President Bush declared last week while standing on Czech soil that "the Cold War is over."
Considering the threat posed by global terrorism, the impending doom of the U.S.-Soviet showdown of decades past is something the world can do without.
But considering the current low point in U.S.-Russian relations, some fear a new Cold War is in the making.
What appears to be the biggest thorn in our relations with the Russians is the missile defense system our nation is looking to implement. The Star Wars system of the 1980s is finally becoming a reality and the Russians are ticked.
The system will include a radar base in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland. Russia feels that since the defense system is being built at its doorstep, the U.S. must see the former Soviet Union as a threat.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Moscow could take "retaliatory steps" in response to the U.S. missile shield. He threatened to target U.S. military bases in Europe with Russian nuclear missiles. China and Russia both said that the U.S. missile shield could trigger a new nuclear arms race.
On top of all this, President Bush escalated the situation last week by saying, “In Russia, reforms that once promised to empower citizens have been derailed, with troubling implications for democratic development."
The war of words between Washington and Moscow has intensified in recent weeks. Although the U.S. says the missile shield is to protect NATO allies against a nuclear missile strike by Iran, the positioning of the system has clearly rattled the Russians.
Bush has offered to include Russia under the system's defensive umbrella, and such cooperation could defuse what’s looking and sounding like a Cold War showdown.
The bottom line is that the free world does not need to be thrown into Cold War II. The threat that global terrorism poses for all nations is enough to keep all of us awake at night.
And that threat, along with a nuclear-armed Iran and North Korea, has created the need for a missile shield.
Bush and Putin are communicating about their rift, and it's important the two leaders de-escalate this brewing crisis.
Bush is obviously pushing for a compromise with his words Wednesday that “Russia is not an enemy. There needs to be no military response because we’re not at war with Russia. Russia is not a threat. Nor is the missile defense we’re proposing a threat to Russia.”
The U.S. and Russia must put aside their differences and realize that the current global conflict — the war on terrorism — requires them to be the staunchest of allies.
Let’s not turn back the clock on U.S.-Russian relations. That would be a huge step backward not just for both countries, but for the world.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Chavez showing his true colors
It was September of last year when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez used his pulpit at the UN General Assembly to compare our President Bush to Satan.
Chavez's tirade drew some applause from the crowd of foreign leaders and dignitaries at the UN as well as a few kudos from Bush's critics here at home.
Some Americans used Chavez's speech to give credence to their own anti-Bush views and to show just how poorly the U.S. leader is being viewed on the global stage.
But anyone who put stock in Chavez's outburst or leadership abilities should take notice of what's happening in Venezuela right now. Police in that country are currently using force to put down angry protests after the Bush-bashing Chavez shut down Venezuela's most popular television station.
The 54-year-old station, Radio Caracas Television, just happens to be seen as a voice for those who oppose Chavez.
Venezuelan soldiers took control of the station's transmitters and shut it down Sunday night. It has been replaced by the state-funded TVES, which opened its programming with artists singing pro-Chavez music.
Chavez has refused to renew RCTV's operating license, accusing the station of subversive activity.
Its replacement is being referred to as a socialistic channel. The programming on TVES will include exercise programs, educational shows for children that promote socialist values, and documentaries.
RCTV had talk shows, soap operas (some of which were aired in the U.S.), sports and a popular long-running comedy that poked fun at presidents, including Chavez.
He accused the network of "poisoning" Venezuelans by airing shows that promoted capitalism, breaking broadcast laws and committing other infractions.
Looking back to last September and Chavez's comments accusing the U.S. of "domination, exploitation and pillage of peoples of the world," an argument could be made that he's guilty of some of the same things in his own country.
Chavez made the sign of the cross during his attack on Bush and ended his UN diabtribe by saying, "It smells like sulfur here, but God is with us."
Something evil was clearly at the UN last September but it wasn't Bush.
Hopefully, anyone here or abroad who put Chavez on anything resembling a pedestal after his insane commentary has come back to reality.
The Venezuelan president's recent actions in his country should cause every American to stop and think about our First Amendment freedom of speech rights.
We should all be thankful we live in a nation where everyone, TV stations included, can be critical of our government or anything else without fear of punishment.
Free speech is what makes our country great and it should never be taken for granted.
Chavez's tirade drew some applause from the crowd of foreign leaders and dignitaries at the UN as well as a few kudos from Bush's critics here at home.
Some Americans used Chavez's speech to give credence to their own anti-Bush views and to show just how poorly the U.S. leader is being viewed on the global stage.
But anyone who put stock in Chavez's outburst or leadership abilities should take notice of what's happening in Venezuela right now. Police in that country are currently using force to put down angry protests after the Bush-bashing Chavez shut down Venezuela's most popular television station.
The 54-year-old station, Radio Caracas Television, just happens to be seen as a voice for those who oppose Chavez.
Venezuelan soldiers took control of the station's transmitters and shut it down Sunday night. It has been replaced by the state-funded TVES, which opened its programming with artists singing pro-Chavez music.
Chavez has refused to renew RCTV's operating license, accusing the station of subversive activity.
Its replacement is being referred to as a socialistic channel. The programming on TVES will include exercise programs, educational shows for children that promote socialist values, and documentaries.
RCTV had talk shows, soap operas (some of which were aired in the U.S.), sports and a popular long-running comedy that poked fun at presidents, including Chavez.
He accused the network of "poisoning" Venezuelans by airing shows that promoted capitalism, breaking broadcast laws and committing other infractions.
