AuH2O knows best.

Barry Goldwater is widely known as the champion of conservatism, whose 1964 presidential bid launched the mobilization of a new wave of Republicans and conservatives within the United States. In fact, he's the politician most often credited with sparking the resurgence of the American conservative political movement of the 1960s (Wikipedia says so, so it must be true).

Barry Goldwater (get it...Gold + Water = Au H2O?) is also responsible for introducing Ronald Reagan to the national political scene, giving Reagan the platform for one of the most stirring and poignant speeches of his entire career, "A Time for Choosing." If you've never read, heard, or watched that speech, I can't recommend it enough. Here's a link so that you can see/listen to/read it. To this day it's considered one of the most effective speeches ever made on behalf of a candidate. UH-MAZING.

Some other tidbits of wisdom from Barry Goldwater include:

• "The income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government."


• "To disagree one doesn't have to be disagreeable."


• "To insist on strength is not war-mongering, it's peace-mongering."


• "A government that is big enough to give you all that you want is also big enough to take away all that you have."


• "I wouldn't trust Richard Nixon from here to that phone."

Obviously, he was a very wise man.

However, one of my favorite quotes from him is something I feel is especially relevant this week. Barry Goldwater said, "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to shoot straight."

This weekend the Senate voted to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell (often abbreviated as DADT, which I often mistakenly read as "Defense Against the Dark Arts" like in Harry Potter). Today, President Obama signed the bill into law. And honestly - I couldn't be any prouder.

I think that the fact that we have denied gay Americans serving our country the right to be themselves in egregious. I think gay Americans who want to serve their country should be able to do so freely and openly, without any sort of fear for their livelihood should their "secret" come out.

Because fighting for and defending the honor of your country is pretty amazing.

ANY citizen who wants to be able to stand up for the rights and freedoms of Americans should be allowed to do so. I respect the military. I believe they should be honored. And I don't think that the government should be able to tell someone they can't serve because of the gender that person happens to be attracted to.

While people (mostly liberals) are trying to spread the message that conservatives and Christians alike are terribly bigoted anti-gay homophobes, that's simply not the case. A lot of conservatives and Christians disagree with the lifestyle, but they don't hate the people.

Goldwater, this bastion of conservatism, was all for gays serving openly back in the 60s. He reiterated his position in 1993, shortly after Clinton took office and instituted the DADT policy (expelliarmus!). Like I mentioned in an earlier post (here) it is my opinion, and the opinion of many conservatives - not necessarily Republicans - that it's not my place to diminish the love that one person feels for another person, no matter their gender. Neither is it the government's place to sanctify that love. It IS the government's job, however, to make sure this country is adequately protected and well-served, and they can't do that by excluding anyone who is willing and able to serve.

I am proud to call myself conservative, and I am proud that this bill made it through the Congress and the Senate and was signed by Obama. I think it's a step in the right direction, and hope that the legislation can be implemented with little to no dangerous reprecussions for those currently serving.

And I am proud of anyone who is willing to serve our country: gay, straight, or otherwise. You are true heroes.

Jose can you see? By the dawn's early light... (okay, yes, THAT was insensitive)

Everyone who has ever taken an American Government class knows that the first amendment guarantees all citizens a right to free speech, which we have interpreted to be a freedom of expression. Every American has the right to burn the flag of our country, should they so desire. And buddy, I might not light your match for you, and if I see you burning the Stars and Stripes I very well might shake my head in disgust, but I wouldn't ever try to stop you.

(Why? Well, for starters, I have no right to. And secondly, my hair is entirely too flammable to tangle with you over politics next to a raging inferno that used to fly on a flagpole. I use some serious products.)

Okay, so you can burn the American Flag. Cool. But wearing the American Flag? Nuh-uh, says Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, CA (the Bay Area, for those of you who aren't cool enough to be from the Golden State).

I guess I should amend that. "Nuh-uh (on days important to other cultures)," says Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, CA.

For those of you who live under rocks or don't have calendars, yesterday was, of course, Cinco (aka Drinko) de Mayo, a day which commemorates Mexico's unlikely victory over the French in the Battle of Puebla. It is not, as is commonly mistaken, Mexico's Independence Day, which falls on September 16th (I got that one right at trivia night, thanks to Señorita Sanchez, my 10th grade Spanish teacher).

In fact, Cinco de Mayo isn't widely celebrated in Mexico (outside the state of Puebla). But here it has achieved the elusive status of a semi-observed national (drinking) holiday. Like St. Patrick's Day. Or Columbus Day.

(What, you don't get SMASHED in observation of the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria? Next thing you'll be telling me is that you don't even observe Emma M. Nutt day on September 1. What kind of heathen are you?)'

