To Torture Terrorism

To Torture Terrorism
By: Vladimir Skoric

Two CIA field officers break into the house of a terrorist on foreign soil. They search the premises and find the individual barricaded in the bedroom. They restrain him and kidnap him under the silence of the night, transporting him back to the United States. While under the interrogation of a few CIA officers they find out the terrorist is withholding information pertaining to what he calls “Armageddon in America.” The same day NSA reports come in stating that al-Qaeda communications revealed that an unknown attack is eminent in Los Angeles. The reports also state a key phrase “Armageddon in America.” A key CIA senior official proceeds to torture the terrorist prisoner, and after two hours, he extracts the method of attack as well as key information pertaining to the plan of the attack. Within six-hours FBI and SWAT break down the door of a Los Angeles apartment killing multiple terrorists and foiling what almost became the next 9/11. I know what you’re thinking. This looks like a script for some action movie, it could never happen in real life. But tell me this, who on September 10th 2001, would actually believe that the events of 9/11 are about to happen? If federal agents could have tortured a terrorist and found relevant information to foil the 9/11 attacks, would we really stop them from torturing the terrorist? Torturing a proven terrorist, by federal officials, in order to prevent a factually supportive terrorist attack is not only justifiable it’s expected by American citizens.
There are two phrases in the previous line that must be closely analyzed and understood. “Proven terrorist” and “factually supportive terrorist attack” which will from here-by be known as “Democratic Torture.” In order to justify torture by federal officials the suspect of question must be linked to a terrorist organization or a terrorist plot through proof of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. What sort of evidence should federal officials categorize as “overwhelming?” Such evidence as, proven links to terrorist organization, spying reports, documentation, witness reports, and other means. Michael Levin, in his essay “The case for Torture,” stated that, “torture only the obviously guilty, and only for the sake of saving innocents, and the line between Us and Them will remain clear” (236). This method of “proven terrorist” will help control federal agents from going down the slippery slope and misusing “justifiable” torture on the innocent. This means having some kid walk down the street screaming “I am a terrorist and I will blow you up,” will not automatically give the federal government justification to torture him.
The same is true with “factually supportive terrorist attack.” A federal agency will need supportive evidence underlining that a possible attack will occur. This way we have a supportive balance between the terrorist and the event. The allied military forces in Iraq alone have captured an unknown number of terrorists and would be terrorists. The numbers must be well over a few thousand if not tens of thousands. Democratic Torture will help filter out and protect prisoners from being tortured. If a certain attack plan is discovered linking one of the prisoners to the attack, than officials can analyze the severity of the attack and possibly torture the prisoner-terrorist for more information if all other measures fail.
The key to succeeding with Democratic Torture is keeping such horrible events as the Abu Ghraib from occurring. Geoffrey Nunberg, in his essay, “Don’t Torture English to Soft-Pedal Abuse,” writes, “Some American media have avoided ‘the torture word’ because they want to play down the abuses of prisoners” (88). It is absolutely correct the media has played down the abuse of the prisoners, because they do not want American soldiers to come off as abusive ravages. Yet unfortunately those select few soldiers who had participated in the Abu Ghraib scandal came off as just that, giving the other American soldiers, the heroes who give their lives for their country, a bad name. We could see another Abu Ghraib scenario come up if the Democratic Torture scenario was used. In fact I can guarantee that it’s bound to happen on some level. But by giving police officers for example a certain amount of power by law have they not abused that power and hurt the innocent? Have there not before been bad officers who beat the innocent or take the power into their own hands and act crooked? Of course there has been. Yet we still let the police protect us do we not? We are human beings and power will be abused at some level as unfortunate as that might seem. But there are certain small risks that we must take in order to serve the bigger picture. We allow police officers to carry guns, batons and the right to detain someone. Therefore we must allow trained federal agents to conduct an interrogation, and if the torture scenario must be conducted to save the lives of the innocent, than they shall have that power to conduct that act. Torture by federal officials is bound to go wrong and be abused on an innocent person at one time or another, but that is the price we have to pay for not being a perfect species.
But could this abusive torture have already had occurred? In the past few months two interlinked U.S. government actions have been discovered and leaked to the media. The first action discovered a few months ago was the “Black Sites.” U.S. News & World Report stated that “…CIA is holding some number of senior al Qaeda suspects in secret detention facilities, so-called black sites, around the world. But a Washington Post report… cited a major facility in an unnamed Eastern European nation (the Post withheld the country's name at the request of administration officials)” (Scoping Out). These “Black Sites” reports held potential proof that CIA was holding detained prisoners in allied countries in the European Union. By holding prisoners in allied countries outside of the United States, U.S. officials could freely torture detainees with out the interference of the constitution. The second government action, just recently reported by the press, was the National Security Agency (NSA) wire-tapings in the United States. The NSA was wire-taping certain individuals without a warrant. In order to conduct a wire-tap legally in the U.S. a judicial warrant must be assigned first by a judge. These two actions noted in this paragraph have hurt the argument for torture, but it would be unfair of the author to not include them. We as a people must learn from our mistakes in order to go forward in bettering our society.
Charles Krauthammer noted that “the Administration should stop being defensive about its secret prisons and intercepted communications” (How Do You), stating that the Bush Administration should not feel ashamed anymore of their secret wire-taping and Black Sites. Krauthammer goes on stating, “"How do you think we caught Jose Padilla, who was sent to the U.S. to explode a dirty bomb and spread radiation throughout an American city? He was sent by a couple of captured al-Qaeda big shots, Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, whom we interrogated” (How Do You). The administration should use this information to help push justifiable torture. It has already shown this proof of saving lives by capturing Jose Padilla. But such reports as John Pilger’s, which state, “Between September 11th 2001 and 30 September 2005, 895 people in total were arrested… Only 23 have been convicted of offenses…” (The Death of Freedom), can keep people wary of government officials and torture.
The government use of torture is a very prudent and sensitive situation. It is undoubtedly one of the morally challenging acts we as a civilized people have had to deal with. It is unfortunately necessary though. Terrorism has tested our will, our alliances, our own human values and so far we have stood up to it fighting. It has also undoubtedly changed us. We have become more cautious, cynical, suspecting, and weary. Yet through it all we know that we do not want another act such as 9/11 to occur not only in the United States but in other parts of the world as well, so we must stoop down to torture on some occasions in order to keep us and our friends and allies safe from the evil around us.

