Did Obama Lie? September 20, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Op-Ed.add a comment
Even a guy like me that doesn’t follow the news heard about the Congressman that yelled ‘You lie!’ during Obama’s speech to Congress.
So, the question is, did Obama actually lie when he said no health care would be provided to illegal aliens?
When I heard that the plan was to deny health care to illegal aliens, it made me recall a court case in Texas a number of years ago. There was a law in Texas that denied education benefits to illegals. The law was challenged in court and decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Plyler v. Doe. You can read the court decision here.
Basically what the court said was that the state cannot provide benefits to one group of people and deny those benefits to another group. The law was struck down.
Government provided health care would certainly fall under the definition of government provided benefits. By Plyler v. Doe, it would then be unconstitutional for the government to deny those benefits to a group of people within the U.S. while providing it to another. Illegal aliens will have full access to any government provided health care.
Now, the question isn’t whether or not this is acceptable. The question is, did Obama lie when he said illegals would not have access to government provided health care. Well, Obama was a constitutional law professor before running for office and is surrounded by a lot of very smart, well educated lawyers. If some yokel like me can figure this out, it is not plausible that all of these experts did not know it.
Since I’m on active duty, I don’t want to say anything that might be construed as being disrespectful of the Commander-in-Chief, so I won’t draw a conclusion here. Instead, I’ll leave that for you to decide if he lied or not.
FOLLOW-UP
It was pointed out that this editorial on Fox News was saying much the same thing I did. Note that the writer of this editorial is a judge.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Here is what Obama said in his speech to Congress:
There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
Obama At The Naval Academy May 27, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Arnold, Old Lyme, Op-Ed.add a comment
I have now had the privilege of seeing two different presidents make commencement addresses at military academies. I saw George W. Bush in 2007 at the Coast Guard Academy and I saw Barack Obama at the Naval Academy this year. This gives me a chance to compare the two, not only from my own perspective but also based on the comments other people made about each of them.
Bush was an eloquent speaker, not at all like his critics like to portray him. His speech was well delivered and he did not exhibit any of the claimed misspeaks and mispronunciations that are frequently attributed to him, even though his speech included many people and places with difficult to pronounce names. Obama was a very charismatic speaker with a pleasant voice. He delivered this speech quite well. As speakers, I would rate the two as being equal.
But, the they were really far apart on the topic of their speeches. Bush’s speech was very substantive. He gave a speech that dealt with acts of terrorism that had been prevented. This information was classified up until the day of the speech. Obama gave what amounted to a campaign speech. There was no substance and their was no message. He was all over the place and made a bunch of feel-good statements that are appealing to a crowd, but really mean nothing. When it comes to substance, Bush was way ahead of Obama and there is no debate, Bush’s speech was much superior.
You might chalk it up to Bush’s more than six years experience in the Whitehouse in 2007 to Obama’s four months worth. That would be fine, but there were several comments that Obama made that I found interesting. For instance, when he said,
It’s a promise that as long as I am your Commander in Chief, I will only send you into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary, and with the strategy, the well-defined goals, the equipment and the support you need to get the job done.
I really hope this was just a statement to please the crowd and that he doesn’t really mean it. This country has been sending its military into combat without the necessary training and equipment since the first Continental Congress and every president since then has followed suit. The first thing you do when there’s a military situation is send a military force there in the hope that if you can’t stop it quickly, you can at least get some control over the situation. I hope the commander-in-chief of this country would never decide that he was not going to take the necessary actions to defend the country because he didn’t feel the troops had the necessary training or equipment.
The crowd, I thought, was friendly, but not enthusiastic. The biggest cheer of the day occurred when Senator McCain was introduced by the graduating class (Senator McCain’s son graduated this year). I read once that McCain carried over 80% of the military vote and this reaction would reflect that (By the way, how I actually voted is my business, but I’ll say that I was not part of the 80%).
