THE NEW IRAQ WAR

The new Iraq War.  We are inclined to elect presidents that promise us peace and prosperity.  It is impossible to foresee if they can deliver on their campaign promises.  Their plans and projections are often unattainable.    I wonder if we are attracted to a candidate that can lie better than their opponent?

            I am a veteran of the Vietnam War or “Johnson’s War.”   The Vietnam War was a political debacle, conducted by an administration thinking only of their political future.  I think we are repeating such a dilemma again.  Iraq was the Nemesis of President GW Bush in 2003.  He insisted Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and the Iraqi people would rise up and support a regime change.  One element of proposing the conflict in Iraq declared Iraq was central and detrimental to peace in the Middle East.   After many years of war, four thousand deaths and thirty-two thousand casualties later our military secured Iraq. 

            For everyone anti Iraq War, it was all in vane.  They thought it was a war of stupidity and the consequences of our losses were borne by GW Bush politically.  Many could not wait to end that war.  In 2008, the candidate that promised Iraqi withdrawal was Obama.  As proposed, President Obama withdrew our forces from Iraq in 2010.  There was controversy at the time if this was a wise decision.  Not heeding the warnings of terrorism and failing to leave U.S. security forces in place was a mistake.   By determining the Iraq war successful and final it helped the Obama re-election in 2012.  

            Terrorists known as ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) have decimated the Iraqi peace.  As predicted, the vacuum left by U.S. withdrawal allowed militant terrorist to move into Iraq.  ISIS is murdering the Christians and Kurds of Northern Iraq.  It has been in the news several times in the last two years but apparently only civilians were paying attention or cared.  Of the over one hundred intelligence briefings by our national intelligence our Commander in Chief missed meetings sixty percent of the time. That probably accounts for his lapse in judgment?   Recently, many major cities in Iraq fell to terrorist at an alarming rate that could not be ignored.  This is the same Iraq that many felt was not deserving of U.S. intervention in 2003.  ISIS murdering Kurds and Christians, the same as Saddam did previously.  The former alleged WMDs are not an issue this time, it was speculated they were moved to Syria in 2003.  Similar, if not the same WMDs were found in Syria after being used by President Assad of Syria in his continuing war against ISIS in 2013.  After condemnation by the U.S. and United Nations Assad stopped WMD use and agreed to their destruction. Their origin was never determined.  Ironically, and without justification, Assad was using WMDs on the same people we are bombing now, ISIS.

            We bomb ISIS daily and have implored much of the free world to assist us.  We have over two thousand military personnel in Iraq apparently wearing slippers?  It is reported there are “No Boots on the Ground.”  The national media is responding to lies about a “Time line of terror” in the region. We are not admitting the folly of removing all troops from Iraq in 2010.  But, we are leaving ten thousand troops behind when we leave Afghanistan this year.  It would mean that we have second thoughts about occupational security after having sacrificed so much for a country’s stability.

            In all probability the Iraq War will escalate.  A solution not gained without an occupying ground force.  I have sympathy for the Iraqi natives that undergo the chaos, the terror of ISIS and our bombing.  I have even more sympathy for our Americans that have to remedy a situation that should not have been.  There is something about bleeding to death for political ineptness that is plainly unjust.

Peter Risatti

THE FERGUSON MESSAGE

  A man six foot four inches tall, weighing 303 pounds and allegedly shot by police while unarmed.  The officer, is of average height and build, and attacked after initial confrontation with the deceased.  There is a physical struggle and necessary for the officer to retain possession of his police firearm.  The officer gains control of his weapon and the assailant/deceased is alleged to retreat. Something in the mind set of the deceased encouraged him to re-engage the police officer and it was a fatal decision.  It is alleged the deceased hands are raised in surrender.

