Reading Response #4

18 November 2009

Written in response to "Why Fort Hood Really Happened" out of the The Wall Street Journal.

In his article “Why Fort Hood Really Happened,” Daniel Henninger opines the current administration is so busy degrading the policies set in place by the Bush administration that government agencies have forgotten why those policies came to be in the first place. I agree with Henninger that the Obama administration is too busy pointing fingers at the past and too slow in making decisions. This has caused agencies to be confused on how to put into force the policies set forth by the previous administration. I believe that the general population and government officials have quickly forgotten how they felt on the morning of 11 September 2001, that is why it has become easy to blame the Bush administration for hasty policies.

I find it interesting that Obama, a president known for dragging his heels when it comes to making hard decisions, spoke on the consequences of inaction at Ft. Hood shortly after the massacre. He has spent the last two years pointing his finger at the previous administration and calling attention to the things he deems faulty. Yet he seems to have not done much to fix what he finds faulty. Could it be that policies put in place after the tragedies of 11 September 2001 are not faulty? Perhaps the complacency we have seen in recent years has begun to deteriorate the policies as intended.

We are a society that lives in the moment; we forget the past quickly. I refuse to forget how it felt to wait hours to gain access to the base we were living on that September day in 2001. I cannot forget the agony I have felt every time I kiss my husband good-bye when sending him to fight in the war on terror. Nor can I forget the fear that he may not return from war, the fear that he will become a casualty. However, I believe the general population and our elected officials have forgotten because it is not a part of their everyday life. Forgetting the fear, agony, and anger of the days immediately following the attacks on our country has led to complacency—a sense of contentment and security. This has sparked an immature blame game among our elected officials and a loss of the fervent patriotism we saw in the days immediately after the attacks in 2001.

Since the right hand is oblivious to what the left hand is doing and the brain cannot make up its mind, we have experienced yet another tragedy in our country. U.S. electronic surveillance recorded Major Hasan telephoning “an al Queda-loving imam [sic] in Yemen” (Henninger, par. 1). Yet due to confusion within the current administration and its interpretation of policies, those who listened to these conversations did not know how to respond to them. Complacency led to the tragedy on Ft. Hood.

I feel that we need to hold on to the feelings we felt after being attacked in 2001. Only then can we maintain the sense of urgency needed to prevent further tragedies against American citizens on our own soil. When we forget it leads to a sense of security. This is exactly what the terrorists want. It is easier to strike fear when those you attack have an attitude of contentment. President Bush told us the war on terror would be a long, arduous war. “In war, uncertainty gets you killed. It just did” (Henninger, par. 14).

Works Cited

Henninger, Daniel. “Why Fort Hood Really Happened.” The Wall Street Journal
12 Nov. 2009. Web. 12 Nov. 2009.

Reading Response #3

6 November 2009

Written in response to "The Right Place to Try Terrorists" out of The Washington Post.

          On the morning of 11 September 2001, this country suffered a tragic attack delivered by terrorists – cowards.  The events of that horrifying day caused a rounding up of terrorists, or those believed to be terrorists, by our government.  For now, those terrorists are safely imprisoned at the military detention center Guantanamo Bay.  In the first days of his administration, President Obama signed an executive order calling for the closure of Guantanamo Bay by January 2010.  When Guantanamo Bay closes, where will these terrorists go?  Will they be afforded due process in the federal court systems on the mainland?  I vehemently believe that bringing the terrorists here would be unsafe for this country and for the terrorists.  I fear the blindfold that Lady Justice has worn for centuries will come crashing to the ground should the terrorists be brought to the mainland for their trials.

            In his article “The Right Place to Try Terrorists,” Michael Mukasey writes about the recent trial and judgment of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri.  Marri came to this country “to help organize a second wave of attacks after the Sept. 11[sic] atrocities….” (par. 1).  In December 2001 he was arrested for the first time for credit card fraud, the charges were then ammeded to include lying to federal agents.  In 2003, he was determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant and moved to the naval brig in Charleston, North Carolina.  Marri challenged his move to the naval brig, and those legal challenges were about to reach the Supreme Court (Mukasey par. 3).   In February, he was transferred “to civilian custody and charged with providing material support for terrorist activities” (Mukasey par. 3).  On 29 October 2009, Marri received a sentence for his crimes that could allow for his release in just six short years (Mukasey par. 1).