Looking back to last September and Chavez's comments accusing the U.S. of "domination, exploitation and pillage of peoples of the world," an argument could be made that he's guilty of some of the same things in his own country.
Chavez made the sign of the cross during his attack on Bush and ended his UN diabtribe by saying, "It smells like sulfur here, but God is with us."
Something evil was clearly at the UN last September but it wasn't Bush.
Hopefully, anyone here or abroad who put Chavez on anything resembling a pedestal after his insane commentary has come back to reality.
The Venezuelan president's recent actions in his country should cause every American to stop and think about our First Amendment freedom of speech rights.
We should all be thankful we live in a nation where everyone, TV stations included, can be critical of our government or anything else without fear of punishment.
Free speech is what makes our country great and it should never be taken for granted.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Threats must be taken seriously
When Jason Hamilton told a mental health evaluator that he planned to kill himself by committing a mass shooting or bombing, the message was clear he needed help.
It was clear the 36-year-old janitor wanted to take others with him when he died.
It was clear he posed a threat to society.
Despite his comments, Hamilton was judged not to be in need of commitment to a mental health facility and was released.
That was in February.
On Saturday, about three months later, he fatally shot his wife in the head at their residence about three miles outside of Moscow. He then drove to the Latah County Courthouse, where his wife worked as a maintenance person. Hamilton was armed with two military rifles, which he fired into the sheriff's department dispatch center, located in the courthouse. He also blasted several vehicles in the parking lot.
When police responded, he killed one officer, wounded two others and wounded a Good Samaritan who had run to the scene when he heard gunshots.
Hamilton then took refuge across the street in the Presbyterian Church he had cleaned as a janitor.
He killed a church official who tried calling 911 and then began firing at the police outside before killing himself Sunday morning. Police never shot back.
Authorities believe Hamilton fired about 200 times during the fulfilling of his prophecy to the evaluator in February that he would not leave this world without bringing others with him.
It's amazing more people were not killed when Hamilton decided to commit suicide by mass shooting.
If anything, his story is more proof that those who hint that they want to inflict tragedy on a massive scale must be taken seriously by not just authorities, but by anyone who hears their words.
Looking back on Hamilton's record shows that he was someone who needed help.
In 2005, according to the Associated Press, he was arrested for domestic violence against a woman he was having an extramarital affair with and was sentenced to two years of probation. Court records indicate he attempted to strangle the woman.
The court prohibited him from purchasing or possessing firearms at that point. Unfortunately he had purchased the two rifles used in last weekend's tragedy before being charged and authorities did not know he had them.
On Feb. 16, he tried to commit suicide and was twice evaluated for involuntary commitment to a mental health facility. It was during one of these evaluations that he mentioned his plans to commit a mass shooting or bombing.
Hamilton had recently been in court for a probation violation because he had stopped going to counseling. Perhaps he should have been taken into custody then and there.
Authorities say they're stumped as to why Hamilton went on his rampage.
"We have not found any note," said David Duke, assistant chief of the Moscow Police Department. "We do not have any motive at this time. We have no idea."
Our nation's public school districts have learned the hard way that any student hinting of violence needs to be taken into police custody. Any hint of a threat at school, such as the recent false report that a student was being assaulted at Highland High School in Pocatello, warrants swift action by authorities.
Highland was locked down because of the report and police converged on the school and searched for the student until it was determined no threat existed.
Because of the tragedy at Virginia Tech in April, officials at institutions of higher learning also know that not taking threats from a student seriously can result in unimaginable tragedy.
Incidents like the one perpetrated by Hamilton are not uncommon. Nationwide, it's a story we're hearing far too often — someone with a history of mental problems, brushes with the law and threats against others finally snaps.
What we as a society must realize is that if anyone — a co-worker, family member or friend — hints at violence they should not be thought of as harmless or blowing off steam, especially if they have mental problems.
Taking such threats for granted can result in what happened in Moscow last weekend — four dead and a community left grieving and searching for answers.
Those who threaten to hurt others need help. To ignore them is to invite tragedy.
It was clear the 36-year-old janitor wanted to take others with him when he died.
It was clear he posed a threat to society.
Despite his comments, Hamilton was judged not to be in need of commitment to a mental health facility and was released.
That was in February.
On Saturday, about three months later, he fatally shot his wife in the head at their residence about three miles outside of Moscow. He then drove to the Latah County Courthouse, where his wife worked as a maintenance person. Hamilton was armed with two military rifles, which he fired into the sheriff's department dispatch center, located in the courthouse. He also blasted several vehicles in the parking lot.
When police responded, he killed one officer, wounded two others and wounded a Good Samaritan who had run to the scene when he heard gunshots.
Hamilton then took refuge across the street in the Presbyterian Church he had cleaned as a janitor.
He killed a church official who tried calling 911 and then began firing at the police outside before killing himself Sunday morning. Police never shot back.
Authorities believe Hamilton fired about 200 times during the fulfilling of his prophecy to the evaluator in February that he would not leave this world without bringing others with him.
It's amazing more people were not killed when Hamilton decided to commit suicide by mass shooting.
If anything, his story is more proof that those who hint that they want to inflict tragedy on a massive scale must be taken seriously by not just authorities, but by anyone who hears their words.
Looking back on Hamilton's record shows that he was someone who needed help.
In 2005, according to the Associated Press, he was arrested for domestic violence against a woman he was having an extramarital affair with and was sentenced to two years of probation. Court records indicate he attempted to strangle the woman.
