New source of news in Iraq

Thanks to AubreyJ for these links...

I know some of you are going to say that you wouldn't trust the Pentagon's media with a ten foot pole. But the fact is the U.S. military is forbidden from intentionally lying to Americans. I've seen a lot of Armed Forces Network news reports over the years, and I have to say they aren't glossed over propaganda, but good honest news reports, from the viewpoint of soldiers.

What about the news reports planted by the U.S. government in Iraq? What about them, I ask? They were truthful stories. Iraqi papers were doing the same thing as the MSM; printing lots of bad news, some untrue, while refusing to print any good news. The U.S. simply balanced news coverage by paying papers to print both sides of the story. Heck, I think that the Pentagon should be allowed the do the same thing in America.

Anyhoot, on to the goodies:

Freedom Journal Iraq is a daily program produced by American Forces Network Iraq. This program focuses on military missions, operations and U.S. military forces in Iraq.

Click here for daily reports. Also try this recent interesting report (or here for low-bandwidth version).

Labels: iraq, media

Permalink

The People have spoken.... But I don't care!

Let me start by saying I hate blue laws. They are unconstitutional by any measure, as they specifically honor the preferences of a certain sects of a single religion over all others. When someone tells me they support blue laws, I generally ask if Christians should be banned from purchasing alcohol in Muslim-majority towns, because they are coming to America fast. As Christians represent an ever-shrinking percentage of America, they will quickly look to the Constitution to defend them from other religious beliefs.So, why do I bring this up? Any regular visitor to the Nervous Rodent would quickly recognize that I would oppose a law to restrict the sale of alcohol based on a religious belief. I bring it up because there is a bill in the Georgia General Assembly to (finally) partially limit the blue laws so pervasive in the South. Namely, Senate Bill 26 would allow each county and/or municipality that currently allows the sale of alcohol the option of allowing a referendum in that area to allow the sale of beer and wine (not liquor) on Sundays.

It's hard to be against that, isn't it? It allows each town and/or county to decide for themselves if they want to limit blue laws to hard liquor. It's not a perfect solution, but it's far better than the current law.

As Crazy for Liberty points out, there is widespread support among both the population and representatives in the government. Somehow the Governor, Sonny Perdue, is against it (sound clip, AJC link):

I think it’s going to have a tough time, actually. When you ask people generally if they want the right to vote on anything — what kind of toilet tissue the state ought to use, or anything like that — they’ll typically say yes.

Although they like representative government, they like to have their voices heard. And that’s why we have representative government, where people elect their own legislators to come and make these kinds of decisions.

Some things rise to the level of referendums — such as, I felt, the symbol, the flag that represented Georgia, which I felt rose to that level. But you can’t do government really by referendum. And so, I don’t support that, and I don’t know whether it will pass the Legislature or not, but it’ll have a pretty tough time getting the last vote….

You have to always be attuned to where public opinion is, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you have to follow that. A good leader always leads in a way they think is the right direction for Georgia on significant issues. …

What? Yeah, the people want more freedom and less government intrusion, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give it to them? Remember Georgians, you voted for him!

I have to credit Sonny Perdue with one thing, however. He is the first person I've ever heard come up with a valid justification for blue laws that doesn't mention religion -- the government's responsibility to educate the populace:

Think of it this way…It really helps you plan ahead for the rest of your life — buying on Saturday, rather than Sunday. Time management.

Hey, I've got an idea. Let's only sell gasoline on odd days, milk on even days. Condoms should only be sold on prime-numbered days. We'll make everyone plan their entire week around a couple of random proclamations with no justification other than making people's lives harder so they can learn to deal. After all, that's why government exists.

Labels: alcohol, church, personal freedoms

Permalink

Bipartisan Support For Making College Unaffordable

Let's face it. College is expensive. Unless you join the military or happen to come from a family that owns a bunch of oil wells in Texas, chances are you're going to leave college deep in debt. Many Americans don't dig out from under that debt for many years; many never do. The reason is quite obvious -- skyrocketing college tuition is making attendance virtually impossible without resorting to massive student loans.