            I believe in our judicial system when it works for all those involved, both the victims and the criminal.  I feel that for the terrorists currently imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay jurisprudence will not prevail.  First, there is not a single courthouse in this country where a safe and fair trial can be conducted.  Preventing retaliation from terrorist groups or angry American citizens would be a security nightmare.  Then there is the matter of finding an impartial jury.  Where are we to find juries of American citizens who would be willing to keep an open mind when it comes to terrorists?  I try to keep an open mind, but in this matter, I cannot.  If an impartial jury is to be found, then there is the matter of keeping the terrorists safe in our prisons without inflicting the cruel and unusual punishment of permanent solitary confinement.  We must also keep the other criminals in these prisons safe from the terrorists.  I do not see how any, let alone all, of this can be achieved.

            If it is not prudent to bring the terrorists to the mainland for justice, how about sending them back to their native lands?  That as well is problematic.  There are those who will be shot upon arriving.  Sure that will eliminate one more terrorist, but then they become a martyr for their cause.  Then there are the countries that will just release them to continue their mission of terror.  Not a viable option in my book.  Finally, there are those who would suffer prisons so inhumane it would make your stomach crawl.  While I feel terrorism is a vile act against humanity, I also feel that we as a country should not contribute to such atrocities that can be found in some foreign prisons.

            I feel the only viable option is to maintain the operation of Guantanamo Bay.  And to try terrorists as we did the war criminals of World War II.  I think that we need to unite with other countries as a global nation and deal with terrorists in the manner they behaved – as cowards.  From my perspective this is the only safe option for all involved and the only way Lady Justice can keep her blindfold firmly in place.

Works Cited

Mulasey, Michael B.  “The Right Place to Try Terrorists.”  Editorial.  The Washington Post 6 Nov. 2009.  Web.  6 Nov. 2009.

Reading Response #2

31 October, 2009

Written for my ENG106 class in response to an editorial titled "Get Smart" fromUSA Today.  I could not find the original article to link, but this one is close enough.

In the Chicago Tribune article titled “Get Smart” the authors write, “We’re betting that not a lot of those Einstein vids come flying back to the stores.” I agree wholeheartedly there will not be a massive amount of parents who purchased the videos returning them to Disney for a refund. I will not be returning the two we own.

Disney’s impetus for offering the refunds on the Baby Einstein videos is to stop possible legal action from parents who feel the videos did not live up to the promises made in the advertising. Personally, I cannot recall the specific advertising on the two Baby Einstein videos we purchased. One video is on baby sign language and the other is about simple anatomy. I did not buy these two videos expecting them to turn my child into the next super genius. However, there appears to be enough parents who believed their child would be a genius if they plopped them in front of the television to cause Disney to offer the refund on any Baby Einstein videos purchased in the last five years.

When I purchased the two Baby Einstein videos we currently own, I did so with the knowledge that I as the parent would have to do my part to educate my daughter. When I wanted Meghan to learn sign language I could not rely solely on some silly DVD that played classical music. I let Meghan watch the DVD, showed her flash cards while doing the sign for the particular word on the flash card, and then used the signs when talking to her. Over time she learned a few signs, and even made up a few of her own. She never would have learned baby sign language just by watching the Baby Einstein video; as the parent, I had to do my part to teach her.

Although there are laws to protect the buyer against blatant misrepresentation in advertising from companies, I feel being dissatisfied with the Baby Einstein movies do not fall within this category. One simply cannot rely solely on a video to educate their child.

I feel television cannot be the sole source of education for our young impressionable children. Despite that, I do agree with the authors of the “Get Smart” article when they write, “Yet parents shouldn’t feel guilty about stationing their kids in front of the television for a while so they can carve out a respite from relentless parental chores.” There is nothing harmful in my daughter watching a couple of educational cartoons on PBS while I do chores. It is harmful, however, for me to expect my daughter to become a genius through her time spent watching television.

It is common knowledge that when our precious children arrive in this world they come without an instructional manual. The authors of this article stated it rather simply when they tell us that if children did come with instruction manuals it would simply remind us that if we want a happy child we need to do three things: play with them, talk to them, and read to them. I would add a fourth instruction—love them.

I surmise the majority of owners of the Baby Einstein videos will not be returning the videos because like me they realize a video does not make a genius. Alternatively, the love of parents, and the community it takes to raise a child, cultivates the desire to learn.

Reading Response #1

25 October 2009
For my ENG106 class we had to write four responses to editorials from nationally known newpapers.  This is a response to "The ‘Rape Supporter’ Ploy" written by Kathleen Parker.