RyanW’s whereIstand Blog

There is a growing movement in Congress, albeit a small one at the moment, to boycott this summer’s Olympic Games in Beijing.  This article is a year old, but the bill is still in Congress and has gained more momentum. I have a fear that with the recent Tibet protests the momentum of this movement will continue. In the article from TheHill,

“The resolution criticizes China’s human rights record and compares the 2008 Beijing Games to the 1936 Olympics in Nazi-era Berlin. Those Olympics showed that “the integrity of the host country is of the utmost importance so as not to stain the participating athletes or the character of the Games,” according to the resolution…”

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Did I miss something here? The 1936 Olympic Games were not boycotted and they provided the backdrop for one of the greastest moments in all of sports. Jesse Owens, an African-American, went into Nazi-Germany and won four gold medals with Hitler looking on. When people talk about the ‘36 Olympics, that is what everyone remembers, how Jesse Owens went in and defeated the Germans, winning a record 4 Gold medals. In your face Hitler! That is what everyone remembers. How could you trade that in for a boycott as the article implies?

 If you don’t want to stain the participating athletes the way the article claims, then you sure as hell better not boycott the Games. The biggest stain to an athlete would be to not have all the best athletes in the world competing. It would be like winning the Super Bowl if the Patriots decided to boycott the season. 

This has nothing to do with China’s human rights record, if anything hosting the Olympics might help the situation with the world watching. Although, it appears that hope might not be very well grounded, certainly boycotting the Games will not change Chinese policy, it didn’t change Soviet policy, and it sure wouldn’t have changed Hitler’s policy. Leave the politics out of the political arena, and let the Games bring people together like they always have.

whereIstand Tags

• DanBurton
• ChrisSmith
• DanaRohrabacher
• ThaddeusMcCotter
• GeorgeWBush
• MadeleineAlbright
• Should the U.S. boycott the Beijing Olympics?

I have been inudated with news coverage on Oprah’s support for Barack Obama, and I thought, along with every political analyst in the world, I would speculate as to whether it is good or bad for Obama. From what I have seen on TV the poll numbers show that voters do not care about endorsements. However, I have always been skeptical of these polls. If someone asks you whether or not someone else’s opinion will influence you to think a certain way most people would tend to say no whether that was true or not. The popular thing is to think for yourself and not be influenced by what other people think, or at least say that is what you do.

I think that Oprah’s support is going to be beneficial for Obama. I do think that some people will be influenced by the Oprah factor, whether they want to admit it or not. People will buy anything that Oprah is selling, and while this might not be the Oprah Book Club, I do think that her opinion will influence people. She has tremendous power and garners massive amounts of attention as we are seeing with this campaign.

If nothing else Obama is getting a lot of media coverage because of Oprah, and that will do nothing but help his campaign. Think about how many people watch Oprah daily. Say for example, Oprah has Obama on her show. Oprah wants Obama to look brilliant, it’s her show, so he looks brilliant. Millions of people come away thinking to themselves how wonderful Obama was on the show.

At the end of the day, the attention garnered by Oprah will have a positive impact because more people will pay attention to Obama, and that means more votes. People love Oprah, and Oprah loves Obama. I think the Clinton camp is really sweating this one.

whereIstand Tags

• What impact will Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement have on Barack Obama’s candidacy?

The Clinton administration pushed the Compreshensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty through the international community with the agenda of making the world and the United States a safer place. The treaty has remained signed but not ratified by the Congress since the Republican led Senate rejected the measure in 1999. The problem seems to be the opposition views the security of the world and the security of the United States as mutually exclusive.

In 2001 retired General John M. Shalikashvili, acting as a special advisor to the President and Secretary of State wrote a letter and report regarding his findings and reccomendations concerning the Test Ban Treaty. His reccomendation was strongly in favor of ratification. The difference between his stance and the oppositions stance seems to rest a simple disagreement in what effect the treaty would have. The advantages for one side are the disadvantages for the other. 

Clinton was trying to maintain the US’s advantage in the nuclear weapons arsenal. The opposition believes the treaty would deminish the US’s advantage. The truth is that the US has developed their weaponry to the point where testing is no longer needed. We have plenty of destructive capability without continuing to persue more lethal means of bombing the shit out of people. We have a more destructive capability than anyone else on the planet, including China, a main concern when the policy was drafted. 

