tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596189981542739992024-03-13T05:09:27.633-07:00Dirty Little SecretsKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859618998154273999.post-51770465288287414742011-10-22T08:50:00.001-07:002011-10-22T08:50:55.404-07:00<a href="http://youtu.be/BbbMMU_Jejo">http://youtu.be/BbbMMU_Jejo</a>KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859618998154273999.post-76718390915715964212011-03-17T08:48:00.000-07:002011-03-17T08:50:35.170-07:00Ethics, Editing and the American Media Defense of NPR<span style="font-family:Bookman Old Style;"><p align="justify">I know that I don’t post here nearly as often as I would like, but I wait until something happens that really annoys me. I want to rant about things that have some substance rather than just fill cyberspace with notes about life’s minor irritations.</p><p align="justify">That said, let’s take on the national media, just for fun.</p><p align="justify">Not long ago a "civilian" journalist posted a video of leaders at NPR making comments that were less than flattering to the GOP and the TEA Party. They suggested that conservatives and their ilk were racist, among other things.</p><p align="justify">The tape was made with a hidden camera (and for the record, a hidden microphone, as if that distinction is necessary). The "normal" or maybe I should say "regular" and certainly the "mainstream" media were outraged. These sort of ambushes were unethical by today’s standards and "real" journalists wouldn’t stoop to such levels...</p><p align="justify">Except for NBC News which once, to prove that the saddlebag gas tanks in Chevrolet pickups would explode in a collision put small rocket motors at the points of impact. They wanted to ensure that the gas tank would explode in a nice fiery display suitable for the evening news.</p><p align="justify">Except for ABC News that reported James Brady, the White House press secretary wounded in the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan had died. When it was learned that Brady was still alive, one of their anchors came on to tell us that they weren’t reporting rumors. They had verified their facts from three or four sources, which all sounded like good, solid reporting, except Brady HADN’T DIED. It makes no difference how many sources they had if the man was still alive.</p><p align="justify">Except for CBS News, which reported that they had documented evidence that George Bush hadn’t properly fulfilled his Air Guard obligation. Had they checked the documents, they would have learned they were bogus but they were too anxious to smear the President (and no, it doesn’t really matter what you thought of him, the news media should get the story straight before they broadcast it).</p><p align="justify">Except for NBC, again, which had been running sting operations to catch predators trolling the Internet for youngsters. These guys would show up and Chris Hansen would step out to ask them questions about what they thought they were doing. It all ended when one guy in Texas, about to be outed, shot himself.</p><p align="justify">Or how about all the stories about the Ford Pinto blowing up in rear end collisions because of the placement of the gas tank. The<i> Des Moines Register </i>ran a story headlined that suggested a woman had been killed in another Pinto accident... except the car hadn’t exploded. She had been thrown from the vehicle in a crash and died of her injuries. The car did not explode. That it was a Pinto was irrelevant. The headline was misleading, at best.</p><p align="justify">Or how about Peter Arnett, at one time a darling of the networks. He reported that the Viet Cong had invaded the American Embassy in Saigon during TET of 1968 but the story was inaccurate. While the Viet Cong did penetrate the perimeter walls of the grounds and did get onto the Embassy property, they did not get inside the building because of the bravery of the American Military Police guarding it. </p><p align="justify">Yes, a fine hair to split, but a reporter, a "war correspondent" ought to be able to figure that out and get the story right. This wasn’t his only mistake that has enter the cultural fabric of America thanks to Arnett.</p><p align="justify">He is also famous for quoting an American soldier who said that it was a shame they had to destroy the village to save it... except that wasn’t quite right either.</p><p align="justify">He reported on the siege at Ben Tre. The Viet Cong overran the city and isolated the American advisors in a small compound. The VC used captured artillery trying to kill or dislodge the advisors. Their shelling killed many civilians in the city. Major Phil Cannella led the group of advisors defending the small outpost.</p><p align="justify">Eventually, the Navy sent gunboats to assist Cannella and tanks and soldiers of the Army’s 9<sup>th</sup> ID broke the siege. The damage to the city had been done by the VC, not the Americans. Cannella, in talking to Arnett, made it clear that the Americans, in defending the city, had not inflicted the damage, but it was a shame that some of it was destroyed.</p><p align="justify">Arnett reported that Air Force major, Chester L. Brown, had said that it was a shame that some of the village had been destroyed trying to save it. The implication was that it was Americans who had done the damage. Arnett attributed the quote to the wrong man and let the incorrect implication slide. </p><p align="justify">How does all this relate to the topic here. It points out the hypocrisy of the media. They can use hidden cameras to expose cheating automobile mechanics and super markets that repackage out of date product, but let a hidden camera expose someone they like, such as NPR, and it becomes unethical.</p><p align="justify">"The tapes were edited," they scream.</p><p align="justify">"The whole story wasn’t broadcast," they claim.</p><p align="justify">And yet, that is exactly what they have done in the past. They have been caught in some wholly false stories and yet they sit in their smug newsrooms and condemn someone for doing exactly what they have been doing.