Debating the Death Penalty

Debating the Death Penalty
By: Vladimir Skoric

The death penalty is one of the most controversial issues in the United States. Many lives have been both lost and saved through the grim determination of capital punishment. Today the United States stands as one of the only socially adept countries to hold the death penalty as part of its judicial system. Many have debated its moral as well as ethical value on the human society. Some have argued redemption, some have argued closure, but still to this day the death penalty is the largest topic of not only political but social debates. Everyone has their own say in what they believe should be the end result of the death penalty. As a civilized nation the United State should follow such nations as the European Union and completely abolish the death penalty on not only the basis of moral values but ethical ones as well.
The death penalty has been imposed for over two centuries in the United States. Although the number of guilty suspects executed has declined from the early days of American history, the United States, according to statistics presented in “Debating the Death Penalty,” states that a maximum of about 4,000 homicide convictions a year are eligible for the death penalty. Of those 4,000 suspects around 300 are sentenced to death row. Of those 300 sentenced about 55 of them are actually executed (27). Keeping these numbers in mind, let’s look at the global level of countries involved in death penalties. United States is the only NATO power to use capital punishment. In the past 21 years over 85% of the countries have abandoned capital punishment (156). The United States as a leading global super power needs to abandon the death penalty, and join its peers. The U.S. needs to set an example for the rest of the world and evolve beyond the death penalty as a form of criminal punishment. As if the death penalty is not a bad enough the United States also has to deal with the situation pertaining to minors and the mentally retarded.
In a little over a decade 22 of the 38 states have allowed minors who have committed a capital punishment worthy crime to be put to death once they were of legal age (156). Even the mentally ill, who like children cannot differentiate between right and wrong, are getting sentenced to death row. As a minor a child has still not fully developed mentally to the level of maturity to make full confident and coherent decisions. This by no means gives them a “get out of jail free pass” when it comes to committing a crime, especially murder, but a case with children should be analyzed and judged with different standards. Some would ask, what is the level of maturity that must be reached, and at what definite age is it reached? By U.S. laws you are legally a mature adult at 18 years of age. Does this mean that a 17 year old who’s turning 18 next week, is not mentally mature until that week passes? Of course the answer is no. We must though set a solid line for legality purposes, and we must stay away from being in the grey when it comes to convictions and age. For moral purposes, we should by no means execute someone who committed a capital murder before turning legally to an adult. Regardless of how hideous the crime might be, it would go against our moral and ethical standards to execute that person. If the crime is that horrendous though, they should receive life in prison with no possibility of parole. The same applies to the mentally ill. Current law allows the mentally ill to be exonerated from the death penalty if attorney appointed psychologists can prove that the mentally ill person was not coherent at the time of the crime. What’s even more unethical is the fact that the courts use psychologists to nurse the mentally ill person back to health. If the person is then “sane” and healthy, they can be executed, throwing out the mentally-ill argument. Dr. Dennis who was a psychologist for a mentally ill suspect during a court hearing for the death penalty states, “I’m upholding the ethics of my profession. It’s not right to give a patient treatment just so that he can be executed” (176). Death penalty cases have huge problems with prosecution power and attorney representation not only for the mentally-ill and the minors, but for all defendants.