Other countries trying to reach our level of nuclear advancement would still have to test their weapons to ensure they were effective. Countries could still proliferate nuclear weapons under the treaty they just couldn”t effectively advance their technology with assurance that it would work. According to Gen. Shalikashvili, by supporting other elements of non-proliferation this would be much less likely.

The bottom line is the treaty would drastically slow advances in nuclear weapon technology and effectively eliminate certain advances in aspiring nuclear states. It would increase support for other elements of non-proliferation. Even with the treaty, the US is in the position to maintain it’s nuclear deterrant. The ratification of the treaty would put additional pressure for other nations such as India, Pakistan, North Korea, Lebanon, China, Egypt, and Iran to ratify the treaty as well. The United States needs to assume a  leading role in reducing nuclear advancement and proliferation around the world. The most important factor in other nation’s nuclear aspirations is to maintain it’s leverage in the world. The ratification of this treaty would reduce the level of that leverage and it would actually enhance our national security.

Since the Blackwater shooting erupted over a month ago there have been two similar shootings that have taken place in Iraq. Fortunately, the casualities invovled in the recent shootings have not been near to the numbers seen in the Blackwater incident, but that doesn’t reduce the cause for concern.

There are multiple contentious issues to consider when discussing Blackwater and other private security firms operating in Iraq under contract by the US government.

The first issue that was immediately following the Blackwater shooting in September was the issue of responsibility. Currently, the private security firms hired in Iraq are immune from Iraqi law, just as the US military is. However, the contractors are also not bound by the US military law, and the laws to which they are bound while operating in other countries is in question. 

The security firms have to be licensed to operate under Iraqi law, but when they go and kill innocent people it appears their only punishment is being fired. 

The problem is that the private security firms seem to be a little more trigger happy than the military. After all, if they don’t have the same accountability when it comes to shooting innocent Iraqi civilians, then they don’t have to deal with the same consequences as the military. This is a grave concern, and I’m not sure as to the solution, but certainly there needs to be a better system of accountability for these private security firms.

Even if private security firms aren’t more likely to open fire on innocents, there are still major gliches in the system.

One could make the argument that the Blackwater shooting could have just as easily happened with a military convoy as it could a Blackwater convoy and the mess could have been the same. If that was the case, which I’m not sure it is, then the Blackwater shooting is irrelevant when debating whether or not they should be allowed to operate within Iraq. Someone has to protect the people Blackwater is protecting, and if not them then it would be the military or Iraqi security forces. 

Another big problem with having security firms operating is the lack of cohesiveness among different operatives in Iraq. From the Washington Post,

The company was not subject to the military’s restrictions on the use of offensive weapons, its procedures for reporting shooting incidents or a central tracking system that allows commanders to monitor the movements of security companies on the battlefield.

"The Iraqis despised them, because they were untouchable," said Matthew Degn, who recently returned from Baghdad after serving as senior American adviser to the Interior Ministry. "They were above the law." Degn said Blackwater’s armed Little Bird helicopters often buzzed the Interior Ministry’s roof, "almost like they were saying, ‘Look, we can fly anywhere we want.’ "

Also,

Blackwater is not required to report its movements to the military. "There is no oversight or coordination of Blackwater by the U.S. military," said Jack Holly, a retired Marine colonel who oversees several private security firms as director of logistics for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The lack of oversight by the military and the State Department in hiring these private conctractors is troublesome. The US government does not train these men, it does not equip these men, and it does not give these men direct orders–nothing is done according to a standard protocol. That is a frightening prospect when it is the US whose neck in on the line in the event that a private security firm mows down 17 innocent Iraqi civilians without provocation.

Despite the shortcomings in the current system, I can see the potential benefit to contracting private security firms. However, until the US figures out a way to make these firms accountable  and have them operate under in a way that is cohesive to the rest of the US led forces, these firms have no business being in Iraq.

whereIstand Tags

• DonaldRumsfeld
• Should the U.S. military issue contracts to private security firms?

Brett Favre is 38 years old. He is coming off of the two worst seasons of is 17 year NFL career. The Packers combined record over those two years - a dismal 12-20. Many anticipated his retirement at the end of last season. Many let out a collective groan when he announced he would return. Is he a glutton for punishment? Why would he do this to himself?

Well, Favre is off to his best start since 2004 and he has the Packers in position to make the playoffs and win the division. Favre led the league in interceptions over the last two years with a whopping 47. The Packers defense is better this year than it has been in the past, allowing 18 points per game compared with 20+ the previous two seasons. 

