Dan Fagan, commentator and pundit with an afternoon radio show went into a screaming hissy fit today that was one for the record books. Dan is a showman, first of all, and an alleged conservative—or so he says. He called Bill Walker’s supporters commies and socialists. Those are exactly the terms that he used.
Why did this otherwise, articulate, experienced, and knowledgeable reporter go off the deep end?
Apparently, Dan Fagan reacted to the yes or no requirement put to the candidates by the moderator at the Resource Development Council forum held today. The candidates could only answer yes or no.
Fagan billed his revelation as proof positive that Walker was a socialist and union schill who could not possibly be a conservative.
Apparently, unbeknownst to Fagan at the time of his hissy fit, Bill Walker followed up on the answer in an interview by ADN report Sean Cockerham post the debate at the Resource Development Council Governor’s Forum today. What Fagan did not have to pass on was the “rest of the story”.
This is what Walker was quoted as saying in the ADN:
“Q—How did you vote on the 2006 gas reserve initiative? Yes, no or prefer not to say. (The question was about a proposal to tax North Slope natural gas reserves until a pipeline was built to bring them to market. It could have imposed up to $1 billion annual tax on the gas under land leased primarily by Exxon Mobil, BP and Conoco Phillips, most in the Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson fields.)
Walker – Yes (Walker said in an interview after the forum that “we wanted to get the gas moving, the only thing we were missing for a gasline at that point was gas. At that point in time that looked like it was the way to go. I don’t believe that is the way to go at this point, the way at this point is to create the infrastructure. The producers have said…we will ship if there is a reasonable expectation of profit.”
Fagan is an accomplished reporter. He should have asked Bill Walker directly before labeling—slandering—Walker and his supports as commies and socialists in fit of outrage over a an absolute answer that was designed to reflect an absolutist position that did not apply to Walker. It should be stated that Walker has never served in the Legislature.
The Dan Fagan Show, on KFQD in the afternoon heavily promotes Ralph Samuels for governor.
Ralph Samuels is recognized as being in Third Place, folks, that’s why Fagan jumped without first “looking”. Fagan’s boy is losing, even with Rick Rydell on Keni 650 AM and Dan Fagan and Dave Stierens on KFQD 750 AM all pushing Ralph Samuels like he is our Savior and the only conservative running.
Fortunately, people are not stupid.
Former Rep. Ralph Samuels received over $10,000 from Bill Allen of VECO fame. This same former representative voted for the biggest capital budgets in the State’s history prior to Parnell’s whale of a budget. Those budgets included an increase in the size of state government by 800 employees. Yet, these “good conservatives” all tout Samuels as a fiscal conservative.
Yeah, well, if Samuels was a fiscal conservative, then I guess that would make Sarah Palin a fiscal conservative.
Samuels has also touted his leadership abilities. As House Majority Leader, his was the only vote against AGIA, Palin’s gas pipeline initiative. The only vote. In a House and Senate that did not really support or like Sarah Palin. Why was Ralph’s vote the only vote? When the going gets tough, and the objective is not what the troops want to achieve, a good leader picks up the pack and rifle and says, we gotta do it . . . let’s go. And, the troops either respect the leader enough to obey, or they don’t. Samuels stood alone. That shows me that he is not the hero that these guys continually represent him as, if he could not garner one additional vote in support of his position.
Samuels supports the bullet line, widely held by industry and the State to be too expensive to be competitive to imported LNG for Cook Inlet. That the bullet line would double the cost of natural gas in south central. How is that an economic plan?
Samuels also supports Conoco/BP’s Denali project. A gasline that does not have a market, and will take everything, the jobs, the money, the majority of the infrastructure to Canada. How is that putting Alaska first? How is that acting in concert with Article 8 Sec. 2 of Alaska’s Constitution? In this regard, Samuels shares common ground with Parnell.
Parnell supports AGIA, another take it all to Canada plan, and also supports the bullet line. Of course Parnell also considers himself above the law, given his problems with his appointment of legislators to the Governror’s office. These appointments were made in violation of Article 2 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska. How can we have a Governor who holds himself above the law?
Therefore, why does Fagan and the others try to paint the only gubernatorial candidate as other than what he really is? The only conservative running for the office of the governor of Alaska who will put Alaska and Alaskans first? And, who has a viable pipeline plan that 138,000 Alaskans mandated by vote in 2002?