I talked to several people after both speeches and I heard mostly the same thing, so it wasn’t just my perception of the speeches. I think the conclusion I can reach is that Bush’s reputation for bad speeches was not warranted and Obama needs to put more effort into his military academy speeches.
But, if you just want a nice sounding speech without substance, it was a fine speech.
The Politics of Greed May 11, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Arnold, Op-Ed.add a comment
I consider myself to be an extreme optimist. My ex-wife was against me joining an optimist club because she thought they were pessimists compared to me. But, I find myself being a pessimist concerning the nation today.
I was having a conversation with a neighbor the other night and it left me depressed. What is most interesting to me is the fact that this guy was so optimistic and just bubbling with enthusiasm. The more I listened to him, the more troubled I was.
He was going on about how things are going so much better now and that the country is on the ‘right track.’ The stimulus bill and the spending by Congress and the President was going to make everything right. The mid-term elections in 2010, he said, would be really wonderful if things kept going the way they are. And, I realized he was right. And, that’s what made me depressed.
What I heard was someone that sounded like a teenager with a new credit card. Take that card and spend the money. Buy a new TV, new furniture, get a fancy car! While we’re at it, let’s buy a house on subprime terms so we can afford it. Life is good!
Of course, we all know the downside to this line of thought. Sooner or later, the card will be maxed out and you have to then pay the bills on it. The subprime loan becomes due and you find out you bought more house than you can afford, or even sell. And, since you’re spending a large percentage of your money on the finance charges, your standard of living begins to drop. Eventually, you are forced to file for bankruptcy.
We’ve seen all of this before. We’ve seen it on the personal level with the average person. We’ve seen it at the corporate level with all of the corporate greed gutting giant businesses. And, we’ve seen all of these entities collapse. But, now, we’re witnessing it at the government level and, somehow, people think its a good thing.
Tell me, what happens when the government can no longer make its payments? Do you really think that’s a crazy idea? Servicing the national debt is now the third largest item in the government budget. The amount of money spent on interest payments in 2008 was $412 billion. Obama and this Congress will have increased the national debt by 20% in the just the first year of his term. Servicing the national debt will be proportionally more expensive in the future and is about to become the largest single item in the budget. That is money that could have gone to something else.
But, you say, its OK as long as tax revenues increase enough to cover these payments. First, and most importantly, that is not the case. Interest payments have been growing faster than tax revenues. And, I’m very certain that tax revenues will not grow 20% this year.
But, that is a false argument to begin with. I am very conservative with my own money. With the exception of my mortgage, I have no debt. I don’t use credit cards, I pay cash for everything. When I bought my car I borrowed the money only because it was a 0% interest loan – there were no finance charges. I still have that car after six years and hope to keep it for another 7-8 years. I keep my money in interest bearing accounts so I don’t pay interest, I earn it. I live by a simply creed, ‘If I can’t pay cash for it, I don’t need it.’
How much difference does this make? You can probably see for yourself. Take all of your bills for the last month and add up the finance charges you paid. That is how much extra money I have in my pocket every month that you don’t. If you’re like most people, you may be paying over a thousand dollars every month for finance charges. I can do a lot with $1000 a month.
These same principles apply to the government. We need some debt to provide a sound financial system in the country. But, we don’t need to be spending this much every year. The effect has become to undermine the financial system, not support it. The government doesn’t even have to default on its payments, just the idea that government securities might be downgraded will be enough to cause a worldwide financial panic on a scale that has never been seen before.
And, this takes me back to the conversation with my neighbor. After everything we’ve seen the last year, you would think we would learn our lesson.
We’ve seen the collapse of the home mortgage industry as millions of people found they had bought more than they could reasonably afford. They, people said, were greedy fools.
We’ve seen the collapse of one giant corporation after another as the executives and unions have robbed the company of everything it had, diverting income streams into their pockets and benefits, instead of back into the company. They, people said, were greedy fools.
Now, the government is spending like crazy, giving everyone that can vote money for their pet projects. But, somehow, this is a good thing and the country is viewed as being on the ‘right track.’ How is it that we just don’t learn our lessons?