The administration at Live Oak High School, however, does observe Cinco de Mayo as a cultural celebration. That's cool. Honestly. I'm from an area that has a large Hispanic (predominantly Mexican) population, and I liked having an assembly on Cinco de Mayo in elementary school. We always had piñatas and dancing. But this year on Cinco de Mayo, when a group of students wore bandannas and shirts that had the American flag on them, shiz got REAL.

These boys were told that their shirts and bandannas could be seen as offensive on such a revered holiday, and that they needed to remove their incendiary articles of clothing before returning to class, or they would be suspended.

Wait, what?

Okay, I understand that Cinco de Mayo is a "holiday" (I use that term loosely, as I personally don't look at it as a holiday but rather a day of observation or commemoration) that has nothing to do with America. But how does wearing a symbol of America and American patriotism (the flag, in this case), make you anti-Mexican? Because that's essentially what these boys were getting in trouble for. They were being, in the eyes of the school administration, culturally insensitive and disrespectful by wearing American symbolism on an (essentially) Mexican-centric day.

Just because you wear the image of an American flag on Cinco de Mayo shouldn't mean you face suspension. You can be pro-America without being anti-anything else. Had these students been wearing mutilated Mexican flags I would understand the school's decision to ask the boys to remove the offending clothing. But as it stands I can't see how the school was at all justified in telling these boys that they would be suspended if they didn't take their bandannas off and turn their shirts inside out.

The administrators said that they didn't want to incite violence by allowing these boys to wear their flag images. If their student body is really so explosive that they can't handle seeing someone wearing one of our national symbols then they really need to get some more quality time in with their "tolerance teachers" at assemblies and rallies.

This school is not a uniform school -- they don't require those cute little skirts/polos that were the bane of my existence in elementary school (even then I was very fashion conscious, and LIVED for the "free dress" days we had every month). All citizens, even those in high school, are afforded their constitutionally guaranteed rights. So, was this school denying them their freedom of speech? Possibly. Even probably.

Telling me I can't wear what I want at a school without a uniform requirement? Telling me I have to be pro-Mexico, not pro-American, on a certain day? Not allowing four high school students to get their full day in school and causing them to fear suspension because they like the good, old USA?

No way, Jose.

(Please don't suspend me.)

I hate to say I told you so....

BUT:

I told you so.

Craw, Jaw, Law, Paw, Draw, Flaw...I could do this all day...

I have something stuck in my craw...

Well, first, I need to figure out what a craw is. No, really. Is it like a jaw?

Anyway, let's get to business...I can't say that I like many of the spending measures Barack Obama and the Congress have been proposing and passing left and right since January of 2009. I think it's ridiculous that an aerospace company received $15 million to monitor water in Ventura that it had just been fined for polluting, and the Napa Wine Train doesn't need $54 million. It just doesn't. It's a leisure train.

Why do we spend $300,000 for a GPS fitted helicopter to search for (wait for it) radioactive rabbit droppings? Why do we need to connect Microsoft's two campuses, currently separated by a highway, with an $11 million sky walk bridge? (Can't Bill Gates just pay for it?) Tax payers shouldn't be paying $389,000 for people in Buffalo to write down how much malt liquor and pot they consume, nor should they be responsible for a $6 million snow making facility...in Duluth, Minnesota.

But there is one bit of spending I could get behind - a pay increase for our military. Unfortunately, it looks like in this area Obama is being a little tight fisted. Surprising, considering his general outlook on stimulus and other government spending.

Obama has recommended (that's the key word, recommended) a pay raise of 1.4% for the 2011 fiscal year. That is the smallest pay increase that the military will have seen since it became completely voluntary in 1973. To put it in perspective, this past fiscal year the pay increase was 3.9%. This FY the pay increase is 3.4%.

This is, to me, disgraceful. As one of my friends, a military wife, so aptly put it, "These men and women sign over blank checks for their lives." They should be well compensated.

The administration's justification for the small increase in pay is because inflation is under control. The deal is that while "inflation" might be under control, the economy is not. Housing and other basic necessities have become harder and harder to afford, and defending your country doesn't mean you get to pay for life with monopoly money. Housing in areas that are home to military bases is notoriously difficult to find and expensive, making it less and less realistic that military families are able to live on a military salary, especially one with such a small pay raise.

I think it's a terrible shame that America's bravest men and women are being forced to live on base in a bunk with a steel locker as their closet, and that their families are squished into sub-standard, sometimes squalid (wow, there's some alliteration for you) living conditions in order to make ends meet. It doesn't seem fair to me that while Obama decreases the military family housing budget by 1.3 billion between 2009 and 2011 there is a corresponding shrinking of the pay increases expected. It just seems counter-intuitive to me.