If this man is a commie and an socialist to Dan Fagan, then Walker has good company in that regard. Given Ralph’s record, Rydell, Stierens and Fagan will have reconsider their labeling Sarah Palin as a RINO.
This race is too crucial for such silliness.
When TAPS falls to 300,000 bpd of oil, the system will be shut down. The problem of the oil companies going elsewhere is not ACES, but a combination of taxes, regulations and litigation . . . and, a world wide recession that reduced the demand for oil.
As a result of the regulatory environment, of which taxes are a part, and the litigatory environmental greenie assault on the oil industry through the courts, the oil companies went wherever they could work with as little environmental and regulatory hassle as possible. They went for as little as $1 per barrel of profit.
Yet, according to the pundits, it was all because of ACES.
Male bovine offal.
Alaskans must be informed. Please take the time to attend forums and read the websites of the various candidates. Listen to the pundits, but take what they say with a grain of salt. Fagan did his credibility a great deal of harm today by calling good people something that they are not: commies and socialists.
Fagan owes Bill Walker and his supports an apology and his listeners an apology for his acting without the “rest of the story”.
For more information:
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/152634?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted#Comments_Container
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Parnell's Plight
Governor Sean Parnell has dug himself a hole that is deep and wide. Parnell has enough trouble brewing that would cause any sitting governor to start looking at the Help Wanted ads in the local papers. There are four primary areas of concern.
Parnell’s first problem is AGIA.
AGIA was pronounced as DOA by Parnell himself with respect to any expected success of the Open Season. Parnell’s refusal to answer rival Bill Walker’s FOIA request for disclosure of the Open Season is proof that Parnell is playing a delaying game without any expectation of success.
Against AGIA is the reality of the shale gas developments in Canada and the U.S. The Outside gas reserves are estimated to be enough for a 150 year supply of natural gas. The fact of the lack of any permitting to show in the 3 years since the passage of AGIA belie his current assertions that AGIA is alive and well.
AGIA, like Conoco/BP’s Denali project, takes our gas and gas liquids to Canada, thereby benefitting Canada, not Alaska.
Is Parnell acting in the best interests of Alaska by pushing AGIA?
Parnell’s second problem is his contempt for the law with the growing controversy over his appointments of Nancy Dahlstrom and Gene Therriault as his Military Advisor and Oil and Gas Advisor, respectively.
This situation would not be so remarkable were it not for the fact that both Dahlstrom and Therriault were sitting legislators at the time of the creation of the positions to which they were appointed. As ‘advisors’ their appointments did not have to be approved by the Legislature. The problem for Parnell arises with the fact that both appointments were in violation of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Alaska:
There was little comment about former Sen. Gene Therriault’s appointment, except by yours truly and a few others. With the second appointment of Rep. Nancy Dahlstrom, the pundits and the press finally figured out that our governor was ignoring the law.
Is our Governor above the law?
Another indication of the contempt that his governor and his appointees have for the law is the conduct of Gov. Parnell’s MG Katkus in requiring a subordinate to appear in uniform to testify to the House Military and Veterans Affairs Committee in support of Katkus’ appointment as Commissioner DMVA and Adjutant General. This act was unprecedented, and constituted a blatant act of undue influence. This situation was akin to Gene Therriault filling in for the Governor at a campaign function in Fairbanks earlier this summer. Both situations constitute at the very least undue influence on the part of the Governor and by Katkus as Parnell’s appointee.
Parnell’s third problem is the contradiction to any claim that he is working to resolve the Cook Inlet gas supply crisis.
Parnell’s Oil and Gas Division refuses to timely renew expired Cook Inlet oil and gas leases to exploration and development companies. This failure by Parnell’s Oil and Gas Division is incredible in the face of the alleged purpose of the bullet line.
Is Governor Parnell playing politics with a critical gas supply issue to the detriment of Alaska’s largest population segment?
Parnell’s fourth problem that is indefensible and, perhaps, the least recognized by the media, is Gov. Parnell’s decision to virtually eliminate the Alaska State Defense Force as a viable emergency response asset under DMVA.
In 2006, many of the Army National Guard assets were called to federal active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, leaving the ASDF to perform disaster response. ASDF was called to State Active Duty three times in 2006.
How is reducing the State’s ability to respond to a disaster a showing of leadership?
Are we voters going to let Governor Sean Parnell’s open contempt for the law and his failure in leadership stand?
Parnell’s first problem is AGIA.
