Bush's Failures

In a recent post describing the failures of the Bush Administration and the on-going war we face, I found some points that I take serious issue with. Firstly, the office of the president is one of respect and dignity. As Americans, we are to support our Commander and Chief. I have no problem with a display of disagreement, that is your first amendment right to voice your opinion, but to disrespect him I find as unpatriotic, if not treason. All things are permissible, not all things are profitable. I can easily proclaim that I disagree with Obama and his latest excursions and decisions, but I don’t refer to him as the babbling faerie. His position is one of respect, and thus, it is our duty to treat him as such. The facts of the Bush Administration will not be completely revealed for another fifty years. Everything presented as such, is rooted in opinion, agenda, and speculation. I did not agree with everything Bush did, but I’ve never met the man, so I surely cannot refer to him as ignorant or stupid. Running a country can’t be the litmus test for intelligence.
Secondly, military intelligence is complicated. When I went to enlist with the Marine Corps Reserve, I was asked to enter the Intel field. I was briefed upon the job description (MOS), but promptly turned it down to accept the MOS of machine gunner. Why would I turn down a desk job for the most deadly job specialty in world? Intelligence analysts have to be brilliant. They have to posses unparalleled focus, and an ability to sit in a dark, window-less room for thirty hours at a time, staring at monitors. Additionally, you have to have clearance to do your job correctly. If I, as an intel analyst, intercept an email between two figures on the CIA’s watch list, and among the topics includes detailed summaries of bomb configurations, I have ample reason to pursue that lead. However, if I do not have clearance to pursue them, or have to wait to pursue them while I get clearance, the opportunity may be missed. Red tape, such as the right to privacy, dictate the boundaries of your job. And if you miss something, the deaths of all those involved are on your shoulders. I would rather be responsible for the twelve men I kill with a .50 cal, and risk my life, than be responsible for the perishing of an entire city because I missed an censored word alert at four in the morning, or was disallowed to continue my pursuit for legal reasons. Simple mistakes cost lives in this field. Now explain to me, what part did the president, or his administration have in this? Bin Laden escaped. That’s not a fault, that’s a fact. But no, we have to blame it on somebody, right? Bush did it. It’s his fault.
We are already involved in the area. The stability of the region depends on our current inhabitation. If we were to up and leave, it would collapse, and everything would have been pointless. Thus a repeat of Vietnam. When it comes to coordination, we have a bi-partisan system. How are we ever going to have coordination on a subject that is disagreed upon. Republicans are attempting to fund a war, while democrats are attempting to yank funding and call foul play. Honestly, we can afford neither, but how can we support our troops and provide the backing they need while half of the country is banking on failure, just so that they can claim, “I told you so!”. How low is that?

What we convey to our men and women that protect us:

“Hey soldier. You’re going over to the Middle East to root out terrorists that may, or may not, want to kill your family. But, just so you know, you’re doing it for nothing. In fact, you’re going to die for nothing. Have fun.”

What we post on our bumpers:

“We support our troops!”.

Yeah, that’s convincing.

The only thing that I agree with in this post is the statement,”By sending our troops overseas, we are doing nothing but losing our soldiers and loved ones.” We are responsible for the deaths of our soldiers, simply because we are not equipping them to do their job. Honestly, I’m more proud to work with the United States Marine Corps, than I am to be a citizen of the United States. At least the soldiers I work with, aren’t two faced or opportunists. The men I know, know hardship. Honor, courage, commitment; those are qualities I respect.

Our government can always do better.