The court prohibited him from purchasing or possessing firearms at that point. Unfortunately he had purchased the two rifles used in last weekend's tragedy before being charged and authorities did not know he had them.
On Feb. 16, he tried to commit suicide and was twice evaluated for involuntary commitment to a mental health facility. It was during one of these evaluations that he mentioned his plans to commit a mass shooting or bombing.
Hamilton had recently been in court for a probation violation because he had stopped going to counseling. Perhaps he should have been taken into custody then and there.
Authorities say they're stumped as to why Hamilton went on his rampage.
"We have not found any note," said David Duke, assistant chief of the Moscow Police Department. "We do not have any motive at this time. We have no idea."
Our nation's public school districts have learned the hard way that any student hinting of violence needs to be taken into police custody. Any hint of a threat at school, such as the recent false report that a student was being assaulted at Highland High School in Pocatello, warrants swift action by authorities.
Highland was locked down because of the report and police converged on the school and searched for the student until it was determined no threat existed.
Because of the tragedy at Virginia Tech in April, officials at institutions of higher learning also know that not taking threats from a student seriously can result in unimaginable tragedy.
Incidents like the one perpetrated by Hamilton are not uncommon. Nationwide, it's a story we're hearing far too often — someone with a history of mental problems, brushes with the law and threats against others finally snaps.
What we as a society must realize is that if anyone — a co-worker, family member or friend — hints at violence they should not be thought of as harmless or blowing off steam, especially if they have mental problems.
Taking such threats for granted can result in what happened in Moscow last weekend — four dead and a community left grieving and searching for answers.
Those who threaten to hurt others need help. To ignore them is to invite tragedy.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Blair's legacy will be defined by Iraq
Tony Blair's fall from political grace in Britain is rivaled only by our own president's descent into the legacy graveyard.
Blair's approval rating 10 years ago was an incredible 72 percent. Except for a slight rebound after 9-11, the British leader's poll numbers have consistently dropped to their current 28 percent.
Blair's low numbers put him on par with his predecessor, the disappointing John Major.
They also put him at nearly the same level as President George W. Bush, whose approval rating is hovering just above 30 percent.
Many pundits are already saying that the chief determinant of Blair's legacy will be the outcome of the war in Iraq. It seems to reason that if Blair's banking on the war to somehow make people feel better about his 10 years as Britain's prime minister he mine as well except the fact history will not look on him kindly.
It's a shame because Blair's time in office has not been without successes. Blair helped broker a peace agreement in Northern Ireland, Britain's economy has been very strong during the past decade, and he significantly increased government spending in both health and education. He also implemented a minimum wage in Britain.
But much like with our own president, when one thinks of Blair the first thing that comes to mind is Iraq. Blair seems destined to be one of those politicians who steals defeat from the jaws of victory by ruining a perfectly good record with a moment of bad judgment. Time will tell.
Blair said during his resignation speech about the war in Iraq: "I did what I thought was right."
It's scary how easy it is to imagine Bush saying the same thing in years to come.
By joining the U.S. in its invasion of Iraq, Blair, maybe unknowingly, attached his legacy to the outcome of that conflict.
He got aboard the Bush train, so to speak, and never jumped off, no matter how rough the going.
Blair paid the price as dearly as Bush and maybe more so in that many Brits see him as being a sellout to the U.S.
But Blair deserves credit for standing firm with the U.S. against terrorism and continuing to support the war in Iraq regardless of the political consequences for himself.
Oftentimes, the question that defines a leader's success is whether he or she has left their nation better than how they found it.
Under Blair's leadership, Britain has experienced a level of economic gain that it might not see again for years.
His improvement of that nation's health and education systems are equally noteworthy.
So when you think of Blair, realize there's more to the man than an unpopular war.
There will be plenty enough historians who will remember that one.
Blair's approval rating 10 years ago was an incredible 72 percent. Except for a slight rebound after 9-11, the British leader's poll numbers have consistently dropped to their current 28 percent.
Blair's low numbers put him on par with his predecessor, the disappointing John Major.
They also put him at nearly the same level as President George W. Bush, whose approval rating is hovering just above 30 percent.
Many pundits are already saying that the chief determinant of Blair's legacy will be the outcome of the war in Iraq. It seems to reason that if Blair's banking on the war to somehow make people feel better about his 10 years as Britain's prime minister he mine as well except the fact history will not look on him kindly.
It's a shame because Blair's time in office has not been without successes. Blair helped broker a peace agreement in Northern Ireland, Britain's economy has been very strong during the past decade, and he significantly increased government spending in both health and education. He also implemented a minimum wage in Britain.
But much like with our own president, when one thinks of Blair the first thing that comes to mind is Iraq. Blair seems destined to be one of those politicians who steals defeat from the jaws of victory by ruining a perfectly good record with a moment of bad judgment. Time will tell.
Blair said during his resignation speech about the war in Iraq: "I did what I thought was right."
It's scary how easy it is to imagine Bush saying the same thing in years to come.
By joining the U.S. in its invasion of Iraq, Blair, maybe unknowingly, attached his legacy to the outcome of that conflict.
He got aboard the Bush train, so to speak, and never jumped off, no matter how rough the going.
Blair paid the price as dearly as Bush and maybe more so in that many Brits see him as being a sellout to the U.S.
But Blair deserves credit for standing firm with the U.S. against terrorism and continuing to support the war in Iraq regardless of the political consequences for himself.
Oftentimes, the question that defines a leader's success is whether he or she has left their nation better than how they found it.