What transpired during and after the incident is really not a mystery.  It is logical in the mindset of a police officer that has been attacked in similar circumstances.  Confronting a person with physical characteristics of a World Wrestling performer and having the ability to inflict great physical harm is more than a challenge.  The officer, if average size, is at a tremendous disadvantage.  Size is a crucial element in physical confrontation.  In real life and death situations I look back over my career and if I had been any smaller I would not be writing this now.  There is not a salary paid that equates to fighting for our lives.  The officer was treated medically for a fractured eye socket sustained from the encounter.

The deceased was the suspected perpetrator of a store unarmed robbery.  The televised video indicates he robbed a store and physically assaulted the clerk, stealing fifty dollars worth of cigars, fifteen minutes before he was shot.  This video should have been released on the day of the shooting.  In Massachusetts Chapter 265-19, Unarmed robbery can carry a felony punishment of twenty years to life sentence.  So, this is not some pickpocket stealing lunch money. We can assume the mindset of the deceased was not one of kindness in the time frame of the robbery to the shooting.

Much is said about the officer not knowing about the robbery and confronting the deceased in broad daylight in the middle of the street.  Police do not customarily use physical force for J-walking, especially on a perpetrator nearly twice our size.  Nor do we awaken and start the day planning a shooting. The officer's service record will reveal how many confrontations he has had over J-walking.  To speculate as the media does on ridiculous conclusions is just plain silly without research.

The gunshot wounds to the victim, six in all, from the front.  He was not retreating or running away, he decided to re-engage the officer.  It is reasonable to deduct that the two head wounds of the deceased are the final wounds.  The other four wounds are in the right hand and arm.  I suggest the four arm wounds are the beginning of a series of discharged bullets indicating the officer was bringing his weapon up to a firing position with necessary haste.  If he had his weapon trained on the deceased intending on execution, as alleged, I doubt if he had been aiming at the victim’s hand.  If the victim’s hands were raised, as alleged, it would be a little improbable that the officer was aiming over the victim’s head, firing as he brought the weapon down.  The bullet trajectory will be assessed and should reveal the position of the arm when it was wounded.  The bullet trajectory of the head wounds should reveal more evidence and will under more scrutiny. If the deceased was not advancing on the officer that would give time for more calculated marksmanship and the wounds do not indicate that.  A toxicology result from the autopsy will reveal any controlled substance abuse.  This is an opinion, based solely on my own practical experiences; we will witness a circus the news media will make of this tragedy.  We have lived through similar events.  It is unfortunate that it ever happened.

Peter Risatti

THE PARADOX OF EFFECTING VOTING

For the thirty-four years, throughout my police career, I voted as an Independent.  My reasoning was a nonpartisan position could not be associated with being politically biased.  It worked. 

I have learned the political affiliations we create in our lives influence our decisions, our social relationships and our quality of life.  Certain beliefs we adhere to through our environment and experiences will form our ideology.  As an independent it was easier to read the newspaper and whenever a political scandal erupted it was nice not to have the affiliation.  I also learned that “Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” one-party rule is just that.  A two party system is the watchdog that keeps the wolves at bay.  The rules of hierarchy in politics dictate that second best is not in control but they are looking for the event that will put them in control.  Control, is the goal for political gain.

There are several political parties, with only two giants in the room.  Hardly a giant in Massachusetts, the Republicans are 11% of the voters.  Democrats are 39% and independent noncommittal voters account for 50%.  About half of everything that happens in life from relationships, work, religion and politics is noncommittal.  When we read this we reject the premise that noncommittal voting is lacking responsibility and deference to good government.  Studying voters around us we can analyze how committed they are and for what duration, it is usually dependent on needs, their needs.

Continuing the same process without getting our hands dirty.  Assessing the government we get is the parody of effective voting.

Sitting on a fence it is easier to switch pastures if the grass looks a little greener in the other fellow’s yard.  The problem arises when the grass can look greener but the eventual flavor might not be of our liking.  The political parties have figured this and just rely on the independents to be very fickle.  Raise the “Problem de Jour” and see how many take the bait without research.  They raise the premise of a “War on Women” they know the fickle vote is not one of reason, mostly spontaneity.  The independent vote empowers Democratic control, as 61% of Massachusetts cannot stand united.

