As we look forward to celebrating Memorial Day, as we pay honor and respect to the millions of men and women who served our country well, particularly those multiple thousands who fought and died in our country's battles, on the eve of this holiday, I would just like to pay tribute to a certain serviceman who died last Wednesday from a bomb blast in Afghanistan.
His name was Lt. Col. Shawn M. Pine (also, unfortunately, a female Air Force Lt. by the name of Roslyn L. Shulte perished with Col. Pine as well), age 51, a local Army Reserve soldier from here in San Antonio, Tx. He worked in intelligence. I did not know him personally. Did not even know anything about him until I heard about his life-ending tragedy. In yesterday's San Antonio Express-News, I read the article about him and his illuminating life. I will use that article's information to pay him tribute.
At the time of his death, he was working as a consultant for a private company in Va. Although his trade was in intelligence, (in fact, his resume ran the gamut of serving with the Israeli Golani Brigade, being a Hebrew linguist, and being part of the search for weapons of mass destruction), his fellow soldiers and family knew him as a "crusader for the underdog."
A few of the things he was known for:
He once got a group of soldiers to pitch in to pay for a funeral.
He made sure a foreign national got life-saving surgery.
His daughter remembered as a little girl when seeing a man begging for food for his himself and his children, that instead of handing out money, Col. Pine went to a grocery store to buy the food so "that way we would make sure the kids got fed," as she remembered it.
A fitting or summary quote from retired Army 1st Sgt. Rex Pierce goes, "He was the best commander I've ever served with, and I mean served with--not served for. He always put the soldier first, always. He had a rare quality of taking care of soldiers to the point where they wanted to serve." Sgt. Pierce added that if a soldier had financial trouble, if going through the regular Army channels did not serve the purpose, then Col. Pine would quietly make loans to his own troops--not expecting to get the money back.
Finally, in what may have been his last act of charity, Pine asked his daughter Rachel Pyeatt to send a "care package" of baby clothes to Afghanistan. The clothes were for an interpreter who was going to be a dad; and even though he was killed before the package arrived, some other officers there made sure the interpreter got the clothes for his baby.
I surely do use the word "finally" because I'm sure this is only a synopsis of what this special man did. And I'm sure Col. Pine was not seeking any type of recognition for his acts of compassion, his acts of leadership. A man such as he does not care about any of that. Men and women such as him only want to make this world a better place for all our progeny to live. Some accomplish more than others depending upon their abilities and resources. . . and that's okay. They are shining examples of doing the best you can when you can.
When these special men and women also get to serve in the U.S. armed forces, it makes it all that remarkable because these people do not get much compensation for their services. In fact, unfortunately, many times they are detested for their oft sacrifices.
So I salute you Lt. Col. Pine. I salute you and thank you for your bravery. Along with him, I would like to salute my own father, Daniel Garcia, Sr. who served in the U.S. Air Force for twenty-five years and retired a Senior Master Sergeant. I cannot leave out my older brother, Joe Maldonado, who served in the Marine Corp and also retired a Senior Master Sergeant. To all of you. . . a salute.
Again, my information came from the Saturday, May 23rd, 2009 edition of the San Antonio Express-News.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Guess "Fear Factor" is out of the Question
Well, I hope we didn't hurt those poor terrorist's feelings! Oh you poor terrorists. You mean it hurt you when you were slammed into that soft, pliable wall? When we put that scary caterpillar into your cell? ("Hey. . . Anybody bother telling these dudes they were being auditioned for the Fear Factor?!"). Didn't like it because we didn't clean behind your ears after waterboarding? We didn't know. . . shoulda said sumthin', hombre.
And according to President Obama in his speech yesterday the 21st, such tortuous actions cause you and your delicate friends to want to fight harder for your cause? You're able to recruit more "soldiers" for your cause because of all that torture? Well, if that's the case, then I simply use President Bush's oft maligned challenge, "Bring it on." Yeah, brutha. . . briiinnng it on!
Now let's be realistic here. Are we actually to believe that these enhanced interrogation techniques actually foment terrorism? Guess I can understand that. I mean, if that's the best we can do as "torture", why would anyone not want to get caught and spend a few days at Club Gitmo (Rush's cognomen, not mine), spend a little time away from jihad. ("Hey all you soldiers of jihad. Better get your reservations in before the president closes it down").
I still remember watching the movie Babel the other day starring Brad Pitt. My wife and I were watching the scene when the Moroccan police have the father and his sons cornered in the mountain and fire upon them rather quickly, not really giving them a chance to surrender peacefully. My wife remarked in astonishment that they, the police, definitely don't mess around in those situations, meaning the police in those foreign countries.