</p><p align="justify">Oh, don’t get me wrong. There should be a strong press. There should be an outside watchdog on the government. But when that watchdog begins to lick the hand of one political agenda, then it has lost its way and its mandate.</p><p align="justify">So, I laugh at the press complaining about ethics. I laugh at the press for complaining about editing a story. I laugh at their discomfort in this story. Maybe they should take a look at themselves and see if they haven’t been guilty of a little bit of ethics violation themselves.</p></span>KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859618998154273999.post-72812253539656140642011-01-30T10:59:00.000-08:002011-01-30T11:03:45.294-08:00Hubert Humphrey and Vietnam Bombing<div align="justify">I’ll tell you the one thing that makes my blood boil and that is politicians who feel they can say anything with impunity. They are not held accountable for some of their comments, unless, of course, they maligned a particular race, gender or sexual identity. If the only people affected are soldiers in the field, no one really cares...</div><div align="justify"><br />If such is not the case, then explain how presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey could run for office and condemn the bombing that the Democratic Administration was carrying out during the Vietnam War and no one seemed to notice.</div><div align="justify"><br />Yes, I know the war had turned unpopular by the time of the presidential campaign of 1968 but the point was that in 1968 (while I was actually serving in Vietnam, I might add), there were soldiers in the field. Their lives were on the line as they attempted to do what the government had asked them to do... or since this was 1968 and the draft still existed, forced them to do.</div><div align="justify"><br />Anyway, Humphrey was running around campaigning and complaining about the bombing in Vietnam. But he called his boss, Lyndon Johnson and told him that he didn’t really mean it. His was just political rhetoric, appealing to a specific voting population, looking to be elected.</div><div align="justify"><br />He apparently didn’t think about the soldiers in the field and what the reaction of them might be. Remember, in 1968, you had to be 21 to vote in an election and many, many of the soldiers in Vietnam were not 21. They were not a voting block to worry about.</div><div align="justify"><br />Never mind that the bad guys in this, meaning the communists might be listening to him and believing him. Never mind that his statements might inspire them to hang on when they might otherwise have quit. Never mind that he was, basically, giving comfort to the enemy. He was running for office and he didn’t care what damage his words might have on the soldiers in the field. They wouldn’t vote for him anyway. In fact, many couldn’t.</div><div align="justify"><br />What struck me was that no one in the media, when this conversation between Johnson and Humphrey came to light thought in terms of what consequences it might have had to those in the field. He wanted to be president and if a few soldiers died in Vietnam, well, that was the price.</div><div align="justify"><br />In today’s world, it is even worse. Say something in Pennsylvania about not supporting the president’s war in Iraq, and the terrorists hear it immediately. They can watch it on the Internet. It can inspire them to new and bolder attacks on the men and women in uniform in those far off places. Say what you believe your voters want to hear because getting reelected is more important than the lives of some soldiers who probably aren’t even from your home district.</div><div align="justify"><br />I once asked a peace demonstrator if she ever thought that the enemy might be listening and that her words might make the job of the soldiers more difficult and deadly. She said that such things weren’t her concern. Besides, they were all volunteers anyway. It’s not as if we drafted them.</div><div align="justify"><br />Here’s the point, and it is one I attempted to make to the battalion commander as we sat in our tactical operations center (TOC) outside of Baghdad... you don’t say and do things that give aid to the enemy. The time to protest is before the soldiers are engaged... or to wait until they disengage. To protest after the war starts has consequences and unless you think about and understand those consequences in relation to the soldiers in the field, you ought to keep your mouth shut.</div><div align="justify"><br />Yes, I know that this is a free country and we can say practically anything we want. But we can’t shout "Fire" in a crowded theater because there can be fatal consequences... and we shouldn’t say things about the war if we don’t understand how those statements will be interpreted by the enemy and how they affect the soldiers who are fighting it...</div><div align="justify"><br />Maybe we should all pay a little more attention so we don’t end up with soldiers fighting in a war we might not like... but hey, I can’t think of a war that I would like. Sometimes it must be done...<br />And remember, we really didn’t start this one.</div>KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859618998154273999.post-23706462308342043222010-12-29T07:55:00.000-08:002010-12-29T07:58:02.389-08:00Law & Order and PTSD<div align="justify">So, I’m watching the original<em> Law & Order</em>, and by that I mean one of the latest versions of the original series. In it, as a defense, a psychologist points out that children, exposed to the nightly recap of two wars can suffer from post traumatic stress disorder...</div><div align="justify"><br />I say, "No."</div><div align="justify"><br />Not about the PTSD, but about the news showing nightly images of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is not true. You can go days without hearing stories of the war, and often those stories aren’t about the stress of combat on the soldiers, but about other aspects of military life. Should gays and lesbians be allowed to serve without having to hide their sexual orientation? Not exactly the same as details of the stress of combat.