Reading the online responses to the news articles about the botched bombing of a US airplane and the suicide bombing at a CIA base in the farthest regions of Afghanistan, I am astounded how passive our reaction is to the execution of American citizens by terrorists. What – exactly – are we waiting for in the “war on terror”? Do Americans think that (1) if we do nothing, the attacks stop or (2) if we do something, they escalate? How about rethinking those opposing positions into a mindset that used to characterize America. The word "resolution" applies to more than just a promise made at the New Year that the maker has no intent to fulfill.
There’s a historic American flag with the words “Don’t Tread On Me,” a warning that when America’s democratic principles are crossed there is a consequence, not a conversation. In the Bible’s Old Testament, God smote them, whoever “them” was; in the New Testament, God sent his only Son to convince the people that once the enemy is conquered, we can work toward world-wide reconciliation between people. However, when the threat of annihilation constantly hangs overhead, people cannot bridge the gaps and create world-wide peace and harmony because they are too busy watching their backs.
In the movie The American President, which was released prior to 9-11, America is attacked (hypothetically); when the Cabinet meets to discuss the event, the decision is made to conduct what is termed a “proportional response,” one that is quick, decisive, final – and sends a clear, concise message about the consequences for attacking the US, even on foreign soil. We say we don’t negotiate with terrorists, but isn’t that what we’re doing when we engage in conversation, rather than confrontation? At least a dozen people were killed at the CIA camp, and you better believe that the CIA knows who is responsible for the attack and where they are: respond. Immediately. Forcefully. Finally. Send a message that cannot be misunderstood, rather than have an on-going discussion about how tragic it is to lose these American lives.
Thank God there was a “foreigner” onboard the airplane over Detroit, a man who took immediate action when he realized what was happening. He didn’t watch and wonder what was happening or call the crew to do something; he jumped over seats, tackled the bomber, and put out the fire. His goal was to neutralize the immediate threat, not wonder whether his actions were politically correct and/or would be supported by the press coverage. People admire courage and immediate, decisive action because that’s what not only saves lives, but prevents future attacks using our airplanes as the delivery system for terrorism. When we complain about the inconvenience of new screening procedures at the airport terminals, aren't we dishonoring the men, women, and children aboard an airplane intended as a weapon of mass destruction on 9-11 who fought the terrorists? Who rode the plane nose-first into the ground rather than allow the terrorists to complete their mission?
No one respects the kid who is bullied, but when s/he fights back, even if the bully wins the fight, we applaud the victim for standing up for him/herself. We may not always win the fight, but at least we fight back. Why have we forgotten that part of our historical heritage? We're so busy comforting the victim that we have turned our backs on the bully, trusting that s/he won't hurt us while we're taking care of our wounded! Right: the bully hurts his/her victim, but won't hurt me because ... why? When I turn my back on the bully, I simply become the next victim because that's the nature of a bully.
One commentor on the newspaper’s webpage decried the “John Wayne mentality” of the macho men who run in with guns blazing to take out the bad guys. Why is that not a good tactic? I’d rather have John Wayne protecting me than a politician whose primary goal is re-election. President G.W. Bush was excoriated in the press for sitting like a deer caught in the headlights when he was informed about the events on 9-11 while visiting a classroom filled with children. No one knew at that time exactly what was happening, but now we have that history to put an event into an immediate context and react. I’m glad President Obama and his family are enjoying a Hawaiian holiday, but if Bush’s actions were inappropriate in a classroom filled with little children, how does anyone explain the President continuing to surf while two separate terrorist attacks occur involving US citizens?
If I were CIA, I’d take care of business immediately and worry about the media and political consequences after the business is finished. I’d send the message to the Taliban that our political system seems afraid to talk about: DON'T TREAD ON THE USA. However, if the only consequence for the terrorists is more publicity, why not do whatever it takes to remain in the power position? We empower terrorists to do more and to do it more often because we do nothing. How can any other nation either admire or follow the leadership of an American nation afraid to stand up for itself?
If we do not possess the resolve to fight back -- all out -- then we deserve whatever the terrorists hand us.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Upside Down and Inside Out
It has been many, many weeks since I've slept through the night and I wish I knew the reason therefore. At first, I literally could not stay awake past 8 pm, a joke at any age past about 10, but woke up wide awake at 3 am. Then, I stayed awake until the wee hours, the hours during which the wee ones used to require a feeding to finish sleeping through the night. Now, it's so erratic than I cannot predict if tonight is the night for good sleep or no sleep.