A major issue pertaining to the death penalty is attorney representation. It’s up to the prosecutions discretion to follow the path of the death penalty as the suspect’s form of punishment. The death penalty is not implemented by the judge or the jury. It’s at the prosecutions full discretion (163). Abolishing the prosecutor’s power of “condemning” someone to death should be a legislator’s goal. To think that the prosecution, a foreign body (and by foreign body I mean someone who was not in anyway involved with the crime committed, outside of the legal parameters) has a power to condemn someone to death and on top of that waste millions of tax payers dollars is preposterous. This power the prosecution holds makes them look like gods and the unequal representation by defendants makes the system even more flawed. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated “[I have] yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court… in which the defendant was well represented at trial. People who are well-represented at trial do not get the death penalty” (167). The reasoning behind the poor representation is stated as being the lack of funding and resources for good quality attorneys (167-168). Looking at a case like O.J. Simpson, if Mr. Simpson was an average American making an average salary, he probably would not have of been able to afford such prestige’s representation. With an average lawyer his chances of acquittal would have been greatly reduced.
Critics and skeptics renounce the abolishment of the death penalty based on the claims of faulty representation, child defense and or mental health defense tactics based on a major support fact, deterrence. Pro-death penalty advocates claim that capital punishment will help deter future would-be murders from killing others. This in a sense is very true. Societal laws are in place by the government to keep people safe and to regulate situations. The concept of “Social Contract” was implemented in both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, by America’s founders over 200 years ago. The Social Contact, which was originally thought up by the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau some 250 years ago, illustrates a sort of teater-tot with one side having the people weighed in and on the other side having the government weighed in. The government keeps the people safe and secure from both foreign and domestic threats and in return the people give a portion of their freedom to the government so that the government can implement the protectional policy.
There are certain type of people though, who through a chemical inbalance in their brain, or some other unknown pathological complecation, do not conceptualize the effect or consequences of murder. An average person would view murder as something horrifying and they would be mortified if they even killed someone on accident never the less by murdering them out of rage. By trying to deter these isolated few who do not comprehend that killing is wrong we are failling ourselves and out system. Nursing these people into realizing its wrong to kill will not fix the issue. It’s a chemical imbalance or some other issue that has lead the to murder without any thought to the victim. A lot of times it is not their fault that their brain fails to process moral issues differently from an average person. Does this mean that we should kill them? Is it not a form of discriminaiton if we are killing those because they killed others do to a pathological defect in their brain? I am sure that if someone close to me was murdered I would want the fullest effect of the law applied to the murderer. But then that would put me in a very biased position when discussing the death penalty. When discussing the death penalty, there are many great issues on both sides of the argument. For every case that I argue against there will be someone with a better moral argument as to why they are for capital punishment. I believe people need to research the issue from an unbiased point of view, keeping an open mind and not allowing their personal views to deter them from analyzing and applying other arguments to the case. The Death Penalty’s support has risen and dropped many times over the past few decades since its moral implications have come into question. The race card, medical sanity cases, moral implications regarding minors and the mentally-ill, as well as many other moral and ethical questions must be analyzed and understood in order to be the best judge when debating the death penalty. This debate will go on for years to come. Personally I hope the U.S. government abolishes the death penalty, but as long as we’re debating and analyzing the situation to the best of our knowledge, there is nothing better anyone else could ask us to do. After all in the U.S. we are Americans, we have a right, a long fought for freedom, which allows us to freely debate that which we feel is personally affecting us, those around us, and which will effect the future generations.