English as the National Language

Passing legislation designating English as the nation's National Language should hardly be an issue of priority and pertinence within our government, yet the matter is growing in national relevance. As immigrants continue to arrive at the ports and fly over the borders, multiple languages and cultures are brought with them, adding to the "melting pot" of celebrated diversity that many officials encourage. A deeper issue, however, is present. Hispanic immigrants no longer struggle to learn the English language, that of which Americans do business with, and rather, maintain their cultural heritage through the heavy usage of their Spanish language. Because of this, pockets and ghettos are created based upon the language spoken, rather than just poverty or suffering.
American businesses have no choice but to cater to such a clientele. With Spanish-speaking residents occupying the majority in many areas, businesses begin to advertise in Spanish and offer services bilingually to maintain a profit margin. This catering to the Spanish community has allowed immigrants to continue living in the country without learning the English language. It is required that all immigrants who do not fluently speak English must take an English course to obtain citizenship, however, most Hispanic immigrants never apply for citizenship, but rather, have their children in this country, legally designated them guardians of American citizens, and thus essentially, citizens themselves. Yet they never had to learn English.
Simultaneously, the massive influx of Spanish-speaking individuals in the Southwest has prompted schools to start teaching bilingually as well. This again presents problems as all standardized tests are in English, yet many of the students are unprepared to take the test because they barely speak the language, much less be able to succeed at reading comprehension and writing prompts. A local high school in my neighborhood, dominated by a Spanish speaking student body, has an average score in the 38 percentile in TAKS testing within the writing section. Our education system isn’t just lacking funding, it’s lacking English. Our national scores are falling because many students just don’t comprehend, and schools are enabling them by teaching bilingually.
Personally, I have found that many immigrants are unwilling to take part assimilating into the United States. Maintaining your native culture is upstanding and praiseworthy, but neglecting to conform is disrespectful. Immigrants used to be proud to learn our language, yet now derogatory and foreign words are thrown about describing those of us who promote it. I walked into Burger King last week and they removed the signs on the trash cans, the ones asking you to please get your trash in the can somehow, because no one understood what they were saying. Because they were only in English, the Burger King figured that the Mexicans of the neighborhood did not know they were trash cans. To continue with the absurdity, they removed the eight foot "Have it Your Way" sign above the soda fountain, and replaced it with a Spanish alternative. There isn't even an English version in fine print. That's pathetic.
I work with an entirely Mexican crew in a restaurant, all of whom continuously speak Spanish. To communicate with them, I am forced to speak in Spanish because they do not have the slightest desire to learn English. But why would they? Signs are in Spanish. Their paychecks are in Spanish. They work in the back, so if anything adverse occurs, the English speaking employees get blamed since they run the storefront. In order to keep the business running affluently, I have to learn to speak their language.
Language is a barrier between the lower and middle class. Immigrants that do not assimilate into our language have severely reduced odds of experiencing the American Dream and advancing social classes. My Vietnamese comrades work in a blind and shade assembly factory. My Hispanic comrades work in restaurants and lawn care companies. I have never met a highly successful individual that was not literate and at least moderately versed in the English language.
English is the language of our nation, the language that we were built upon and thrive on. The passing of English as a National Language is not racist, nor discriminatory, but rather preserving English as the language that the government officially acts through and reserves English as the language through which services are provided. The successful unification and breach of the language barrier could possibly boost our economy, as the spread of ideas and business opportunities would exponentially increase and spread rapidly, and the dissolution of language-centered ghettos would finally begin.