Our Congress has decided to help out the little guy and make a college education a little easier to reach. HR 5, College Student Relief Act of 2007, reduces interest rates for new federal student loans. It has passed the House, 356-71, with bipartisan support. It now moves on to the Senate.

This sounds like a great idea. It really helps the young American get an education, lift himself up, and improve the economy, right? There's no way this bill could possibly increase student loan defaults, since it reduces the size of the payment, right?

Actually, HR.5 will increase the pool of applicants who want to attend college, without increasing the number of students the college system can accept. The law of supply and demand dictates that college tuition must then rise and demand outstrips supply. Student loan sizes increase, thus resulting in higher student loan payments for those lucky enough to get them.

Student interest rates are currently tied to the average one year constant maturity Treasury yield (CMT), and thus follow the flow and ebb of the economy. Since 1998, Stafford interest rates have dropped from 7.94% to 6.80%. The low rates (and high defaults) mean these loans incur significant cost to the average American in the form of higher taxes.

How low does HR.5 drop interest rates? Applied only to new students, HR.5 will lower rates each year until it bottoms out at 3.40%. That's right, less than half current rates, which are already low by any standards. What's more, HR.5 breaks the relationship between interest rates and the economy by making 3.40% permanent, no matter where the economy goes.

This is not a good use of taxpayer dollars. Not only does it not achieve the desired effect of making college affordable, it potentially reduces the income of college graduates, depressing the economy. The fact is that too many Americans are going to college. Half of all Americans are below average intelligence, and no amount of education can change that. The economy requires doctors and lawyers, but it also needs waitresses, janitors, and bus drivers. How many college graduates do we really need? Currently 45% of all high school graduates enroll in a four year college!

The net effect of unreasonable high college attendance rates are multiple:

• Higher tuition, driven by supply and demand. Eventually, the market will respond by increasing capacity and accepting more students, leading to
  
• Lower wages for college graduates, based on the same principle. The increased number of college graduates and lower wages for graduates combine to produce
• Higher job qualification requirements. After all, if you have an excess of college graduates, which don't cost significantly more than non-graduates to hire, most employers will prefer the college graduate. Eventually a college degree becomes a requirement for jobs that previously were done by high school graduates. This further increases the demand for college education, leading to
  
• Lowered educational standards. As every American realizes that a college education is the only way to survive, the market responds by creating an educational system that allows every American to graduate.

This vicious cycle is already in place. Nobody will contest that tuition has risen, attendance is up, more Americans hold degrees, a degree is more important than it was in the past when it comes to job hunting, and our universities are failing to maintain high standards. This isn't a what-if theory about the future, it's an observation of the present.

As a culture it's time to drop the notion that everybody deserves the same. Every man is created equal, but what we achieve in life separates us. Only the students who excel in high school and prove the ability to perform at a higher level should be afforded the chance to attend college. To do otherwise demeans our entire educational system, and produces a nation of idiots with degrees.

Scappleface has a story on this issue as well. Check it out.

Labels: education, taxes

Permalink

Fatah honors Saddam Hussein

The main square in the Jenin refugee camp has been renamed by Fatah after Saddam Hussein, the brutal dictator who engaged in genocide against various ethnic groups, invaded two of his neighbors, and routinely had innocent people ritually killed for his own pleasure. Yeah, that Saddam Hussein.

Yet Fatah is an ally of the United States. An ally to the tune of an additional $86 million dollars of your tax dollars spent on improving Fatah's military force. The money is granted to "assist the Palestinian Authority presidency in fulfilling PA commitments under the road map (peace plan) to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism and establish law and order in the West Bank and Gaza," according to a U.S. government document.

