The Shield of Achilles

Little Green Footballs sinking ever further

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:29:00 +0000

Wow!! Five months since my last posting! I have been busy, but there are other reasons for the long absence. The world has changed since I started this blog. Facebook and Twitter have taken over; blogging as we know it might become a thing of the past.

It's certainly taken a toll on Little Green Footballs. Already hemorrhaging readers since his wild swing from the fringe right to the fringe left, Charles Johnson's web site can't afford to lose many more readers. His once sky high viewership had already gone down dramatically the last time I posted his Alexa stats. It's falling into the gutter now:

His readership, which had one averaged around .01% of all Internet viewership, had plunged to half that, about .005% after his "change". Now it's plunged to even less than half of that, to about .002% a day. Wow. There are plenty of other stats on his ranking page. Notice the graph with lot of red arrows going down, down, down. Now he gets about 1800 unique visitors a day, which would still be very respectable for casual blogs (like this one). But Mr. Johnson's site is anything but "casual". It's his only livelihood. It was also once one of the top blogs in the world. Now it's basically irrelevant.

What used to be the premier blog about worldwide terrorism, has now become an incredibly nitpicky political site aimed entirely at criticizing Republicans. What do you see there right now? Page after page about Herman Cain's sexual harassment accusations!! Words fail me.

Finally no more beret!!!!

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:15:00 +0000

The hated beret

I haven't written much lately (just graduated from Wash U, am going back to the Army next month). But I had to say something about this.

Certainly there are a lot more important things going on in the world, but to me personally, this is a very wonderful thing:

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Army said Monday that it was abandoning the beret, after a failed 10-year experiment.

The black beret, which proved deeply unpopular with American soldiers, will be replaced by a patrol cap for everyday wear, U.S. Army spokesman Col. Tom Collins said.

The move came after outgoing Army chief of staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, asked the Army's sergeant major "to go out and talk to soldiers across the force and see what was on their minds," Collins told AFP.

"One of the things that soldiers consistently brought up was the desire to wear the patrol cap as part of their duty uniform," he said.

Honestly, the last 10 years I haven't met any soldier that actually liked the thing. It was hot, impractical, and takes a certain skill to wear correctly. Even those that had the skill often got too tired of constantly adjusting it when coming in/going outside buildings. Most soldiers simply wore it wrong, and it looked awful.

It's not going away entirely - it will still be part of the dress uniform, which is fine. That uniform was never supposed to be practical anyway.

Many people forget that this whole costly experiment was the pet project of Gen. Eric Shinseki, a darling of the political left, and currently the US Secretary of Veterans Affairs (I wonder how he feels about this change?). It was supposed to increase morale, but ended up doing just the opposite. Good riddance.

"This is the Arab world's Berlin moment"

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:54:00 +0000

The title is a brilliant comment by Fawaz Gerges, a professor of Middle Eastern politics and international relations at the London School of Economics.

Egypt deserves a change - as well as so many other countries in the Middle East. The only real democracies anywhere in the Middle East are Israel, Turkey and Iraq. And the latter two are still very flawed democracies, for different reasons.

Unlike in Syria or Iran, the problem isn't so much that the leadership in Egypt is necessarily malevolent. When I was in the Captain's career course (a military school I had to complete), we had a few Egyptian officers with us (it's normal to have a few international officers in each class). One of them works in the Egyptian equivalent of the Secret Service and worked in Mubarak's security detail. He knew the man personally and would talk about him. Mubarak was a protege of Anwar Sadat, the father of modern Egypt, and the first to make peace with Israel. Mubarak has also been very supportive of the Middle East peace process, not to mention a strong ally of the United States.

That said, he needs to go. Not just Mubarak himself (who is now 82), but his entire government. His party. The whole system. It has simply been in place too long, and very subject to systemic corruption, no matter how culpable Mubarak is personally.

Not that any of this will drastically improve the situation in Egypt. The main problem is that it simply has too many people. The population of this arid country is 80 million. Compare that with an arid US state like New Mexico (with one-third the area), which has only 2 million living in it. And that is a real problem. The Nile was quite fertile when there were less than a million people living there, farming on its banks, waiting for it to flood twice a year. The equation is very different at 80 million, and its very hard to escape poverty in that situation, no matter how democratic your government is. For Egypt to pull itself out of third-world status and become a great power again it would take a severe cultural change and realignment of its education system. Everything else would follow after that. A new President would be helpful, but he can't do it all alone.

Nine human smugglers arrested in Arizona

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 04:26:00 +0000

From the Associated Press (via Fox News):

Authorities have dismantled a major cell of a human smuggling ring that may be responsible for the transportation of thousands of illegal immigrants from the U.S.-Mexico border to Phoenix and other parts of the country, investigators said Wednesday.

I wonder how long until Eric Holder's Justice Department sues the state for allowing this "racial profiling"?

And how long until open border advocates demand that these felons be allowed to stay in this country?

"Why do Tea Partiers uppercase so many of their nouns?"

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 13:27:00 +0000

That title, verbatim, is a headline on Slate today. And the really sad thing is, it is not parody or satire. It is an actual article.

How is that relevant to anyone in any way, shape, or form? Or was this a desperate gasp to create another "issue" before today's elections? I am speechless.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch belongs to the Democratic Party

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:38:00 +0000

The sole remaining print newspaper in my hometown of Saint Louis, is the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch. It was founded by Joseph Pulitzer himself in 1878. Here is the paper's official platform, as written by Mr. Pulitzer:

"I know that my retirement will make no difference in its cardinal principles, that it will always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty."

(Emphasis mine).