The Obesity Epidemic and Fast Food Restaurants

The Obesity Epidemic and Fast Food Restaurants
By: Vladimir Skoric

Walking to the bank yesterday I saw an obese man with a bucket, not a cup but what looked like a bucket of at least a half gallon of soda. What could possibly cause a person to drink that much soda? Better yet who knows if that was just one serving a day or if it was later refilled. The man of course has a constitutional right to drink that much soda. Our fundamental constitutional rights allow us freedom from harm, want, hunger, need and many other essential aspects. The freedom to eat what we wish, without government constraints on the businesses serving us, has been a fundamental value in American society. The government should not place regulations on food industries based upon the growing obesity epidemic because this would take responsibility away from the consumer and place it on the companies.
In the “Should fast food companies be held legally liable for the impact of their products on consumers’ health?” articles Caesar Barber, a 56 year old from New York City, sued four fast-food industries on accusations that the foods he ate from the restaurants were what made Barber unhealthy and obese (1). Well than, as a Los Angeles resident, I personally should sue Automotive companies for breathing and asthma problems associated with the smog emitted from cars, buses, motorcycles, and other transportation vehicles. After all the smog is hurting my lungs, eyes and skin, is it not? As ridiculous as this accusation may seem, and believe me I will be the first to admit so, these are the kind of accusations that were rolling around between consumers such as Mr. Barber, and fast-food industries. One can refute my logic by stating that a vehicle is a vital tool in every day life, I cannot sue the automotive company when other factors such as other forms of pollution, second-hand smoke or even genetics is what’s attributing to my difficult of breathing and asthma. This is a great point. But does the same not apply to fast-food restaurants? I am in no way forced to go and eat at fast-food restaurants. And it is beyond common knowledge that eating at these restaurants can deteriorate your health. So why would someone sue the fast-food industry for their eating habits and health problems? Are we not personally responsible for our own actions?
In a 2003 survey some 83% of Americans believed that it was “some personal factor, lack of exercise, watching television, or individual choices,” (2) which contributed to the growing epidemic of obesity. This basically states that a majority of those questioned believe that it is a person’s choice as well as responsibility when it comes to what they eat. It is a well known fact that a good amount of Americans work on average eight hours a day. In that time frame, stepping out for lunch can be a problem because lunch hours are usually some half-an-hour to an hour long. In such a short time the logical solution is to go to a fast food restaurant and pick up lunch. When the average person comes home they might even pick up dinner at a fast food restaurant and take it home to sit down in front of a TV and eat. Fast food restaurants cannot be held liable because a consumer buys their food. America is a country which was built on and has prospered from capitalism. To have the government regulate or allow consumers to sue a fast food restaurant based upon the allegations of “unknown health hazards” from eating fast food is ridiculous. That’s like saying, I have been on a chocolate diet for the past few weeks and now I am gaining weight. I didn’t know it was unhealthy. We should not be blaming a company for trying to make money by selling us food, nor lobbying congress so that the government can regulate the companies.
According to the “Should fast food…” article, The center for Science in Public Interest (CSPI) is suggesting an implementation of a 1 cent tax by the government on every 12-pack of soda (10). This tax, entitled “sin tax” would then use the generated revenue to create better health awareness in America. Other types of similar taxes were hypothetically discussed for fast-food restaurants. This small amount of money would add up to a huge sum per year. As “honorable” as the motive for taxation of the “bad-food” industries might be, why does the United States Government not divert funds from military or defense funding and use that instead to fund health and physical education in local schools? Why penalize an industry whose goal is to make money, an American dream envisioned by all, when in fact that is its sole American right? One could say, and this is an extreme concept, that the United States would start to look more in a way as a communist state than a Democracy run by capitalism. As extreme of a concept as that maybe it is but a valid point to consider in this widespread debate. Although we ought to be personally responsible for what we eat, how we eat it, should government intervention be mandatory when it comes to our children?
Children watch television more than adults do on a daily basis. In fact an American child sees about 27,000 food advertisements on television every year according to the “Should Fast Food” article (5). The article also quotes CSPI stating that “four out of five food advertisements push products that are attractive to children, including snack foods, sugary cereals, fast food, and soft drinks.” It’s sufficient to say that kids love candies, good food, and soft drinks. So why would food-companies not target ad’s at kids to make money? It’s a great marketing strategy directed at a set “type” of people, in this case kids, which works very well. It’s just like the grocery store. If you go to the cereal aisle you will see that all the “nutritious” sugar free cereals are either on the very bottom or the very top of the shelf (where little kids in carts cannot reach), and all the “yummy” sugary cereals are right in the middle section of the shelf’s right at children’s reach. Parents are the ones who need to tell the children “no” when they want to reach for that sugary cereal. As a parent they have to educate kids that they cannot always get what they want. Seeing that sugar cereal on the shelf, or seeing that great toy that comes with their happy meal, is just a ploy by fast-food companies to push and sell their product. We are a free-market country if a company advertises a food product like that than they have a right to. We as responsible parents need to control our children and teach them not to always eat the “bad” food. Serving healthy meals will help balance out their daily meal intake. Consumers should not be punished or regulate by the government because people do not know how to regulate their own children with healthy eating.
Just as we would not want our fundamental freedoms taken away or harshly regulated, the food-industries should not be regulated either. We should not be suing companies with our health problems because we do not know how to control our eating habits. We need to learn to be responsible and logical citizens. We cannot rely on government regulations for everything that we feel has gone wrong. Educating out children to eat healthy well balanced meals will only benefit them in the future. Maybe all we need to end this epidemic is a little heart to heart talk with today’s young generation, that way we can reverse this epidemic in the future.