That's okay, though, because Fatah is fighting against Hamas, and is therefore against terrorism, against violence, and just generally a friend of the American way of life. This renaming of the main square is obviously a clerical error, a mistake, a political gaffe. Heck, just read the American media accounts of Abbas's latest speech:

AP - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told a large rally of his Fatah movement Thursday that he won't allow fighting with their Hamas rivals to continue and called on opposing factions to respect each other.

AFP - Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas assured tens of thousands of supporters that he was determined to prevent further factional clashes with rival Hamas after weeks of internecine bloodshed.

While both of these articles contain quotes from Abbas's speech, neither contain any of the following language, also from the same speech:

When Fatah was established, it was accused of treason and we were chased in every place. But with the will and determination of its sons, Fatah has and will continue. We will not give up our principles and we have said that rifles should be directed against the occupation.... We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation. It is forbidden to use these guns against Palestinians. The occupation has perpetrated brutal attacks in Jenin, Beit Hanun and Ramallah.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but if you want to really see the news in Israel, read an Israeli paper. If you read American news stories written by Americans, you're going to hear what Americans want you to hear. You can't be educated if you don't read both sides of every story.

The fact is Abbas did call for Palestinian restraint, as the American media claims. He just wants Palestinians to stop fighting each other, so they can use the $86 million dollars the U.S. just gave him to go fight the Israelis.

Thanks to No More Spin for the heads-up on this story.

Labels: israel, media

Permalink

Iraq news ... from Iraq!

Lately, it seems that all discussions of Iraq are really discussions of Bush, and how the Democrats want to change our strategy. What is the best course for America? Bush's plan to increase troop strength, or the Democrat's plan to concede defeat? I've already posted my opinions on how we need to change the way we're fighting the war, and I think that Bush's plan incorporates some, but not all, of my opinions. But that's not what this post is about.


This post is a reminder that not all Iraqi news is made in Washington, DC. This post is a reminder that things are really happening in Baghdad, and if you want to know what they are, you should talk to those in Baghdad. Not a reporter from DC who flew over for a week to write a few articles, but someone who has lived there their entire life.

Specifically, I recommend Omar and Mohammed, whose blog Iraq the Model has been linked as the first link on my "Good Blogs" sidebar for a very long time. The last three posts have covered an ongoing security operation, which while widely publicized in Iraq, has escaped Western media coverage. It'd be a shame if our media put out any GOOD news for a change.

The first post discussed what Mohammad thought was the beginning of the operation:

The battles left more than 50 militants killed and more than a dozen captured, seven of whom are Syrians and this supports what we reported in our last post that eyewitnesses said. Meanwhile there have been more clashes in Al-Aamil district in western Baghdad yesterday and we learned that all roads and bridges leading to that area are now closed, with helicopters hovering above.

The second post discusses the raids in more detail, and includes some imagery on what life is like in the most insurgent-ridden parts of Baghdad. It also includes some interesting reactions to Bush's plan, including discussion in the Iraqi Parliament:

A few hours later a flood of comments from Iraqi politicians filled the media here and maybe the earliest and most interesting argument was the one that took place between Abdul Kareem Al-Inizi of the UIA (from a branch of the Dawa party that split from the original Dawa of Jafari and Maliki) and Mithal al-Alusi during yesterday's session of the parliament.

Al-Inizi said "Iraq is not an American state and Bush must consult with us before making such decisions about sending troops…" to which al-Alusi responded by saying "We have an elected prime minister and he was consulted…you and others like yourself wouldn't be sitting here had America not helped us. They are trying to protect this democracy and they possess what they can offer to help us with the security situation, but what do you have?? Cut the nonsense, ok? Do you think the parliament wants to vote about this? Fine, let's ask everybody if they want such voting…"

There was only silence in the hall after this and no one said another word about voting.