For a long time however, the reality has been otherwise, at least as far as politics is concerned. If you look at this year's endorsements for the election tomorrow, every single candidate but one, is a Democrat (They leave off the D's and R's, but trust me, you can look them all up yourself). The lone Republican on the page is John T. Lamping, and he is only a candidate for the Missouri house legislature, not for the US House of Representatives. Still the paper praises his opponent, Barbara Fraser. The paper must have hated to endorse Lamping at all, but they realized they had to have at least one token Republican on the list to appear impartial.

So Ms. Fraser became the sacrificial lamb this year. But don't worry for her - there's a form of payback on the way. In 1988, Democrat Jay Nixon was that sacrificial lamb when the Post-Dispatch endorsed Republican John Danforth over him for US Senate in 1988; but they never failed to endorse Jay Nixon for any election since! I believe that was also the last time they endorsed any Republican in a federal election.

There is, of course, the question that these endorsements are even relevant anymore. Like most papers, their circulation is way down from their heyday. But relevant or not, the whole thing has been a sham for a very long time. Papers really should not endorse candidates - period. Why not just report the facts and let the readers make up their own minds?

An anti-endorsement endorsement

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 04:00:00 +0000

Sharron Angle. Photo embedded from the NY Post, origin unknown

I don't endorse candidates. But I will write an "anti-endorsement" against someone else's endorsement. Today's editorial against Republican Senate Candidate Sharron Angle in the Las Vegas Sun, is so insulting and so outrageous, I can't believe it came from a mainstream media outlet. To make matters worse, the writer is the paper's editor! The editorial outright calls anyone who votes for Angle "stupid" (using that word 7 times), and claims that voting for her will "be making the biggest mistake they have ever made".

It's one thing for a childish comedian to throw a tantrum and resort to insults, it's quite another for a newspaper's editor to do it. But this might be a symptom of desperation, since Angle is slightly leading Senate Majority leader Harry Reid in the polls.

A quote:

We can all argue whether those who are supporting Angle are stupid. I can’t justify such a blanket opinion about people. But, what I can do is understand what Forrest Gump meant when he made that famous quote a set of household words. “Stupid is as stupid does” means that even intelligent people can do stupid things. And that, my friends, would make them stupid!

He goes on:

Angle would dismantle Social Security and Medicare, calling them biblical sins; do away with Veterans Affairs; not require insurance companies to pay for mammograms, and screenings for prostate and other cancers that we know can save lives with early detection; or refuse to require background checks for sex offenders. These are all norms of American daily living that people take for granted and expect that those who we elect won’t take them away. Angle would.

I can't speak to each of those allegations, but the first one is absolutely untrue and Mr. Greenspun should know better. Angle never said social security was a "sin" or a violation of any commandment, and even FackCheck.org, which seems to have little love for Angle, debunked that charge quite some time ago. She only said it should be dismantled and replaced with a system that is not "pay as you go" - which is our current ponzi scheme. That's exactly what we need to do.

I don't have much of a stake in this race, but if I was a Nevadan, Ms. Behar and Mr. Greenspun's antics would only encourage me to join the Angle camp.

Found via Jammie Wearing Fool.

Share|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

Paul Rieckhoff's response

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 03:49:00 +0000

This issue will not be important to most, but I include it for those who are interested in veteran's issues.

A couple weeks ago, I sent a letter to Paul Rieckhoff, the head of IAVA, outlining the concerns I discussed in my last post. Here was his response; the second half is pure boilerplate. My reply is below.

Mr. Rohan,

Good to hear you from.

Thank you for your feedback on the Congressional Report Card. And we’re sorry to hear you have opted not to be an IAVA member.

In the last few years IAVA has become a force in Washington, pushing tirelessly to achieve bipartisan progress on the issues facing our troops, and to ensure today’s veterans get the support they have earned. Our focus is on achieving real results for veterans, and to do this we do not curry favor to any political party or politician.

The Congressional Report Card is a crucial tool for holding Congress accountable when they fail to vote in support of our troops and new veterans. The priorities contained in the Report Card come directly from our over 80,000 members nationwide. The methodology is transparent, and lawmakers from all parties were held to identical standards and graded accordingly. We strongly believe that supporting veterans is a question of taking action, not partisan politics.

But our work in DC is just one way that IAVA strives to improve the lives of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and their families. Across the country, we are active on the ground with membership events and we support our members by connecting them with resources, like tips for navigating the new GI Bill and utilizing their VA benefits. Also, through our new tool, The Rucksack, IAVA is connecting thousands of veterans with free rewards, like tickets to baseball games or a new suit to help with their job search.

Day in and day out, IAVA is working both on Capitol Hill and across the country to better the lives of the newest generation of veterans.

I hope you will reconsider joining us in that fight.

Thanks again.

Best regards,

Paul.

My reply:

Mr. Rieckhoff,

Thank you for responding, but you didn't address any concerns.

You said: "The methodology is transparent, and lawmakers from all parties were held to identical standards and graded accordingly. We strongly believe that supporting veterans is a question of taking action, not partisan politics."

But your methodology (bills that all expand the welfare state), will always favor Democrats every single time. Problem is, neither myself, or anyone I know personally favor all of these bills that IAVA favors.

What about IAVA's silence on the many veterans running for Congress this year? (probably because most are Republicans?) You also said nothing (as far as I can find) about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's poor treatment of service members, and the fact that SCOTUS now has no veterans on it, possibly for the first time in its history.

Look, just the fact that military members tend to overwhelmingly vote Republican is just one clue that your criteria may be little out of touch with our needs.

It's your group, but that's just my 2 cents.