Last night, I read for a while, turned out the light at 10 pm, fell soundly asleep, and then bolted awake at midnight, just in time to watch all the late and late late night shows that would not exist without insommnia. They aren't all that funny when one is using them as a sleep aide: a cranky disposition affects the response to the alleged jokes that may be more humorous earlier in the evening. I've tried reading, just getting back into sleep posture and hoping, as well as sipping hot tea or hot chocolate while watching terminally boring TV, but nothing seems to work.
Of course there are sleeping pills, both OTC and prescription, but I am one of those people who feels that using a synthetic product to achieve a natural result is not what my body needs or wants. Usually, these cycles of insommnia naturally fade after about 2 weeks, but this time, it's taking longer for my body to recycle itself into a new cicadian rhythm. Meanwhile, I'm watching the recycled programs that I missed during the day on either CNN or HLN, a variety of short shows that covers the gamut of what's happening in the world while I'm doing other things.
One of the middle-of-the-night stations clarified that Jon Gosselin probably trashed his own NY apartment and slashed all his personal belongings, then blamed it on his ex, Haley, so he can collect insurance. He is behind on his rent (huh, wonder why), can't get a job, has no viable income (K8 evidently cut off his ... allowance), and NO ONE SEEMS TO CARE. He owes child support for his little tribe of dependents (yeah, Jon, you did use them as a tax deduction), which he also cannot pay. The Goss is proof positive that it is possible to cut off one's nose to spite one's face.
And, believe it or not, more travelers are upset with longer lines at check-in than they are with over-all security measures taken to keep them safer in the skies. As one interviewee put it, "If my number is up, there ain't nothing no one can do about it." Well said, sir, but I wonder how many of the other passengers aboard your plane share your whatever attitude? Or, perhaps, the innocent victims upon whom the blown-apart airliner may come to rest? Or, the surge in copycat doers who may find it cool to watch the reruns of the devastating explosion that kills all aboard and far too many victims on the ground?
As far as the pundit spin goes, it's pretty much what one would expect: one side favors being proactive, while the other side continues to favor being reactive. Again, I guess that choice is determined by how often one flies at the mercy of a terrorist who just wants to deflower his heavenly virgins. This terrorist attack was not prevented, it was botched, and you can bet that the next extremist wrapped in explosives will be better trained in the detonation process and, therefore, successful.
Which flight? Which extremist group? What kind of explosive in what kind of container? What difference does it make? When we fail to prevent the event, all we're left with is scraping bits and pieces of human remains out of the debris and decrying the loss of American lives, while exploring diplomatic solutions to terrorist actions, an oxymoron any way you look at it.
I favor limiting the number of overseas flights for passengers that have a more active terrorist mindset than others. These individuals are on a watch list for a reason, so use that reason to keep them off the planes, or at least from landing on American soil. And when a parent contacts the government and says, "I think my son has been radicalized and is planning a terrorist act," believe the parent and keep the kid off the plane! I also believe that authorities should round up and deport all the "students" with expired student visas who not only no longer attend a school, but who also do not appear to be gainfully employed. If they aren't dealing drugs to pay the rent or living off a Pell Grant, they just may be making bombs.
The caution: it's better to be safe than to be sorry.
Last night, I read for a while, turned out the light at 10 pm, fell soundly asleep, and then bolted awake at midnight, just in time to watch all the late and late late night shows that would not exist without insommnia. They aren't all that funny when one is using them as a sleep aide: a cranky disposition affects the response to the alleged jokes that may be more humorous earlier in the evening. I've tried reading, just getting back into sleep posture and hoping, as well as sipping hot tea or hot chocolate while watching terminally boring TV, but nothing seems to work.
Of course there are sleeping pills, both OTC and prescription, but I am one of those people who feels that using a synthetic product to achieve a natural result is not what my body needs or wants. Usually, these cycles of insommnia naturally fade after about 2 weeks, but this time, it's taking longer for my body to recycle itself into a new cicadian rhythm. Meanwhile, I'm watching the recycled programs that I missed during the day on either CNN or HLN, a variety of short shows that covers the gamut of what's happening in the world while I'm doing other things.