In Silvia’s recent commentary on the death penalty, she exploits the fallacies of capital punishment, and the negative effect it has on the country. Through its costly means, occasional innocent victims, inhumane form, and lack of positive behavioral improvement, the death penalty needs to be absolved. I tend to disagree, however. Strongly.
While implementing the death penalty is expensive, keeping them locked away in maximum security is no better. A heavy load of tax dollars is utilized to fund the survival of the criminals that we refuse to kill. Fifty years of food and water for a convicted murdered is fifty years too many. Water is running out, so much so that it will be a limiting resource for populations in major countries, and eventually be depleted within the next hundred years at our rate of consumption. So how can we afford to give our criminals water, when suffering children are dying of dehydration? That’s inhumane.
Innocent people die. It happens. This is a casualty that society will have to bare. Convicted felons are tried by their peers, tried by regular individuals, and if convicted, it is because they have been deemed hazardous to society. The enforcement of the death penalty is astonishingly low as is, and the number of innocent victims in negligible. Unlike the death penalty, drunk driving kills innocent people daily, yet we don’t abolish alcohol? That’s because most individuals like the occasional drink, so an innocent death is worth it. The nation’s comfort and enjoyment suddenly displaces logic and humanity. The death penalty does not make the average individual’s life a little better, so it is harshly advocated against. But what if it did benefit me? Would I still find it inhumane?
I can easily argue that the enforcement of the death penalty is not racist. White people, black people, yellow people, green people, red people.... they all are people, and thus are tried as such. We are not tried for the color, we are tried for the crime. The DC Sniper recently completed his walk of death row. Was he sentenced to die because he was black, or because he killed ten people? If we would like to talk about racism, why don’t we discuss standardized tests that have a checkbox that offers special scholarships to black individuals. Where is there a white scholarship? There isn’t, that would be just plain racist.
Lastly, Silvia is right that there is no effective deterrent produced by capital punishment. That is because we, as a country, are weak. In the Middle East, thieves loose their right hands. In the United States, thieves pay a few dollars for their misdemeanor and walk away. A three hundred dollar fine is unfortunate, this is true, but loosing a body part is a whole lot more permanent. That’s an effective deterrent. Lethal injection was developed by some humanitarian pansy. As a full-blood Texan, I completely disagree with lethal injection. It’s not harsh enough. But if we are concerned with felons suffering a little pain for their crimes, then why don’t we find an alternative that will be cheaper for tax payers. A military execution by firing squad is effective. Fifteen dollars for the ammunition. Easy fix.
Humanity isn’t what’s at question. It’s survival. The general survival of the greater good. Every day that a mass murderer sits in prison, he occupies a cell. That’s one cell that cannot be filled by a rapist, an extortionist, or a substance abuser. We’re running out of resources, we can’t afford to get softer in our punishment. I could do my civil duty, work for the next sixty years desperately attempting to contribute to society, yet barely surviving beneath the poverty line. Or I could get a little anger out, kill my ex for cheating, and then go to prison where I get a free roof, a bed, three meals a day, no utility bill, and cable television. With a lack of the death penalty, murder is looking pretty good.

Troop Surge

The proposed increase in troop levels in Afghanistan has been a popular topic of debate lately, as the pertinence of the matter is growing. President Obama has been confronted and pressed to make a staggering decision as to whether more troops will be put on the ground in the region, or if we'll continue as we have. Through the recommendations of General McChrystal and other military specialists, an alleged forty thousand soldiers are to be placed in the inhospitable territories, to aid in the U.S. forces and quell the hostile resistance.
Obama, however, has been hesitant toward the proposition, for he is weary to endanger more lives than necessary. Simultaneously, he is responding not to the necessity as conveyed by our military leaders, but to public opinion. Poll numbers have appeared to dictate his actions more clearly than logic, for the difference in standings has delayed his decision. With fifty five percent of the population supporting a 10,000 troop increase, yet only forty three percent supporting the full 40,000, Obama is wary to make a decision that will further withdraw from his declining approval rating.
The issue that needs to be resolved is an issue of indecision. Soldiers are dying in a foreign land, for they are unequipped to successfully complete their mission. Obama needs to take immediate action, heeding the advice of his generals, and send the entirety of the recommended 40,000 troops over to quickly gain control of the region, or he needs to remove all brigades and bring them home. The soldiers on the ground currently have no opportunity to be victorious in their endeavors. It is the Commander and Chief’s job to supply them with a route to victory. If a democratic system and the general establishment of peace in the region is no longer a viable goal, we need to protect our men and bring them home.

A Growing Deficit

As found in the The Huffington Post this week, Tony Blankley articulates the severity of our nation's financial situation. Now unanimously agreed upon, by both Democrats and Republicans alike, our national deficit is growing at an ever increasing rate. The "unsustainable deficit", as deemed by analysts, is driving our country into a predictable poverty, one that our federal government is openly embracing.
Blankley harshly criticizes President Obama's promise for health care reform, especially in a time of recession, for our country cannot bare the added debt. Rather than divert funds to pay for the new bill, Blankley proposes that the cut costs be maintained, but the new costs be postponed until our country gains its fiscal value back. With the minimized spending of Medicare and Medicaid, and the eventual pushing back of the eligible age to take part of the system, our nation can eventually recuperate.
Blankley demonstrates pure logic as he elaborates upon the pertinent issue. Through his political illustration, he appeals to the general public, those who pays taxes and are generally affected by national disputes and actions. I find that he is credible, for he presents an argument, devoid of opinion and supported by facts, and presents a temporary solution to harsh reality. It is not a desirable solution, but regardless, it necessary that we do what we must as a nation to stay afloat.
I strongly agree with this analysis, for we are attempting an irrational goal to reorganize health care without maintaining our own national infrastructure. While Obama might be successful in pushing through reform and spreading coverage to millions of uninsured people, the Chinese could reclaim their debt. We don't have the money to pay China back. Half of America could be part of New China within the next decade if we progress in the direction that we have digressed in. We may have health care, but at what cost? Is it worth becoming Chinese?

