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!

An Open Letter to Jimmy Carter - Or, What you talkin' bout, Willis?

Dear Jimmy Carter -

You should really be ashamed of this.

I FIRMLY believe that Rep. Wilson cares about the future of our country, our citizens, and our economy, and it was his passion for these issues that led him to his perhaps ill-timed, disrespectful, but by no means criminal, outburst the other night. I DON'T think that Joe Wilson thought, "hmmm, I don't have to listen to what he says because he doesn't look like me."

Maybe, just maybe, Joe Wilson's outburst had more to do with, oh, I don't know, HEALTHCARE than with racism?

Is there even the slightest possibility that, until you communicated these race-based views that people were more interested in the issue at hand than the color of the skin of the person presenting the platform?

By putting this sort of view out on the national stage, Jimmy Carter, YOU are the one who is observing, mentioning, prioritizing, and giving different treatment to a president because of his race and/or ethnicity. And that is the definition of Racism, sir.

Do the country a favor...please stop placing these misleading, damaging, and completely UNNECESSARY ideas out for an already fired-up populace to seize onto. We are smart enough to know when someone is being bigoted and when someone is being outspoken. And (in this case, at least) those two have no relation to each other. Joe Wilson was standing up for something he believed in, and that something was NOT white supremacy.

Black people can be racist too...right?

I’m sure a lot of people have heard about how Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested outside his home in Cambridge, Mass. earlier this week. His front door had apparently become jammed shut, and after entering with a key through the back door, Gates went around to the front to try to force the door open. A neighbor who saw him trying to wedge his own door open called police, alerting them to the fact that she believed a burglar was attempting break in.

Gates was able to get inside the home before police arrived, but that’s when it got interesting. Police, who were only doing their job to serve and protect the citizens of Cambridge, asked to see Gates’ ID, just to verify that he was, indeed, the owner of the home. Gates began ranting about racism in the justice system and accused the police officer questioning him of being racially biased. According to police reports, Gates became very loud and “tumultuous,” and, after being warned twice by the officer that he was becoming disorderly to no avail, Gates was arrested on disorderly conduct charges.

Of course, there are two sides to every story...Gates’ attorney has publicly stated that Gates complied with every request made by police in a subdued and timely manner, that the police officer harassed him by entering his home uninvited to continue an interrogation, and ignored the fact that Gates was lawfully in residence.

There has been a lot of brouhaha (I do LOVE that word) about this issue, and charges were dropped this morning. Still, people from all over the country have come to the defense of Gates, claiming extreme racism in this case.

Here’s the thing…

I just need to say something: just because you have a different color skin does NOT mean that every offense committed against you is committed because of prejudice.

I’m sorry. I know this is DEFINITELY not the case with a majority of African Americans in the United States. But those few who do believe that all white Americans are racist to the core, and that every thought and action is dominated by racial awareness, those are the ones who create this drama that seems to never end. They are the ones who give their groups bad names and bad reputations. They are the ones who are truly racist.

I know that this is a pretty controversial stance to espouse, but it is actually something I do (for the most part) believe. I’m not saying that there are not backward white Americans who believe that the “South will rise again” or some such nonsense. There are mean, hateful, ignorant people out there. But ignorance is not exclusive to one race or ethnicity. And for some radical African Americans to say that, hey, all white people are racists, that is ignorance.

Ultimately, people like that are the ones who are throwing the difference in skin color into sharp focus. And because their decisions are based on color, not character, they are the ones who can be deemed “racist,” even if not in the traditional sense of the word.

I don’t believe Gates’ attorney when he says that the police officer harassed his client based on skin color. I think that if there was an inquiry made, or even an interrogation, it was more because the police department RECEIVED A CALL FROM A NEIGHBOR saying that there was a possible burglary in process. This officer was not strolling down a street thinking, “hmm, what is that black guy doing?”

Regardless of skin color, I think that the officer was just doing his job. Had it been my house I would have been happy to comply with the police department, because honestly, what if it wasn’t me? I mean, what if some random person had broken in to my home, and when the officers arrived to make sure everything was copacetic (another fabulous word), the burglar announced that he lived there, and when someone started questioning that fact he flipped his lid about how the police officers were unfairly targeting him because of his race? Do you think I would want those police officers to be so worried about the politics of race and political correctness and hurt feelings resulting in job loss that they don’t fully investigate any threat to my property?

No! I would want those police officers to make damn sure that the person who was in the house had a right to be there. And that is what I think the police officers in Cambridge were doing. Rather than be agitated about being a “black man in America,” as Gates so vocally was, I would be thrilled to see my tax dollars at work towards something useful.

Ultimately, this is the bottom line: the racism here was on the part of Henry Louis Gates Jr. By being so sure that the only reason for his questioning and detainment was because of the color of his skin, Gates made the inference that the police officer was ignorant, and that inference wasn’t made because the officer was a public servant or a man, but because he was WHITE. And that is racism, plain and simple.