One of the middle-of-the-night stations clarified that Jon Gosselin probably trashed his own NY apartment and slashed all his personal belongings, then blamed it on his ex, Haley, so he can collect insurance. He is behind on his rent (huh, wonder why), can't get a job, has no viable income (K8 evidently cut off his ... allowance), and NO ONE SEEMS TO CARE. He owes child support for his little tribe of dependents (yeah, Jon, you did use them as a tax deduction), which he also cannot pay. The Goss is proof positive that it is possible to cut off one's nose to spite one's face.
And, believe it or not, more travelers are upset with longer lines at check-in than they are with over-all security measures taken to keep them safer in the skies. As one interviewee put it, "If my number is up, there ain't nothing no one can do about it." Well said, sir, but I wonder how many of the other passengers aboard your plane share your whatever attitude? Or, perhaps, the innocent victims upon whom the blown-apart airliner may come to rest? Or, the surge in copycat doers who may find it cool to watch the reruns of the devastating explosion that kills all aboard and far too many victims on the ground?
As far as the pundit spin goes, it's pretty much what one would expect: one side favors being proactive, while the other side continues to favor being reactive. Again, I guess that choice is determined by how often one flies at the mercy of a terrorist who just wants to deflower his heavenly virgins. This terrorist attack was not prevented, it was botched, and you can bet that the next extremist wrapped in explosives will be better trained in the detonation process and, therefore, successful.
Which flight? Which extremist group? What kind of explosive in what kind of container? What difference does it make? When we fail to prevent the event, all we're left with is scraping bits and pieces of human remains out of the debris and decrying the loss of American lives, while exploring diplomatic solutions to terrorist actions, an oxymoron any way you look at it.
I favor limiting the number of overseas flights for passengers that have a more active terrorist mindset than others. These individuals are on a watch list for a reason, so use that reason to keep them off the planes, or at least from landing on American soil. And when a parent contacts the government and says, "I think my son has been radicalized and is planning a terrorist act," believe the parent and keep the kid off the plane! I also believe that authorities should round up and deport all the "students" with expired student visas who not only no longer attend a school, but who also do not appear to be gainfully employed. If they aren't dealing drugs to pay the rent or living off a Pell Grant, they just may be making bombs.
The caution: it's better to be safe than to be sorry.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Capsule Commentary
Since Christmas Eve, I've watched a total of 5 DVDs while cleaning closets, finishing painting projects, and thinking about what is next on the to-do list. Snap judgments and capsule commentaries follow:
1. Julie & Julia is entertaining, but also has a message: everyone needs a passion. After thinking about it for the past several days, I've concluded that is what's missing from my life: I'm not passionate about anything. Perhaps that is an aspect of my life that could use some improvement.
2. The Ugly Truth is also entertaining in the contrast between beauty and the beast, female v. male, fantasy v. reality. Kathryn Heigl is physically gorgeous and comes across on-screen as the perfect female, which also makes her the perfect foil for a coarse, crude, common male of the species. I've concluded that although I'm no Kathryn Heigl, I absolutely do not want a coarse, crude, common male to share my life. Thus, I'm going to continue the wait for my very own elderly Prince Charming to sweep me off my feet.
3. Angels & Demons is exciting, but a bit over-done. There comes a point when you just want the film to end, and not necessarily well, but just be done. Tom Hanks is a good actor, but some members of the supporting cast tried to make too much out of a minor role, and over-acting quickly becomes hysterically funny in a totally serious movie.
4. I Love You, Man stinks. It's not funny, it's not entertaining, it's not well-acted. Oh, that's right: it's a man's movie, so I'm not supposed to relate to it, much less enjoy watching it. I got that right.
5. Without a doubt, the worst movie I've seen since Marty Robbins starred in the ancient classic Hell on Wheels, during which the edges of the set are clearly visible and the race scenes are exterior shots of professional races, is Mail Order Bride, starring Daphne Zuniga and Greg Evigan. I suspect it is a made-for-TV movie that was marketed for the DVD crowds, but it is incredibly awful from the casting to the plot to the alleged conflict to the final scene. It amazes me that these kinds of movies are not just written, but that someone thinks they can make money. This one had to be a tax write-off as there is absolutely nothing about it that hints at a movie studio seriously thinking it was going to be a commercial success.