JR

http://www.shieldofachilles.net/

It's been a week, and he hasn't replied again. I don't expect him to. IAVA is a partisan organization that is pretending to represent the needs of veterans. I will keep saying this loudly until it decides to change. It is fortunate, that it is not the only veteran's group out there.

Share|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

IAVA's very partisan jump into poltics

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 21:29:00 +0000

I've been silent through much of the current elections in the United States, but I just can't take it any more.

IAVA is a left-leaning anti-war group founded by Paul Rieckhoff, who has actively protested the war and openly supports Democratic candidates. He claims that the organization is non-partisan (they have to, since they are tax-exempt), but the reality is otherwise.

And now we have proof of this: Their 2010 "Congressional Report Card", (conveniently published right before the election) gave "D" and "F" grades overwhelmingly to Republicans (92% of them as a matter of fact), and grades of "A" almost exclusively went to Democrats (97%!!). If the Democratic National Committee themselves wrote this report, they hardly would have done any different.

Not surprisingly, left-leaning anti-war sites/pundits like Raw Story and Rachel Maddow are spinning this wildly.

What were the grades based on? They were all based on voting for or against expanding veterans benefits (their chart shows who voted "with" veterans, and who voted "against", which is rather presumptive). A few are well-intentioned. But some are simply redundant, such as "Improved employment protections for National Guard" or "Ending Military Sexual Trauma". These programs already exist, and ballooning them even further looks great on paper, but it just costs money and creates confusion. Some of them are simply wrong, and Mr. Rieckhoff must think we are still living in 2004. For example, IAVA wants more mandatory mental health screenings for veterans returning from deployment. But we already get this at several stages, including a two part in person interview (once just after deployment, and once 90 days later). So many of these benefits just pile on what we already have. Honestly, how much more do we need? Someone needs to finally ask this question. I am a soldier who has been in combat because that's part of my job. I was paid well for it, and no one forced me to sign up. I don't want to be considered disabled or part of an oppressed minority, because I am not, and I don't deserve that label. I am also not looking for handouts. Certainly the system is not perfect, but honestly, US servicemembers already receive the best benefits of any military in the world, bar none.

I guess what really infuriates me is that IAVA claims to actually speak for veterans, and many in the media take this at face value that they are speaking for all. They are not. They certainly don't speak for me, and not for anyone else I know personally. Rieckhoff did his minimum of 5 years of service with the National Guard and did one tour in Iraq. Meanwhile, I have 17 years of service, with two tours in Iraq, and several more years of service ahead of me still.

Just for clarity: Paul Rieckoff seems to be a pretty decent guy overall. We have corresponded before (look here and here). But he is dreaming if the thinks he speaks for veterans in general, and he is really off the rails if the thinks that he or IAVA can continue to pretend to be non-partisan.

A better group is Vets for Freedom, which more accurately reflects the views of most veterans that I know. I haven't joined that group (or any other) because I prefer not to take any sides, nor join any political party. I would prefer a truly neutral organization. But IAVA's antics tempt me into openly taking sides.

14th Amendment scare tactics

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 16:12:00 +0000

Recently there has been quite a bit of buzz in the USA on revising the 14th Amendment (which allows anyone born on US soil to automatically become a citizen), or somehow writing to law to prevent abuses of this policy. Right now, illegal immigrants are actually rewarded having children on US soil, and many pregnant tourists come to the USA for the very purpose of gaining US citizenship benefits for their children. The children are frequently called "anchor babies" because they give the entire family an anchor in the US. In some areas, it makes the family eligible to collect welfare, makes the family more difficult to deport, and when the child turns 21, he/she can legally sponsor the rest of the immediate family to immigrate.

The problem is, the 14th was never intended to be used this way. It was written in 1868, before there were any immigration laws. The point of it was to make certain that after the Civil War, freed slaves would be considered full citizens. There are no more slaves alive today, and it was never intended to be a loophole to abuse our laws. The writers could not have predicted the changing role of immigration, as well as the explosion of cheap travel and the growth of world tourism.

Just a few key facts on the issue:

* 1 in 12 babies born in the US are born to illegal immigrants. That's about 340,000 a year.

* An overwhelming number of Americans (67%) disagree with granting birthright citizenship to people in the country illegally.

* "Birth tourism", in which pregnant women travel to the US with the specific intention of having a US citizen baby, is a booming business and rapidly expanding.

When Sen. Lindsey Graham brought up the possibility of revising the 14th recently, he was vilified for it from all the usual corners. Senator Harry Reid said: “They've either taken leave of their senses or their principles” (however, hypocritically, Reid himself introduced a bill with that very same purpose back in 1993, apologizing for it later).

I have read a lot of debate on this topic back and forth in the last couple weeks. It really is difficult to defend the way the law is being abused. Essentially, all the defenders of the status quo revert to these arguments, which are easily refuted:

1. "It's racist" (the standard response when you don't have a real argument). ANSWER: Then why did the rest of the developed world, including the entire European Union, ditch their birthright citizenship laws years ago? Are they all racist? Among developed nations, the US stands alone in this regard.

Incidentally, constantly making false cries of "racism" have horribly backfired in Britain. I see the same thing happening in the US soon enough.

2. "It will require immigration agents in delivery rooms". This is not a straw man argument; this is what Senator John Kerry actually said recently, and other pundits have followed suit. ANSWER: Once again, Europe does not allow birthright citizenship, and there are no "immigration agents in delivery rooms".

Every baby born in Europe gets a birth certificate (like I got mine from Germany). What parents do not automatically get for their child is a document verifying citizenship. That they can get later from a records office if they can show that at least one parent is a citizen, or that they are legal residents (not tourists or illegal immigrants). There are some other exceptions, for example, children born to US servicemembers stationed in Germany are not automatically citizens (unless they have a German parent).