</div><div align="justify"><br />For days I can read our local newspaper and not see a word about the wars. Not a single word. Important stuff overrules the news of war. After all, we need to know that Linsay Lohan might have sneaked from her rehab... Or Mel Gibson had another melt down... Or more about Kate and William.</div><div align="justify"><br />Or that some alleged church, which I refuse to name, is protesting at a service member’s funeral because the government, and by this I mean the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense, allows homosexuals to serve...</div><div align="justify"><br />Hey, if someone wants to serve, I say, "More power to them..." And who are these alleged God-fearing people who say otherwise? But I digress...</div><div align="justify"><br />We can’t be bothered by news of the war. Besides, who does it really affect? The soldiers and marines fighting it, of course. Their families and their friends. But the majority of society pays no attention. There is no rationing because of the war efforts. There are no shortages because of the war. </div><div align="justify"><br />I suppose what I’m saying is that the war just isn’t that big a part of life these days. It should be. We should be rallying behind our service members. But we don’t... and then we have to put up with all the nonsense that doesn’t really relate.</div><div align="justify"><br />So, no... that character on <em>Law & Order</em> couldn’t be suffering because of the nightly images of the war on television because it just isn’t there on a nightly basis... and don’t even get me started on the slasher and torture movies that masquerade as entertainment.</div>KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859618998154273999.post-18908570552475681342010-11-13T17:06:00.000-08:002010-11-13T17:11:01.266-08:00Rachel Maddow and John Kerry<div align="justify">Rachel Maddow, the other night, wondered why the "right" attacks "war hero" John Kerry but no one has similar, harsh things to say about John McCain. Why does McCain get a pass but Kerry doesn’t?</div><div align="justify"><br />I thought about this briefly and came up with multiple answers but before I get to that, let me say that I too, am a Vietnam Vet. I flew helicopters and received the standard medals that go with that mission. I can claim to be a combat decorated veteran with but a single tour in Vietnam and a single tour in Iraq in 2003 and 2004.</div><div align="justify"><br />John Kerry, on the other hand, claims two tours in Vietnam but spent little more than fourteen or fifteen weeks there. His first "tour" was on a deep water Navy ship and it is possible that he never set foot on South Vietnamese soil while on that mission. Please remember I said possible... it is also possible that he went ashore for a period of hours. I was on Vietnamese soil for the full year I was there, living without air conditioning, often without electricity, and flying missions into hostile territory almost daily.</div><div align="justify"><br />John Kerry, on his second tour, spent three month on river boats, a fairly dangerous mission where he claims to have been wounded three times. He used this to get himself out of Vietnam. I confess that had the opportunity presented itself, I probably would have done it too.</div><div align="justify"><br />But the wounds were minor and when I hit an anti-tank mine with a helicopter, causing a slight concussion and ringing in my ears, I received no recognition, other than being the only helicopter pilot to hit an anti-tank mine with a helicopter.</div><div align="justify"><br />Kerry came home early, got discharged from active duty early, on the condition that he would attend reserve meetings, but never did. Instead he embarked on a political career in which he condemned those of us who served as "baby killers," who committed atrocities at every opportunity, who were out of control, and who made Genghis Khan look tame. He used these allegations as a springboard for his political ambitions.</div><div align="justify"><br />He was an organizer and participant in the now discredited Winter Soldier extravaganza in which soldiers confessed their sins and atrocities for the world to hear. Made no difference that some of those "soldiers" had never engaged in combat, never made it to Vietnam or were never in the Army. Their list of sins was cataloged and published without any attempt to verify their credentials or the events they claimed they participated in.</div><div align="justify"><br />Kerry, of course, threw his medals away at one of the public demonstrations because, in the early 1970s, it was only idiots like me who were proud of their service. Oh, we never really mentioned it because, as Hollywood had noted, the quickest way to identify a villain in that era was to make him a Vietnam vet. Now, it’s to make him a corporate executive.</div><div align="justify"><br />I learned this one day at work when it was somehow brought up that I had served in Vietnam. One of my co-workers said, "But you seem so normal..."</div><div align="justify"><br />Anyway, Kerry’s medals eventually surfaced, on the wall of his senate office because it became a symbol to be a Vietnam vet. In fact, so many now thought of it as something to be proud of that during the 1990 census, when one of the questions was if you had served in Vietnam 13 million said yes... that’s out of the 2 – 3 million who actually did.</div><div align="justify"><br />Then, as we watched Kerry accept the Democratic nomination for president, he strode to the podium, snapped off a salute and said, "Reporting for duty." Now a proud Vietnam veteran who had forgotten all the atrocities he had cataloged twenty-five years earlier, all the disgrace he had heaped on his fellow veterans by underscoring the myth that we were all a bunch of crazed killers who shot up villages for the fun of it and gunned down innocents at every opportunity.</div><div align="justify"><br />Don’t get me wrong, these things did happen rarely and it made the life of all us that much more difficult, but certainly not with the regularity that Kerry would have had you believe...