AGIA was pronounced as DOA by Parnell himself with respect to any expected success of the Open Season. Parnell’s refusal to answer rival Bill Walker’s FOIA request for disclosure of the Open Season is proof that Parnell is playing a delaying game without any expectation of success.
Against AGIA is the reality of the shale gas developments in Canada and the U.S. The Outside gas reserves are estimated to be enough for a 150 year supply of natural gas. The fact of the lack of any permitting to show in the 3 years since the passage of AGIA belie his current assertions that AGIA is alive and well.
AGIA, like Conoco/BP’s Denali project, takes our gas and gas liquids to Canada, thereby benefitting Canada, not Alaska.
Is Parnell acting in the best interests of Alaska by pushing AGIA?
Parnell’s second problem is his contempt for the law with the growing controversy over his appointments of Nancy Dahlstrom and Gene Therriault as his Military Advisor and Oil and Gas Advisor, respectively.
This situation would not be so remarkable were it not for the fact that both Dahlstrom and Therriault were sitting legislators at the time of the creation of the positions to which they were appointed. As ‘advisors’ their appointments did not have to be approved by the Legislature. The problem for Parnell arises with the fact that both appointments were in violation of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Alaska:
“Section 2.5 - Disqualifications.
No legislator may hold any other office or position of profit under the United States or the State. During the term for which elected and for one year thereafter, no legislator may be nominated, elected, or appointed to any other office or position of profit which has been created, or the salary or emoluments of which have been increased, while he was a member. . . .”
There was little comment about former Sen. Gene Therriault’s appointment, except by yours truly and a few others. With the second appointment of Rep. Nancy Dahlstrom, the pundits and the press finally figured out that our governor was ignoring the law.
Is our Governor above the law?
Another indication of the contempt that his governor and his appointees have for the law is the conduct of Gov. Parnell’s MG Katkus in requiring a subordinate to appear in uniform to testify to the House Military and Veterans Affairs Committee in support of Katkus’ appointment as Commissioner DMVA and Adjutant General. This act was unprecedented, and constituted a blatant act of undue influence. This situation was akin to Gene Therriault filling in for the Governor at a campaign function in Fairbanks earlier this summer. Both situations constitute at the very least undue influence on the part of the Governor and by Katkus as Parnell’s appointee.
Parnell’s third problem is the contradiction to any claim that he is working to resolve the Cook Inlet gas supply crisis.
Parnell’s Oil and Gas Division refuses to timely renew expired Cook Inlet oil and gas leases to exploration and development companies. This failure by Parnell’s Oil and Gas Division is incredible in the face of the alleged purpose of the bullet line.
Is Governor Parnell playing politics with a critical gas supply issue to the detriment of Alaska’s largest population segment?
Parnell’s fourth problem that is indefensible and, perhaps, the least recognized by the media, is Gov. Parnell’s decision to virtually eliminate the Alaska State Defense Force as a viable emergency response asset under DMVA.
In 2006, many of the Army National Guard assets were called to federal active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, leaving the ASDF to perform disaster response. ASDF was called to State Active Duty three times in 2006.
How is reducing the State’s ability to respond to a disaster a showing of leadership?
Are we voters going to let Governor Sean Parnell’s open contempt for the law and his failure in leadership stand?
Monday, July 12, 2010
Racism, just another tool of the new order
What is racism?
In fact, how can there be racism?
Racism implies that there are more than one race of homosapiens sapiens.
Were there separate races, we would not belong to the same genus, meaning that interbreeding would be impossible. Can horses bread with frogs?
Therefore, "racism" should be more properly termed "color" phobia or "color" based prejudice.
This prejudice has been around since time immemorial.
Christ died to end it.
Martin Luther King died to end it.
Yet even today, some black Americans hate white Americans and vice versa.
Same for Asians, same for Hispanics.
Some just hate.
Yet, there are those who foster the lie that only white Americans are capable of prejudice.
Male bovine offal.
The rantings of the head of the New Black Panther Party put that liberal lie to rest.
What is ignored is the fact that we all share the same physiology, the same emotions, the same tendency towards prejudice of one sort or another, and all feel pain.
Whether or not we admit it, we all know what is right and wrong when we denigrate another for whatever reason. We know that we are cowards when we bully the weak, but we excuse our conduct because the object of our prejudice is obviously a lesser being, weak, or limited in some manner or another.
There is an industry built around perpetuating this color intolerance.