How can the people in the military and their families, their support systems, be expected to survive in this perfect storm of a harsh economy and decrease in funding for housing, combined with a smaller pay increase than we've seen in thirty-seven years?

I will say this, though: the 1.4% increase is just Obama's recommendation. Congress still has the ability (and, in my mind, the obligation) to revise this number to an increase more suitable for the current economic climate and the sacrifice a service member and his or her family must make. This is the purpose of my article. Support a higher pay increase for the military. Contact your congressmen, write letters to your representatives. Let them know that the raise these service men and women deserve is far higher than the proposed 1.4%.

This isn't an issue of Republican vs. Democrat, something you can fall into your party lines and feel comfortable about (although I never advocate blindly following political parties, that's a recipe for disaster). This is an issue about respecting and supporting the men and women who give up their comfort, and often their lives, to ensure we retain our "inalienable" rights.

To join the facebook group, click here.

DISCLAIMER: Well, not so much of a disclaimer as a NOTA BENE: A lot of people have been posting on facebook semi-inflammatory statuses about this pay increase (specifically: "President Obama has proposed a 1.4% pay increase for active duty military in 2011. This is THE LOWEST SINCE 1973! Nice to know that during a time of rampant inflation, while war is fought in 2 theatres, our men and women in uniform get A LOWER PAY INCREASE THAN WELFARE RECIPIENTS. Please repost if you support our troops!"). While I applaud your efforts to get this issue into the spotlight, it's important to mention two things. First, while the economy is terrible, I wouldn't call inflation "rampant." In fact, we actually experienced a slight deflation in 2009 (average was -.34%), as well as a deflation between December 2009 and January 2010, the last month that data was available. Secondly, I'm not quite sure what "welfare recipients" the status references, but Social Security, by far the largest distributor of welfare, isn't receiving any increase in 2010 or 2011. So take that with a grain of salt. It's still an important issue, though.

So, I found that hammer. In case you were wondering.

This isn't a full-fledged blog entry, mind you (something i've been very bad about updating, must get better), but rather a little follow up to my last entry (which was posted way back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth).

I was very pleased to read this article on CNN today (yes, I read CNNs web page. Religiously. I just find it much more reader-friendly than any other news website).

I am happy to hear that at least the best interest of American citizens in being considered in the debate now.

I just have to make one little point: these are NOT Bush's military commissions. I'm sick of everything wrong with our country being blamed on Bush or the Bush administration. These are the war commissions of FDR and Lincoln. Maybe if people stopped looking at them as a tool BUSH implemented and rather a tool implemented by presidents during times of war (which I believe I've already been very clear about) then we might have a little clearer view of the issues, rather than getting caught up in the partisanship.

Just saying.

The swift hammer of justice...is that aisle 12 at Lowes?

A couple of days ago one of my dear friends, who recently made a big move to the Big Apple, posted a question on my facebook wall about the much-debated and controversial move to have the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks tried in New York City. She asked, knowing how opinionated I tend to be on political issues, what my feelings about this decision were. “No problem,” I thought, “I’ll post back with a quick little answer saying why I don’t feel like it’s a great idea.”

Turns out I got a little more fired up about it than I realized.

It also turns out that facebook has a character limit (I thought that was what twitter was for?).

So, I decided to take to the blogosphere to release a little pent up frustration about this whole situation (and about the fact that clearly facebook doesn’t want anyone to have a comprehensive political opinion).

Okay, here’s the thing about the 9/11 trials taking place in New York: we are in a war. No one can deny that fact. We are in a war against terrorism and individual terrorists, and especially those that were involved in the horrifying attacks that killed 2974 innocent civilians in the worst attack against Americans on American soil in the history of our nation.

(I know what you’re thinking: “duh, Sarah”, but hear me out).

In a war there are casualties. And in a war there are captives. That is what these terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are. They are our captives. Unlawful enemy combatants, if you will. They were captured taking up arms against our country without wearing the uniform of their country's military.

These terrorists are afforded rights under the Geneva Convention, and as such we keep them in reasonable conditions and don’t take them out to shoot them or brutally maim or torture them. My point here is that even as military prisoners they are given more rights than you can bet any American captured in Iraq or Afghanistan would get. When was the last time you heard of a terrorist at Gitmo being beheaded on live national TV?

But seeing as they are military prisoners taken captive during a time of war in which they were actively involved in taking up arms against the United States, we have the right to try them under military tribunals rather than in our civilian court systems. It is legal and constitutional to try them in the civilian court system if we want, but we could, as FDR, and Lincoln before him, did, legally keep them outside of the system.