Under Blair's leadership, Britain has experienced a level of economic gain that it might not see again for years.
His improvement of that nation's health and education systems are equally noteworthy.
So when you think of Blair, realize there's more to the man than an unpopular war.
There will be plenty enough historians who will remember that one.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Romney proving he has right stuff
The first presidential debate among the Republican hopefuls made me an even bigger believer in Mitt Romney.
The former Massachusetts governor outshined all the other candidates with apparent ease. He came across as presidential — that intangible quality the American voter looks for, though can’t define in simple terms.
Romney did not stumble over his words like the other GOP frontrunners. Rudy Giuliani’s opening remarks sounded like he had not spent one minute preparing while Sen. John McCain’s stuttering was likely due to him trying too hard.
In fact, the big mistake most of the candidates made was that they came across as a bit too eager, too desperate to win over the American people.
Romney had complete command of the issues, didn’t break a sweat when asked the tough questions about his apparent flip-flopping, and convinced me that he’s got at least the demeanor and charisma to be president.
The debate was held at the Ronald Reagan Library and almost every candidate mentioned the late president’s optimism in their responses. They said that optimism should be an essential quality for our next president.
With a war in Iraq that our nation might not be losing, but definitely isn’t winning, and our nation’s place in the world on the line with the outcome of that conflict, Americans are not feeling all that confident about the future.
Just like Reagan returned our pride in being American, we need our next president to boost our spirits and show the world that we are not just a super power but a true global leader.
Romney’s charisma clearly stole the show Thursday night and I felt better about being an American just listening to his responses.
McCain gave it his best shot with emphatic hand gestures and bold words, reminding me of his last presidential bid eight years ago.
But it was clear that he had lost his edge and that his best stumping couldn’t compare to Romney’s.
However, I can envision Romney winning the GOP nomination and picking McCain as his VP. That would be a ticket that would boost the sinking spirits of Republicans everywhere and give the Dems a true race for the White House.
Giuliani was flat, plain and simple. It seemed like every time he responded to a question he reminded everyone that he was mayor of New York City on 9-11. I respect that fact, but I did tire of hearing it over and over. I was left wondering if he had any other credentials making him worthy of the presidency.
Besides Romney, there was one other candidate who I was impressed with — Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
I was impressed that he was one of only three candidates to say he did not believe in evolution. The moderator asked for a show of hands among the 10 candidates to see who sided with Darwin and who didn’t. From what I could tell, Huckabee was the only candidate to not only raise his hand but say out loud he did not believe in Darwin’s theory.
I’m certain that among the 10 Republicans on the stage Thursday night that there were more than three who oppose Darwin.
Many will say that Huckabee is nuts for saying such a thing, but I was impressed with his honesty. To me, he's got guts.
Huckabee answered questions with a confidence similar to Romney’s and I was left thinking that the Arkansan is another viable VP.
But will the GOP’s best have what it takes to defeat the Dems at a time when the Republican Party is paying the price for an unpopular president and divisive war?
I’m not sure, but Thursday’s debate did make me feel like the Republicans, with Romney as their presidential candidate, have a much better chance than I earlier thought.
I have said that when faced with the possibility of losing the White House, Republicans will find a way to support Romney, despite any problems they have with his LDS background.
There were a couple of references during the debate to Romney being Mormon but it was definitely a non-issue.
And I think as election day nears, Romney will be increasingly judged solely on what he can do for our nation.
Those Republicans who do not like the fact he’s LDS will have a tough time denying that he’s the best person for the job.
But the road Romney has ahead of him is far from easy. Winning the White House in the current political climate will definitely be the greatest challenge of his career.
The race is still probably the Dems’ to lose.
The former Massachusetts governor outshined all the other candidates with apparent ease. He came across as presidential — that intangible quality the American voter looks for, though can’t define in simple terms.
Romney did not stumble over his words like the other GOP frontrunners. Rudy Giuliani’s opening remarks sounded like he had not spent one minute preparing while Sen. John McCain’s stuttering was likely due to him trying too hard.
In fact, the big mistake most of the candidates made was that they came across as a bit too eager, too desperate to win over the American people.
Romney had complete command of the issues, didn’t break a sweat when asked the tough questions about his apparent flip-flopping, and convinced me that he’s got at least the demeanor and charisma to be president.
The debate was held at the Ronald Reagan Library and almost every candidate mentioned the late president’s optimism in their responses. They said that optimism should be an essential quality for our next president.
With a war in Iraq that our nation might not be losing, but definitely isn’t winning, and our nation’s place in the world on the line with the outcome of that conflict, Americans are not feeling all that confident about the future.
Just like Reagan returned our pride in being American, we need our next president to boost our spirits and show the world that we are not just a super power but a true global leader.
Romney’s charisma clearly stole the show Thursday night and I felt better about being an American just listening to his responses.
McCain gave it his best shot with emphatic hand gestures and bold words, reminding me of his last presidential bid eight years ago.
But it was clear that he had lost his edge and that his best stumping couldn’t compare to Romney’s.
However, I can envision Romney winning the GOP nomination and picking McCain as his VP. That would be a ticket that would boost the sinking spirits of Republicans everywhere and give the Dems a true race for the White House.
Giuliani was flat, plain and simple. It seemed like every time he responded to a question he reminded everyone that he was mayor of New York City on 9-11. I respect that fact, but I did tire of hearing it over and over. I was left wondering if he had any other credentials making him worthy of the presidency.