The Need for Stem Cell Research

Stem Cell Research: The Cure
by: Vladimir Skoric

What would you do if someone in your family had diabetes, or even worse, had a spinal cord injury? What if you had the power, as a U.S. citizen, to vote into law legislation which could cure your family member sometime in the future? Stem cell research is viewed as a horrible thing by many. Stem cell research uses an embryo, a fertilized egg, which theoretically could be coaxed into other cells. Although viewed in such a negative light, stem cell research is a key scientific prospect which could help save millions of lives in just the U.S. alone.
Scientists have forecasted a great potential in the scientific field of stem cell research. The future of stem cell research could lead to breakthroughs and possibly even cures to such diseases as, spinal cord injuries, bone marrow transplants, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, heart disease and other pathological diseases. Stem cell research would single-handedly be the greatest medical breakthrough in centuries. Christopher Reeve, an active advocate of stem cell research, up until his death in 2004, called the utilized embryo’s “the body’s self-repair kit” (306).
One of the key debates in stem cell research amounts to the federal government’s involvement in this highly anticipated science. Both funding and regulation by the federal government is the key to stem cell research and its future. Federal funding would greatly benefit the research. Not only for ethical reasons, which will be discussed in a bit, but it would pour in millions of tax payers dollars to help escalate the research. In 2004 a South Korean scientist had claimed credit for cloning the first dog and claimed advances in human stem cell research. This report was later shown to be fabricated. With the backing of federal funding in the United States, fraudulent actions such as these would be greatly regulated by the government, therefore eliminating private competition between companies and scientists. The federal government would also be able to regulate on ethical rulings pertaining to the research. With privately funded research unconstitutional as well as unethical lines could be crossed in a race between companies to advance in the stem cell development. Both Reeve and Anna Quindlen, a leading Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, have backed the government run National Institutes of Health to foresee the development of the stem cell research. President Bush’s administration has recently allowed limited federal funding as well as limited access to the number of embryo’s scientists have to work with.
Opponents of stem cell research have a very valid point addressing the fact that federal spending on the project could waste millions if not billions of dollars of tax payers money if the research does not live up to its potential. But then again Reeve made a very solid point when he stated in his essay, “Overwhelming opposition to government funding of AIDS research in the early ‘80’s… today the NIH is authorized to spend approximately $1.8 billion annually” (307). Now is it worth spending taxpayer’s dollars on a scientific uncertainty which shows great promise and could cure some 100 million Americans, some of which contracted life threatening diseases? That among other key questions is what we should be asking ourselves.
Another key asset that stem cell research could provide is a possibility of coaxing stem cells into tissue which would than be grown into organs. The possibility of coaxing stem cells into vital organs would eliminate both the need and the wait for organ donors. At the present time there is an unbelievably long wait time for a terminal patient to receive a replacement organ. A waiting list of some two to three years is currently in effect. People are dying by the minute from failed organs which could have been replaced if a viable donor was found in time. Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives are lost around the world because of organ failure. Scientist believe that future stem cell research will enable them to grow vital organs out of stem cells, giving organ replacement patients not only another chance at life, but another chance at life with virtually no wait like the current two to three year wait list implemented at the present.
The third and possibly most vital point that opponents to stem cell research claim is that the process is both unethical and immoral. Because stem cell research involves frozen embryos which, if placed in a womb, could later develop into a fetus, people state that we would be killing babies by creating stem cells out of the embryos. Anna Quindlen describes embryos as “the earliest undifferentiated collection of cells made by the joining of the egg and the sperm” (202). There is no baby involved, no human life. The embryo can’t breathe, feel, think, nor is it consciously aware of anything. One can say that it’s a collection of cells with no soul. Because these “collection of cells” are just that, a collection of cells, there is no logical reason as to why not have them used to help millions of people all around the world. One columnist and anti-stem cell activist, Mona Charen stated in one of her articles that “Once you begin to pull apart a human embryo and use its parts, you have thoroughly dehumanized it. You have justified taking one life to (speculatively) save another” (309). I admire Mona Charen’s statement but I fail to see the dehumanizing portion of the embryo when in reality it is not actually human. We as humans are made up of countless number of cells. Cells could be viewed as parts that make up a human being but a few cells, especially those in an embryo, are not the actual person. An embryo is though a stage in development right before the formation of the fetus, which is there by accompanied by the formation of a human baby. Manipulating embryos, a major amount of which will be thrown out or destroyed anyway, should not be viewed as inhumane, unmoral, or unethical.
In the coming years, if stem cell research reaches the potential that scientists hope for, a major medical revolution will occur. Humanity will have created an unprecedented medical breakthrough which will further the human life span, there by prolonging the human brains potential of creating newer and better technologies. A close family member will have another chance at life, someone’s family member or friend would have a chance to walk again after a major spinal cord injury, and diabetes could be erased from the face of the earth. “It is our responsibility,” stated Reeve, “to do everything possible to protect the quality of life of the present and future generations” (306). This unprecedented procedure will let the human race prolong the lives of both the present and future generations.