The final post covers an Al-Sabaah story that neighboring provinces are already finding insurgents flooding in from Baghdad in fear of combined U.S./Iraqi forces. What the article doesn't mention is that the operation is still in the very early phases. Still, the effect of the latest campaign is starting to show. Check out today's top three stories on Al-Sabaah, none of which were covered by CNN:

[Iraqi] MPs Optimist[sic] of Achieving Stability Soon
Numbers of police volunteers in Ramadi increased
16 Wanted Arrested

CNN's top story?

A journalist who saw videotape of the hangings of Saddam Hussein's half-brother and the dictator's former chief judge has described how one of the men was decapitated. John F. Burns, from the New York Times, told CNN that Barzan Hassan al-Tikriti's head "just snapped off." He said both men looked "deeply frightened" in the execution chamber.

Which brings me full-circle. If you want to know what's important to the Iraqi people, ask the Iraqi people. Read Iraqi newspapers. Read Iraqi blogs. Don't ask the opinion of some Atlanta-based tourist with a media visa and a video camera.

Labels: iraq, media

Permalink

It's Different on the Internet...

The RIAA is at it again, and this year they've got Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Joseph Biden (D-DE), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) backing them up. Specifically, those are the sponsors of the "Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act" (PERFORM), which was introduced (and failed) in 2006 and re-introduced Thursday. (Last year it was only sponsored by Feinstein and Graham)

In a nutshell, the law requires satellite, cable music, and Internet broadcasters to "use reasonably available and economically reasonable technology to prevent music theft." It also would have the government responsible for determining the royalties paid to music companies for the use of music libraries over these media. It also requires all Internet, satellite, and cable broadcasters to incorporate DRM (digital rights management), that same technology that prevents some CDs from working in computers, lots of MP3s from working in certain MP3 players, and generally making it hard to put music in the form you want it. Note that Live365, Shoutcast, iTunes streaming, and the majority of small webcasters use MP3 or other non-DRM'ed technology to broadcast, meaning the majority of webcasters would have to develop new technology to comply with this bill.

Under current law, broadcasters cannot actively assist listeners in pirating music. They are required to use DRM, but only if the format they are using has DRM features. The changes put the FCC in the role of forcing broadcasters of digital music to adopt technologies that prevent consumers from copying (or time-shifting) broadcasted music.

Yes, it's illegal to pirate music, whether you do it via FM radio, satellite, or the Internet. However, under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, Subchapter D, you can legally make analog or digital copies of broadcasts (time-shifting, or recording for later playback, has consistently been upheld as fair use by the Supreme Court). This bill changes that by making it illegal to copy digitally transmitted music, while still allowing analog music. Check out the EFF article about last year's version for more information.

Ironically, Senator Sununu (R-NH) has announced that he intends to introduce a bill that will prohibit the FCC from enacting technology mandates, such as the broadcast flag and other DRM-like technologies. Should such a bill pass, it would prevent the FCC from enforcing S.256.

It's really simple folks. Fair use is fair use, and there's nothing wrong or illegal about copying a broadcast to listen to it at a later date. There is something wrong about copying your favorite songs off the radio and creating a mix tape. Unfortunately there's no way to build a technology that allows one but prevents the other, because the intrinsic difference is intent of the end user. The government should not restrict freedoms of broadcasters to use the technologies they want, nor restrict the freedoms of individuals to exercise fair use rights, in an effort to prevent illegal pirating of music. And I'm sure everyone except the RIAA will agree the government has no business setting the royalty rates for music.

Write your Senator to complain about this one. Also, register at govtrack.us, an excellent website that allows you to research virtually any action by Congress. You can have daily updates sent to your inbox, showing all activities by certain representatives, on certain issues, or on certain bills. Or just see everything (but prepare for lengthy e-mails).

Labels: personal freedoms

Permalink

How to Get Free Airfare

You're going to love this one. I hate to even write about it -- I want to tell you to just read the Washington Post article, then come back.

