Saturday, June 14, 2008

Watched the documentary Iraq for Sale. The approach has politically left leanings though any political bias does not mar the critical information presented.

The film targets private contractors funded by our tax money in a manner of war profiteering that is destroying "the war effort" in Iraq. Haliburton, KBR, Titan, Caci, Blackwater are the guilty parties served contracts without any competitive bidding and allowed unregulated spending and waste. These companies are pepper with ex-high ranking military and governmental types with tentacles apparently penetrating deeply into the federal government.

It portrays an infrastructure set up for American troop support that is essentially crap, has endangered all involved, and is leading to countless, unnecessary deaths. If this is the infrastructure for our troops, what of the infrastructure of the rebuilding effort? I believe it is one reason why the war is going on "for so long."

Private and civilian forces involved in security and interrogation operate apart from the U.S. military's chain of command and oversight, but are in positions to direct soldiers and blur service and profit.

An example of endangerment is Titan provides the bulk of linguists as interpreters for the military. However there is absolutely no grounds to trust the interpreters as these linguists are neither testing nor certified; there is no guarantee they know Farsi or if they are accurately translating versus just saying their opinion.

I do recommend watching it just to be in the know of what has happened and ensure it does not happen again. We need to have better oversight of private contractors, their selection and spending, and perhaps staffing, training and decisions. The last three may not be feasible as that would essentially take on the role of contractors. One unpopular but practical alternative is reinstate the draft, eliminate contracting and place everything under the jurisdiction of the military.

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Obama & Faith

I cannot shake the sense that presidential candidate Barak Obama has racist leanings and is, despite the hype, another typical politician.

Why racist?
Perhaps it's only an issue of guilt by association but I fear it to be more. Obama has had the cultivation and nurturing of 20 years at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and his mentor Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama's concept of American society and God must have been affected, and he must have assented or partook to have latched onto Wright for so long.
Wright preaches messages that:
  1. are anti-Caucasians (including Europeans);
  2. curse and vilify the United States;
  3. honor Louis Farrakhan (leader of the cult Nation of Islam);
  4. promote an imaginary black Jesus (not found in the Bible);
  5. follow the teachings of James H. Cone (a founding father of black liberation theology and a man who calls white men the devil); and
  6. perpetuate a delusion of government conspiracies (i.e. AIDS) against blacks.
In general, Wright stirs his congregation by painting nonblacks as enemies. In this way Trinity United Church is the Nation of Islam in the guise of Christianity. It is a message where the greatest sin is the poverty and oppression of blacks, and heaven is to be had now in the form of black power, influence, and wealth. Obama is a proactive accomplished man so I ask by which factor did Obama choose to follow Wright's message?


The typical politician
Only in the past couple weeks has Obama sloughed off association with Trinity when it threatens his political image. He has played a careful balancing act: defusing speculation of being Muslim (named Hussein, childhood in Indonesia) by claiming Christianity ("I attend a church"), but now distancing himself from church to deflect suspicions of racism. Like the majority U.S. politicians, Obama must reassure the middle America of his Christian "faith"; yet the faith he has followed turns out to be different from Christianity. Either he is misinformed or he tosses faith about as another tool for or obstacle to his rise.