Update

Well its been a few months since I've posted any "wise" insight. I recently took a English class for critical thinking last semester. I ended up writing a few essays on current events. My sister told me I should publish them on here to stir up a little debate among all my "avid" readers. So for those loyal few out there here we go and feel free as always to blast away at my thought.

The Bi-Lateral Power of Mother Nature and Terrorism, and its Effects on America

     About fourteen years ago an unprecedented action occurred to change the fate of world power. A bilateral world power system turned into a unilateral system with a hegemonic state. The action that took place was the fall of The Soviet Union. For about 30 years the cold war occurred between the United States of America and The Soviet Union. These two countries were the most powerful actors on the world stage. There actions affected every other country in the world. Once The Soviet Union fell, a single hegemonic power emerged, The United States of America. Now the fall of The Soviet Union was the first time a major superpower had disintegrated without a military, or any sort of other conflict. With the current situations occurring in the United States we have a multi-problematic threat coming from two very unpredictable sides that could very well lead to the down fall of The United States as a superpower. One is from an unconventional power of Al-Qaeda and the other is from Mother Nature.

     With the recent natural disaster in the Gulf Coast, we can analyze how this moderate catastrophe can lead to something much worst. In the midst of confusion of who to blame for the Hurricane Katrina post efforts, and another unconventional threat of Hurricane Rita coming upon us, the country is in unprecedented danger, and more vulnerable then ever. It’s nothing new that Katrina not only weakened the infrastructure but also the economy. This effect will not only be felt in the US but also all around the world. If Rita causes even close to as much devastation as Katrina did, then we are really in for a ride. Planning for the aftereffects of Rita the president and Homeland Security should be planning a contingency plan for tighter national security.

     Lets face it terrorists are not exactly run of the mill stupid people. If we look at the sort of group we’re up against we can see that these are very intelligent people we’re dealing with. I could not think of a better plan for Al-Qaeda to make then to contemplate an attack on a major metropolitan city within the next couple of weeks based up on the unforeseen effects of Hurricane Rita and/or many of the other hurricanes that will hit this hurricane season. If the devastation of Rita, and any future hurricanes, is as strong as forecasters say it will be, then America could very well be weakened, and spread to thin to repel a major attack of the 9/11 magnitude. As far fetched as it seems this hurricane season could very well bring the closing moments to the Iraq war. If anymore natural catastrophes occur at this rate then we would be way too weak to have thousands up on thousands of troops based overseas.

     With such an effect this would bring about a perfect opportunity for Al-Qaeda to launch a massive attack thereabout creating a devastating situation on American soil. American national security officials need to be readily prepared for such an attack. They need to tighten security and be more aware of their surroundings and Intel that comes in from any source. I am not speculating that such an attack will occur, but we need to sit down and closely analyze the sort of damage this type of situation would entail.

     The Soviet Union fell due to strong economical problems, internal struggle and attempted government coupes. Some say its invasion of Afghanistan was a huge factor in its dissolve and it very well was, but other situations were also involved that brought it to its knees. We could very well be on a road to that sort of demise, and it would be an unthinkable power, if I may say even an indirect partnership, of terrorism and Mother Nature that brings us to an end.

     As always any comments or questions are more then welcome.