However, the biggest difference seems to be the way Favre has been managing the game. They need to get better in the running game to really have a chance to make a major impact in the post season, but Favre is taking care of the ball better than he had the past two seasons. Favre’s rejuvination seems more a product of better decision making than of physical ability. 

A major reason for this could be attributed to the  improved Packers defense. In the past the lack of a run game has forced Favre to put the offense on his shoulders and try to make something happen. Not a good situation when you have a defense that struggles to stop people. This year the Packers defense has kept games close even if the offense hasn’t been able to rack up the points, easing the pressure on Favre to make big plays.

Packer’s second year coach Mike McCarthy has been credited with urging Favre to be more patient and take less risks in the pocket. The strategy seems to be working, the Packers are 5-1 for the first time since 2004.

The Packers should have enough to win a anemic NFC North, but without a better running attack Favre will once again be under pressure to make all the plays when the playoffs roll around. Although for the NFL’s all-time leader in career touchdown passes (and interceptions as of last weekend) could be up to the challenge.

whereIstand Tags

• Who will win the NFC North?
• [open thread]

A week after Haile Gebreselassie broke the world record for the marathon the Chicago Marathon saw two of the most exciting finishes in marathon history. The incredible finishes of both the men’s and women’s races were somewhat overshadowed by the extremely hot temperatures that forced the race directors to shut down the course nearly four hours into the race. The elite finishers were well complete by then, but there were thousands of people that were forced from the course before they had finished. 

The record setting heat topped out around 90 degrees with high humidity, certainly much to warm for marathon running. Over 300 people were taken off the course in ambulances, with one person dying at the 18th mile, and 25 more needing hospitalization. It was later determined he died of a heart condition rather than the heat. There were complaints of the race not having enough water out for the competitors, but the race put out nearly 200,000 extra water cups, it just wasn’t quite enough. Many people were upset with the cancellation of the race at 11:30 a.m., but I applaud the organizers who determined that the situation was only going to get worse and it wasn’t worth risking the health of the competitors.

The other downside to the race was that many US men were running the typically lightening fast race to obtain a qualifier for the US Olympic Marathon Trials to be held in New York City in a month, but the heat was just so bad that only one person was able to get the qualifier. 

However, despite the extreme weather conditions the men’s race proved to be one of, if not the, closest finish in major marathon history. Patrick Ivuti of Kenya and Jaouad Gharib of Morocco dueled to the line only to be seperated by 5 hundreths of a second after 26.2 miles of racing. The two men continually changed leads over the last mile before Ivuti made a final push to overtake Gharib right at the finish line. 

To watch these two guys exchanging blows, each quickening the tempo in an effort to drop the other, even at the very end when both runners were seemingly already running as hard as they could proved to be one of the guttiest and most exciting races in history. I strongly recommend checking out the last few minutes of the race here. 

Berhane Adere must have heard about that because shortly after the men finished she took home the crown moments before collapsing after a long sprint to the finish. Adriana Pirtrea had been leading the race for miles and seemed to be unaware of Adere making up ground over the final half mile, even the announcer on the video doesn’t give Adere a chance to win as they approach the finish. Then Pirtrea starts high-fiving the crowd, celebrating here imminent victory. Meanwhile, Adere is charging hard down the other side of the road and Pirtrea didn’t even have time to react. Adere blew by the premature celebrating Pirtrea moments before the line to snag the win. 

The Marathon has been taking some serious heat this week (no pun intended) over the chaos that unraveled on the streets of Chicago. Jay Mariotti of the Chicago Sun Times makes a persuasive argument that the race should have been cancelled before it started, and that this disaster might have cost Chicago an Olympic bid in 2016. I’m not sure I agree with that, but there were obviously mistakes made by both the organizers and competitors, and the argument should certainly be raised. 

If you are a first time marathoner and you are expecting to be out there for 4-5-6 hours, it was probably a bad idea to show up. In fact, 10,000 registered runners didn’t show up. But for the experienced runners, it was most likely just a brutal day, not overly dangerous. For many of the elite runners, they have been training for months and this can be a considerable source of income, or the last chance to qualify for the Olympic Trials. 

Certainly the heat issues, hospitalizations, and the death took the headlines for this year’s Chicago Marathon, but despite all that, it was a race for the ages.

whereIstand Tags

• JayMariotti
• Will someone break 2 hours for a marathon?
• [open thread]

Before the race Gebrselasie had said he thought he could run 2:03 for the marathon the following day. Well, Geb didn’t quite run that fast, but he ran 2:04:26, fast enough to shave 29 seconds of the previous world record set on the same course by Paul Tergat four years ago.