I walked through the video store again today, but nothing caught my eye, so I didn't rent another film. Guess it's back to the L&O after holiday marathon, rivaled only by the marathon of NCIS episodes. Next week, the networks start the summer rerun season, which is sandwiched between the end of the fall season and the start of the fall season reruns. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
My thought? It's time for me to go back to work!
1. Julie & Julia is entertaining, but also has a message: everyone needs a passion. After thinking about it for the past several days, I've concluded that is what's missing from my life: I'm not passionate about anything. Perhaps that is an aspect of my life that could use some improvement.
2. The Ugly Truth is also entertaining in the contrast between beauty and the beast, female v. male, fantasy v. reality. Kathryn Heigl is physically gorgeous and comes across on-screen as the perfect female, which also makes her the perfect foil for a coarse, crude, common male of the species. I've concluded that although I'm no Kathryn Heigl, I absolutely do not want a coarse, crude, common male to share my life. Thus, I'm going to continue the wait for my very own elderly Prince Charming to sweep me off my feet.
3. Angels & Demons is exciting, but a bit over-done. There comes a point when you just want the film to end, and not necessarily well, but just be done. Tom Hanks is a good actor, but some members of the supporting cast tried to make too much out of a minor role, and over-acting quickly becomes hysterically funny in a totally serious movie.
4. I Love You, Man stinks. It's not funny, it's not entertaining, it's not well-acted. Oh, that's right: it's a man's movie, so I'm not supposed to relate to it, much less enjoy watching it. I got that right.
5. Without a doubt, the worst movie I've seen since Marty Robbins starred in the ancient classic Hell on Wheels, during which the edges of the set are clearly visible and the race scenes are exterior shots of professional races, is Mail Order Bride, starring Daphne Zuniga and Greg Evigan. I suspect it is a made-for-TV movie that was marketed for the DVD crowds, but it is incredibly awful from the casting to the plot to the alleged conflict to the final scene. It amazes me that these kinds of movies are not just written, but that someone thinks they can make money. This one had to be a tax write-off as there is absolutely nothing about it that hints at a movie studio seriously thinking it was going to be a commercial success.
I walked through the video store again today, but nothing caught my eye, so I didn't rent another film. Guess it's back to the L&O after holiday marathon, rivaled only by the marathon of NCIS episodes. Next week, the networks start the summer rerun season, which is sandwiched between the end of the fall season and the start of the fall season reruns. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
My thought? It's time for me to go back to work!
Going Where This Woman Has Never Gone Before
Today is historic in a small, mostly insignificant way. For the first time in my life, I boxed up clothing I have literally not worn in years, labeled the contents, and put it all into the back of my truck for delivery to the CVRM, a charity to which I donate regularly. For many people, culling the closets is an on-going activity, but for me, a senior raised by parents who lived through the Great Depression, everything is kept because ... you never know when you are going to need it. Or, in my case, lose enough weight to wear again.
Approximately 3 dozen nice jeans, ranging in sizes between 10 and 16, are in the boxes. I kept my favorite 6 pairs, along with an assortment of pull-on pants, and boxed all the other pants. Ditto shirts and blouses, some of which have stains on them that I ignored after I had already pulled the blouse on and was ready to walk out the door before I realized the stain was there. Belts? I kept two, just in case ... you never know! Sox? I kept about 3 dozen and boxed the other thousands of sox in the drawer that was bulging to the point of not shutting. Stockings? Really: when was the last time anyone wore stockings? T-shirts, underwear, and nightgowns are packed, ready for delivery. I purged shoes when I converted my closet to a built-in, tossing out everything with a heel that required stockings. Finally, the 3 huge bags filled with "winter" sweaters are on the way to the needy at the shelter as my "winter" sweaters are actually my everyday shirts paired with either a zippered hoodie or a winter coat. Tacky? Yes, but that's living in the desert.
Everything that remains is hung properly or folded and stored by color. Monkish, huh?