Why President Bush Is Not the Only One to Blame for The Hurricane Katrina Disaster Relief

The unprecedented disaster that occurred in our country has left the federal government in great shambles. Thousands upon thousands of people have been stranded in New Orleans at the Superdome, with out adequate food or water. Only today, September 2nd 2005, did the convoy trucks from the National Guard start rolling into the flood ravaged city. Armed guards are at the supplies side throughout the delivery with explicit orders to point their assault rifles down and not up. They've been told that "this is not Iraq, this is a humanitarian mission."
The Mayor of New Orleans went on public radio and scolded the federal government. On the radio the mayor sounds like a pissed off citizen, not a government official. Even as a municipal official, to listen to the agony, anger, and despair in the mayors voice and words makes you really appreciate the dire emergency in the Gulf of Mexico.
Now getting to the point, I don’t believe that President Bush is to be blamed for the late response in government relief efforts. If the president was running the relief effort by himself he would have no idea what to do. He might be the president of the United States but he’s not the one making the calls here. President Bush is nothing but a figurehead. It’s the people under him, White House staff, and Pentagon staff etc., which make the decisions. I know for a fact the president did not wake up to learn about the disaster only to start issuing orders on what needs to be done. He called whoever’s in charge of FEMA and other high ranking officials and asked what needed to be done. The president seems to have a good heart but his leadership skills, government skills, and political skills seem equivalent to that of a teenager. Those working under him are the ones that need to be blamed for not making a faster and harder effort to get relief to the poor suffering people of the south. Unfortunately Mr. President, good etiquette is not the only feature a president needs to run the biggest superpower in the world.
The government screwed up yet again. H.W. was blamed for the lagging effort of government relief more then a decade ago after Hurricane Andrew. Now W is responsible for the inexcusable late effort of Hurricane Katrina.
As always I am more then happy to hear your comments on this blog. Agreements or disagreements, your personal views about what’s going on are more then welcome.
If you wish to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina please visit the following sites;

http://www.redcross.org/

http://www.hurricanehousing.org/

http://katrinadisasteraid.com/

http://www.redcross.org/

http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/donations/index.asp

http://www.ob.org/

Al-Qaeda's Nuclear Threat

It’s no secret that Al-Qaeda is in search of a nuclear bomb. God forbid they might already have one. But what sort of international consequence would result, if Al-Qaeda manages to smuggle a nuclear bomb into the US and set it off in a major city? Osama Bin Ladin financed and managed the 9/11 attacks in order to "kill infidels" and provoke the US to attack himself and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, on his home turf. This attack though turned out a fairly accelerated win for the US in Afghanistan, overthrowing the Taliban and forcing Bin Ladin out of the country to neighboring Pakistan. Although Bin Ladin wished for a full on successful turf win in Afghanistan, he did succeed in going to war with America and its allied forces.

Bin Ladin will do anything to terrorize the West especially America. If it means detonating a nuclear bomb on American soil then be it. Al-Qaeda does not look at citizens of the west as innocent people. No matter if its men, women, or children he has no mercy. By detonating a nuclear bomb on US soil, or even on European soil, America's war efforts would intensify tenfold. What we now see as an unthinkable government action, like occupying a sovereign nation, or a military draft in the US, would all be irrelevant. With such devastating loss of life as a result of a nuclear attack by a terrorist organization, America would step up an unprecedented response to the attack. A military draft would almost certainly be implemented to raise the level of troop’s available to our armed forces. National Liberties would be suppressed more so then ever in order to better secure our citizens and our borders. And a direct occupation of government supported terrorist nations would occur. In contemporary times this would be viewed as barbaric government controlled actions that no one would ever think of implementing. But if a nuclear bomb were to detonate this would unfortunately be a reality that citizens of the US would have to live with. A very real World War III could erupt, and such dire actions as a retaliatory nuclear attack by the US on government supported terrorist nations could very well occur.

Stephen D. Krasner with Foreign Policy magazine wrote an article in its January/February 2005 issue titled, The Day After. He writes that “If terrorists exploded nuclear devices in several major cities, expect the principle of national sovereignty to be among the casualties.” It’s a disturbing thought of how right Krasner actually might be on the whole issue. Let’s just hope that we’ll never have to find out just how far from the truth he actually is.