Okay, I know you didn't click on the link, so here goes:

Tommie Rice was arrested in Nashville for driving on a suspended license. When he was taken in, Tennessee police ran his name and saw that he was wanted for murder in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Although he insisted he'd never even been to Maryland, he was flown to Maryland to face trial.

Tommie Rice spent three weeks in jail, including Christmas and New Years, before anyone checked his fingerprints. Guess what? There's more than one person named Tommy Rice in America, and this wasn't the right guy.

Let's hear it for police that fly a suspect halfway across the country without even checking his story. Or even his fingerprints. Let's hear it for a three week imprisonment without evidence. And most importantly, let's here it for what Maryland finally did when they realized their mistake:

They drove him to a homeless shelter.

Since his release, Tommie Rice has been calling relatives trying to get them to lend him money for a flight home. In the meantime, Montgomery County Sheriff Kight has said he would "try" to get him home. "We definitely owe him a ride back to Tennessee and an apology," he said. Kind words for a man you held without evidence for three weeks, then dumped in an out-of-state homeless shelter.

You owe him more than an apology and a ride home. What's three weeks of your life worth to you? What would you do if you were imprisoned for three weeks because you shared a name with a murderer?

In any case, it's obvious what Tommie needs to do. Just wait until someone by the same name, living in Tennessee, commits a crime.

Labels: dc, personal freedoms

Permalink

Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to Hide

The U.S. government was derided for producing decks of cards with terrorists and wanted criminals, but those decks are long forgotten today. Why? Because most of the cards have big X's through them now. Strike another one up, possibly two.

Yesterday an AC-130 gunship rained fire and death down on terrorists fleeing from Somali and Ethiopian forces in Hayi and on an island training camp.

Today helicopters killed an estimated 30 terrorists hiding under foilage near Afmadow, about 30 miles from Hayi. There were reports the helicopters were American, but the military has denied operating the helicopters, which witnesses did not see any markings on.

Today's strike was aimed at Tariq Abdullah, aka Abu Talha al-Sudani, known as an explosive expert, Al Qaeda trainer, and planner for at least one terrorist attack against U.S. forces. Fazul Abdullah Mohammad, one of the two major planners of the twin bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, was also reported to be killed. Both fatalities have yet to be confirmed, and will be difficult to confirm in the near future.

Who owned those helicopters? I don't know. It doesn't really matter, when you get down to it. Somalia and Ethiopia have both stated that they believe the best way to stablize the region is to eliminate terrorists as they find them. As a result, they are allowing U.S. forces the right to attack when and where we find them. America, Somalia, and Ethiopia are freely sharing intelligence on the location of terrorists, and whoever is best positioned to take advantage of the intelligence is doing so. Thus, the USS Eisenhower stationed off the Somalia coast.

The bottom line? Nevermind what the Democrats and Peacemongers are saying. America has not given up on chasing down terrorists and killing them. We're no longer in a target-rich environment, but key Al Qaeda leaders are continuing to die across the world. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Somalia... everywhere they hide, they find enemies. Period.

Labels: Somalia, terrorism

Permalink

Take My Children ... PLEASE!

Sorry, no link for this, but this morning on the radio I heard some rather disturbing news. Legislators are planning to reintroduce a bill to help police stop underage drinking in Frederick County. Under current law, a police officer witnessing a minor in possession of an alcoholic beverage may arrest the minor for underage possession of alcohol. Additionally, an officer who witnesses a driving minor who appears to be under the influence of alcohol may arrest the same. The new law would allow an officer to detain a minor who simply appears to be acting as if under the influence of alcohol on suspicion of underage drinking. He could also force a breathalyzer test.

This bill was introduced last year and failed, as some opponents feared that this would grant too much power to the police. Well, of course it does! Most importantly, you're giving police the power to harass minors without evidence. Remember when Washington DC allowed DUI arrests based solely on the officer's judgement of intoxication? Before that law was finally changed, we saw numerous arrests and convictions for DUI of drivers with a BAC under 0.04, and one arrest of a driver who blew a 0.00 BAC at the scene. Give Maryland troopers the same authority, and you'll get the same results.