Separation anxiety is pulling me to think about what I'm doing before I make it final, but I know there will be some relief once all this stuff is out of the house. I'm also boxing up extra office supplies and taking them for the children. I've already boxed up old video tapes and donated hardcover books to the local libraries, so I'm almost to the point of having made it through each of the major rooms in the house. When dotter was here for T'giving, I opened the Y2K emergency supplies I purchased from the church, so those boxes are also gone. The food items went into the trash, but the non-perishables are going to the shelter with the clothing.
And that's the way it is in my little corner of the world today as I walk an unfamiliar path through conspicuous consumption, which I prefer to the more common term, hoarding!
Approximately 3 dozen nice jeans, ranging in sizes between 10 and 16, are in the boxes. I kept my favorite 6 pairs, along with an assortment of pull-on pants, and boxed all the other pants. Ditto shirts and blouses, some of which have stains on them that I ignored after I had already pulled the blouse on and was ready to walk out the door before I realized the stain was there. Belts? I kept two, just in case ... you never know! Sox? I kept about 3 dozen and boxed the other thousands of sox in the drawer that was bulging to the point of not shutting. Stockings? Really: when was the last time anyone wore stockings? T-shirts, underwear, and nightgowns are packed, ready for delivery. I purged shoes when I converted my closet to a built-in, tossing out everything with a heel that required stockings. Finally, the 3 huge bags filled with "winter" sweaters are on the way to the needy at the shelter as my "winter" sweaters are actually my everyday shirts paired with either a zippered hoodie or a winter coat. Tacky? Yes, but that's living in the desert.
Everything that remains is hung properly or folded and stored by color. Monkish, huh?
Separation anxiety is pulling me to think about what I'm doing before I make it final, but I know there will be some relief once all this stuff is out of the house. I'm also boxing up extra office supplies and taking them for the children. I've already boxed up old video tapes and donated hardcover books to the local libraries, so I'm almost to the point of having made it through each of the major rooms in the house. When dotter was here for T'giving, I opened the Y2K emergency supplies I purchased from the church, so those boxes are also gone. The food items went into the trash, but the non-perishables are going to the shelter with the clothing.
And that's the way it is in my little corner of the world today as I walk an unfamiliar path through conspicuous consumption, which I prefer to the more common term, hoarding!
The Right to Say Whatever I Want
The bloggers using the on-line newspaper to vent their homophobic, hyper-political, racist spleens have been removed. Some of them walked a very thin edge between the right to free speech and libel, evidently a daily exercise the majority of them enjoyed. One person says that they shared "lively debate" that was academic, not personal, but as an outsider who read the postings, there was little academic and a whole lot personal.
If the description of a suspect in a local crime was given, the bloggers went on the "Mexican" rant, as if no one other than Mexicans ever commits a crime, and characterized all of them as illegal. If the description of a white suspect was given, the person was obviously a druggie and/or gang banger. Children involved in criminal activity came from broken homes and were raised by not just dysfunctional (probably single or perhaps gay) parents, but criminals and drug abusers. For every action, there is an opposite, but never an equal, reaction in the blogosphere.
I stopped reading the blogs, but the comments follow every article, are posted by the same blog corps, and are harder to avoid. The racist comments abound; the battle between gay and straight rages on; the disparaging portrayals of entire communities is commonplace. The bloggers have become the Gossip Girls of high school fame, wanting to be the first one out there with an opinion, a perspective, a written account of life that accepts no question, nor offers any truth.
Far too many of the blogs and the online comments to news articles are questionable, if not libelous, and cross the line between expressing one's opinion and damaging another person's reputation and/or livelihood. These personal attacks need to be restricted, not supported with a weak Constitutional argument about the freedom of the press. These people are NOT the press, no matter how often they represent themselves as adjunct reporters: they are individuals with a personal bias that is validated in the public's mindset because it appears on a media website. If the local newspaper allows the comments and the blogs by publishing them, the writer must be right.
Should the bloggers be shut down? Yes.
Should the comments be shut down? No.
In a personal blog, the blogger has the right to write whatever s/he chooses, but also has the responsibility to accept the consequences of those words. My blog represents me, not an official media outlet, so the consequences of my words is solely mine to bear; however, if the local online newspaper provides a link to my blog, I now represent by extension that media outlet. If the online newspaper continues to allow access to blogs that include inappropriate/unverified comments about their news articles, the business needs to be held accountable for the content of the posters, who do not have the protection of freedom of the press as they are not the press. However, writing a comment is a different venue as that is clearly the opinion of the person who writes it, the same way that journalists can write OpEd pieces that are clearly based on opinion and restricted to the Op/Ed page. However, the local editorial staff does a poor job of monitoring the electronic comments, often allowing both inappropriate and illegal comments to post.