At this point it looks like six of one, half dozen of another, right? WRONG. By agreeing to try them in a civilian court the President is giving them all of the rights and benefits of US citizenship: a right to a trial before a judge, a right to counsel, a right to a jury of their peers, a right to appeal any verdict that is handed down, etc. etc. Not only that, but it also bars any information we may have gotten from these TERRORISTS “under duress.” Here’s where it gets a little tricky. Having worked in the legal profession now, I can safely say that semantics will end up providing a HUGE advantage to the defense of these murderers. What constitutes duress? That is a million dollar question, my friend.

While on the surface the idea of giving these terrorists all the rights granted to a legitimate citizen of the United States might not seem like such a terrible idea, we’ve seen how quickly what should be a simple issue can turn into a complex drain on the legal system, taking years to sort out and get settled. Timothy McVeigh, the bomber in the Murrah Building Bombing, was convicted in 1995 and wasn’t executed until 2001. Sure, that doesn’t seem like ages or anything, but when you think of the purely monetary ramifications of housing, clothing, and even entertaining these prisoners, you see that taxpayers end up becoming responsible for more than $100,000.00 (average annual cost of a prisoner is around $22,650). And while that number is nothing compared to our national debt, or even what the government spends on office supplies in a given year, it is the principle of the matter.

I fear I’ve gotten away from my main point, though, so I digress.

Overall, I personally believe it is unnecessary to extend to a prisoner of war or a terrorist the same constitutional courtesies that an ordinary citizen would get. I think that this group of five people planned and executed the murder of over 2970 civilians in an attack that devastated a nation and forever changed the scope of international politics. I think that these people don’t deserve to be given any sort of second chance, and I don’t believe they deserve the right to sit in a federal prison within the United States, where they have to be given certain comforts by law, while they waste time and taxpayer money exhausting our legal system.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War and tried criminals in military tribunals, even though they were citizens. FDR, also, tried civilians (in this case, Nazi saboteurs) in military courts during a time of war. While legal scholars debate the validity of these moves (in fact, in Ex parte Milligan the Supreme Court decided that civilian citizens could not be tried in military tribunals when civil courts were still in operation), Ex parte Quirin very clearly states,

"…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.”

Uh, hellllloooooo? That includes you as an unlawful combatant, KSM. You’re not a citizen and you’re an asshole who planned to murder thousands. DUH. But does that mean that it is illegal to try these terrorists in civilian courts? No. Just morally reprehensible. I guess I always wanted them to have a chance to come to New York, if I think about it. I want them to have a chance to be flown 110 stories straight up in the air, punched in the face, lit on fire, and then dropped out of a helicopter without a parachute. That’s what I want them to have a chance to do. A 1400 drop to your death seems too quick and easy for these bastards, but it would be the longest ten to twenty seconds of their lives (depending on wind speed and individual weight, of course).

It has been more than 8 years since the attacks of 9/11 killed people in New York, DC, and a field in Pennsylvania. Time may have softened the impact for some, but definitely not for everyone. New Yorkers, especially, still have to walk by the ruin of the Twin Towers and see the devastating effects these terrorist attacks have caused. I still have friends who get anxious when they are out of touch with their loved ones for more than a few days just because their parents or other family members were trapped in the snarl of traffic and human devastation in Manhattan on 9/11/01. This horrific day will honestly FOREVER live on in infamy, and many New Yorkers (and Americans in general) will never be able to forget. Bringing these terrorists into the country at all for trial, much less to a few city blocks away from where their attacks were carried out, is like rubbing salt in the still fresh wounds of Americans. It encourages disorderly conduct. I don’t know about you, but I do believe there are some people who would prefer to carry out vigilante justice swiftly on these animals rather than let the court take it’s sweet time, and I think that these sorts of thoughts are going to cause a lot of security problems (and thus quite a bit of city/state/federal spending on the safety of these jerks, which of course, is passed on to the taxpayers) for the good people of New York.

I don’t for one minute believe that any of these terrorists has expressed any true remorse for their actions. I don’t believe that bringing them to New York to see the pain they’ve caused will do anything but make them more smug in their own satisfaction at knowing that they were able to hurt us. I think that the idea of bringing these terrorists to trial in New York City is dangerous and costly to all involved. While it is legal to do so, it is also legal to try them before a military tribunal at Guantanamo. And that’s what I think we should do.

Why put New Yorkers, and Americans in general, through the turmoil of having to relive the horror of that fateful day all over again?

Bad call #4286, Obama. Cowboy up and get this done. Act like a President for once!

And thank you, Dr. Buell, for making me study Ex parte Milligan and Ex parte Quirin...I never thought I would say that!

what can I say, I'm kind of a big deal. people KNOW me.

Hey, check out this article I wrote for the Bakersfield Californian today in recognition of Constitution Day!