In Tergat’s record run he was paced nearly to the line by his rabbit, Sammy Korir, who he beat by only a second. Haile was off on his own at 30km of the 42km race, and still ran faster the second half of the race than he did the first. The record for Geb was his 25th world record and as far as I am concerned cemented himself as the greatest distance runner ever.

After the race Geb said still said he believed he could run 2:03 for the distance and that someone will eventually break 2 hours. 

Paul Tergat and Geb are the first track runners that have run under 12:40 for 5k and under 26:30 for 10k to move up to the marathon. It should come as no suprise that these two have done to the marathon what they did to the 5k and 10k marks in the mid-90’s, lowered them dramatically. If you look at those progressions you will see that the times have continued to improve, and we should expect the same once these faster athletes move up to the marathon. 

Gebreselasie is one of the most charasmatic runners in world and he continues to run businesses in Ethiopia in an effort to make his country a better place. Tergat has done the same in his native Kenya, and although both runners will forever be linked as Tergat always taking the silver to Geb’s gold they are both great and gracious champions.

Gebreselasie has one-upped Paul Tergat again and with his 25th world record and has established himself as the greatest runner to ever compete, at least for now.

whereIstand Tags

• HaileGebrselassie
• PaulTergat
• ArthurLydiard
• MosesTanui
• Is Haile Gebrselassie the greatest distance runner ever?
• Will someone break 2 hours for a marathon?

I won’t say nothing irritates me more than political grandstanding, but it sure as hell irritates me. In an article from Marketwatch today Presidential nominee Christopher Dodd compares the current subprime mortgage crisis to Hurricane Katrina saying, 

This crisis is the equivalent of a slow-motion, 50-state [Hurricane] Katrina, taking people’s homes one by one, devastating their lives and destroying their communities.

Now, I understand what he was trying to say, and I’m sure he doesn’t mean this is as big a tragedy as Hurricane Katrina. Even though I understand what he is saying I don’t agree with him.

The Democrats have come attacked this national crisis with the call to provide homeowners with $200 million in federal-foreclosure prevention funding, which they claim would save 130,000 homes from being foreclosed. They have also said as many as 2 million people could face foreclosure in over the course of the next year. President Bush’s plan he unveiled in August was to help people refinance their homes with government-insured loans, but he made very clear he was not in favor of a bail-out. The call for federal-foreclosure prevention funding sure sounds like a bail-out to me.

Dodd also calls for an end to deceptive mortgage practices, which does make sense, because as far as I can tell some of the people involved in creating this mess should be in jail. However, without the homeowners, many of whom took out loans they couldn’t afford, this problem never would have hit nearly as hard as it has. 

At some point people have to be responsible to live within their means, and just because a bank says, "Sure we will approve this loan," doesn’t mean it is a good idea to take it out. There is something to be said for the deception that went on in this subprime game, but that shouldn’t admonish the responsibility of the individual. With this $200 million bail-out proposed by the Democrats the message sent is, "You can gamble on the market and the government will be there to catch you if you fall." 

Last month, in a bid to help subprime-mortgage borrowers, the federal regulator for Fannie Mae allowed the companies’ mortgage portfolios to expand modestly. The companies buy mortgages from other lenders and repackage them as securities, freeing lenders up to make more loans. 

Democrats have pressed for expansion of the companies’ portfolios, saying that the result would help borrowers. 

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Wednesday that the administration’s action was inadequate, and urged the White House to let Fannie and Freddie buy more loans.

Now, correct me if I am wrong here, but wasn’t this the plan that led to the disaster in the first place? Hedgefunds were picking up loads of these subprime mortgages and bundling them together for investors, such as the Teacher’s Credit Union, who then lost their entire savings when the funds crashed. So now we want to let investment companies pick up the loans from the banks so they can make more loans? Haven’t we been through this?

I really don’t like this plan the Democrats are pushing, and to me it seems like a lame attempt to buy some votes, especially with inflammatory comments about the Hurricane Katrina of real estate. This was no natural disaster, there is responsibilty to be shared here, and that responsibility should not be washed away with taxpayer money.

whereIstand Tags

• HarryReid
• ChristopherDodd
• RichardShelby
• FederalReserve
• ChuckSchumer
• Spencer Bachus
• GeorgeWBush
• Should the U.S. Federal Reserve lower interest rates?
• Are current consumer debt levels a danger to the US Economy?
• [open thread]

A Maryland court recently upheld the state’s decision to ban gay marriage. Despite the fear of being dragged into the religious argument that has dominated whereistand, I will attempt to weigh in on this issue. 