Besides Romney, there was one other candidate who I was impressed with — Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
I was impressed that he was one of only three candidates to say he did not believe in evolution. The moderator asked for a show of hands among the 10 candidates to see who sided with Darwin and who didn’t. From what I could tell, Huckabee was the only candidate to not only raise his hand but say out loud he did not believe in Darwin’s theory.
I’m certain that among the 10 Republicans on the stage Thursday night that there were more than three who oppose Darwin.
Many will say that Huckabee is nuts for saying such a thing, but I was impressed with his honesty. To me, he's got guts.
Huckabee answered questions with a confidence similar to Romney’s and I was left thinking that the Arkansan is another viable VP.
But will the GOP’s best have what it takes to defeat the Dems at a time when the Republican Party is paying the price for an unpopular president and divisive war?
I’m not sure, but Thursday’s debate did make me feel like the Republicans, with Romney as their presidential candidate, have a much better chance than I earlier thought.
I have said that when faced with the possibility of losing the White House, Republicans will find a way to support Romney, despite any problems they have with his LDS background.
There were a couple of references during the debate to Romney being Mormon but it was definitely a non-issue.
And I think as election day nears, Romney will be increasingly judged solely on what he can do for our nation.
Those Republicans who do not like the fact he’s LDS will have a tough time denying that he’s the best person for the job.
But the road Romney has ahead of him is far from easy. Winning the White House in the current political climate will definitely be the greatest challenge of his career.
The race is still probably the Dems’ to lose.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
LAPD owning up to using excessive force at rally
It’s been a while since the Los Angeles Police Department has been accused of using excessive force.
So long in fact that one might have come to the conclusion that the notorious LAPD had cleaned up its act.
Wrong.
This time LA cops did not just beat up the citizens they’re supposed to protect. This time the cops also battered several members of the media.
It happened at an immigration rally in LA — one of many held throughout the U.S. to protest our government’s refusal to give illegals already here a path to citizenship.
As the rally was winding down, the approximately 600 LA cops watching the protest decided to do a sweep and clear of the park where the protest was being held.
The officers whacked everyone in their path with batons — including journalists — or shot them with rubber bullets.
The end result was at least 17 people suffered injuries, including 7 officers. Nine people were arrested.
The good news is that unlike during past LAPD abuses, the department appears to be owning up to the fact that its officers had no excuse for going berserk.
LA Police Chief William J. Bratton said Wednesday, "The events of yesterday, with all (the training) that we do, should not have occurred. We should not be engaged in attacks on the media."
Or, for that matter, innocent people.
John Mack — president of the five-member LA Police Commission, which sets policy for the Police Department _— told the Assocated Press he was "deeply disturbed and very disappointed" by the LAPD’s actions.
He said, “This was not a pretty picture. This incident raises serious concern regarding the use of force by some individual officers."
The LAPD as well as the Police Commission have pledged to investigate the officers’ assault on the park.
The California Attorney General’s Office should get involved as well because it’s always better when outside agencies investigate such apparent wrongdoing.
Chief Bratton explained the officers moved to clear the park after 50 to 100 agitators began throwing rocks and bottles at them.
Like other LAPD foul ups this one was caught on video. That should come as no surprise to the police, who injured several video-camera-toting journalists in the process of violently dispersing the crowd.
The TV and radio reporters were more than just pushed around. The LA cops meant business. Just ask KTTV reporter Christina Gonzales. She suffered a separated shoulder, while her camerawoman Patti Ballaz had a broken wrist and possibly a broken hand, according to the AP.
A couple of TV anchors were set to do a live broadcast from the park when the police moved in and literally shoved them out of the way.
All in all, the events at MacArthur Park on Tuesday show the LAPD at its worst.
The only upside is that even the cops are admitting they goofed up.
Now let’s see what kind of justice gets served to those officers who crossed the line.
So long in fact that one might have come to the conclusion that the notorious LAPD had cleaned up its act.
Wrong.
This time LA cops did not just beat up the citizens they’re supposed to protect. This time the cops also battered several members of the media.
It happened at an immigration rally in LA — one of many held throughout the U.S. to protest our government’s refusal to give illegals already here a path to citizenship.
As the rally was winding down, the approximately 600 LA cops watching the protest decided to do a sweep and clear of the park where the protest was being held.
The officers whacked everyone in their path with batons — including journalists — or shot them with rubber bullets.
The end result was at least 17 people suffered injuries, including 7 officers. Nine people were arrested.
The good news is that unlike during past LAPD abuses, the department appears to be owning up to the fact that its officers had no excuse for going berserk.
LA Police Chief William J. Bratton said Wednesday, "The events of yesterday, with all (the training) that we do, should not have occurred. We should not be engaged in attacks on the media."
Or, for that matter, innocent people.
John Mack — president of the five-member LA Police Commission, which sets policy for the Police Department _— told the Assocated Press he was "deeply disturbed and very disappointed" by the LAPD’s actions.
He said, “This was not a pretty picture. This incident raises serious concern regarding the use of force by some individual officers."
The LAPD as well as the Police Commission have pledged to investigate the officers’ assault on the park.
The California Attorney General’s Office should get involved as well because it’s always better when outside agencies investigate such apparent wrongdoing.
Chief Bratton explained the officers moved to clear the park after 50 to 100 agitators began throwing rocks and bottles at them.
Like other LAPD foul ups this one was caught on video. That should come as no surprise to the police, who injured several video-camera-toting journalists in the process of violently dispersing the crowd.