In the past, readers who commented about the news mailed the communication to the media, creating a time lag between the thought and the publication. The test of time and distance from the event created a safe guard between personal ranting and raving and a legitimate letter to the editor. Someone read the written correspondence and made a value judgment before sending it to the typesetters. That is an important safe guard, a necessary safe guard, one that protects Presidents from making "stupid" off-the-cuff comments that become part of the media legacy and citizens from making racist remarks that do nothing to improve the quality of life for all Americans.
I stand behind freedom of the press for legitimate journalists who research the news before reporting it to verify that the news is based in fact, not personal opinion. If the media wants to continue to have some degree of legitmacy, it must take a step back and question whether allowing both on-the-spot impromptu "news reporting" and citizen commentators are a legitimate adjunct to their publication. Far too many people think that if it's on TV or the internet, it must be true, but when there is no test of time, the truth is often the last thing the public learns about the news.
If the description of a suspect in a local crime was given, the bloggers went on the "Mexican" rant, as if no one other than Mexicans ever commits a crime, and characterized all of them as illegal. If the description of a white suspect was given, the person was obviously a druggie and/or gang banger. Children involved in criminal activity came from broken homes and were raised by not just dysfunctional (probably single or perhaps gay) parents, but criminals and drug abusers. For every action, there is an opposite, but never an equal, reaction in the blogosphere.
I stopped reading the blogs, but the comments follow every article, are posted by the same blog corps, and are harder to avoid. The racist comments abound; the battle between gay and straight rages on; the disparaging portrayals of entire communities is commonplace. The bloggers have become the Gossip Girls of high school fame, wanting to be the first one out there with an opinion, a perspective, a written account of life that accepts no question, nor offers any truth.
Far too many of the blogs and the online comments to news articles are questionable, if not libelous, and cross the line between expressing one's opinion and damaging another person's reputation and/or livelihood. These personal attacks need to be restricted, not supported with a weak Constitutional argument about the freedom of the press. These people are NOT the press, no matter how often they represent themselves as adjunct reporters: they are individuals with a personal bias that is validated in the public's mindset because it appears on a media website. If the local newspaper allows the comments and the blogs by publishing them, the writer must be right.
Should the bloggers be shut down? Yes.
Should the comments be shut down? No.
In a personal blog, the blogger has the right to write whatever s/he chooses, but also has the responsibility to accept the consequences of those words. My blog represents me, not an official media outlet, so the consequences of my words is solely mine to bear; however, if the local online newspaper provides a link to my blog, I now represent by extension that media outlet. If the online newspaper continues to allow access to blogs that include inappropriate/unverified comments about their news articles, the business needs to be held accountable for the content of the posters, who do not have the protection of freedom of the press as they are not the press. However, writing a comment is a different venue as that is clearly the opinion of the person who writes it, the same way that journalists can write OpEd pieces that are clearly based on opinion and restricted to the Op/Ed page. However, the local editorial staff does a poor job of monitoring the electronic comments, often allowing both inappropriate and illegal comments to post.
In the past, readers who commented about the news mailed the communication to the media, creating a time lag between the thought and the publication. The test of time and distance from the event created a safe guard between personal ranting and raving and a legitimate letter to the editor. Someone read the written correspondence and made a value judgment before sending it to the typesetters. That is an important safe guard, a necessary safe guard, one that protects Presidents from making "stupid" off-the-cuff comments that become part of the media legacy and citizens from making racist remarks that do nothing to improve the quality of life for all Americans.
I stand behind freedom of the press for legitimate journalists who research the news before reporting it to verify that the news is based in fact, not personal opinion. If the media wants to continue to have some degree of legitmacy, it must take a step back and question whether allowing both on-the-spot impromptu "news reporting" and citizen commentators are a legitimate adjunct to their publication. Far too many people think that if it's on TV or the internet, it must be true, but when there is no test of time, the truth is often the last thing the public learns about the news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)