I really don’t need to go any further than my own family to witness the politics of greed first hand. My family is hard working. We all have jobs and don’t live on handouts. We’re all educated. All nine of us kids have at least some college education and there are several graduate degrees among us. I like to think that we are all intelligent. But, when the issue of the stimulus bill came up, I would hear my brothers and sisters say that they supported it because money was going to go to this or that, something they liked and supported. The fact that this was borrowed money that would have to be payed back was never mentioned.
And, that is why I think my neighbor is right about the 2010 elections. People don’t care that the money has to be paid back. They reason that it has to be paid back by the government, not by them. Of course, at least in theory, they are the government and the money the government spends is coming out of their pockets.
But, that isn’t the way people think. Taxes are taken out automatically and people never see that money, so they don’t feel like they lost anything. But, if they had to sit down every month and write a check to the government to pay for their taxes they would have a very different opinion. Take a look at your earnings statement. Compare the amount of taxes withheld from your pay to the amount of money you have to spend after all of your bills are paid.
And, of course, that money won’t have to be paid back by 2010, or even 2012. That will be left for some future administration and they will have to be the villains that cut the budget to pay for today’s politics of greed.
Science Under the New Administration March 2, 2009
Posted by physics309 in Musings, Op-Ed, Science.add a comment
There were a number of things about the Bush Administration that I was critical of. I know people that are just rabid in their hatred of Bush and everything about Bush. Their hatred has become so illogical as to be irrational. I am most certainly not in their camp, but neither am I supportive of much of his actions. I try to look at his record in a logical and factual light.
For instance, I was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. But, once we started it, we had to see it through and was a supporter of the Surge. Even now, I still think Bush was wrong with the invasion, but I think events have shown him to be right about the Surge.
Another area that I strongly disagreed with him was his treatment of science. I felt that science was often treated as an undesirable under the Bush administration. The religious right was so influential that anything that didn’t sit well with fundamental Christianity was delegated to a status of undesirable. Scientists working on climate change were officially silenced if their work did not support the administration’s position on climate change. Being a scientist and a professor, it stands to reason that I strongly disagreed with this philosophy.
So, it has been with a sense of relief that I see Obama elevating science back up. One notable appointment has been Steven Chu to be Secretary of Energy. Winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, Dr. Chu has been the chief of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, so he has a strong background both in science and management.
Another physicist appointment is John Holdren to be the President’s science advisor and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Dr. Holdren has run the science, technology, and public policy program at Harvard University since 1996. He also worked as a theoretical physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
A third science pick has been Carol Browner, former administrator of the EPA to fill the newly created position of assistant to the President for energy and climate change.
This makes me feel comfortable that science in general, and climate change in particular, will finally receive the attention it needs. There is simply no better investment that we can make than to invest in our intellectual infrastructure. This infrastructure was neglected and even damaged by the Bush administration. Hopefully, the Obama administration will fix a few things.
Problems with General Motors November 18, 2008
Posted by physics309 in Op-Ed.add a comment
At one time, GM was the largest corporation in the world and had over 50% of all automobile sales in the U.S. In December 2003, its stock traded at more than $53 a share. Yesterday, the stock closed at $3.18 share. That’s a decline of 94% in less than five years. In other words, for every dollar you invested in GM five years ago, you have six cents remaining.
The troubles of the U.S. automakers is all over the news, but nothing stands out like the problems of General Motors. There is probably no better example of how to do business the wrong way.
You just have to wonder how it was possible for a company with so much going for it was able to squander it all and wind up on the verge of collapse? No doubt, it will be debated for a long time, will be cited in business management classes for decades, and has many causes. But, not all causes are equal. Some really stand out more than others.