</div><div align="justify"><br />And today, still in the Senate, with no higher political aspirations at the moment, Kerry again maligns the service of the service members in Iraq and Afghanistan suggesting they are under educated teenagers who can’t find a real job...</div><div align="justify"><br />Since I was deployed with a National Guard unit, I knew that wasn’t true. We had one Ph.D. with us, a large number of men and women with master degrees, and a larger number of college graduates. We skewed older than the active forces but we did have some teenagers in our ranks and as in Vietnam, I saw our soldiers commit no atrocities but did see them repair schools, donate time to help Iraqi citizens at nearly every turn, and do much to help stabilize the country... without either Kerry nor the news media aware of all the good things we did.</div><div align="justify"><br />So, Ms. Maddow, the reason Kerry is attacked is his hypocrisy about his war record, his condemnation of this fellow veterans when it is expedient for him to do so, his attempts to paint us as uneducated, wanton killers, and then his attempt to run on his combat record. </div><div align="justify"><br />John McCain might be a lot of things, but he is not this blatantly two-faced about his military service. You might not like McCain’s politics, but he doesn’t attempt to claim political office on the backs of his fellow veterans. </div><div align="justify"><br />And now you know why Kerry is not respected by very many veterans...</div>KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859618998154273999.post-89224890511453048012010-11-06T13:20:00.000-07:002010-11-06T13:24:02.882-07:00George Bush's Lowest Moment<div align="justify">So George Bush’s lowest moment was when some hip hop guy (and yes, I leave his name out on purpose because it seems to suggest something about the importance of the statement) said that Bush didn’t care about black people. Not when Muslims (who were obviously extremists, as if it is necessary to qualify the statement) flew airplanes into buildings. Not when he learned that soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen had been killed in combat. Not when the wars continued and more American service members were killed or wounded.</div><div align="justify"><br />Nope.</div><div align="justify"><br />When some guy suggested that he didn’t care about black people.</div><div align="justify"><br />When Bush said that major combat operations had ended, I was on active duty with the Army.</div><div align="justify"><br /> </div><div align="justify">When Bush leaned on his podium, looked into the camera and asked our enemies in Iraq to "bring it on," I was standing in our Tactical Operations Center (TOC) in Baghdad... not overly thrilled with Bush daring them to attack us.</div><div align="justify"><br />When Bush talked of sacrifice, I was in Iraq while he was in Washington, D.C., living in a mansion, eating three good meals a day, and not worrying about an enemy dropping a mortar on him or shooting him or blowing up his Humvee with a bomb.</div><div align="justify"><br />But his lowest moment was when some guy said that Bush didn’t care about black people.</div><div align="justify"><br />Geez, how detached can you get? Maybe I should have said something about how I missed the last family Christmas because I was in Iraq and my mother-in-law, who hosted them, died the September following my return.</div><div align="justify"><br />Maybe I should have said something about how that 14 months on active duty wrecked what was left of my writing career. Nope, no one has called and suggested they would pay really big money for my memoirs. Instead I have to scratch around and try to convince a publisher to pay peanuts for my books (one of which is now a Kindle Book because no one else would pay for it).</div><div align="justify"><br />Well, George, I’m sorry that Kanye West said you didn’t care about black people. How about this? I’m not so sure you care about the service members you sent In Harm’s Way. Think about that.</div>KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859618998154273999.post-92070171885116713132010-10-15T13:37:00.000-07:002010-10-15T13:41:41.112-07:00Bill O'Reilly and the Talking Heads<div align="justify">I have grown tired of the talking heads on TV and their continued promotion of their books. They all have them and they all hit The New York Times bestsellers list. And why not? They get nightly commercials to hawk their books while the rest of us aren’t so lucky.</div><div align="justify"><br />These are the same people that "support the troops’ with everything they say, but I don’t see any of them in a uniform, holding onto a weapon and wondering if that dead dog in the road is concealing a roadside bomb... Oh, yes, the terrorists do that sort of thing and we learned to look for wires running from the animal into the bushes far away.</div><div align="justify"><br />Why, you ask, should this bother me? Well, before my National Guard unit was called to active duty and I was sent to Iraq, I was a writer. I did many things. Science fiction. Action-adventure. Non-fiction. I had contracts to write books and I had work lined up.</div><div align="justify"><br />Then we were called to active duty and I didn’t have time to meet my deadlines. Oh, the publisher were gracious enough to ask to me to finish as soon as possible. I finished one of the books just before we left home but the next didn’t get delivered on time... and the one that followed that was late. I could not fulfill my obligations for the copy edited manuscript or the page proofs because I was in Iraq.</div><div align="justify"><br />They said that when I returned they would set something up and we’d do some additional books. But then it came time to deliver on that promise and they were all afraid that I would be deployed again. I told them that I thought that wouldn’t happen, but, of course it did. That deployment was short. Then came Katrina and I was on active duty for that and finally the floods here. All required periods of active duty lasting from about fourteen days to a month or more.