Publicly Funded Abortion; No Bueno

Posted in the New York Times this week, an editorial highlighting the exclusion of abortion coverage in the National Health Care Reform Bill argues against the validity of such a clause. The author defines this restriction as, “an improper government intrusion into Americans’ private lives,” denoting that certain types of procedures should not be specified under coverage, but rather, that all procedures, regardless of nature, should be covered under the plan.
The author explains a new proposition that would segregate funds, prohibiting the federal tax subsidies from funding such procedures, but rather, the funds from premium plans and co-payments would have to finance such coverage. Disagreeing with the foundation of the compromise, however, the author attests that current plans already provide such coverage, with a large fraction of employer-provided policies covering the procedure.
The author of the selection obviously takes a liberal approach to the subject. Being a controversial subject, credibility, or a lack there of, is irrelevant to label the author with, for all opinions are acceptable as such. Demonstrating a desire to fully back abortion under all provisions of health care does, however, happen to be an opinion that I strongly disagree with. While I agree that hypocrisy reigns freely in our national government, that rights of individuals should be preserved as well as defended, this is not a right that should be under debate. Before the technology was developed making such a procedure possible, abortion was not an option for women, nor was it ever thought of as morally acceptable if it was. Regardless of necessity or simple convenience, preventing a child from the opportunity of life would not be plausible.
Taking the debate to the moral level, I find that it is as heinous as murder. In war, men fight and die in the name of defense. An unborn child, however, has no ability to defend itself. It will die. Whether a conglomerate of developing cells, or fully functioning union of organs and blood vessels, it should have the opportunity to live. We are all guarantied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The unborn child, however, is denied that fundamental first right.
Expanding the argument to a imposition on the masses, forcing the common individual to fund such subsidies that would directly finance such operations would be unconstitutional. Prayer was removed from school because it could no longer be required of students to participate in an activity that they did not support or believe in. The Ten Commandments were removed from a courtroom because they did not support a free environment, but rather one of a certain point of view. If such actions were taken to protect the convictions of the non-religious and the diversified, how could I be required to compromise my Judeo-Christian values under the auspices of a better society? If I felt that abortion was legalized murder, how could I be required to fund a government health care plan that supported such actions? Abortion and Euthanasia coexist. Who are we to play God?

Excessive Spending? What?

As diagnosed by Brody Mullins and T.W. Farnam in a recent evaluation found in The Wall Street Journal, our federal lawmakers have demonstrated a tendency to exploit the wealth of the tax system through their foreign travels and endeavors. Under the auspices of diplomatic or congressional delegations, lawmakers eagerly traverse countries abroad, spending obscene amounts of money on lodging, food and accommodations. Trips to Jamaica, The Virgin Islands, and the Galapagos Islands have all been made this year alone, fully paid for by the American people. Because lawmakers' expenditure is not derived from their own income, they are frivolous in their spending habits. Records of their excursions are kept to an extreme minimum, only cataloging the destination and the amount spent, completely disregarding the purpose for the spent funding.

Lawmakers are taking advantage of their positions in the government, embezzling the American people and utilizing the taxpayers' money for their own private interests. How can politicians claim that they are minimizing pork barrel spending while we, the average citizens, are still paying for their exotic vacations? To know that thirty dollars of my paycheck every other week goes to buy an over-weight politician another Bahama Mama coconut drink is slightly concerning. For the same politicians that are screaming for foreign aid, aid for those individuals less fortunate, they are enabling the reaper of hypocrisy to swing freely.