bring no end in sight. But, if the goal is to win a victory, we must remind our president that dead soldiers take no victory.
In sum, I can not wish for our president's policy to fail, for I know too well that his intent if for the good of the country. However, President Obama must consider what is at stake; a widening of the war, an increase in soldier casualties, additional burden to the national debt (currently14 trillion), but more importantly, a war which is not in the hearts and minds of the American people (57 per cent oppose it) is not a war that can truly be won or provide for an honorable exit.
But just a reminder Mr. President; when Lyndon B. Johnson prior to his famous words of "I will not run for re-election", he was being asked by Viet Nam officials and U.S. hawks to increase troop levels to insure a final victory, and so he replied: "they call upon us to supply American boys to do the job that Asian boys should do." What is your response Mr. President?
]]>Joseph Chez
For sometime, my wife has argued that beauty pageant contestants are no less than floozies walking around showing their software but lacking a hard drive. She opines that for any beauty pageant contestant to believe their looks are unique or above the norm, must truly be a veil to conceal their personal inequities. However, like most men, I have argued that beauty pageant contestants are not vetted for analytical skills or intellectual prowess but simply for their looks, which brings me to the issue of whether former beauty pageant contestant, Sarah Palin has truly gone rogue, or is simply trying to do damage control in hopes of getting back on stage as a future contestant?
However, it has not escaped me notice that conservative fox noise interviewers have been drooling when interviewing Sarah Palin. They claim that while they are discussing critical policy issues, the liberal media has been preoccupied with the salacious and inconsequential episodes of Sarah's misunderstood persona. Although, when Sean Hannity asked "Governor" Palin if she believed President Obama was a socialist, she glossed over the question with a scrambled illustration of confusion. Did she really even understand the concept of socialism? Oh my god, I now understands my wife's argument about beauty contestants; Sarah's second coming is not a make-over of her body and mind, but simply, a Miss South Carolina Teen USA contestant revisited.
Notwithstanding, Sarah Paling appears to be gaining her confidence and it's no longer about promoting her book as much as is to retake the political runway once more. Further providing her a false sense of accomplishment, is the tremendous following from her conservative base which seems oblivious to her simplistic view of the world. But she continues as if she was to become the crown jewel of the political pageant. And she will be, for the Grand Old Party and to the evangelical right-wing. However, having viewed a number of her interviews, I do not see Sarah Palin any different than how she was during the last election; she is intellectually poor, with a narrow view of the world, and with panache of a beauty contestant - nothing more. And while a great number of the conservative faithful are lined up for the circus, it should not translate into a belief that the gospel according to Sarah will be relevant in the end times. For I have seen the divine beauty contestants, including Carrie Prejean, and while there is a lot to look at, there is little, if any, intellectual discourse.
]]>Joseph Chez
Just like the legendary phoenix, Sara Palin is rising from the ashes, after having suffered a major defeat in the last presidential election and was further eviscerated by the media, rightfully so, or not. But, even after her crucifixion, Sarah continues to raise enthusiasm and support by a great portion of the American population. Surprisingly, despite having taken head-butts, left hooks and near knock-outs, inexperienced Sarah Barracuda appears to be staying in the political arena and keeps on punching.
In what appears as her resurrection, Sarah Palin has begun her comeback through a barrage of media interviews as well as promoting her new book, "Going Rogue: An American Life." Her new book is now a hot seller and conservatives welcome its release akin to the advent of a new gospel, while liberals chuckle and deride the entire spectacle. Nonetheless, Sarah uses her scripture as a means to shore up her image but also to spread the conservative message to the faithful. However, most in the media see Sarah Palin's book simply as a tell-all book that points fingers at others for her seemingly amateurish political performance during the election. And yet, the gospel according to Sarah is without a doubt, an affirmation and determination to "fight for America."