The first question to ask is how were foreign car makers able to come into its own market and take over? The answer to that is easy. The foreign car manufacturers came in with a superior product and the American companies were slow to respond in kind. Looking back over the last 30 years, American cars were inferior in design and construction to foreign cars. What they were counting on is ‘Buy American’. In other words, buy an inferior product and support Americans. Instead, the American consumer looked at how much money it took to buy a car and decided to get the most for his money. By the time American car companies responded, they had already lost a lot of market share. Once a customer is lost, its very hard to ever get them back again. People that bought a foreign made car were not likely to come back and buy an American made one the next time. This began the downward spiral.
Management of GM was atrocious. There is no other word for it. I have long looked at GM as one of the worst managed companies in the world. Given opportunities, they always squandered them. Given problems, they always found a way to make the wrong choices. In this way, issues continued to compound.
All along, they were giving out millions of dollars in executive salaries and compensation, millions that should have been going to turn the company around. I’ve heard the argument that these millions of dollars were justified because the people brought in more money than the cost of the compensation. I say ‘Bunk!’ The question isn’t whether they brought in more than they cost (something I dispute, anyways), but the real question is, ‘Was the amount they were bringing in that much greater than what someone else would bring in?’ If you could replace these multi-million dollar executives with cheaper ones and the job got done just the same, you cannot justify their salaries and bonuses. In my opinion, there are few, if any, executives that are worth tens of millions of dollars. Everyone can be replaced. If they had allowed the executives to walk out and replaced them someone else, the decisions would have been made anyways and the company would have saved that much more money to invest in other things.
But, the biggest mismanagement of all had to do with the way they dealt with the UAW. Never have I seen a group more dedicated to the collapse of its own employer. The UAW seems to be intentionally engaged in ensuring its members all lose their jobs and benefits. And, the GM management just went merrily along with them, too afraid of a strike to stand up to the UAW and do what was necessary to turn the company around.
I saw that the union president, Roy Gettlefinger, said the union is not at fault. ‘Blame the economy’ is what he says. I have to ask Mr. Gettlefinger a question, if the economy is the only reason for the problems with the U.S. automakers, how is it possible for Toyota to make a profit manufacturing cars in the U.S.? They have the same workers, the same resources, and the same economy. But, Toyota is making a profit doing it.
Here is the problem. Forbes says the cost to U.S. automakers for its employees is $73 per hour, including benefits, while Toyota is paying $47 per hour. Here is an analysis of the situation by a professor of economics and finance. What is really interesting is to read the comments on the bottom of his blog.
The UAW has pushed GM to the brink of bankruptcy and refuses to accept it. Because of this, I am firmly against any bailout of the automakers. I know, it will cost millions of jobs and hundreds of billions in lost tax revenue if they go under. But, I don’t see that that a government bailout will make a difference when the source problems still exist. What is not being advertised in this mess is that the government already gave the automakers a $25 billion loan just in September. That one was to help them develop fuel-efficient vehicles. Of course, I have to wonder why it is that they haven’t been doing that with determination for the last 35 years? But, that’s another issue.
The question is, ‘Should Congress bail-out the automakers?’ I say ‘No’. They must change the way they are doing business before any government bail-out will make a difference. If they continue doing business the way they currently are, we will be back in this situation within a matter of months. GM said it went through $6.9 billion in the third quarter. Assuming GM were to get half of that $25 billion, at its current rate it would go through that money in less than six months. Does anyone claim the situation will change so radically in that time span that GM will suddenly be able to survive on its own? The only chance GM has is to deal with the labor costs. Bankruptcy is the best place to do that. The union will demand something in return, if they are forced to give back wage and benefits costs. I say the thing they get in return is the chance to keep their jobs.
So, what do I think are GM’s chances? Well, I drove over an hour to get to a dealer Saturday morning and spent several hours there getting everything done to my car that needed to get done. I wanted to make sure my car was in good shape while there’s still a GM around to do it.
Thoughts About Obama and McCain November 11, 2008
Posted by physics309 in Op-Ed.add a comment
I will say right up front that I am disappointed in Obama’s election. I do not think he is qualified to be president and I have great reservations about his politics and his character. At this point, most people are saying, ‘That’s because you’re a Republican and your guy lost!’ and that’s just not true. I am certainly not a Republican and I would be saying the exact same thing if McCain had won. I really felt this election presented the worst choices for president that I have ever seen.