3. "It's un-American". ANSWER: this is an emotional statement that can't really be proved or refuted. However, it's ironic that accusations of being "un-American" don't fly with the political left in other areas (like when directed toward war critics or universal health care). It's also pretty plain that the lawmakers who wrote the 14th Amendment did not intend for it to be used the way it is being used, so I would consider the status quo to be "un-American" instead.

Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school argued this very point in a recent law review:

"It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry"

4. "It will result in 'stateless' people living in the US". ANSWER: I hear this talking point too, and it's a complete canard. It doesn't happen in Europe either, and it wouldn't happen here. Virtually every nation on Earth, including Mexico, practice "jus sanguinis" which means that children are citizens of their parents country even if born in another country. That is why right now, children born in the USA to Mexican parents have dual US/Mexican citizenship.

Bottom line is that it's a very bad policy that is completely archaic in this age of mass immigration, worldwide tourism, and cheap travel.

Off and On

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 16:06:00 +0000

I have had very little heart to write for this blog recently - and now I think I understand why.

I am currently a full-time student back in graduate school (I go back to the Army next Summer). Since my major is International Affairs, I already study current issues in depth. I obviously have to write papers, give opinions, analyze current topics in my classes. It's difficult for me to repeat that on this weblog. But now that Summer classes are over, I have a break, and will return for a bit.

Captain Pete Hegseth speaks out to congress about Elena Kagan

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:00:00 +0000

You may have noticed I have been offline for quite awhile. This is the result of a vacation, schoolwork, family concerns, and other distractions. But I am still alive.

Given that the Kagan appointment to the US Supreme Court is basically a forgone conclusion, here is something I feels needs maximum publicity. A Massachusetts National Guard (and Harvard student) speaks out against Kagan, offering one of the most eloquent rebuttals to her nomination yet. His focus is Kagan's refusal (in violation of Federal law) to allow military recruiters at Harvard during her tenure as dean. Obstensibly her reason was in protest of the miltiary's "don't ask, don't tell" policy (which excludes openly homosexual people from military service).

A couple highlights from his testimony:

1. Not only has Ms. Kagan has shown hostility toward recruitment, she is replacing the only remaining veteran on the court.

2. Ms. Kagan continuously claims that military recruitment went up during her tenure. Even if true (and I have doubts about that), it happened in spite of her efforts, not because of anything she did.

3. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was not written by the military anyway, but in fact by President Clinton, whom Ms. Kagan went to work for.

4. Ms. Kagan allowed Harvard to accept several endowments from Saudi Arabia, a country that executes homosexuals, yet she considered "don't ask, don't tell" to be an "injustice of the highest order".

Ethan McCord

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:12:00 +0000

Ethan McCord is a former US soldier who served in Iraq, and is one of the soldiers who appear on the wikileaks video that I discussed earlier.

He was interviewed recently, and claims, among other things, that:

Our rules of engagement were changing on an almost daily basis. But we had a pretty gung-ho commander, who decided that because we were getting hit by IEDs a lot, there would be a new battalion SOP [standard operating procedure].

He goes, “If someone in your line gets hit with an IED, 360 rotational fire. You kill every motherfucker on the street.” Myself and Josh and a lot of other soldiers were just sitting there looking at each other like, “Are you kidding me? You want us to kill women and children on the street?”

And you couldn’t just disobey orders to shoot, because they could just make your life hell in Iraq. So like with myself, I would shoot up into the roof of a building instead of down on the ground toward civilians. But I’ve seen it many times, where people are just walking down the street and an IED goes off and the troops open fire and kill them.

I strongly suspect this isn't true, and although he admits to emotional problems from his time in service, this would not excuse lying. I'll explain.

I'm also in the Army. Unlike McCord, I'm still in the Army. I've been to Iraq - twice, including just before McCord was there. I've also been in a convoy hit by an IED. Not only have I not seen it, I've never even heard of any unit with such a ridiculous "policy".

If an officer actually gave an order like that, it would be illegal, and would end his career (or send him to jail) if anyone found out. It's very unlikely he would announce it so openly, and even more unlikely that the Battalion commander wouldn't do anything to stop it, since he could be held liable also (remember that every commander in the Army has a commander himself). Anyone following it could also be prosecuted.

I'm not defending the wikileaks incident, but - here's what bothers me. Former soldiers like McCord, who are against the war, get star-studded media attention, while the 99.99% who claim they didn't commit atrocities (like me) are ignored.

I would also like to respond to this. McCord wrote a letter of apology of sorts, for the incident, because:

We wanted the Iraqi people to know that not everybody sees them as being dehumanized and that there are plenty of Americans and other people who care for them as human beings and wish for them to live long and happy lives and don’t agree with the war and the policies behind it.

I do support the war, but I also care very deeply for Iraqis as human beings, and consider many of them my good friends. I still correspond with them today. McCord is just saying the things the anti-war protestors want to hear, and the interviewer is eating it up.

I tried to find McCord through the Army's email database, but he is not listed, most likely since he's no longer in the service. If he would contact me, I would love to interview him myself.

Share|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

Lawsuits for All

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:01:00 +0000

City Museum, wire tunnel, by Daniel Ramirez

Justice means, among many other things, equal protection for all. People tend to forget that this applies to tort actions as well.

In the United States, whenever someone sues a large business or a government agency, the first thing you normally hear in the press is the accusations by the Plaintiff's attorney. You rarely hear the defendant's side until much later (if at all), because they are afraid of saying anything that could hurt their case. The "no comment" usually comes in the form of: "Mr. [blank], a spokesman for [blank agency/company] claims they cannot comment on pending litigation".