The TV and radio reporters were more than just pushed around. The LA cops meant business. Just ask KTTV reporter Christina Gonzales. She suffered a separated shoulder, while her camerawoman Patti Ballaz had a broken wrist and possibly a broken hand, according to the AP.
A couple of TV anchors were set to do a live broadcast from the park when the police moved in and literally shoved them out of the way.
All in all, the events at MacArthur Park on Tuesday show the LAPD at its worst.
The only upside is that even the cops are admitting they goofed up.
Now let’s see what kind of justice gets served to those officers who crossed the line.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Do Americans have what it takes to win at war?
One thing I keep hearing from those on the right is that our nation no longer has what it takes to win a war.
Journal columnist Mark Balzer wrote a few weeks ago that the last time the U.S. really won an armed conflict was World War II.
I think Mark forgot about the first Gulf War, but he does make a point that’s worth discussing.
Have we Americans become too soft to do what it takes to be victorious in this bloody, ruthless and oftentimes cruel business called war?
Looking back on our nation’s history post-World War II, we’ve definitely accumulated a mixed record in the arena of armed conflict.
Many Americans believe that we won the Korean Conflict but in reality that was a draw, with U.S. forces finishing the war at essentially the same spot at which they began.
Though the cost, more than 30,000 dead Americans, makes us wonder what today’s Americans are complaining about with our current war in Iraq, which has dragged on longer than Korea with only 4,000 U.S. deaths.
I guess that’s good news, unless you’re one of the Americans killed or maimed in Iraq or one of their loved ones.
We’ve had a number of small-scale conflicts, most of which we’ve won just because our troops are the best trained and best equipped in the world.
Some exceptions are Somalia (the movie Black Hawk down depicted our struggle there) and our military intervention in Beirut — remember when the Islamic suicide bomber crashed his bomb-laden vehicle into our Marine barracks? Typically, though, when the U.S. intervenes our troops are able to defeat any bad guys and restore order rather quickly. Grenada, Panama, the former Yugoslavia, Haiti — I rest my case.
Then there was Vietnam, in which we never lost a battle but managed to lose the war. I’m still trying to figure out what happened in Southeast Asia and how we were defeated by such a rudimentary and in almost every way inferior military force.
Vietnam was perhaps the first war in which our enemy focused on winning the war in the realm of U.S. public opinion rather than on the battlefield. Their strategy worked, although the united Vietnam that remained was nearly ruined because of the war that had killed tens of thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese.
In Iraq, our enemy is trying something similar, although the situation is a little different. The Iraqis are perhaps more interested in killing each other than they are in killing Americans. Otherwise, there would be many more dead U.S. troops.
Those who argue that we didn’t have what it took to win in Vietnam and don’t have the stomach to win in Iraq are at least half right.
In Vietnam, the American people decided that the conflict was no longer worth the costs. We stayed the course in Vietnam for many years before deciding to pull out. It wasn’t an easy decision; in fact it tore the country apart.
Imagine how it must have felt to have served in Vietnam or to have lost a loved one there, only to watch as your nation pulled down the flag from the embassy in Saigon and in doing so, said that all the sacrifice was for nothing.
Now we have Iraq and the American people are again weighing their options.
The two wars are similar in a lot of ways. U.S. leaders said that if South Vietnam fell, communism would spread throughout the region.
That didn’t happen.
U.S. leaders are saying that if we pull out of Iraq, that country will descend into violence far worse than the current chaos. That’s scary to envision.
Our leaders are also telling us that a U.S. pullout would turn Iraq into the biggest terrorist training ground on the planet. They say we can either fight the war in Iraq or fight it right here in America.
I believe that George W. Bush is wrong about many things. Those who call him a moron can make a decent argument for their case.
But Bush’s take on the threat posed by radical Islam to the United States is in my opinion absolutely correct.
Radical Muslims hate Americans and all Westerners and they want to kill us.
The key word is “radical” because most Muslims are interested in the same things we are — getting to work on time, raising a family and paying the bills.
But the radical Muslims do hate us and they do want to slaughter us wholesale.
If 9-11 never happened, I’d dispel the notion that the Islamic fringe could do what it takes to wipe us out.
But these radicals have proven that they have the cruel desire, warped mindset and pure hatred necessary for them to carry out attacks on our nation that will result in mass destruction and mass casualties.
We can’t ignore these folks, as much as we want to.
I think it’s tough for Americans to understand this war or that there is this large group of people in the world who want to kill us.
I was thinking the other day how I personally have never been touched by war. I’ve never had to serve in the armed forces. I’ve never had to sit huddled in a foxhole on a frozen night in some far off place to defend our nation.
Because most Americans have never been touched by war, I think we have trouble imagining a world that’s anything but peaceful.
We also have a very short memory, as evidenced by 9-11. Sure, those who saw 9-11 from ground zero in New York City or who lost loved ones on that date will never forget it.
But for those of us who experienced it via media reports, it’s somewhat less real.
I am convinced, however, that the likes of Osama bin Laden want to attack our nation in such a way that 9-11 would seem like a mere scrape.
The threat in Vietnam was that once we pulled out, communism would be one step closer to taking over the world.
But we all knew that the communists would have a long ways to go before they would be able to inflict direct harm on our nation.
If we pull out of Iraq, I think the threat would be much more of a clear and present danger to our nation, especially its civilian population.
I hope I’m wrong about this because there are a growing number of Americans, including many of our troops, who want us to pull out of Iraq.
If we pulled out and the terrorists never strike our nation, that would be outstanding.