</div><div align="justify"><br /> </div><div align="justify">My writing career is now pretty much in the toilet. I don’t have access to a daily TV show to tell everyone about it. I can’t buy commercial time on TV or the radio because it is too expensive. And those talk show hosts don’t want to talk to me because they don’t care about what I think.</div><div align="justify"><br />I’m wondering what the careers of all those talking heads would be if they had to take 14 months off to serve. What if they didn’t have daily access to TV to promote their books... and don’t tell me they’re too old to serve. I was in Iraq at 54... and this after serving in Vietnam at 19.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">If any of them would like, I can speak intelligently on a variety of subjects. For example, I knew in 2003 that the Iraqis wanted us to leave, which is what all the surveys were reporting. I knew because I had talked to Iraqis in Baghdad and Tikrit and Babylon. But I also knew the rest of the statement... Yes, they wanted the Americans to leave, but not right now. That was something that hasn’t been reported until recently.</div><div align="justify"><br />Hey, networks, why not?</div><div align="justify"><br />Anyway, the point is... if I had access to a daily commercial for my books, I too would find myself on the bestseller list. Instead, I was out of the country, on a mission dictated by the president and endorsed by nearly all those talking heads. Now my career is in the dumper but none of them are around to offer help. Why am I not surprised?</div>KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859618998154273999.post-91379864181018275032010-09-30T15:20:00.000-07:002010-09-30T15:22:31.734-07:00Gender Pay Gap<div align="justify">It happens every fall and this year is no different. We’re being told that women earn about 80% of what men earn. This alleged pay gap is reported by so-called non-biased groups and underscored by government research. I say nonsense. Actually, I say something a little more profane but I try to avoid that sort of language here.</div><div align="justify"><br />My evidence, you ask...</div><div align="justify"><br />Sure. I looked that the pay scales for the military and I saw no asterisks that suggested women would be paid at a lower rate than their male counterparts. I saw the pay scale that pays based on years of service and rank. I saw that a few, in the lower officer grades were paid more than some others, but that was based on service in enlisted grades and not gender. The pay is equal.</div><div align="justify"><br />I looked at some school districts and saw the pay scales based, not on gender, but on length of service and education. Those with graduate degrees were paid more than those who did not have graduate degrees. The pay was not based on gender.</div><div align="justify"><br />I will note right here that there seem to be more males in the administration of the school districts, but I saw nothing to suggest that the women holding similar positions with the same educational background and length of service were paid less.</div><div align="justify"><br />In the recent past, I have noted a couple of stories that show women, at some entry level positions are paid MORE than their male counterparts. This means there are fewer women for those jobs and the companies and corporations get "brownie points" from the government for having female employees in those jobs. Since there are fewer women available they are paid more... and I hear no one complaining about this disparity in pay. The pay is based on gender and who is available.</div><div align="justify"><br />I’ll even take this a step farther. I know of one company that promoted women over men based solely on gender rather than on longevity, education, or performance. They wanted a female manager and it made no difference that their choice was based only on gender.</div><div align="justify"><br />I’ll even bet that if you looked beyond the statistics, you’d find reasons beyond gender. The male might have been with the company longer, though they are now in the same job. Maybe the male has a higher level of education. Maybe the woman took three or five years off to raise a family.</div><div align="justify"><br />No, I’m not offering excuses, but reasons. If you just look at who holds what job and what they are paid, you might not be getting the whole story. Your results would be skewed, but you would be reinforcing the common myths about these unfair practices.</div><div align="justify"><br />And if the woman learned that she was being underpaid by her corporate bosses, then doesn’t she have grounds for a lawsuit? Aren’t there supposed to be laws that prevent this sort of thing?</div><div align="justify"><br />No, I just don’t believe this without some substantial proof that women in the work force are being unfairly treated... Yes, some are. Sexual harassment is still a problem, but none of this is as blatant or widespread as it was last century. Maybe we can get another story broadcast about the success of women in the work force...</div><div align="justify"><br />Oh, that’s right. That isn’t the storyline we want to follow. We want to believe that women are being universally mistreated and unpaid. That gets the viewers.</div>KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859618998154273999.post-60651362170407465642010-09-24T12:26:00.000-07:002010-09-24T12:30:21.763-07:00Time Table for Withdrawal<div align="justify">I’m very annoyed at the Commander-in-Chief for giving our enemies a time table to end combat operations. Has he learned nothing from history? Does he not have a clue about running an effect war? Just who in the hell are his advisors anyway?</div><div align="justify"><br /> </div><div align="justify">Oh, I understand that he is playing to his liberal minions and that he is attempting to fulfill a campaign promise. But here is the problem with that. Soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are still in the field and are engaged by an enemy that is ruthless, uncaring, murderous, dangerous and without morals. He’ll tell you one thing and then stab you in the back. It has been this way since the beginning of time and you would think that anyone who as ever studied history would know this.