It is not a wonder that so many government programs are never terminated after decades of substantiated failure.  Fifty percent of the voters are not committed to eliminating corruption.  The benefits of voting non-committal are minimal and for influencing governmental change.  When the outcome depends on a fickle opinion how strong can it be?   Change should come about only when there are two closely viable entities vying for the same control.  The only thing that disrupts government more is the apathetic nonvoter, the epitome of a depressed government, “You can‘t blame me, I didn’t vote.”   Now, is that a convoluted conclusion?  Inspiration for change would be new candidates with 11% participation there is little incentive.   Primaries are the tickle processes we use; enough agitation from a loud ideology and the platform of the party will change.  Why?  The apathetic nonvoter relinquishes and the fickle voter guarantees the process. 

How many people know what an independent voter actually has for benefits?  Only one, I know of, they can determine what primary they vote in. Some consider it two chances of eliminating the candidate they do not want to run against the person they want to win. I’ve never heard it was successful. 

The Independent’s voting ballot is the same as everyone’s in the general election, with the same choices. Independents alone, voting without commitment, may readily be part of the problem and not the solution.  Apathetic voters are suppressed not to vote by choice.  So, there we have it, apathy and fickleness determine our governmental process and then we criticize the result.   How many think it was a hard fought, honest campaign that brought us our leadership?   Wouldn’t it be nice?

Peter Risatti

THE PARADOX OF GUN CONTROL

The commonwealth’s gun control regulations are themselves a paradox, creating an undue burden for the disadvantaged on one hand and unintended, sometimes deadly results on the other. Obeying the law, we rarely think about the consequences of owning a firearm. It has been stated that there are more gun owners in Berkshire County than either registered Democrats or Republicans. There is a proposal in the legislature to further tighten access to firearms in our state. Local residents have a vested interest in current and future restrictions and regulations imposed on their right to posses firearms.

We have heard, “If gun control worked, Chicago would be like Mayberry. Guns are like parachutes, we may only need one once and if we do not have it we will never need it again.” Massachusetts licensing procurement is one of the most stringent in the United States. License application is sought at our local police station where we are scrutinized and profiled as to what we deserve a license for. Without criminal or mental history we qualify to be trained and carry a firearm. We pay for a training certificate and a one hundred-dollar license fee. If refused, we can request a hearing before the local court for judicial determination. Imagine, if we did this for 100mph vehicle operation or receiving habit-forming prescription narcotics?  The latter two, drugs and cars kill thousands every year. 

There are costs, often quite expensive for firearms, ammunition and licensing. The costs are discriminatory and unaffordable for many, only accessible to those having several hundred dollars.  The expense punishes the poor, yet in this instance it is deemed acceptable. The irony is poor people are more subject to crime because of the environment they live in.  When the costs of gun ownership rise that segment of society is very limited in their decisions. We are upset when they remain unlicensed and buy cheap illegal guns. Another social consequence of being poor, the government will never subsidize firearm ownership.

Is a firearm necessary?  So many profess it is not.  The epitome of safety is standing beside a police officer because he has a gun and is trained. There is not a more noble profession. The limitation of police is that they cannot be everywhere all the time and most of the time they are completely reactionary to events. They arrive in time to summon an ambulance, photograph the crime scene, or conduct the investigation.  The proactive side of police work is ever changing; whatever criminal opportunity exists, the unsavory will seek to take advantage. It can be devastating to be a victim and deprived of governmental protection, or any protection.  A firearm is not necessary for everyone but vital for many.

                                                                               

Society discourages firearm exposure for our children, while at the same time we increase the exposure to Marijuana, a gateway drug to further drug abuse.  Marijuana possession was one reason for restricting firearms’ licenses. By decriminalizing it, previously denied firearm ownership applicants could now be eligible. Will the people so restricted be applying for gun licenses? What a collateral effect, as we decriminalize drugs we make more drug-using citizens eligible for gun rights they were denied.