I simply affirmed that that was the truth and went on to say that if we (especially those in liberal America) really want to know what torture is, just go to those type of countries (you liberal Americans should feel right at home over there). They'll show you what torture is.
Anyway, just to boil it down, President Obama was just doing what comes naturally to him by apologizing to the dictators and terrorists of the world for our actions in protecting ourselves by denigrating the work of those people in the intelligence community who work hard to keep this country safe. (Now the day before his speech, the U.S. Senate had just voted down a bill that would have provided the funds necessary to close down Gitmo. In fact, the vote was 90-6! Where did that wave of common sense come from?). Dick Cheney--in his response to Mr. Obama's speech--was absolutely correct when he said Obama was libeling the character of these people. Classic the way Mr. Cheney responded to Obama's speech. . . simply classic.
Guess that means we can't enter you into the Fear Factor, that is if it ever returns to television. And even then, if you guys can't even handle a caterpillar in your cell, how are you going to handle hundreds of rats frolicking around with you in a box. Hey, I'm just saying. . . Anyway, not to worry. If we can't find a spot for you on the Fear Factor, I'm sure we can find a place for you somewhere. . . say. . . like the gas chamber.
P.S.
I had heard that one of the techniques used against the terrorists was female soldiers coming in without their bdu jacket, only wearing a tank or a sleeveless t-shirt. Maybe wearing a skirt a couple of inches above the knees. Then they would proceed to walk around the terrorist, brushing against him slightly. This was to be an affront to his religious sensibilities according to the libs, particularly if he believed the woman was menstruating.
All I can say to that is if torture constitutes a group of scantily-clad women parading in front of you and brushing against you occasionally ( hmmm. . . sounds like a lapdance), sign me up for that!--that is, if my wife lets me.
And according to President Obama in his speech yesterday the 21st, such tortuous actions cause you and your delicate friends to want to fight harder for your cause? You're able to recruit more "soldiers" for your cause because of all that torture? Well, if that's the case, then I simply use President Bush's oft maligned challenge, "Bring it on." Yeah, brutha. . . briiinnng it on!
Now let's be realistic here. Are we actually to believe that these enhanced interrogation techniques actually foment terrorism? Guess I can understand that. I mean, if that's the best we can do as "torture", why would anyone not want to get caught and spend a few days at Club Gitmo (Rush's cognomen, not mine), spend a little time away from jihad. ("Hey all you soldiers of jihad. Better get your reservations in before the president closes it down").
I still remember watching the movie Babel the other day starring Brad Pitt. My wife and I were watching the scene when the Moroccan police have the father and his sons cornered in the mountain and fire upon them rather quickly, not really giving them a chance to surrender peacefully. My wife remarked in astonishment that they, the police, definitely don't mess around in those situations, meaning the police in those foreign countries.
I simply affirmed that that was the truth and went on to say that if we (especially those in liberal America) really want to know what torture is, just go to those type of countries (you liberal Americans should feel right at home over there). They'll show you what torture is.
Anyway, just to boil it down, President Obama was just doing what comes naturally to him by apologizing to the dictators and terrorists of the world for our actions in protecting ourselves by denigrating the work of those people in the intelligence community who work hard to keep this country safe. (Now the day before his speech, the U.S. Senate had just voted down a bill that would have provided the funds necessary to close down Gitmo. In fact, the vote was 90-6! Where did that wave of common sense come from?). Dick Cheney--in his response to Mr. Obama's speech--was absolutely correct when he said Obama was libeling the character of these people. Classic the way Mr. Cheney responded to Obama's speech. . . simply classic.
Guess that means we can't enter you into the Fear Factor, that is if it ever returns to television. And even then, if you guys can't even handle a caterpillar in your cell, how are you going to handle hundreds of rats frolicking around with you in a box. Hey, I'm just saying. . . Anyway, not to worry. If we can't find a spot for you on the Fear Factor, I'm sure we can find a place for you somewhere. . . say. . . like the gas chamber.
P.S.
I had heard that one of the techniques used against the terrorists was female soldiers coming in without their bdu jacket, only wearing a tank or a sleeveless t-shirt. Maybe wearing a skirt a couple of inches above the knees. Then they would proceed to walk around the terrorist, brushing against him slightly. This was to be an affront to his religious sensibilities according to the libs, particularly if he believed the woman was menstruating.