The race baiters like Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton have made a lot of money extorting claims of prejudice where, in all likelihood, none existed.
Much that is called racism is couched in subjective emotionalism on the part of the individual experiencing the conduct. I state this, because there are no more lynchings, armed incursions into homes, public beatings--although black on white crime and violence is ignored by the liberal media--simply because of the dislike of one color by people of another in this country.
How much longer that state will exist depends upon how far the socialist agenda of the Obama administration manages to make inroads into compromising and reducing the Constitution to just history without meaning.
Once our rights become the whim of man rather than inalienable as granted by a creator, our rights are no longer sacrosanct. Our rights are reduced to edict.
The liberal agenda is to denigrate, reduce and remake our Constitution into their vision of social utopia. A false utopia where judges eclipse legislators and regulators make the law according to political whim.
Prejudice is something that plays into this. The alleged need to remake society in the 1960s with the Great Society was an attempt to atone for evils that should never existed. Yes, there was prejudice in the United States that has existed since before the Great Revolution. In that regard, the U.S. was not unique. Nor, is it the fault of the Northern European. Slavery has existed since one man bested another and one tribe bested another, and one city state bested another, and one nation bested another, and one empire bested another and took the losers into bondage.
How did slaves come to the U.S.? Slavery came before there was a U.S. The vanquished of whatever conflict became the fodder for the slave market. The military stronger power making a profit over the vanquished.
Prejudice came as the lie that allowed one man to "own" another. It has existed throughout history.
The same lie permeates the liberal Congress and the Marxist President to give them impetus to destroy our rights in the name of making us all the "same". In that regard, they use prejudice as a tool to create conflict and to divide.
Emotionalism is the imperative that drives.
"Feel good" is the Valium of the masses. Why if we all are the same, then we will all be happy.
Note how riots are now ignored by authorities. The rioters, usually black, are excused for their irresponsible and outrageous lawlessness on the basis of "well, they deserve to steal that TV".
No. They deserve to be shot in order to restore order.
We are a nation of law, not disorder, not color, not the whim of the despot or a Congress and President that pursue the destruction of all that made this nation great.
Prejudice will always exist as long as there is envy of another for whatever reason. There will be prejudice in the minds of those small enough to believe that one "man" is superior to another.
In the mean time, we must deal with the cancer eating at the fabric of this nation called diversity. Diversity is the attempt by the liberals and Marxists to compromise the unity that made this national great.
In order for the destruction of the United States to be accomplished, the social fabric must be destroyed. The conventions of marriage, family, culture, language, borders, and history must be destroyed or suborned in order to reach the end goal of a socialist/Marxist utopia where the dictatorship of the proletariat is the outcome.
In many regards, this has already happened.
The movements to give women equal rights has been perverted into something that now encompasses the elimination of the father figure in raising progeny, the needless, irresponsible killing of the unborn in the name of a woman controlling her own destiny and body in order to achieve the end game of accomplishing the end of the American family as we know it. The further perversion of the family by giving homosexuals parental rights and the ability to adopt have further diminished the role of the heterosexual family in our society.
Our borders and culture have been relegated to the trash heap of history. Why, the U.S. should not have borders! And, the national security and national identity issues are irrelevant. No nation in history has survived the loss of national integrity by failing to secure national boundaries.
Culture has been replaced by diversity. Why, every culture on the Earth is superior to ours.
That's why we are still a super power and the rest are third world offal holes. However, that leadership diminishes daily as our technological base is eroded by an education system that teaches diversity, the normalcy of the abnormal and deviant and "feel good" rather than hard nosed COMPETITION and how to read and write. The theft of our technology and our trade secrets, not to mention military technology and national secrets are openly sold as if they are meaningless.
How many nations have survived when the enemies of the nation have had the gates opened to them and the knowledge of their military and tactics compromised?
We have sold our national soul to the slave labor of communist China and other third world offal holes.
Our manufacturing and technology base, the envy of the world is now in the hands of the great copiers of Asia. Countries incapable of creating their own counter to our success. Done to level the playing field, to make us less threatening to the rest of the world. Our pols have sold our future down the river.
What happened to Rome, when Rome became "less threatening"?
Between the new religion of the left and the religion of climate change, the survival of western culture, much less that of the U.S. is in serious doubt. It was the liberal idiots that let the rabble from Islamic nations into western Europe . . . and the U.S. And, what have they contributed? The very real threat of revolution from and subordination to a 7th century theocracy. Yeah, Islam is sooooo tolerant and forgiving it calls for conversion . . . or death. Heck of a choice, eh?