         

Mental health disclosure is a portion of firearms’ safety.  Liberalizing mental health disorder restrictions, not recognizing the danger to society has been disastrous. Labeling a disorder was not politically correct but it was a lot safer, a social consequence.

The left’s amnesty push for illegal aliens may ultimately backfire. The National Rifle Association is expecting a huge membership increase. More people granted citizenship and the "right to bear arms." Having been deprived of personal protection in their previous country, they will welcome their new constitutional right to bear arms. Adamant new gun owners may change the vote in ways we can only imagine.

Peter Risatti

THE PARADOX OF FREEDOM

The paradox of freedom, from the right. Have you read or heard the statement, “Fathom the Hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured, but not everyone must prove they are citizens?” Our government has forced many of its citizens to exchange their health care, for a version of health care alleged to help the people that were uninsured. For compliance in Massachusetts our penalties or fines are levied on people filing income tax. We need to file income taxes in order to be fined for not having health care, as I understand it.

If we are working “Under-the-table” without tax consequences what difference does this make? It doesn’t. Without visible income we are considered indigent and entitled to all benefits afforded that classification. The taxpayer will fund their health expense. If the levied fine for uninsured is equal to, or less than the insurance premium is it functional? No. I’m healthy, but if I get sick I cannot be refused insurance for preexisting conditions. If I am young and healthy this certainly discourages me from getting insurance before I am sick. If private insurance companies cannot insure us normally then the coverage gained will have loaded deductibles. It will be handled under a pool of significant illnesses that go beyond simple disorders. There will be millions of healthy people that must insure to compensate for catastrophic conditions to balance what probably cannot be balanced.

It is improbable the government mandate of Affordable Health Care (AHC) can be delivered. Small businesses may have to discriminate in hiring based on health needs. Mandated insurance provided for everyone, including preexisting conditions, created a dilemma. Without a balance of premiums charged and patient needs compensated the insurance companies cannot prosper. There is little reason to be in business without profit. The previous health system in place was in need of restructuring. The results of the new AHC our freedom of choice is compromised . We assign government to pick up where insurance companies fail, subsidizing premiums. We place government in a precarious position. Is this why we have a Congress that is upside down, trying to deliver what it cannot? We provide an insurance to the majority that is marginal with sky rocketing co-payments and diminishing benefits for the people that pay premiums.

Freedom is a state of security for citizens to pursue happiness. This is not a difficult concept, we call it human rights, “Commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.” Happiness should not be gained at the expense of another citizen’s physical pain or submission of property that is taken from them. In this case the pain is enduring loss of adequate healthcare removed by a government.

They started with thirty million residents not having health insurance. There were no estimates as to the number of non citizens. The health care provided was by way of hospital emergency room visits. The reasons for previously uninsured were unaffordable premiums, preexisting conditions, or plainly, insurance was not wanted. With recent subscriptions to affordable health care the emergency room visits by uninsured have not declined. Is anyone asking why?

We are asked to sacrifice a great deal so that process corruption can prosper. What part do our law makers play in this compliance? A great deal, if they collude with partisan groups that border on absurdity. They compromise the freedoms of the people that work and pay.

Somehow, our compassion for the needy has become a means for anyone of a needy mind set to exploit the system. If the government wants to expand coverage to non citizens and non taxpayers they need to establish and fund a clinical system to rival the hospital emergency room. Maybe a solution is in the original idea of clinics, the same as the Peace Corps does in foreign countries. They could actually help more foreigners right here in the United States? We would at least know how the money is spent. Now, we do not. Now, there is a thought for today!

Peter Risatti

I DON'T COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THIS BUT IT HAS MERIT

The title is in response to the Patriot Post Blog.  It is suggestions as to how the Republican party can regain their footing of leadership.  Mark Alexander is a good man and I respect his opinion.  I have a few of my own.