Well, the thing is, it turns out that the United States has a 1st Amendment, and you can comment on it.

The City Museum in Saint Louis, (which has several interactive sections) got tired of this policy and has started naming and shaming people who are suing it. It's about time. Legitimate suits are one thing, but frivolous suits only serve to drive up costs for everyone else. Money Quote:

“Just to give you a quick glimpse into what we go through at the City Museum, a couple of years ago our rock fell 4 feet. The next day we had over 12 people call and tell us they were injured when the rock fell. To investigate these claims, we reviewed the video of the rock falling and we posted the video clearly showing that there was no one next to the rock when it fell on our website. When this was brought to several of the caller’s attention they either hung up or changed their stories.”

So the real issue here is, what has happened in similar incidents where the plaintiff in question didn't have happen to have video to protect itself?

Personally, I think the museum should have waited to announce the existence of the video only after people had officially filed their paperwork, so that they could then be prosecuted for filing false claims.

I'm very curious to see what affect this new policy has on future litigation at the museum.

Arizona illegal immigration bill controversy

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 00:30:00 +0000

The Arizona governor signs a new bill to crack down on illegal immigration, and predictably, the usual suspects file lawsuits to prevent it from taking effect.

I have a question for Mexico, MALDEF, the ACLU, and others: Tell us then, is it ever legal to enforce immigration laws???

I understand concerns about racial profiling, but let's get real. When police encounter an individual who doesn't speak English, yet his clothes are in very poor condition so it's unlikely he's a foreign tourist, then it's just common sense that they should be allowed to ask questions.

Predictably, President Obama condemned the bill, and tried to twist it into another reason why we need to grant a general amnesty:

"Indeed, our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.

"In fact, I've instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation. But if we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country."

Arizona Senator John McCain responded thus:

“If the president doesn’t like what the Arizona Legislature and governor may be doing, then I call on the president to immediately call for the dispatch of 3,000 National Guard troops to our border and mandate that 3,000 additional Border Patrol [officers] be sent to our border as well...

And that way, then the state of Arizona will not have to enact legislation which they have to do because of the federal government’s failure to carry out its responsibilities, which is to secure the borders.”

But as Bill S. at Red State asks, where was this McCain during the 2008 election?

Gov. Bill Richardson from neighboring New Mexico, who is Hispanic himself, loudly complained about the bill. Probably because he knows it will drive more illegal immigrants into his state, forcing him to have to do actually do something himself.

Incidentally, I give President Obama and the Democrats a hard time on this issue, but the truth is, President Bush did little to secure the border as well. The border hasn't been effectively patrolled since the days of President Eisenhower (who deported as many as 1 million illegal immigrants during his term).

Lightning + Volcano

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:33:00 +0000

Wow! This is one hell of a photo - Lightning bolts captured around the plume of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Southern Iceland! This embedded image doesn't do it justice - click on it to see the full picture. It comes through NASA's "astronomy picture of the day", so I'm reasonably certain it's genuine. This photo was taken by Marco Fulle.

April Round up

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:05:00 +0000

Spring in Amsterdam, by Claudio Mufarrege

Not the most noteworthy headlines, but things you may have missed:

USA: Here we go again. Former President Clinton warns of violence due to "right wing blogosphere and media", and references the Oklahoma City bombing. Left-wing threats are never mentioned, of course. Nor is Clinton even challenged on this point by interviewers.

World: It's about time. The first mass produced, affordable electric car, the Nissan Leaf, is coming later this year. More here.

USA: An Army doctor questions Obama's citizenship and refuses to deploy. Strangely, on left wing web sites, the comments are nearly unanimous in declaring him a traitor and calling for his head. Strange... these are the same folks who were so sympathetic toward other officers refusing to deploy, such at Lt. Watada. In any case, both these types of objectors are wrong. You don't refuse to serve because of who the commander-in-chief is. After all, you are not part of his private army; you belong to the country as a whole (anti-Bush protestors also often didn't understand this distinction). When you sign up, you also don't get to pick and choose where you serve, which is what Watada didn't understand.

USA: A US Marine has been warned about posting statements supportive of the Tea Party protests. The article says: "military personnel are prohibited from sponsoring a political club, writing anything that solicits votes for a political cause or speaking at any event that promotes a political movement". That's not true. Servicemembers are not allowed to do those things while in uniform - there's a huge difference. Otherwise, we are free to support any cause we want. After all, we are Americans too. However, to avoid misunderstandings like this is one reason why I write under a pen name.

USA: Speaking of Marines, a blind, double-amputee Marine, Cpl. Matthew Bradford, just re-enlisted for four more years. He plans to work with other servicemembers who are recovering from the effects of war. While I absolutely admire his spirit, I just don't think this is a good idea. Anyone who enlists in the military must be prepared to go to war. Obviously, Cpl Bradford cannot. It makes more sense to medically retire him (with disability pay), and then allow him to work this job as a civilian employee. But if keeping him in uniform inspires others, then more power to him. He's also one of the best examples of an American that I can find.

Australia: Reason #113 not to wear a burkha: Woman strangled to death by burkha in freak go-kart accident.

Maine: Commission on Human Rights wants to ban male and female restrooms in schools as "discriminatory".

Canada: A lesbian takes offense at humor at a comedy club, so she files an official criminal human rights complaint. Humor always offends someone, so one day, it will all be banned. Ridiculously, there has been an explosion in such cases in Canada, even though there aren't any reports of mass killings, concentration camps, or hate crime victims fleeing south to the United States.

UK: Manga and Anime, among other forms of comics, stand to be banned in the UK altogether under a misguided attempt to prevent the depiction of abuse of children.