As Dr. Michael Savage states: "Everything that is wrong is now right."
Every perversion is now to be accepted under the new order. Using children as sex toys is just another step towards social utopia.
Who determines what is right and wrong?
We do.
This election and the 2012 election will determine the fate of this nation.
In the mean time, shoot the looters in Oakland and restore order.
In fact, how can there be racism?
Racism implies that there are more than one race of homosapiens sapiens.
Were there separate races, we would not belong to the same genus, meaning that interbreeding would be impossible. Can horses bread with frogs?
Therefore, "racism" should be more properly termed "color" phobia or "color" based prejudice.
This prejudice has been around since time immemorial.
Christ died to end it.
Martin Luther King died to end it.
Yet even today, some black Americans hate white Americans and vice versa.
Same for Asians, same for Hispanics.
Some just hate.
Yet, there are those who foster the lie that only white Americans are capable of prejudice.
Male bovine offal.
The rantings of the head of the New Black Panther Party put that liberal lie to rest.
What is ignored is the fact that we all share the same physiology, the same emotions, the same tendency towards prejudice of one sort or another, and all feel pain.
Whether or not we admit it, we all know what is right and wrong when we denigrate another for whatever reason. We know that we are cowards when we bully the weak, but we excuse our conduct because the object of our prejudice is obviously a lesser being, weak, or limited in some manner or another.
There is an industry built around perpetuating this color intolerance.
The race baiters like Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton have made a lot of money extorting claims of prejudice where, in all likelihood, none existed.
Much that is called racism is couched in subjective emotionalism on the part of the individual experiencing the conduct. I state this, because there are no more lynchings, armed incursions into homes, public beatings--although black on white crime and violence is ignored by the liberal media--simply because of the dislike of one color by people of another in this country.
How much longer that state will exist depends upon how far the socialist agenda of the Obama administration manages to make inroads into compromising and reducing the Constitution to just history without meaning.
Once our rights become the whim of man rather than inalienable as granted by a creator, our rights are no longer sacrosanct. Our rights are reduced to edict.
The liberal agenda is to denigrate, reduce and remake our Constitution into their vision of social utopia. A false utopia where judges eclipse legislators and regulators make the law according to political whim.
Prejudice is something that plays into this. The alleged need to remake society in the 1960s with the Great Society was an attempt to atone for evils that should never existed. Yes, there was prejudice in the United States that has existed since before the Great Revolution. In that regard, the U.S. was not unique. Nor, is it the fault of the Northern European. Slavery has existed since one man bested another and one tribe bested another, and one city state bested another, and one nation bested another, and one empire bested another and took the losers into bondage.
How did slaves come to the U.S.? Slavery came before there was a U.S. The vanquished of whatever conflict became the fodder for the slave market. The military stronger power making a profit over the vanquished.
Prejudice came as the lie that allowed one man to "own" another. It has existed throughout history.
The same lie permeates the liberal Congress and the Marxist President to give them impetus to destroy our rights in the name of making us all the "same". In that regard, they use prejudice as a tool to create conflict and to divide.
Emotionalism is the imperative that drives.
"Feel good" is the Valium of the masses. Why if we all are the same, then we will all be happy.
Note how riots are now ignored by authorities. The rioters, usually black, are excused for their irresponsible and outrageous lawlessness on the basis of "well, they deserve to steal that TV".
No. They deserve to be shot in order to restore order.
We are a nation of law, not disorder, not color, not the whim of the despot or a Congress and President that pursue the destruction of all that made this nation great.
Prejudice will always exist as long as there is envy of another for whatever reason. There will be prejudice in the minds of those small enough to believe that one "man" is superior to another.
In the mean time, we must deal with the cancer eating at the fabric of this nation called diversity. Diversity is the attempt by the liberals and Marxists to compromise the unity that made this national great.
In order for the destruction of the United States to be accomplished, the social fabric must be destroyed. The conventions of marriage, family, culture, language, borders, and history must be destroyed or suborned in order to reach the end goal of a socialist/Marxist utopia where the dictatorship of the proletariat is the outcome.
In many regards, this has already happened.