</div><div align="justify"><br />But let’s look at some of this history. Lyndon Johnson lied us into the war in Vietnam (I just mention this so we can get away from the Bush lied us into war in Iraq... they all do this). Richard Nixon lied to keep us engaged in Vietnam and then lied to get us out. </div><div align="justify"><br /> </div><div align="justify">In the meantime the men and women of the military made the sacrifices that the country asked, often without question, doing what they believed to be the honorable thing to do. And what did it gain them?</div><div align="justify"><br /> </div><div align="justify">A lack of support from the civilian chain of command. Richard Nixon could have ended the Vietnam War the day he took office with the same results he got four years later. Instead, he came up with his plan, put it into effect a week before the election and achieved his goal... reelection. </div><div align="justify"><br />Of course the communists lied to him... or Henry Kissinger, and the minute the American ground forces were gone, rolled over the South Vietnamese Army. As I say, our withdrawal could have been accomplished four years earlier with a reduction in the lost of American lives and the same, ultimate outcome.</div><div align="justify"><br />The point? Politics took precedence over responsible pursuit of the war. Those who were hurt? The military men and women and their families... but this war didn’t touch everyone. You could walk down the street and see no sign of the conflict. Who cared?... except those in uniform and those who loved them.</div><div align="justify"><br />President Obama apparently didn’t study the Vietnam War. He is obviously unaware that the North Vietnamese knew, based on what was published in our newspapers and broadcast on our news, that all they had to do was wait. Engage in some combat, but just wait. Eventually we would tire and leave... which we did.</div><div align="justify"><br />And once we were out, we would not be inclined to re-engage, no matter how swiftly the North Vietnamese violated the peace agreement. They knew we wouldn’t come back...</div><div align="justify"><br />And now here we are, forty years later, and that lesson of history has been lost on today’s politicians... democrat and republican (no, they don’t deserve capital letters). With Bush in office, the democrats offered resistance every step of the way. Now with Obama in office the republicans are resisting and no one seems to notice how they have changed sides. Politics over rational thought and strategic planning.</div><div align="justify"><br />But the war continues. American military men and women (sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers) are engaged in combat while the politicians are engaged in rhetoric. These politicians claim to be for the "troops" but when push comes to shove, they are for their own political party, their own political agenda, and their own political life. The troops be damned.</div><div align="justify"><br />So now the president has said that he will end the combat operations in Afghanistan next year, as promised. He said that he will analyze the situation then and make a decision, but we all know that politics will be the deciding factor here. The military situation will not dictate the solution. Politics will.</div><div align="justify"><br />In the end, it will be the military who make the sacrifices and the only ones who really worry about them are their families and friends. No one pays attention to this any more because the important stories such as which Hollywood idiot was arrested, who is in jail and who is out, and the important story of how the Oval Office has been redecorated will fill the "news hole."</div><div align="justify"><br /> </div><div align="justify">In this case, however, the Commander-in-Chief ought to read the history. He should not make a decision that unnecessarily puts the military at risk nor should he announce his strategic decisions months before he puts his plans into action. In this case, he should not be a politician but take the title, Commander-in-Chief to heart and understand what it means. In that way he can transcend the nonsense of some of our past Commanders-in-Chief. But only if he can set aside politics and I have seen nothing to suggest he is capable of this... and in the end, it is the military who will suffer.</div>KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859618998154273999.post-27978378231471167562010-09-22T13:23:00.000-07:002010-09-24T12:26:04.771-07:00Wall Street Greed?<div align="justify">Just when I thought it was safe to watch television again, the political ads have returned. Now I’m again treated to the Washington crowd as well as other politicians, telling me that the vast economic problems we face today are the result of Wall Street greed. Those evil corporate men and women doing everything they can to earn a buck... almost always at the expense of the rest of us, or so we’re told.</div><div align="justify"><br />Well, I ask, what about Congressional greed? Representatives and senators voting with their pocketbooks rather than with the best interest of the country in mind. These men and women wondering what they can do to buy votes for their re-election rather than what harm might befall those in their home districts. </div><div align="justify"><br /></div><div align="justify">It seems to me that these people in Washington wrote the book on greed. Social security... you pay into but not them. They have exempted themselves from that. In fact, they always seem to opt out of these programs that are supposed to be so good for the rest of us.</div><div align="justify"><br />I really don’t want to hear about Wall Street greed simply because we know those people are acting in their own self interest. That’s what they do. That’s what they trained to do. It is their mind set. Gordon Gekko said it best. "Greed is good."