Share
|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

Email address book was hacked

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 23:46:00 +0000

Somehow the address book for my email address (johnrohan ~at~ hotmail . com) was hacked into, and some spam messages were sent out to everyone in the book appearing to be from my address. Not surprisingly, the email was pitching for a pharmaceutical web site dealing in viagra. Ironically, the web site had a link to complain about spam email. I started filling it out, but it asked for my email address. Sorry, but no way was I going to let them scam me again.

Anyway, if you got a strange email from me, that is the reason. I have deleted my address book, and taken some extra precautions. If this happens again, I may have to change my address.

Richard Dawkins and Chrisopher Hitchens will "arrest" the Pope [Updated]

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 12:44:00 +0000

Disclaimer: I am a Catholic. The truth is, small men usually hide behind their keyboards:

Richard Dawkins, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.

Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.

Isn't it strange how prominent atheists always prefer to attack Christian leaders? Would it ever have occurred to them to have similarly call for the arrest of people like Yasser Arafat or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during their visits to the UN?

In any case, the alleged "cover up" is the fact that in 1985, the Pope, then a Cardinal, recommended carefully studying the case of a pedophile priest rather than immediately defrocking him. That's a rather weak claim for "crimes against humanity".

Additionally, exactly what qualifies Dawkins and Hitchens to be the point men here? Are they international lawyers? Are they victims of abuse? Are they even members of the Catholic Church??

The answer is "No" to all the above - they're just two guys with opinions about the Pope (like anyone else). In fact, they were both extremely hostile to the Church even before this "scandal" broke.

Moreover, this part is really obtuse:

Dawkins and Hitchens believe the Pope would be unable to claim diplomatic immunity from arrest because, although his tour is categorised as a state visit, he is not the head of a state recognised by the United Nations.

Irrelevant. He's the head of state of a nation recognized by virtually every country on Earth, including the United Kingdom. The fact that the Vatican is not a member of the UN doesn't make any difference. Under international law, nations aren't required to join the UN.

One other odd thing about the Times Online article - many of the comments there support Dawkin's view of evolution and denounce Creationism, as if this somehow refutes the Pope. Their ignorance is evidence to all: the Catholic Church embraced the idea of evolution a long time ago, and has long rejected literal Creationism.

Incidentally, for two other examples of Chris Hitchen's inane hyperbole, look here and here.

Update 1: Richard Dawkins now claims that he was misquoted, and is not seeking to "arrest" Pope Benedict. He does claim he supports legal action against the Pope however:

I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.

What I DID say to Marc Horne when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain.

The Un-Truthout [Updated]

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 23:08:00 +0000

There's a very disturbing article at Truthout.org that I will respond to. It claims that the killings in the wikileaks video were a common occurrence. It's basically recycled propaganda that's been refuted before, and features such Iraqi vets such as Garett Repenhagen, Jason Hurd, and Adam Kokesh, and Scott Ewing. Notice a pattern here? They all come from the group Iraq Veterans against the War, a wildly anti-military organization that openly supports deserters.

Scott Ewing, who served in Iraq from 2005-2006, admitted on one panel that units intentionally gave candy to Iraqi children for reasons other than "winning hearts and minds.

"There was also another motive," Ewing said. "If the kids were around our vehicles, the bad guys wouldn't attack. We used the kids as human shields."

This statement is so specious I hardly know where to start. There was no tactic, written or otherwise, to use children as "human shields" and that wouldn't matter to most insurgents anyway. He's likely mistaking a joke a fellow soldier made and turning it into some kind of policy.

Garret Reppenhagen served in Iraq from February 2004-2005 in the city of Baquba, 40 kilometers (about 25 miles) northeast of Baghdad. He said his first experience in Iraq was being on a patrol that killed two Iraqi farmers as they worked in their field at night.

"I was told they were out in the fields farming because their pumps only operated with electricity, which meant they had to go out in the dark when there was electricity," he explained, "I asked the sergeant, if he knew this, why did he fire on the men. He told me because the men were out after curfew. I was never given another ROE during my time in Iraq."

Really? Well, here's the problem with that: It was a theater-wide policy for all soldiers to have a printed copy of the ROE (rules of engagement) on their persons at all times. These were printed out as wallet cards and handed out to everyone. It's possible that Reppenhagen's immediate leadership failed to obtain any, but that would be a reflection on them, not on the national policy. In any case, I doubt that Reppenhagen was lacking a copy. On any base you could see stacks of them lying around in every unit headquarters. It's more likely that he's forgetting to mention it because it would weaken his story. Incidentally, there was never any policy to shoot people merely for being out after curfew.

When this Truthout reporter was in Baghdad in November 2004, my Iraqi interpreter was in the Abu Hanifa mosque that was raided by US and Iraqi soldiers during Friday prayers.

"Everyone was there for Friday prayers, when five Humvees and several trucks carrying [US soldiers and] Iraqi National Guards entered," Abu Talat told Truthout on the phone from within the mosque while the raid was in progress. "Everyone starting yelling 'Allahu Akbar' (God is the greatest) because they were frightened. Then the soldiers started shooting the people praying!"

Here he's neglecting to give any context, such as the history around that mosque, or that the Imam had just called for a holy war against the Americans. Supposedly, between 2-4 people were killed, most likely by Iraqi soldiers (US soldiers never entered mosques except in very unusual circumstances). I know that the US soldiers didn't just jump in "shooting the people praying", because then there would have been a hell of a lot more than four people killed.

Cliff Hicks served in Iraq from October 2003 to August 2004.