The only state to successfully allow same-sex marriage is Massachutsetts, and since many states have tried, with the only success coming in the form of civil unions. I tend to feel that if we really leave religion out of the arguement, which we always should when dealing with government matters, the issue of gay marriage is really one of civil rights. I know the analogy of the civil rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s and the gay rights movement of today is not perfect. Still, the civil union compromise strikes me as the equivalent of the poll tax. In 50 years will we look back at gay rights the same way we look at civil rights now?

This issue should be considered from a strictly secular view when we are talking about banning marriage legally. With that in mind, there is no basis for discriminating on the basis of sex. Either way, who cares? 

Even if you believe homosexuality to be wrong, why does the way someone else choose to live their life affect you? Who are you to judge? Live and let live. If you think they are going to hell, what harm does that do you? You can disagree with something, but that doesn’t mean you can legally ban someone else from doing it. 

My message to this guy holding the 1 man + 1 woman = marriage sign, Ok, fine. Don’t marry a man. Seems simple enough to me. However, you have no right to impose your belief on others. Just because you say homosexuality is a choice doesn’t make it so. And just because someone thinks it isn’t a choice doesn’t make it so either, but their belief doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.

I’m not attacking Christianity at all, don’t make that mistake. I just believe in the separation of church and state. I believe people should have the choice to believe what they want. As long as it doesn’t have a negative effect on other people, shouldn’t everyone be able to persue their happiness? Turning or trying to turn religious beliefs into law is why so many people have a sour taste in their mouth when it comes to religion. 

The only positive thing that has come out of this debate to legalize same-sex marriage is that for now the push to place a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage has been defeated. The federal government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to deal with marriage:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. 

Granted, an amendment would make it constitutional, but I don’t think this issue should trump the 10th Amendment. I think part of the push for the amendment is politcal grandstanding as a ‘rally the troops’ sort of thing. 

In the end, religion should stay out of government policy, and the government (and all it’s citizens) should keep their laws out of people’s personal lives.

I don’t know if this strenghtens or not, but how can you not like Bob Marley?

My choice is what I choose to do
And if I’m causing no harm
It shouldn’t bother you
Your choice is who you choose to be
And if your causin’ no harm
Then you’re alright with me

whereIstand Tags

• DuncanHunter
• GeorgeWBush
• MittRomney
• RNC
• MikeHuckabee
• TomTancredo
• SamBrownback
• JohnMcCain
• JohnEdwards
• ChristopherDodd
• BarackObama
• JoeBiden
• DNC
• RudyGiuliani
• HillaryClinton
• DennisKucinich
• FredDaltonThompson
• BillRichardson
• MikeGravel
• Are there persuasive non-religious reasons to prohibit same-sex marriage?
• Should marriage be defined as a union between one man and one woman?
• Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman?
• What legal rights to a relationship of consenting adults should be available for same-sex couples?

What is this guy smoking? Well, aparently pot. Just when you think he can’t do anything more stupid than what he has already done. Wham! Michael Vick tests positive for marijuana, violating the conditions of his release. I mean, how stupid do you have to be? 

Let’s see, you are on conditional release while awaiting trial, apparently you are subject to drug testing after one of the stipulations of your release is that you don’t use narcotics, and you test positive for smoking pot. Brilliant.

Because Vick violated the conditions of his release, Hudson could take that into consideration during sentencing, said Linda Malone, a criminal procedure expert and Marshall-Wythe Foundation professor of law at the College of William and Mary.

"Every judge considers pretty seriously if they feel that the defendant has flaunted the conditions for release," Malone said. "It’s certainly not a smart thing to do."

So this brain-dead move could land him in jail for even longer, not to mention he has now been indicted on dogfighting charges in Virginia. These additional charges could yield a maximum of 10 years in jail in addition to the sentence he will recieve December 10. (From the judge who told him he would release before the sentencing date provided he didn’t use narcotics, which he did.) 

All the questions surrounding whether or not Michael Vick should be banned from the NFL might be irrelevant. He seems to be doing everything he can to avoid putting Commisioner Goodell on the hot seat.

whereIstand Tags

• RogerGoodell
• JayMariotti
• StephenASmith
• TreyWingo
• Should Michael Vick be banned from the NFL?
• What should the Falcons do about Michael Vick?