Obama simply does not have a record. He has been a senator for two years and in those years has not sponsored a single bill and was absent from the senate more often than anyone else. He has a long history of associating with people that are disgraceful and even criminal. And, yes, I really do believe you can tell a lot about some by the company they keep. But, there was a very disturbing aspect of Obama that was not brought out very much. Stories would repeatedly come out about how he did or said something and he would deny it, even when there was conclusive proof of his actions. I really expected him to start using Bill Clinton’s old line he used when caught, “That’s old news. Can’t we move on?” What does it say about Obama that he lied to the people on a frequent and regular basis? Why was he so ashamed of his record that he lied in multiple attempts to hide it?
I also thought it was interesting the Democrats pointed at Sarah Palin’s lack of credibility as a reason to vote for Obama. Now, don’t get me wrong. I will never vote for Sarah Palin, but if they are going to point at Palin, then we need to look at Biden. And, just where was Joe Biden in all of this? They went out of their way to make sure their own VP candidate was out of sight and away from the press. Every time the guy opened his mouth it was a reason to vote McCain. He was a walking, talking ad for McCain! No wonder he was hard to find anywhere. But, people don’t vote for the number two guy, they vote because of the guy at the top of the ticket. Neither Biden nor Palin was really a factor in this election. If you think I’m wrong, just look at the Bush41 election of 1988 when he ran with Dan Quayle. Everyone in the country knew Quayle was completely unqualified for the position, but voted for Bush anyway.
But, the Republicans have to stop nominating old, white guys if they want to energize the electorate. McCain is a true war hero, but that isn’t enough for me to feel he is qualified to lead the country. The fact is, this was his election to lose – and he did. I’ve heard people say Bush’s record was to blame and I think that’s a load of crock. McCain was leading and expanding the lead until the financial crisis in October. If McCain had displayed leadership at that time, I think he could have won the election. In any event, Bush’s policies were clearly not preventing him from taking the lead. And, I’ve heard people blame McCain’s handlers and that is very troubling, also. Either that isn’t true and McCain failed to show his leadership, or it is true and he allowed himself to be mismanaged. If he did that on the campaign trail, what was he going to do in the Oval Office? I never felt McCain had a vision for the country. Like Bill Clinton, I felt he was running simply because he thought it would be cool to be president and go into the history books.
In the end, McCain did not lose this election because of other factors, he lost because the American people did not feel he was someone they wanted elect.
So, now Obama gets a chance to follow through with his promises, which might be a problem. He has promised about a trillion dollars in new spending, while inheriting a budget deficit that this year hit $500 billion and is projected to go as high as a trillion dollars a year. He says he’s going to pay for this with unspecified budget cuts and by taxing the top 95% of wage earners. Even if he took every penny the top 95% make, it would be only a few billion dollars. If he wants to pay for all of this, it will have to be through budget cuts or by taxing much more than just the top 95%. There are no budget cuts that can be made that will pay a trillion dollars a year. Only a small percentage of the budget is discretionary and the majority is automatic expenditures.
So, does this mean he’ll raise taxes on everyone else? We’ll see. As a few notes, the lowest 40% of wage earners pay no taxes at all. And, Obama is already on record as saying he may continue Bush’s tax cuts until the recession is over. This means he realizes tax cuts are good for the economy, which is good for tax revenues. So, does this mean the 95% tax pledge was nothing more than campaign rhetoric to fire up those in the lower income brackets?