"There was a tall apartment complex, the only spot from where people could see over our perimeter," Hicks told Truthout, "There would be laundry hanging off the balconies, and people hanging out on the roof for fresh air. The place was full of kids and families. On rare occasions, a fighter would get atop the building and shoot at our passing vehicles. They never really hit anybody. We just knew to be careful when we were over by that part of the wall, and nobody did shit about it until one day a lieutenant colonel was driving down and they shot at his vehicle and he got scared. So he jumped through a bunch of hoops and cut through some red tape and got a C-130 to come out the next night and all but leveled the place. Earlier that evening when I was returning from a patrol the apartment had been packed full of people."

I don't know what unit "Cliff Hicks" served in, but this seems too much coincidence to be a different incident; I'm strongly certain I was there. In late 2003, a large building overlooking the main gate to Camp Slayer was destroyed by an AC-130 gunship. Unlike what Mr. Hicks said, the building was mostly gutted, structurally unsound, and only occupied by a few people. More importantly, they had been warned more than once to get out (I know because I was told to give one of these warnings myself, and informed the Iraqis that the building would be destroyed from the air that night). Moreover, it was more than just the scene of random sniper fire; the building was ordered destroyed after a night attack in which three french-made 68mm rockets were set to a timer and fired from this building into our camp.

To this day, I still have one of the rocket transport tubes that I found in the building afterwards.

Update Apr 8: This article also appears at Political Theatrics, a rabidly Anti-American site. The author, Dahr Jamail, runs his own blog, and yesterday I contacted him with my concerns (no response so far). Incidentally, one of his articles claims that the Baghdad Museum lootings were a deliberate US policy, apparently not realizing that this was exposed as a hoax several years ago.

Share
|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

"Collateral Murder"

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:02:00 +0000

The above is an Apache helicopter video which was released by Wikileaks after accessing it from the US government under the Freedom of Information Act. The entire video is rather disturbing; it shows a scene on the Eastern side of Baghdad on July 12, 2007 (I was not in Iraq at that time), in which several people, likely innocent, were killed by the gunship's 30mm cannons. These include a Namir Noor-Eldeen and a Saeed Chmagh, who were working for Reuters.

At first glance, it looks like the pilots mistook the camera equipment and tripods the men were carrying for AK-47 weapons and RPGs (although at least one of them did have an actual weapon). A short while after the initial salvo, a van pulls up to load one wounded person inside. This van has two children in it (what in God's name that driver was thinking in doing this, I'll never know!). The pilots believe that insurgents are arriving help their buddies escape and so they destroy the van. The children were wounded and they were taken to an Iraqi hospital. What happened after that is unknown.

It's very easy to condemn this and hindsight is always 20/20. The usual talking heads are all over this already. But without knowing the full context of the situation in that neighborhood at that time, it's really impossible to make an informed judgment. Had there been incidents on that street for the last several days? Who knows? Unfortunately, making this problem even worse, a shorter and edited version, titled Collateral Murder (a less than objective title) is making the rounds of the liberal blogosphere. It adds in it's own narrative, making it even less reliable. One innocent death is too many. But we should be careful; I've seen too many incidents such as this distorted and spun out of control.

It may behoove the Pentagon to release the intelligence reports prior to the incident and the investigation afterwards to give us a more complete picture. The Jawa Report has some thoughts that echo my own.

Update: The mainstream media are now reporting this as a front page story.

"US and Israel in last-minute talks to resolve row"

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 01:40:00 +0000

This is concerning US and UN opposition to continued Israeli settlements in Jerusalem.

I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again: How can Obama, and most of his supporters, oppose the Jewish settlements, yet at the same time they think it's OK to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants in the US?

This is not rocket science. If one is wrong, then so is the other. Why is there this double standard? And while I don't support Israel's actions here, at least they have a stronger excuse for what they are doing. Jerusalem is historically a Jewish city, and Israel, unlike Mexico, is so tiny that people are willing to go out and settle in some of the most hostile neighborhoods on Earth.

"Green Zone"

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:17:00 +0000

Still from Green Zone. The uniform is a little off...

I was in Baghdad in 2003-2004, the same time/place as the setting for this film.

No, I'm not reviewing the movie. I haven't seen it, nor do I intend to. And it has nothing to do with its politics; I just haven't intentionally seen any movies concerning the current War on Terror, with the exception of Shooter and Body of Lies, because I didn't know what they were about beforehand (and they were mostly awful).

Frankly, I just don't want to see these films. I know I'm just going to see one mistake after another and get upset. Besides, some memories are a bit too fresh.

During my first tour, I was bunking down in a former palace building in Baghdad, along with a large group of enlisted soldiers. One night, they were all crowded around a laptop, watching Blackhawk Down. I told them straight up, only half-jokingly: "why would you want to watch that here of all places? If you want to see burned out buildings, crazy Islamic gangs, and AK fire, just look right outside the walls!". I'm not ashamed to say that I very much preferred watching several seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer on DVD. My job consumed all of my life at that time. I just needed to get away as far as possible for an hour or so a day.

But back to the subject, Green Zone. After just watching the trailer and synopsis at the film's web site, I can already point out a couple problems:

1. The hero is charged with finding WMDs in Iraq. Well the group responsible for that, the 75th XTF (later the Iraqi Survey Group), were based at Camp Slayer, near the airport on the West end of the city. They were not in the "Green Zone". I know, because I was also living at Camp Slayer and worked with these guys. So the title is catchy, but a little misleading.