Still, to like Sarah Palin or not, she should not be discounted nor surreptitiously vilified, as she is unquestionably the darling of the conservative movement in the heartland and perhaps, the leading republican candidate for 2012 or the 2016 presidential election. Moreover, despite current polls showing her having low percentages in her support for the presidency, there is the fact that 67 per cent of conservative republicans support Sarah Palin and see her as the hope of the Grand Old Party. Furthermore, Sarah Palin excites the passion of many in the Christian fundamentalist movement, the strong national defense crowd, the Tea Party movement, anti-government militias, 2nd Amendment supporters, the state right's movement, the pro-life movement, the anti-environmental movement, proponents for government deregulation in business and industry, immigrant haters, the Joe six-pac(s), Joe the plumbers, John Birchers, Glen Beckies, and every jingoistic scoundrel which purports to love the country. In essence, Sarah Palin is just the girl next door; she is not the consequence but the symptom of the American profile. What is disconcerting however, is that Sarah is making a comeback, and as her fathers says: "she is not retreating, she's reloading!"
]]>
Joseph Chez
November 9, 2009 marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. However, it is befitting to note that while we celebrate the downfall of this shameful wall of tyranny, existing walls of oppression are being built today -with little or no opposition from western democracies. One glaring example is the concrete wall that the Israelis have built surrounding the West Bank, shamefully enclosing Palestinians and depriving them of basic living standards and freedoms. Ironically, the Nazis in WWII walled a Jewish quarter in Krakow Poland under the same pretext of security for the homeland, but, history has determined otherwise.
So what were the reasons of building the Berlin wall and why did it crumble? As History now chronicles, in post WWII, Berlin became a divided city, mainly under the control of Western powers and the Soviet East Block. In East Berlin, the Berlin Wall was erected beginning August 13, 1961 under the decree of East German leader, Walter Ulbricht, in order to keep its people protected from the West, its influences and its freedoms. The decree for closing the border for travel restrictions between East and West Berlin was intended to last until 1989.
In 1985, a new Soviet leader rose to power in then, Soviet Russia. Mikhail gorbachev successfully rose to power because of his own political credo of bringing change to the nation's economy as well as his wish to bring an era of openness. Hence, the Soviet Block began a period of Perestroika (open market concepts) and Glasnost (freedom of expression). Soon Poland requested a waiver from the Kremlin to open its borders with the West for the exchange of goods and services. The Soviets saw that as an opportunity to test Perestroika and allowed it. What resulted was a massive and frenzied flood of Levy jeans, Nike sneakers and Beatles music records that began to pour into the Eastern block. However, profiteering became rampant as jeans were being sold in the black market in Russia for up to $500.00 and there was no end. Thus, Mikhail Gorbachev decided to implement Perestroika through out the East Block.
In June 12, 1987 President Ronald Reagan was visiting Europe for a summit to discuss with other European leaders the American vision of a missile defense for Europe, the so called Star Wars Missile Defense System. However, part of his trip also included a visit to Berlin to give a speech about the virtues of Western democracy. We now know of course of his famous statement he made, asking Soviet Russia's Chairman Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall."
In November 9, 1989, the Easter German government's decree for closing the borders had come to and end and Mikhail Gorbachev did not interfere, and instead, allowed it to happen. Perestroika at last!
Thus, we celebrate with the German people on this historic reminder of shameful acts invoked in the name of security. But we should not forget that the human spirit does not recognize any legitimacy in walls of tyranny, but will find ways to make perpetrators conform to human decency and freedom. Martin Luther King Jr. once said: "Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever." A true statement guaranteed by history.]]>Joseph Chez
Barry, do you remember when life was just basketball, music and shooting the bull with our friends? Who can forget the good times we had at Haines Hall at Oxy, right? In fact, I still remember nights at the dorm in which music blared and the sweet smell of you know what, lingered up and down the hall. I also remember the day we were on the high, you took a bite of your favorite Hawaiian pizza from Casa Bianca's and with a mouthful, you said; don't call me Barry, my name is now Barack. You really looked so serious, but all I could do is laugh. Perhaps it was the high. But I don't supposed you have forgotten your vigorous debates that started in professor Boesche's Political Thought class, in which you robustly made your views for change? Something changed at Oxy alright -and you were never the same since.
Yes, you still played JV with the Tigers, but I knew that in your mind, young Barack was now interested in political discourse and philosophical thought. From there on, you began vigorous debates at the dorms, with brothers, Chicanos and young republicans like your friends - "J" Boyers or Ken (S). But I could never understand why you stopped calling the girl from Brentwood and you never said why. Yet, I knew your future was at hand. And as the smoke cleared in the dorm hall, it was still fun, but you truly began to take things to heart.