The Secret Man follow up

I ended up finishing the book lastnight at a late hour. I was very impressed, and partially depressed, when I woke up this morning to find out that I've gone through the book allready. I had the urge to pick it up and start reading it again from page 1. But I figure hey, I got 6 days of summer vacation left why not devour few more books untill then.
Bob Woodward seemes to impress me everytime I finish one of his books. The fasinating story of the FBI's #2 man W. Mark Felt more recently known as "Deep Throat," has been Woodward's psychological challenge for more then 30 years now. Woodward's been battleing his own curiostiy for these past decades trying to figure out the enigma of Deep Throat. Why did Felt decide to either confirm or deny any information Woodward had asked him about Watergate? Was it out of personal revenge over Patrick Gray's (a virtual FBI outsider who was put in the #1 spot after Hoover's death) nomination and confirmation into the FBI directors seat? Or, as Woodward likes to believe, was it out of heroism, the need for Felt to set things right and not let Nixon rule and criminlize the American system by controlling the FBI's investigation into Watergate. The end of the book is almost a sad loss for Woodward. At 90 years of age Felt meets with Woodward to discuss what happend in the 70's. I'm not going to go into detail of the meeting, I recommend you read the book. This is one book that should not be passed by.

Asian Business Opportunity or Marymount College

Well no one really knows about this but a couple of people, but my sister is in Asia right now working with another fella starting a business development firm. Its a long story but they're getting funding taken care of through Asian Development Bank in the Philippines. Anyway to make a long story very short I got offered a job to go there and work with the firm as part of the the Technical Assistant Staff. Its a pretty amazing job offer, but the drawbacks include having to move to the Philippines for about 2 or 3 years. I mean I love to travel but I would acquire useful skills in business managment. That would kind of throw of my plan to transfer to Loyola Marymount University and study history. But if I don't end up doing it I'm planning then on transfering from El Camino (way to fucken ghetto for my taste) to Marymount College down in PV. I mean hell its the Ivy League of community colleges, so I don't really mind throwing away $18,000 for the year for that kind of education. I think I would change my major to business then and still take history classes for the hell of it.... plus it would give me a much better chance to transfer to LMU then if I were to do it from El Camino. I don't know what's going to happen but hell only time will tell I guess...

The Secret Man

This weekend I fianlly picked up a copy of "The Secret Man: The story of Watergate's Deepthroat" by Bob Woodward. The book is absolutley amazing. The clandestine operations that were going on during the Nixon administration would blow your mind. This is by far one of the best non-fiction political books I've read in my life. To think the kind of power Richard Nixon had over the FBI and CIA to cover up the whole Watergate scandal is unimaginable. Bob Woodward is by far one of my favorite writers. I've read so far "Bush At War" and "Plan of Attack" on the Afghanistan, and Iraq war going on, and that was good, but this book just blows them all out of the water. I still need to pick up a copy of "All The Presidents Men." GO OUT AND BUY THIS BOOK! Fuck it I don't care go to the libary and pick it up, but I guarantee you that you will love it.

Greatness In Death

Why does it take the death of a man to truly recognize his greatness? Peter Jennings, ABC anchoring just passed away 2 weeks ago. One night while on the computer I get a "CNN Breaking News" email.

-- Peter Jennings, the longtime anchor of ABC's "World NewsTonight," died
Sunday, the news network reports. He was 67.

Now I didn't follow Peter Jennings to much on TV since I mostly stay with CNN and CNBC for all my news needs. Its the likes of Aaron Brown, Larry King, Lou Dobbs, and Anderson Cooper, that keep me well informed of what' s going on in the world today. They tend to keep me in my routine of waking up to morning coffee and turning on CNN every morning before work.

Its Peter Jennings, it seems that I would of related to the most. He's a Canadian born citizen who moved to the US in 1964 to become the youngest news anchor for ABC news. He was a hockey lover, an ex-banker turned anchor, a father, husband, brother, a son, and a distinguished and one of the most credible news reporters in the world. He didn't get his US citizenship till just a couple of years ago.

President Bush remembered Jennings as a distinguished journalist.

"A lot of Americans relied upon Peter Jennings for their news. He became
a part of the life of a lot of our fellow citizens, and he will be missed," Bush
said as he prepared to board Air Force One. "May God bless his soul."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a statement that she was
saddened by the death of her "close, personal friend."

"Peter Jennings represented all that was best in journalism and public
service. A man of conscience and integrity, his reporting was a guide to all of
us who aspire to better the world around us. I learned from him and was inspired
by him," she wrote.

Now let me ask you why is it that I didn't realize all this until he passed away recently due to lung cancer? The same occurred last year when President Reagan died. It was after all the news coverage that I realized that even though he's a republican, and even though he seems a little stubborn he only wanted the best for the American people. I even went out to rent "The Reagans" (Damn good movie you should see it.)

Well that's all the rambling for tonight. Let me know what your thoughts are.

Blog summary

So I should be updating these blogs every day. They're going to include information on current events, life events, books, history, politics, opinions on what's going on, and so much more. Be sure to stay tune and check it out atleast once a week =)
Also comments would be greatly appreciated. I'd love to know what you guys all think.