The movements to give women equal rights has been perverted into something that now encompasses the elimination of the father figure in raising progeny, the needless, irresponsible killing of the unborn in the name of a woman controlling her own destiny and body in order to achieve the end game of accomplishing the end of the American family as we know it. The further perversion of the family by giving homosexuals parental rights and the ability to adopt have further diminished the role of the heterosexual family in our society.
Our borders and culture have been relegated to the trash heap of history. Why, the U.S. should not have borders! And, the national security and national identity issues are irrelevant. No nation in history has survived the loss of national integrity by failing to secure national boundaries.
Culture has been replaced by diversity. Why, every culture on the Earth is superior to ours.
That's why we are still a super power and the rest are third world offal holes. However, that leadership diminishes daily as our technological base is eroded by an education system that teaches diversity, the normalcy of the abnormal and deviant and "feel good" rather than hard nosed COMPETITION and how to read and write. The theft of our technology and our trade secrets, not to mention military technology and national secrets are openly sold as if they are meaningless.
How many nations have survived when the enemies of the nation have had the gates opened to them and the knowledge of their military and tactics compromised?
We have sold our national soul to the slave labor of communist China and other third world offal holes.
Our manufacturing and technology base, the envy of the world is now in the hands of the great copiers of Asia. Countries incapable of creating their own counter to our success. Done to level the playing field, to make us less threatening to the rest of the world. Our pols have sold our future down the river.
What happened to Rome, when Rome became "less threatening"?
Between the new religion of the left and the religion of climate change, the survival of western culture, much less that of the U.S. is in serious doubt. It was the liberal idiots that let the rabble from Islamic nations into western Europe . . . and the U.S. And, what have they contributed? The very real threat of revolution from and subordination to a 7th century theocracy. Yeah, Islam is sooooo tolerant and forgiving it calls for conversion . . . or death. Heck of a choice, eh?
As Dr. Michael Savage states: "Everything that is wrong is now right."
Every perversion is now to be accepted under the new order. Using children as sex toys is just another step towards social utopia.
Who determines what is right and wrong?
We do.
This election and the 2012 election will determine the fate of this nation.
In the mean time, shoot the looters in Oakland and restore order.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
The intent was right, the execution sucked . . .
Reserve rush to judgment on soldier, part 4
Kari Sleight, Publisher, Frontiersman, called me yesterday (7/6/2010) to discuss why the Frontiersman published the piece on the Afghan incidents resulting in charges for murder for 4 U.S. soldiers.
She stated that the intent was to defuse the criticism received by the Frontiersman from those in the community who were anti-war and had posted to the article in a virtuperous manner. She said profanity was used and the vitriol against the young soldiers was egregious. If that were the catalyst for the op-ed piece, then the intent was to defuse and to remind. Unfortunately, the execution sucked.
Kari has a son-in-law who has served in both OIF and OEF as an MP and is still active duty. To him, we given our thanks for his service. It was his experience in returning from the war zone through New York and the anti-war comments he received that gave impetus to the op-ed piece.
The motivation for the op-ed was good, but the outcome, no matter what Kari Sleight may claim, was not what was intended.
The bent of the article was clearly not directed to reminding readers of the 6th Amendment rights of the soldiers, their UCMJ rights, and that the facts of the situation will not be known until they come out at trial. That damaging comments were made before the Article 32 hearing disclosures was dismissed as a misinterpretation on my part.
Kari stated that the piece was the work of the entire editorial board of the Frontiersman, that no one person wrote the piece.
The problem I had with the piece and still have with it is that it clearly draws conclusions from the Specifications in the charging document that can be found on-line. The language used in the op-ed piece could have clearly demonstrated the source of the allegations as the charging document, but that was not the direction demonstrated. Instead, the op-ed's first sentence clearly stated a conclusion.
The use of 'alleged' or 'allegations' should have been used liberally throughout with clear reference to the charging document to show that the soldiers were charged, but the issues had not been adjudicated. Instead, the Afghan's were pronounced civilians without any qualification.
I have a real problem with that designation of those alleged killed by the troops charged. We weren't there when the incidents happpened, and I am willing to bet, neither was the JAG officer who drafted the Specifications and Charges against the soldiers.
Too often, those who are civilians by day, are the enemy by night or on the weekends. Not too long ago, Reuters ran an article on Afghanis who fought NATO troops on weekends, but worked at legitmate jobs and participated in the goverment during the week. Therefore, the use of the term civilians is specious at this juncture. The status of those killed will come out at trial. "Alleged" should have been clearly stated. Instead, civilian was stated as a fact.