Yes, you became active for divestment of American public funds to end apartheid in South Africa - and you worked so hard. The day Nelson Mandela was released from jail, I believe we celebrated and it felt so right. And yet, many other things were on your our mind. For one thing, you did not like the war in Afghanistan and you used to argue that the Russians had no right to have invaded Afghanistan. You simply used to say, that the sovereignty of nations should not, for any reason, ever be compromised. And yes, you wanted to rid the world of hunger, poverty and to boot - get rid of all of nuclear weapons and bring proliferation to an end.
So Barack, I am proud to have stayed by your side, from Oxy, to Columbia, to Harvard and to the streets of Chicago, Illinois. But friend, Barack, the narrative of your story seems to have changed. You got to the White House and the world rejoiced, but the world questions what has happened to those principles that you said should never be compromised?
Mr. President, since you are now in charge, why are so many of the former president's policies still in place? Much of the Patriot Act which diluted our constitutional rights continues to be in place. You were overwhelmingly elected by the American people to end the war, and yet, you have given your generals the leeway of determining the course for the war. Rendition of foreign nationals continues in foreign soil and frankly, such policy does nothing to RESET our moral goal. Guantanamo remains open in ghastly opposition by nations of the world and so we question; why you do not use your presidential pen for a presidential order to close Guantanamo and give justice to those who have not been tried or been convicted in a court of law?
Today the economy is showing signs of life, and yet, almost 10 per cent of the population remains unemployed, while Wall Street stock and securities pimps continue to rake in the dough. Yes, derivatives and shadowy hedge funds in the banking and securities market continue to thrive without meaningful government regulation. Bush's privatization of the government continues unfettered; today, there are more private contractors in the war theatre of Afghanistan and Iraq than DOD personnel - with limitless funding and working only under an MOU (good faith agreement) for guidance. Thus, billions of tax dollars are being paid to these private contractors without taxpayer scrutiny. Moreover, the faith base funding, as envisioned by J.W. Bush, bless his soul, is currently funding much needed religious church buildings - which truly do not help those homeless who live under the bridge. The worthless "No Child Left Behind" left by the Bush administration remains almost intact and the humanities are out the window, while teachers only teach students standards that pit students against teachers and teachers against school administrators. However, the worst indictment Mr. President is your naïveté belief that you must build consensus in a bi-partisan fashion in order to bring about change. You must truly understand that republicans are just not into you, and that their main objective is to stand in the way - so democrats and you will fail. So I respectfully remind you sir, that you were overwhelmingly elected to lead and implement a democratic agenda, and that means: bringing the war in both Iraq and in Afghanistan to an end; instituting universal health care (a public option) for all and not succumbing to pressure from the health industry; completely ending the Cuban embargo without any preconditions (we do business with other totalitarian and communist states) ; strengthening environmental protection; decisively closing the Guantanamo gulag and returning the land to Cuba; pushing for strict governmental regulations on industry and commerce for the sake of consumer protections; reduce the war machinery and start investing in renewable and environmentally friendly energy; reduce the Pentagon's limitless funding and start investing in higher education; and last, if we truly wish to end world terrorism, we must be forthright and take an even-handed foreign policy towards the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and abide by the United Nations mandate calling for a two state solution consistent with the 1967 borders.
In sum, I am still your friend and supporter Mr. President, but as the world remains hopeful for change, you must do your part and stand for principle and not political expediency. Wake up Barack!
]]>Joseph Chez
Current U.S. military presence in Iraq is not for the purpose of cleaning up after a whoop-tee-doo party or a mission accomplished. We remain in that country to forestall the inevitable; a civil war that will be the mother of all wars, as Saddam Hussein was known to say. However, many government officials also believe that the same fate waits for Afghanistan. So is anybody listening to the experts in foreign policy, the very same individuals who work with the nuts and bolts of what formulates and sustains our government policies?