As far as Bush’s record is concerned, it will be interesting to see what happens now that Bush’s problems become Obama’s problems. What is he going to do about Iraq now that we are winning that war? What is he going to do about Afghanistan and the terrorists in the lawless regions of Pakistan? What is he going to do about Guantamo Bay? People may not like GTMO, but what happens if we close it? What do we do with the terrorists there? They have released the not so bad ones and the only ones left are the really nasty guys (I mean, REALLY nasty!). Do we put them back on the streets? Or, do we close the base, bring them into the U.S. and give them full rights? That would mean we then have to reveal all of our evidence, which might compromise our sources. Obama might find out its a lot easier to make decisions on these things while on the campaign trail when you won’t be held responsible.
And, what about his relationship with Congress? I read a prediction that there will be a two-year honeymoon between them. I sure hope not. The one thing that inspires me about Obama is his constant pledge to change things in Washington. This is a city that is critically broken and needs some serious change. How could he change things and at the same time have a honeymoon with the very people most responsible for the problems?
Will Obama be a good president? Or, will he be Jimmy Carter the second? Twenty years from now, will we be talking about Obama the Great? Or, will we be lamenting how we are still cleaning up his messes. There is no way to tell at this time. But, in any event, he is the choice of the American people to lead the nation and we have to do what we can to help him suceed. For all of our sakes, I hope he is successful.
Republican or Democrat? – Thoughts on the Election October 13, 2008
Posted by physics309 in Op-Ed.add a comment
I had a conversation with a guy last spring in which he stated, “I’m a [pick your political party of choice], an American and a Catholic! In that order!” I said, “That’s great. The [blank] party is more important than America.” He looked thoughtful, but didn’t make a response. I thought that was response enough and perfectly indicative of the mess we’ve made for ourselves.
I left out his political affiliation for the reason that it doesn’t matter. I’ve heard or read similar statements. “We have to elect a Democrat!” or “We have to put another Republican in the White House!” What ever happened to voting for the most qualified candidate?
As a dedicated independent, I find the whole process troubling. Neither of the major candidates would have been my choice. And, I don’t believe they would have been the choice of the majority of the electorate, but we didn’t get a say-so. Each party is controlled by the extremists in their respective parties and these are the people that decide the primaries. You don’t get to vote in a primary unless you belong to the party and the people most likely to belong to a political party are the ones that most strongly agree with that party. Those of us that are independent in our political philosophies don’t get to vote in the primaries and are then stuck.
An example of what I’m talking about occurred a couple of years ago in Connecticut. Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman was running for reelection, but the Democrats wouldn’t support him and nominated someone else in their primary. They didn’t feel Lieberman was liberal enough. Since it was controlled by the most liberal of Democrats, the guy they picked reflected their views. In short, they selected a candidate that no one but a Democrat would vote for. The Republicans then selected a candidate that even the Republicans wouldn’t vote for. As a result, Joe Lieberman running as an independent picked up all of the votes of people that were dissatisfied with the two main choices and won reelection.
But, boy were the Democrats pissed. Elections have taken on the air of a sports game and everyone is rooting for their side to win. The Democrats felt that their guy would’ve won if Lieberman hadn’t run as an Independent and he was considered a traitor, as a result. No one seemed to care that the majority of the electorate preferred Lieberman to the two other candidates. The issue was that their party didn’t win.
We are so wrapped up in this ‘party’ politics now. If someone supports party x, then they’re opposed to other guy simply because he’s a member of party y. It doesn’t matter that he might be better than the party x candidate because, obviously, every one in party x is better than anyone from party y. After all, that’s why someone wants to be a member of party x. Therefore, the party x candidate is better than the party y candidate simply by the fact that he’s the party x candidate! Party x chose him and that’s enough to make him a better candidate than any candidate that party y might pick. And, they are willing to tear the country apart to prove it. This is so pervasive that millions of dollars are donated to each party even before its known who their candidate will be.
As for me? I have my absentee ballot and have been looking it over. I’m still officially a resident of South Dakota because of my military orders and am registered to vote there. I am less thrilled with my choices than I have ever been before. I was hoping there was a chance to write-in a candidate, but that is not an option.
But, if I could write someone in, who would I write-in? That’s easy.
None of the Above.