I disagree with the manner in which the Frontiersman op-ed was written. Conclusions were stated, not allegations. Kari and I will agree to disagree as to the interpretation of the op-ed piece.
I still believe that Wick Communications and the Frontiersman's Editorial Board should publically apologize to the family of SPC4 Morlock, to Morlock and the other troops charged, and to our troops.
I am still angry. I read and understand English very well. I do not believe that I misinterpreted the op-ed piece's message. Neither did my family who all read the content and reached the same conclusions. My youngest, a veteran of OIF, was as incensed as I was.
I understand Kari's sympathies in the matter and her intent. I still disagree that the op-ed piece says what she intended.
Kari Sleight, Publisher, Frontiersman, called me yesterday (7/6/2010) to discuss why the Frontiersman published the piece on the Afghan incidents resulting in charges for murder for 4 U.S. soldiers.
She stated that the intent was to defuse the criticism received by the Frontiersman from those in the community who were anti-war and had posted to the article in a virtuperous manner. She said profanity was used and the vitriol against the young soldiers was egregious. If that were the catalyst for the op-ed piece, then the intent was to defuse and to remind. Unfortunately, the execution sucked.
Kari has a son-in-law who has served in both OIF and OEF as an MP and is still active duty. To him, we given our thanks for his service. It was his experience in returning from the war zone through New York and the anti-war comments he received that gave impetus to the op-ed piece.
The motivation for the op-ed was good, but the outcome, no matter what Kari Sleight may claim, was not what was intended.
The bent of the article was clearly not directed to reminding readers of the 6th Amendment rights of the soldiers, their UCMJ rights, and that the facts of the situation will not be known until they come out at trial. That damaging comments were made before the Article 32 hearing disclosures was dismissed as a misinterpretation on my part.
Kari stated that the piece was the work of the entire editorial board of the Frontiersman, that no one person wrote the piece.
The problem I had with the piece and still have with it is that it clearly draws conclusions from the Specifications in the charging document that can be found on-line. The language used in the op-ed piece could have clearly demonstrated the source of the allegations as the charging document, but that was not the direction demonstrated. Instead, the op-ed's first sentence clearly stated a conclusion.
The use of 'alleged' or 'allegations' should have been used liberally throughout with clear reference to the charging document to show that the soldiers were charged, but the issues had not been adjudicated. Instead, the Afghan's were pronounced civilians without any qualification.
I have a real problem with that designation of those alleged killed by the troops charged. We weren't there when the incidents happpened, and I am willing to bet, neither was the JAG officer who drafted the Specifications and Charges against the soldiers.
Too often, those who are civilians by day, are the enemy by night or on the weekends. Not too long ago, Reuters ran an article on Afghanis who fought NATO troops on weekends, but worked at legitmate jobs and participated in the goverment during the week. Therefore, the use of the term civilians is specious at this juncture. The status of those killed will come out at trial. "Alleged" should have been clearly stated. Instead, civilian was stated as a fact.
I disagree with the manner in which the Frontiersman op-ed was written. Conclusions were stated, not allegations. Kari and I will agree to disagree as to the interpretation of the op-ed piece.
I still believe that Wick Communications and the Frontiersman's Editorial Board should publically apologize to the family of SPC4 Morlock, to Morlock and the other troops charged, and to our troops.
I am still angry. I read and understand English very well. I do not believe that I misinterpreted the op-ed piece's message. Neither did my family who all read the content and reached the same conclusions. My youngest, a veteran of OIF, was as incensed as I was.
I understand Kari's sympathies in the matter and her intent. I still disagree that the op-ed piece says what she intended.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Frontiersman's Publisher's reply
Dear Mr. Wood,
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with us, and for taking my call this afternoon.
I understand your passion for those who serve in the military and share that respect with you.
I’m glad we had the discussion and hope you better understand our position. We believe that judgment on this case should be reserved until the matter is resolved in the tribunal.
Sincerely,
Kari
---------------------
Kari Sleight
Publisher
Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman
907-352-2255
http://www.frontiersman.com
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with us, and for taking my call this afternoon.
I understand your passion for those who serve in the military and share that respect with you.
I’m glad we had the discussion and hope you better understand our position. We believe that judgment on this case should be reserved until the matter is resolved in the tribunal.
Sincerely,
Kari
---------------------
Kari Sleight
Publisher
Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman
907-352-2255
http://www.frontiersman.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)