</div><div align="justify"><br />But Congress and the Senate? They were supposed to think about what their constituency wants. They’re supposed to have our best interests at heart. But what do they do? Vote for what they think will keep them in office. Sell their votes to the highest bidder. (Oh, you want an example... How about the original plan that would have kept Nebraska out of the universal health care? Explain that...)</div><div align="justify"><br />So, the next time that you see one of those ads that talks about greed on Wall Street remember this. The real greed is in Washington where they have their hands in our pockets. If they could take everything we own, they’d do it in a minute... and then give it to someone else, as long as the new person would vote for them. </div><div align="justify"><br /></div><div align="justify">So much for Wall Street greed.</div>KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859618998154273999.post-19150595183333443642010-09-17T14:50:00.000-07:002010-09-17T14:52:49.616-07:00Burning the Quran<div align="justify">For those who don’t get it, the world is now connected by the Internet. It doesn’t matter where you live, what you do, or how backward your country might seem. We’re all connected in ways that no one envisioned just a few years ago. Who would have thought that I could sit in my room and communicate instantly with people all over the world without having to use a telephone.</div><div align="justify"><br /> </div><div align="justify">This was demonstrated again when a pastor with a congregation of a couple of dozen made a wild statement that he was going to burn the Muslim holy book. Within hours he had ignited protests throughout the Muslim world. The commanding general in Afghanistan said that this would adversely affect the men and women stationed there and would make their jobs that much more difficult, if not deadly.</div><div align="justify"><br />The pastor, a man of God, was unmoved by all this.</div><div align="justify"><br />Muslims responded with protests, burning the American flag. People did die during the protests and it seemed that the pastor, a man of God, was unmoved by all that as well.</div><div align="justify"><br />I will make two comments. As a soldier who had been stationed in Iraq in 2003 and 2004, I knew the power of the Internet and satellite TV. What was being said in the United States, including the lack of support coming from our own Congress was well known to the Iraqis... they did, after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, have access to satellite TV and the Internet. Those comments, made in a political arena and based only on a political agenda, affected the soldiers in the field. The Muslims were watching satellite TV and reading the Internet and reacted to it... often negatively.</div><div align="justify"><br />Upon my return, I asked some of those protesting the war if they were at all concerned about the danger the soldiers in the field faced. I asked if they realized that their words were encouraging the terrorists to wage war. I asked if they thought about the consequences. </div><div align="justify"><br />Not one had.</div><div align="justify"><br />Worse still, now that they knew, they weren’t going to let that affect their political agenda... We support the troops, but not to the point where we must weigh what we say against the consequences for those on the front lines. They weren’t interested in supporting the troops to that extent.<br /></div><div align="justify">And second, why would those who abhorred the burning of their holy book respond by burning the American flag? Shouldn’t we now be out in the streets protesting their destruction of our national symbol...</div><div align="justify"><br />Oh, wait. That comes under the heading of free speech, a right that many have gone to war to protect...</div><div align="justify"><br />I won’t point out the irony here. I’ll let you figure it out.</div><div align="justify"><br />I will say this. In our world today, you must carefully weigh your words against the possible negative outcome. When it comes to protecting the troops in the field, I’m for limiting what is said... while the troops are engaged. Before that engagement, after the danger for them is over, say whatever you please...</div><div align="justify"><br />But remember, what you say is no longer said in a vacuum. The world is watching on satellite TV and the Internet.</div>KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859618998154273999.post-80339698470290854402010-08-17T09:02:00.000-07:002010-08-17T09:17:36.863-07:00The Ground Zero Controversy<div align="justify"> Yes, I'm back... I have heard from a few people who said they wished I would do something more here, so, I'm back.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> Let's talk about the nonsense surrounding the Islamic Center that Muslims wish to build near Ground Zero. Yes, religious freedom gives them the right to worship however they please and whoever they please. It doesn't not give them the right to build anywhere they wish without consideration of the sensibilities of those who would be their neighbors or without consideration of what the specific location might mean to others... in this case, the majority of Americans.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> I saw the reporter for CNN touring the blocks around Ground Zero pointing to a "gentleman's club" which is, of course, code for a strip club. I saw her point out the OTB which allows people to place bets on horse races without the inconvenience of going to the track. And yes, I saw the bars and other places that many of us would not wish to see in our neighbors, all operating without protest.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> But here's the difference. Strippers didn't fly airplanes into buildings. Gramblers haven't proclaimed their hatred for Americans. Acoholics haven't wished to destroy the United States.