No standards exist to define at what point an officer can stop a minor and force a breathalyzer test. If an eighteen year old is jogging through the park and sees an attractive young lady, he may weave slightly as he is distracted. Can he now be tested for his erratic jogging? This law would give police the authority to perform an unreasonable search and seizure on a minor without justification or evidence except the officer's judgement.

I'm also curious as to what the minor would be charged with. In the vast majority of states, including Maryland, the consumption of alcohol while under the age of 21 is not a crime. Purchase, possession, and consumption prior to driving are, but consumption is not. Why? Because the law specifically allows immediate family members to provide alcohol to minors within their own homes. If you can convince your parents that you're mature enough to drink, you are home free. And yes, I know a great number of parents that do purchase beer and wine for their children in Maryland.

So, in a nutshell, Bob the 18 year old kid is going to prom. He's hired a limo, so he isn't driving. His libertarian parents split a bottle of champagne with him first, to celebrate his "growing up." Walking into the prom, a police officer decides to perform a breathalyzer on him, and finds he blows a 0.02. What's the charge? Drunk and disorderly? I don't get it.

You've all heard the argument that if you're old enough to serve your country, you're old enough to drink. Ironically, the majority of people I meet who agree with that statement feel that anyone in the military should be allowed to drink, while civilians should have to wait until they are twenty-one. You could do three full tours in Iraq before your twenty-first birthday. If you were mature enough to make that decision at eighteen, you were sure as hell mature enough to make a decision on a glass of beer. Even if you decided the military wasn't for you, surely you've now reach the point in life where you're responsible for your own actions?

Look, folks, don't any of you remember being twenty? Try to remember the first time you drank alcohol. How old were you? Did you do it in your own house with your parents? In college, maybe in a frat house?

The absolute best place to learn about alcohol is from your own parents. Your parents are there to teach you about life. This is why most states allow parents to provide alcohol to their children. If you do not teach your children about drinking, someone else will. Chances are that person will be a peer with no more experience that your kid. They're probably be influenced by movies showing severe intoxication. They'll probably purchase cheap flavorless beer and liquor, and consume it in great quantities.

I thank my parents for wisely introducing me to alcohol at an early age. Twelve, if you're counting. Of course, they closely monitored how much I drank, and I didn't even get a buzz on until I was sixteen. I was eighteen when I finally got drunk. Imagine that -- six years of experience appreciating alcohol before I first managed to get drunk.

The neo-prohibitionists want to outlaw responsible parenting. They think by delaying the consumption of alcohol as long as possible, they can remove it entirely from our culture. It's simply not true. What we're getting is a nation of closet drinking youth, afraid of any supervision while they explore adulthood.

My message to America is "Teach your children well." My message to the government is "Get out of our way. We're better than you at this."

Labels: alcohol, dc, nanny state, personal freedoms

Permalink

Israel Fingers the Big Red Button

Israel today talked about its plans for a nuclear strike against Iran. Lots of folks are freaking out, but I think we should be clear that the fact that Israel is talking about it means Israeli isn't doing it -- yet. If the intention were to launch a strike this week, the last thing Israel would do is talk about it. Instead, this press conference was intended as a warning to Iran that Israel will not stand idly by while Iran develops nukes.

There's no doubt that Israel can do it. They've got the weaponry, they've got the training and the long-strike capability. The question is whether Israel, the most hated nation in the Middle East, would be willing to provoke retaliatory strikes from virtually all its neighbors by becoming the first country since the Second World War to split atoms in anger.

In the Nervous Rodent's opinion, yes, they would.

But that doesn't mean they will. This saber-rattling isn't intended to influence Iran. Ahmadinejad won't back down to threats from Israel, and neither will the Supreme Leader. But America will probably go out of its way, to include changing foreign policy, to keep Israel from starting a nuclear war in the Middle East. Perhaps they're scared the US is going soft on Iran?