But I fear that an Iraq without U.S. troops would be seen as a victory for the insurgents — al-Qaida included. Iraq could become a new staging and planning area for terrorists to launch attacks against neighboring countries, Americans in other parts of the world and the mainland U.S.
Imagine if we pulled out and an anti-U.S. Iraq joined forces with a nuclear-capable Iran to at the very least fund terrorist attacks against the U.S.
I think it’s tough for Americans to see this terrorist threat as something real.
I was dropping my girlfriend off at Salt Lake City airport recently and I realized that greater scrutiny by airport security in checking my luggage is likely the only way that I’ve been impacted by the war on terror.
In other nations going to war means rationed food, curfews and not being able to get gasoline to fuel my vehicle. It means being drafted into the military and putting yourself in harm’s way.
For most of us, our nation’s current war means a few extra minutes waiting in line at the airport.
Some say that it took a military defeat as dramatic as Pearl Harbor to wake up the American people to the fact that our nation was threatened and we needed to take up arms to defend our way of life.
If you look back on our history, it’s usually taken something drastic for Americans to go to war. In World War I, it was the news that Germany was trying to persuade Mexico to invade us.
In the Civil War, the South’s assault on and capture of Fort Sumpter prompted Northerners to take up arms and, in many cases, sacrifice themselves.
If the threat is imminent, Americans (current generations included) are able to dig deep and do what it takes to win at war.
But I question if most Americans really see the threat that our nation is facing at this very instant from radical Islam.
I fear that we as a nation are going to require something more than hijacked airliners crashing into skyscrapers to convince us that this war is bigger and more threatening to our way of life than most of us can imagine.
An old friend of mine served in the Israeili army and was based along the West Bank. Israel understands the threat its neighbors pose and as a result every Israeli citizen is subject to that nation’s military draft.
My friend was only a teenager when he toted a heavy Galil assault rifle on patrol through hostile Palestinian towns.
He said that Israeli forces came under frequent attack by suicidal Muslim extremists. He said on one sunny day in the West Bank a terrorist threw a grenade onto the roof where he and another Israeli soldier were posted. The grenade failed to detonate. If it had, both soldiers would have been seriously wounded or killed.
My friend said that we Americans just do not understand the threat that radical Islam poses not just our nation, but the world.
He also said that radical Muslims were committed to doing everything to win this war, from sending in women and children wired with explosives to slaughtering hundreds of innocents just to make a point.
My friend said Americans and the West in general lack that commitment. He said in the war against radical Islam, we will lose.
I think my friend was wrong. But I do believe that Americans are going to have to be pushed to realize the enemy we’re facing.
It’s sad to think more Americans will have to die before our nation experiences the revelation of the true magnitude of this war.
It reminds me of the years before World War II when Britain and France thought they could use diplomacy to keep Hitler at bay.
The world learned the hard way that diplomacy didn’t stand a chance.
I fear in our war against radical Islam, Americans and our allies are in for the same rude awakening.
We may pull out of Iraq before the epiphany occurs but it does not matter. I believe we’ll still defeat radical Islam in the end, it will just take longer and cost many more lives.
Journal columnist Mark Balzer wrote a few weeks ago that the last time the U.S. really won an armed conflict was World War II.
I think Mark forgot about the first Gulf War, but he does make a point that’s worth discussing.
Have we Americans become too soft to do what it takes to be victorious in this bloody, ruthless and oftentimes cruel business called war?
Looking back on our nation’s history post-World War II, we’ve definitely accumulated a mixed record in the arena of armed conflict.
Many Americans believe that we won the Korean Conflict but in reality that was a draw, with U.S. forces finishing the war at essentially the same spot at which they began.
Though the cost, more than 30,000 dead Americans, makes us wonder what today’s Americans are complaining about with our current war in Iraq, which has dragged on longer than Korea with only 4,000 U.S. deaths.
I guess that’s good news, unless you’re one of the Americans killed or maimed in Iraq or one of their loved ones.
We’ve had a number of small-scale conflicts, most of which we’ve won just because our troops are the best trained and best equipped in the world.
Some exceptions are Somalia (the movie Black Hawk down depicted our struggle there) and our military intervention in Beirut — remember when the Islamic suicide bomber crashed his bomb-laden vehicle into our Marine barracks? Typically, though, when the U.S. intervenes our troops are able to defeat any bad guys and restore order rather quickly. Grenada, Panama, the former Yugoslavia, Haiti — I rest my case.
Then there was Vietnam, in which we never lost a battle but managed to lose the war. I’m still trying to figure out what happened in Southeast Asia and how we were defeated by such a rudimentary and in almost every way inferior military force.
Vietnam was perhaps the first war in which our enemy focused on winning the war in the realm of U.S. public opinion rather than on the battlefield. Their strategy worked, although the united Vietnam that remained was nearly ruined because of the war that had killed tens of thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese.
In Iraq, our enemy is trying something similar, although the situation is a little different. The Iraqis are perhaps more interested in killing each other than they are in killing Americans. Otherwise, there would be many more dead U.S. troops.
Those who argue that we didn’t have what it took to win in Vietnam and don’t have the stomach to win in Iraq are at least half right.
In Vietnam, the American people decided that the conflict was no longer worth the costs. We stayed the course in Vietnam for many years before deciding to pull out. It wasn’t an easy decision; in fact it tore the country apart.
Imagine how it must have felt to have served in Vietnam or to have lost a loved one there, only to watch as your nation pulled down the flag from the embassy in Saigon and in doing so, said that all the sacrifice was for nothing.