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> So if the Muslims are really interested in building bridges between them and the rest of American society, let them listen to the wish of the people and build their center a little farther away. This would show some sensitivity to those who lost loved ones in the destruction of the twin towers.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify"> And just so that we're clear here... any attack on a mosque in the United States is wrong. The vast majority of Muslims are good people who can relate to the feelings of others and listen to what they have to say. When we attack their centers of religion, we fall to the level of those who fly airplanes into buildings and we are all better than that.</div>KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859618998154273999.post-43126754194458104572009-12-01T11:07:00.000-08:002009-12-01T11:08:33.611-08:00Gun Control and Political Correctness<div align="justify">The pundits, the talking heads, the gun control advocates, have been out, claiming that gun control could have prevented Nidal Malik Hasan from shooting so many soldiers at Fort Hood. They seem to believe that more restrictions on guns is the answer, never realizing that most Army installations have very strict weapons policies. Soldiers are well aware of the danger of weapons in the hands of those who care nothing for the law.</div><div align="justify"><br />It would seem to me that political correctness has a larger role in this than the gun laws in Texas. Hasan had come to the attention of many, but his heritage, his personal identification and his religious beliefs, though well known were ignored in a world where such things are more important than common sense.</div><div align="justify"><br />How many of the soldiers interviewed later said they had been concerned about some of the things that Hasan said but were afraid to push the issue because they didn’t want to be labeled racists? How many said nothing for the same reasons?</div><div align="justify"><br />The Army, and the other services have spent millions on classes about racial diversity, attempting to create a climate in which all soldiers are treated equally. This is an admirable goal. A soldier shouldn’t be singled out because he or she happens to have an identity outside the military. To my mind all soldiers should be seen as OD Green, Army issue, meaning all are the same.</div><div align="justify"><br />But when one of them goes out of his way to attract attention with his personal beliefs, when he has a philosophy that seems to put his personal beliefs above the oath of office he took upon entering the service, then he should be noticed. The tough questions should be asked. There should not be a fear on the part of others that such questions will get them into trouble, will prevent them from receiving promotions and will find them having to answer questions.</div><div align="justify"><br />How could this tragedy been avoided? Pay attention to the warning signs. Don’t let political correctness color the decision. And don’t blame guns when the problem isn’t the weapon, but the man with his finger on the trigger.</div>KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-859618998154273999.post-46036798477393327292009-11-28T14:11:00.000-08:002009-11-28T14:13:41.864-08:00Published Reports<div align="justify">How often have you read a news story, heard a news broadcast, or watched a "TV Journalist" refer to published reports as the source of information? It provides authenticity to the story, sounds as if the journalist might have inside information from infomred sources and in reality means almost nothing at all.</div><div align="justify"><br />A published report used to mean that the information had been found in a newspaper or magazine and that someone in authority had read it, verified it, but wouldn't give the name of the primary source. Published report meant that someone had checked the information somewhere along the line.</div><div align="justify"><br />Today it means nothing. I could say, according to published reports, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama had met with alien representatives. These were not humans, but creatures from other worlds sent here to advise our leaders. What I don't tell you is that the reports were published in The Weekly World News and they were invented by the staff because it sounded good and was a bit of fun.</div><div align="justify"><br />I could tell you that informed sources had confirmed those published reports, but that tells you nothing either. It tells you I checked with someone else who told me that the story was accurate, but what I don't tell you is that the informed source was sitting at the next desk, writing about the Bat Boy found in a cave in Mexico.</div><div align="justify"><br />When we start reading a story, or listening to a report on the television, if they won't tell you who said it, who confirmed it, or where it came from, but hide under high sounding language, then there just might not be anything to it.</div><div align="justify"><br />For those who might remember, James Brady was the White House Press Secretary for President Ronald Reagan. He was wounded during the assassination attempt on Reagan. ABC News reported that he had died as a result of his wounds, but we all know that he survived. ABC News came back on and told us that they had not been reporting on rumor and that they had confirmed from four sources that Brady had died.</div><div align="justify"><br />Well, it seems to me that if Brady was not dead, they were reporting rumors and it didn't matter how many informed sources they had to back them up. He was not dead and therefore reports to the contrary were rumor.</div><div align="justify"><br />So, when reading the newspaper (for those few of you who still do), listen to news on the radio, see it on television, or do a combination of all that on the Internet, if they won't name names, if they won't identify sources, then be skeptical. If they had behind language such as published reports and informed sources, it might mean that they know no more than you and are reporting rumor... something good journalists would not have done in the past</div>KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com0