2. Every single anti-war film based on Iraq or Afghanistan has failed miserably at the box office. Every one.
Hurt Locker did well, but it was politically neutral. Body of Lies cost $70 mil and was beat out by Beverly Hills Chihuahua. Redacted by Brian de Palma, was unabashedly anti-war and anti-military, and was a spectacular failure. Battle for Haditha, In the Valley of Elah, Stop Loss, have all had similar results. Lions for Lambs was probably Tom Cruise's least successful film ever. Valley of the Wolves Iraq did pretty well, but it was made for Turkish audiences; it was a complete failure in Western countries. I'm sure that most of you have either never heard of, or already forgotten about most of these films.

The point here is not that an anti-war film cannot be successful; Apocalypse Now and Platoon took a very critical look at the Vietnam War, yet both were fine films and did pretty well at the box office. But these were made years after Vietnam; and had a better historical perspective. Movies made today look too much like political shots at the former administration. More importantly, we still have soldiers in harms way in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Anti-war films are not very helpful. In fact, what we do need are more films like Sands of Iwo Jima (more about that here).

Now, Green Zone is accused of being "appallingly anti-American", and as I predicted, it's also a huge failure already. The movie's chief technical advisor, Monty Gonzales, an Iraq Vet himself, vehemently denies the movie is political, and claims its just an action thriller. But it's not just right-wing politicos that see it that way. Look at this wildly leftist movie review from a local Saint Louis newspaper. I think it says it all:

Better late than never...Had the movie been released during the 2008 election season, it might have been something more than entertainment. Still, Green Zone, which could have more accurately been titled Told You So, Jerk-Off!, does gain some coincidental topicality for opening just days after the Iraqi elections and the release of Karl Rove's new book, Courage and Consequence, even if the zeitgeist has moved on, with the unwinnable war now in Afghanistan and the Bush disaster barely a memory.

Liberals, take such solace as you can. Green Zone is at least a credible piece of movie-making...

Paul Greengrass, who directed Green Zone, also directed United 93, a much better movie, without any divisive political slant. I hope he learned something from that. Let's have Iraq war movies in about 10 years. Not now. Even I'll probably be able to watch them then.

Share
|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

Week Roundup

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:59:00 +0000

Female Israeli soldiers on a break. Photo source unknown, but was featured here

Los Angeles: Absolute incompetence. Craig and Wendy Humphries are a couple who were falsely accused of child abuse nine years ago. They have since been cleared of all charges, but remain on the state's child abuse registry. Despite several court rulings in their favor, LA County claims they can't take take their names off, and points fingers at the state, which points fingers right back. So the Humphries are now suing the County, but the County claims its not at fault and the State should be sued instead. The US Supreme Court is set to review the case. So LA County and the State of California are dragging this out, racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in court expenses, and will likely face a multi-million dollar lawsuit in the end. Or they could just take their names off the list instead, but I guess that would be too easy. Californians, this is your tax dollars at work (in a state on the verge of bankruptcy, no less).

UK: Home Office Minister Phil Woolas, a Labour party member, made an unusual admission that the number of foreigners enrolled in public schools was having a negative impact on British children - including his own. Still, who can he blame? Immigration has soared under Labour's government.

Indiana: Zero-tolerance run amok (again). A seventh grade student is suspended from school for refusing drugs. Another student handed her a pill, she got rid of it, and now is accused of "possession" since she touched it. I have a question: shouldn't the police and school administrators be suspended too? After all, they also "touched" the pill in question.

North Korea: A North Korean man was executed for reporting news out of the country. Apparently, the price of rice is such a sensitive subject that it warrants the death penalty.

Japan: Japan says it won't comply with any worldwide Bluefin Tuna ban. Since the animal is on the verge of disappearing entirely, I hope Japan has another fish they can use for sushi (until those are all gone too).

USA: Actor Sean Penn calls for prosecution against people who call Hugo Chavez a "dictator". Did it ever upset him when people accused George Bush of being a dictator?

USA (and everywhere): One of the best discussions about free-range kids ever is right here. Frankly, this topic just isn't discussed often enough.

California: Jackpot juries. A father, who was a truck driver on a long haul, brought his daughter with him on the trip, against company rules. He accidentally ran over her and she was seriously injured. Who is at fault here? A judge and jury in Sacramento seem to think that the trucking company is liable, to the tune of $24.3 million. Good discussion at Overlawyered. I guess what really bothers me the most, is that as the girl's legal guardian, the father stands to rake in millions off of his own negligence. Only in America.

Share
|

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed

CHC: Let's insure those who are not even legally supposed to be in the USA

noreply@blogger.com (John Rohan) — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 18:51:00 +0000

Late in the game, a new battle is forming over the health care reform bill in Congress, this time by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus:

“The Caucus didn’t want to raise it as an issue too early,” one Hispanic Democrat said Wednesday. “But it’s real. It’s a problem.”

Those alarm bells have apparently been heard. CHC Chairwoman Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) said she and others have, on behalf of two dozen Hispanic Democrats, been in discussions with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other leaders about how to resolve the matter.

What issue is so important? They want ~~undocumented~~ illegal immigrants to be included, of course!

Rep. Luiz Gutierrez, D-Illinois,said:

"It's no secret that I have been critical of proposals that would exclude our nation's hardworking immigrants from the health care exchange, and I would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to vote for any measure that denies undocumented workers health care purchased with their own dollars."

This is flat-out deceitful. Illegal immigrants, or anyone else, can buy private health insurance with their own dollars right now. The issue is to buy into public health exchanges (or even a public option, if that is included in the bill), which will be underwritten, regulated, subsidized, and guaranteed by the US government.

And if they do include illegals, how will Pres. Obama deal with the fallout? After, all, those who claim that Sen Joe Wilson lied when he said Obama's plan would include illegals would have to eat their words. But the remedy is simple, Obama will just legalize them all!