I wish I could just say "play nice."  It is not that simple and Moderate Republicans that wanted all the pork that the Democrats had gotten, got us into this spot.  We will see, but if the conservatives loose badly it will formulate a much different party than we all expect.  There won't be any Republicans, moderate or conservative holding office in any large number.

If the conservative GOP win and win big it could mean even more behavior in the future that nobody will live with for long I would imagine.  The nice part will be it will keep the Rhinos at bay and make them very wary. We will still need moderate Republicans to temper the decisions made by the victors.   I don't like Peter King, Chris Chisty, John McCain, or Lindsey Graham. they are a waste of GOP money.

I wonder if they really believe losing the house and senate in 2006 was due to conservatism?  It was due to spending and foolish behavior and forgetting what conservatism is.  They were  still lining the pockets of Democrats to get their vote when it was not needed, like they and their constituents were going to miraculously migrate to the Republican Party.  Everyone loved the bi-partisanship so much they voted Democrat.  Scott Brown got a first hand lesson.  Keep Republicans voting for you, and entice moderate and conservative independents to join the quest.  Liberal Democrats will always vote Democrat because that is their makeup at the low end of gene pool, followed closely by liberal independents that are the reason for tubal ligation. 

If a Republican does not understand that they really need to be reminded that conservatives are nauseated to vote for the the default choice of the GOP, so much in fact they do not come out of their houses to vote.  Look at voter turn out!  My point exactly.  The percentage that votes and the percentage that does not and why.  They don't like the candidate that the GOP puts forth and it really cannot be because they are "too" conservative as we have not seen one.  On the same side, the last presidential primary,  Santorum, was too conservative for the moderate Republicans.  I'll bet they would take him now.  I have the reservations I had for the candidates, and why, locked in my head, with the turning point of each election when the candidate decided to woo the the liberal left and lost their base.

Romney, Brown, Baker, Gomez the list goes on, the conservatives would still not take them.  The GOP does not listen but it will, if it survives.

If they want to play in the game it has to be more than dressing in the same uniform, it has to be core values.  If they do not have any of their own, they can only kiss up to Democrats and steal theirs.  Imagine a ball game where both sides wore the same colors?  That is what Washington looks like right now with a slight minority with a different uniform.  The moderate Republicans have a choice and what side do they pick,  the Democratic side, what a strategy for defeat.   Lest we give up the party and just become liberal and conservative Democrats, I think we could beat them then.  Too much is in a name anyway.

 peteR

The Old and the New

Our posts are few and far between.  My internet connection never increases in speed it is always one speed "Slow."  We have been promised high speed internet  and I will be amazed when we get it.  In the meantime I will try to entertain from time to time.  The following article is just that.  I had just got through reading about how we need new blood in our organization and was thinking about it when I read this.  I'm sharing and I hope you like it.

"Did you ever wonder why people are far more likely to become conservative in their views and values as they get older? When this rather devastating question is posed to liberals, leftists, progressives, Democrats -- you choose the label or group -- they answer that people get more selfish as they get older. ... People get worse as they get older? If you were walking in a dark alley at midnight, which would you fear more -- a group of teenagers or twenty-somethings or a group of senior citizens? Do older people or younger people give more of their time to charitable institutions? Are our prisons filled with young people or old people? The fact is that not only do people get more wise and more conservative as they get older, they get more kind and more generous, too. ... If anything, we older people yearn for a peaceful world even more than young people do. We are the ones who lost friends or relatives in some war. We are the ones who have lived a lifetime of seeing and reading about human suffering. And, we, not you, have children and grandchildren whom we ache to see alive and healthy. ... What the term 'more idealistic' really means when applied to young people is that young people are more naive, not more idealistic, than older people. ... We are seduced by policies based on the awesome American value of individual initiative combined with liberty to create and retain wealth. It's now called conservatism." --radio talk-show host 1. Dennis Prager