Now we have Iraq and the American people are again weighing their options.
The two wars are similar in a lot of ways. U.S. leaders said that if South Vietnam fell, communism would spread throughout the region.
That didn’t happen.
U.S. leaders are saying that if we pull out of Iraq, that country will descend into violence far worse than the current chaos. That’s scary to envision.
Our leaders are also telling us that a U.S. pullout would turn Iraq into the biggest terrorist training ground on the planet. They say we can either fight the war in Iraq or fight it right here in America.
I believe that George W. Bush is wrong about many things. Those who call him a moron can make a decent argument for their case.
But Bush’s take on the threat posed by radical Islam to the United States is in my opinion absolutely correct.
Radical Muslims hate Americans and all Westerners and they want to kill us.
The key word is “radical” because most Muslims are interested in the same things we are — getting to work on time, raising a family and paying the bills.
But the radical Muslims do hate us and they do want to slaughter us wholesale.
If 9-11 never happened, I’d dispel the notion that the Islamic fringe could do what it takes to wipe us out.
But these radicals have proven that they have the cruel desire, warped mindset and pure hatred necessary for them to carry out attacks on our nation that will result in mass destruction and mass casualties.
We can’t ignore these folks, as much as we want to.
I think it’s tough for Americans to understand this war or that there is this large group of people in the world who want to kill us.
I was thinking the other day how I personally have never been touched by war. I’ve never had to serve in the armed forces. I’ve never had to sit huddled in a foxhole on a frozen night in some far off place to defend our nation.
Because most Americans have never been touched by war, I think we have trouble imagining a world that’s anything but peaceful.
We also have a very short memory, as evidenced by 9-11. Sure, those who saw 9-11 from ground zero in New York City or who lost loved ones on that date will never forget it.
But for those of us who experienced it via media reports, it’s somewhat less real.
I am convinced, however, that the likes of Osama bin Laden want to attack our nation in such a way that 9-11 would seem like a mere scrape.
The threat in Vietnam was that once we pulled out, communism would be one step closer to taking over the world.
But we all knew that the communists would have a long ways to go before they would be able to inflict direct harm on our nation.
If we pull out of Iraq, I think the threat would be much more of a clear and present danger to our nation, especially its civilian population.
I hope I’m wrong about this because there are a growing number of Americans, including many of our troops, who want us to pull out of Iraq.
If we pulled out and the terrorists never strike our nation, that would be outstanding.
But I fear that an Iraq without U.S. troops would be seen as a victory for the insurgents — al-Qaida included. Iraq could become a new staging and planning area for terrorists to launch attacks against neighboring countries, Americans in other parts of the world and the mainland U.S.
Imagine if we pulled out and an anti-U.S. Iraq joined forces with a nuclear-capable Iran to at the very least fund terrorist attacks against the U.S.
I think it’s tough for Americans to see this terrorist threat as something real.
I was dropping my girlfriend off at Salt Lake City airport recently and I realized that greater scrutiny by airport security in checking my luggage is likely the only way that I’ve been impacted by the war on terror.
In other nations going to war means rationed food, curfews and not being able to get gasoline to fuel my vehicle. It means being drafted into the military and putting yourself in harm’s way.
For most of us, our nation’s current war means a few extra minutes waiting in line at the airport.
Some say that it took a military defeat as dramatic as Pearl Harbor to wake up the American people to the fact that our nation was threatened and we needed to take up arms to defend our way of life.
If you look back on our history, it’s usually taken something drastic for Americans to go to war. In World War I, it was the news that Germany was trying to persuade Mexico to invade us.
In the Civil War, the South’s assault on and capture of Fort Sumpter prompted Northerners to take up arms and, in many cases, sacrifice themselves.
If the threat is imminent, Americans (current generations included) are able to dig deep and do what it takes to win at war.
But I question if most Americans really see the threat that our nation is facing at this very instant from radical Islam.
I fear that we as a nation are going to require something more than hijacked airliners crashing into skyscrapers to convince us that this war is bigger and more threatening to our way of life than most of us can imagine.
An old friend of mine served in the Israeili army and was based along the West Bank. Israel understands the threat its neighbors pose and as a result every Israeli citizen is subject to that nation’s military draft.
My friend was only a teenager when he toted a heavy Galil assault rifle on patrol through hostile Palestinian towns.
He said that Israeli forces came under frequent attack by suicidal Muslim extremists. He said on one sunny day in the West Bank a terrorist threw a grenade onto the roof where he and another Israeli soldier were posted. The grenade failed to detonate. If it had, both soldiers would have been seriously wounded or killed.
My friend said that we Americans just do not understand the threat that radical Islam poses not just our nation, but the world.
He also said that radical Muslims were committed to doing everything to win this war, from sending in women and children wired with explosives to slaughtering hundreds of innocents just to make a point.
My friend said Americans and the West in general lack that commitment. He said in the war against radical Islam, we will lose.
I think my friend was wrong. But I do believe that Americans are going to have to be pushed to realize the enemy we’re facing.
It’s sad to think more Americans will have to die before our nation experiences the revelation of the true magnitude of this war.
It reminds me of the years before World War II when Britain and France thought they could use diplomacy to keep Hitler at bay.
The world learned the hard way that diplomacy didn’t stand a chance.
I fear in our war against radical Islam, Americans and our allies are in for the same rude awakening.
We may pull out of Iraq before the epiphany occurs but it does not matter. I believe we’ll still defeat radical Islam in the end, it will just take longer and cost many more lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)