Prior to the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 a large number U.S. government officials were sounding the alarm opposing plans by the Bush administration for the invasion of Iraq. In March 19, 2003, Ann Wright, a deputy chief of mission at a foreign U.S. embassy, a career Foreign Service officer and Army Reserve colonel, submitted her official resignation before Secretary of State Colin Powell. In December 2001, the deputy chief had been assigned to reopen the U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, and it was there that she learned of the Bush Administration's preoccupation with Iraq, rather than putting emphasis in the failed nation of Afghanistan - the point of origin for the 9-11 attack on U.S. soil. However, Bush was extremely confident and dogmatic about his pursuit of the war in Iraq. Later that year, May 1, 2003, in spite of world condemnation and internal government official opposition to the U.S. incursion, President Bush declared that the U.S. had fought for "the cause of liberty and the peace of the world." In further denial, in his mission accomplished speech aboard the USS Lincoln, he unequivocally stated that, "the United States and our allies had prevailed" and that major combat operations in Iraq had ended. Regrettably, President Bush's mission accomplished is yet to be realized. Nonetheless, the world laments the "smoking gun" argument and the premise that the invasion of Iraq was necessary. Further, with the exception of the political right-wing in the country, a large number of government officials forewarned the Bush Administration of an impending foreign policy blunder.
Thus, Ann Wright was correct in her convictions by pointing out that the country was on the wrong path with its foreign policy in the Middle East. In her dramatic explanation for her resignation, she simply stated that after serving her country for so many years, she could no longer represent the policies of an administration of the United States. In fact, she told Sec. of State Collin Powel, that she believed that the country had lost sympathy from most of the world because of our push for war against Iraq. And yet, she was not the only government officials who resigned in protest and in opposition with government policy. Several high ranking officials had previously resigned for similar reasons, although, their resignations had not been made public. But as Ann Wright broke ranks, many other senior diplomats followed. This was important, as Foreign Service officers never before used public resignation as a means to attempt to influence the government's foreign policy or as a means of protest.
But going back to the future, after President Obama's premise that the war in Afghanistan was not a war of choice but a war of necessity, an air of dissent is being felt once again amongst government officials. As casualties mount and a call for more troops is being asked by the Pentagon, many government officials in the State Department, DOD and various other government entities, are beginning to sound the alarm - publicly.
In a more recent situation just released to the public, another U.S. Foreign Service official, Mathew P. Hoh has once again, publicly resigned in protest over the war in Afghanistan. This former Marine Corps Captain and Senior Civilian Representative for the U.S. Government in Zabul Province in Afghanistan submitted his resignation - giving a critical and analytical narrative of the Afghan war - as a failed policy for a country on the edge of chaos. His resignation dated September 10, 2009 truly sent chills through the State Department and all the way to the White House. And with good reason, as these diplomats have immeasurable understanding of foreign policy, and in the case of Afghanistan, they are the analytical workhorses on the field: they are cognizant of the fragile alliances in the region; they understand what has not worked in the eight year military incursion; and they are the first to recognize a failed policy with no end. So, how can the U.S. honorably exit this war?
Foreign Service officer, Matthew P. Hoh put it best: "I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan." "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end." "To put simply: I fail to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties in support of the Afghanistan government in what is, truly, a 35 year old civil war."
Honorable Mathew Hoh was offered several promotions by the high and mighty mucky-mucks, in hopes of averting his resignation, but this Foreign Service officer simply chose honor and love of country over personal gain. He has sounded the alarm once again and it is hoped that President Obama learns from our past mistakes. And this is critical at this point, as President Obama will soon be announcing his decision as to whether he will increase troop levels or if he will bring an end to the ever-expanding conflict. The President must realize that our presence in that part of the world is the spark for conflict and not the seeds for liberty or democracy, as President Bush vehemently believed. Let's remember that a mission accomplished can truly become a mission impossible.
///
]]>
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for the human race to dissolve the myth of the oldest political bandits who have assumed wealth and power over their subjects - under the phony declaration of divine providence. Neither nature nor God entitles any one person special descent or privilege.
We are at the door step of the 21st Century and it is self evident that all men are created equal. We have now mapped the genetics of many living species and we are close to mapping the entire human genome. Thus, there is irrefutable scientific evidence that all human beings are 99.9% biologically the same, with the remaining amount of variance accounting for regional and ongoing genetic mutations. Accordingly, the existence of monarchs and other royalty in today's society is simply incongruent with reality. So we must ask: why royalty and monarchs remain with the privilege of governance or hold privileged and distinguished social titles, when they should also get in line with the rest of us, for use of the latrine?