Nudist Parader June 18, 2008
Posted by physics309 in Op-Ed.add a comment
The news wires are burning up this morning with a story about a woman who is planning on participating topless in the town’s 4th of July parade. When I read the story, I get a kind of ’so what?’ feeling.
The story is about a woman, Jen Moss, that goes around topless in the town of Ashland, Oregon. There is nothing illegal about this and one of the reasons she moved to Ashland is because of the laws there. So, now she wants to go topless in the 4th of July parade and they are saying its not appropriate. Well, if its not appropriate, then why do they allow it? I mean, if you’re going to let women go around with their boobs hanging out all day, how can you say its not appropriate?
I’m fully on Jen’s side of this story. If its OK for men to go topless and hang their fat, hairy bellies out, how come women can’t go topless (even if they have fat, hairy bellies). Look around and you’ll see guys with manboobs that are bigger than most women’s. For some reason, its OK for them to show them in public, but its not OK for women. Now, I have been places where men aren’t allowed to go topless either. Military gyms, for instance, require everyone to cover up. That’s OK, as long as the rules are the same for everyone.
I have to think a lot of this has to do with American prudishness. We think its all right to show bodies being destroyed, but a naked one is somehow a bad thing.
Jen is also a supporter of the legalization of hemp, another subject that I’m supportive of. Hemp is not marijuana and is a very valuable, environmentally friendly cash crop.
A curious note about this story. I wanted to see what Jen looked like and had a difficult time finding a picture of her. Even websites that supported her did not show her picture. Well, here you go.
Reservist Refusing to Serve June 17, 2008
Posted by physics309 in Op-Ed.add a comment
I read a story about an Army Reservist, Matthis Chiroux, who was recalled and has refused to serve. Chiroux was previously on active duty for five years before leaving active duty and transferring to the Individual Ready Reserves (IRR), a low-level standby group of reservists. He was recently mobilized from the IRR and ordered to report in for duty in Iraq, which he refused to do. He claims the war in Iraq is unconstitutional and illegal. He and his father are calling the mobilization of members of the IRR as a ‘back-door draft.’
In a case like this, it is always important to keep the facts straight.
First, the war in Iraq is neither illegal or unconstitutional. You may not approve of it, I certainly don’t, but the government proceeded in a proper manner in this matter, including getting approval for its actions by Congress and U.N. Security Council.
Second, mobilization of the IRR is not a ‘back-door draft’ because members of the IRR volunteered to be there and signed a contract with the U.S. government when they did. Part of that contract is that they may be allowed to fulfill part of their obligation in the IRR, but they are still subject to mobilization. All of this is clearly spelled out and explained at the time you volunteer.
Chiroux volunteered to serve the country, took the pay and training the country provided, and has now decided he doesn’t want to fulfill his end of the bargain because he disagrees with the decision to go to war. I have just one word for him, ‘Tough.’
The nation and our national leaders must be able to depend on the military performing as ordered, even when the members may disagree with the decisions. To do otherwise is mutiny and leads to chaos. It is simply not up to the individual members of the armed forces to decide when and where they will serve. They are not allowed to say, ‘Gee, I don’t agree with these orders to fight so I’m going to just sit this one out.’ That’s not the way it works. Bottom line, if you don’t want to fight when ordered to fight, don’t join the military. Just what did Chiroux think being in the Army meant?
The story says he may be facing prosecution for his decision and I hope he does. In fact, I’m hoping the Army throws everything they have against him. I have no problem with conscientious objectors and people who don’t want to serve, but Chiroux isn’t either one. He’s a coward and someone who can’t be depended on to live up to his word.
I wonder what Chiroux and his father would say if someone gets killed because his unit has to go to Iraq undermanned and he’s not there to do the job he’s being counted on for?
Pluto is still a planet! June 16, 2008
Posted by physics309 in Op-Ed, Science.add a comment
Here is a great blog devoted to the idea that Pluto is a planet and the IAU needs to change not only the definition of planets, but how they go about doing business.
Take a look.