On one hand, we've been saber-rattling ourselves. Russia complained today about the U.S. imposing sanctions on Russian firms selling goods to Iran. The appointment of Admiral Fallon, a Navy admiral, to lead USCENTCOM, embroiled in two ground wars, is interesting. It's a direct warning to Iran, since a war with Iran would place America in a naval war. Add to this the fact that USCENTCOM changed policy last month and ceased considering Iranians "off-limits," upsetting both Iran and Iraq.

On the other hand, we're bogged down in two ground wars. Iraq and Afghanistan are keeping a significant portion of our troops occupied, and more importantly, silenced hawks in our society. Who wants to stand up and say we need a third war? Do we have an exit strategy for that war?

An attack against Iran isn't necessarily a good idea at this stage. But we can't take it completely off the table until we find a way to influence Iran to cease supporting terrorist operations. Put simply, Iran is funding and supplying weapons to Hezbollah, Taliban, and Iraqi terrorists. Excluding the war in Somalia, Iran is supporting terrorism in every conflict in the Middle East. Can we win in Iraq as long as a protected nation sharing a large border is supporting the terrorists? Or does this sound too much like another war in recent history, Vietnam?

I've written before about the differences between Iraq and Vietnam. The scale of the conflict is the difference least recognized by the media -- U.S. causality rates are orders of magnitude smaller in Iraq than in Vietnam. But there are similarities, and we can use those to learn lessons from history and lead us to a better outcome. Both involved a nation in civil war, with each side supported by powerful external countries that were not directly at war with each other. In both, we attempted to extract ourselves by passing responsibility for the fighting to the local forces. In both, we'll have lost if we leave the other external power to finish the civil war unopposed.

What does all this mean, then? It means we must find a way to convince Iran to cease supporting terrorists around the world. Until we do, we'll remain in a stalemate, with the best possible outcome continued low-level violence as we see in Afghanistan. So if you're wondering why America insists on toeing a hard line with Iran, now you know. Thousands of U.S. lives hang in the balance.

EDIT: AubreyJ put this link in the comments, I think it deserves to be in the body. Check out some additional info about Iran.

Labels: afghanistan, iran, iraq, israel, nukes

Permalink

I'm back....

Okay, so I've been missing for a few months. Nine, I think. I'm working full-time, and until recently, attending college as well, and it's been sucking up my free time. But I'm back now, hopefully for a good while.

The first thing I want to tell you about is a story I saw today on Reuters. This Tuesday, Wesley Autrey, 50, was waiting for a subway in NYC, just trying to get to work. He watched Cameron Hollopeter suffer from a seizure and fall onto the subway tracks, while a train was coming. Knowing that the convulsing man would be killed, Wesley jumped onto the tracks and held Cameron down so the train would pass safely overhead.

Safely overhead may be an exaggeration. Wesley was brushed by the train, getting grease and dirt on his clothes, yet he was unharmed. Cameron's life was saved by the extraordinary act of bravery Wesley committed. It's a great feel-good story, true. I was surprised to hear this happened in Harlem, of all places. I was amused to learn that Wesley's boss didn't believe his excuse for being late to work. But there is something else that Wesley did that caught my attention.

Mayor Michael Bloomburg gave Wesley the Bronze Medallion for exceptional citizenship and outstanding achievement, the first time it was been awarded since 2005. Bloomburg called Wesley a "real hero." Wesley Audrey responded by saying the real heroes were U.S. troops in Iraq.

Wesley, you're absolutely right. But that doesn't mean Mayor Bloomburg was wrong. Wesley Audrey is a hero, because he selflessly and knowingly risked his life to save another's. He's got a lot more in common with the U.S. troops than he realizes.

Labels: heroes, iraq, nyc

Permalink