Royalty or devoted followers may argue that such social titles are determined by special lineage. In the past, royals claimed direct lineage from "a" God. However, the Universal Creator has not publicly given notice of such royal preference. There is also the argument that royals have special bloodlines. Although, 21st Century science empirically shows that there is no blue blood in human beings, despite the fact that royal bloodlines do come close to genetic degeneration. And just like the horseshoe crab which truly has blue blood, royalty and the horseshoe crab are both living fossils. Notwithstanding, others would argue that present day monarchies exist at the pleasure of its subjects. Yes, but must society continues to accept the concept of special privilege in today's egalitarian society? Must society accept such concept, when royalty was the building blocs of intolerance, colonization, social casting and slavery?
However, it is fair to say that today, few monarchs and so-called royals hold any governance in existing "kingdom" states, but they do play roles in ceremonial post. Nonetheless, the royal families in those countries continue to thrive with public funds such as in Spain and in the British Kingdom. However, even holding or being a ceremonial figure, is no longer acceptable in today's world as it constitutes a de facto recognition of privileged labels and supporting a caste system. Royals today are supremacist in semi or official public roles and they have no place in this 21st Century.
For those royal fans and apologist, if you still believe royalty deserve their self-appointed social titles or a privilege lifestyle at public expense, think again; ask yourself if royalty is biologically different or descend from divine providence. If you still do, I urge you to take a big whiff after a royal flush of the king or queen's throne, and if you still think it smells divine, you probably are insane, believe in magic or you are a royal fool. Wheeoow!
(An extended article may be found at: http://universalwrit.blogspot.com/ .)
]]>
Hype but not felonious I would say. In fact, it's the American Way. Yes, as the world was watching President Obama speak before an audience in the State of Louisiana, the live broad cast was suddenly interrupted by CNN to give coverage to a run away helium balloon, which it was thought, was carrying a minor child on board. As the hullabaloo continued, the dramatics were hyped by the tense situation being presented by the media. Did the child fall, as it was reported or maybe not?
This was great news on the go; tension, drama unfolding and life hanging on the balance. By now we have all seen on TV the 50 mile or so chase by military planes and helicopters, the media flanking the helium balloon, plus the hundred or so rescue personnel trampling the Colorado soil. But if anyone thinks it was live TV coverage, it was not. CNN decided to insert a 10 second delay on the broadcast to protect the public from potentially watching a human tragedy unfold. Fortunately, and to the surprise of the peering masses, as ground personnel reached the partially deflated fiasco, there was no child on board. Darn, this would have been Nielsen's top ratings. But, the story is not dead yet and the media was not about to let it go. Thus, the media continued the story with gut instinct - that there was more.
By evening, prime time questioning began and the prosecution interviewed the Heene family with determination and leading questions - which lead to much speculation that the Heene family had in fact, created a publicity stunt, staged and produced by a set of unlikely characters wanting to achieve the American Dream.
Originally the Colorado, Laramie County Sheriff, was only contemplating filing misdemeanor charges for filing a false police report. However, with such de minimis (inconsequential) charge, the story would have ended, if not for the economic consequences. Thus, the relentless media pressed for more: what about child endangerment; whose going to pay for public sources used in the chase; and what about potential danger to air flights in nearby corridors? Feeling the media blitz, the sheriff sort-of changed his mind and is now reporting to the media, that there may be more - felonious charges that is.
Yes, the Heene family may have concocted a phony story, but isn't it the American Way? Are we all not part of the economic sub-plot? Not only do we observe, but we all participate in the scheme of making money. Thus, the media must back off and give it a rest. Furthermore, the Heene family should be commended for their innovative stupidity, but they do not deserve the media circus which wants blood, or a police force with self-serving desires, and much less, the children taken away by CPS.
In sum, the question remains as to whether the Heene family has committed felonious acts and must they be relegated to prison life because of their unlawful acts? NOT. Of course, there ought to be a statute which covers moronic situations such as this - in which needless time is spent on superfluous speculation and damnation. For the co-conspirator, the media, it should BACK-OFF. Who the hell's Wolfe?
]]>