All I can say to that is if torture constitutes a group of scantily-clad women parading in front of you and brushing against you occasionally ( hmmm. . . sounds like a lapdance), sign me up for that!--that is, if my wife lets me.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Truly Remarkable Men
Certainly the news of the Army sergeant, John Russell, who killed five of his fellow soldiers at a mental stress clinic in Iraq is very sad. Certainly for the fine young men who were killed and for their families. What more can really be said about it? It's hard to fathom. Seems like the public gets pulled in a back-and-forth direction when incidents such as this occur. It was only a few weeks ago when we were cheering and feeling very proud for the Navy Seals' heroic actions against the pirates holding the ship captain hostage. Now we have this incident in Iraq to contemplate.
Ofttimes, tragedies such as this will leave a lingering mark on the public psyche; and ofttimes we usually carry on as a society knowing this is part of life in all its quirks and derivatives. Perhaps, there are just commanding or intrusive forces that are out of our control. So, we just move on knowing or at least hoping some other type of force or entity will come and make things right. Thus, it is in our interest to just quickly try to erase the current impending incident from our mind.
Still, how many such incidents can any society absorb, especially a society (American) that has been appointed the policeman of the world. Furthermore, how much more can our soldiers absorb in their turbulent world in the Middle East theater? Sergeant Russell was on his third tour in Iraq, and presumably receiving treatment or counseling for his condition which we assume was psychological in nature. We assume he snapped so to say. That is the prevailing report so far. And we also know this isn't the first time a soldier has killed a fellow soldier or soldiers in the war.
I remember the Muslim sergeant at the very beginning who threw a couple of grenades in a tent and killed at least one officer among others. His reason was that we, the United States, were there to rape Iraq and his fellow Muslims. For Sergeant Russell, at least for now, we just assume it was the stresses of war, although I don't know for sure if he was involved in combat because I had heard his unit was a communications unit. There is a lot that still needs to be learned; and it's possible not everything will be revealed to the public for awhile...and to the conspiracy theorists, in whose camp I seem to stumble into from time to time, perhaps the "real facts" will never be known.
In fact, this brings to mind a movie that I watched on dvd the other day, In the Valley of Elah starring Tommy Lee Jones. Both situations--Sergeant Russell's and Spc. Deerfield's (Jones' son)-- involve or deal with the stresses or rigors of war. The decisions that need to be made in split-second moments out in the field at least in the case of Spc. Deerfield.
In his case, he was part of a combat unit that had standing orders not to stop for anything on the road for any reason while driving in a convoy (don't know if any such orders were actually issued in real life, but that's what the movie portrayed, and the movie claimed it was based on actual events). Apparently, this was to protect them from being ambushed. Well, Deerfield was driving and coming upon an Iraqi boy in the road. He knew his orders, but how can you just run over an innocent little boy on the road? What do you do? You're the one driving, and your fellow soldiers are screaming at you not to stop. Do not stop! In a split second, you have to weigh the consequences of your decision and act... a decision and act that may haunt you the rest of your life.
Well, if you watched the movie, then you know the outcome. Deerfield did run over the boy; and for the rest of his short life, he couldn't cope with the consequences. He eventually gets into a fight with a fellow soldier (apparently as a result of what happened in Iraq), gets stabbed (multiple times) by the soldier. Multiple times perhaps because his fellow soldiers were also having to deal with the boy's death and his looming rage simply prevailed.
So whatever Russell's rage may have been that caused him to kill, it's very understandable that Sergeant Russell's father is very upset to say the least; and in his grief--and at this time, it may just be the grief speaking--he has stated that the Army bears some responsibility in the matter. In fact, according to what I read on MSNBC through Google, the father claims the Army "broke" his son. I'm supposing he meant by the stress tests they were conducting on his son; and again, the stress from just being in that war theater multiple times whether he experienced combat or not (not always known who can or cannot handle such life's situations), perhaps seeing or experiencing something that shocked him may have been the trigger.
In any case, I was listening to radio-host Mike Gallagher the other day concerning this subject, and he did take umbrage to that statement made by Sergeant Russell's father. Mr. Gallagher was in no way deriding the elder Russell himself for he certainly did understand his grief; however, he saw it as his duty to defend not only the Army but the military as a whole, and he did it very well against a couple of callers who believed or went along with the elder Russell's view of culpability.
Whatever opinion one may have about the occasional tragedies that occur in America's Middle East war, in the long run let us remember that these men and women who serve over there in harm's way are truly remarkable. Let us not mitigate their long-suffering dedication. Their passion to serve this great country in whatever way necessary. Take it to heart, when you see or hear news of a fallen soldier, especially if he was a local citizen. Take it to heart when you see a memorial dedicated to a certain soldier who died. Reflect upon not only that soldier, but his family as well. Reflect upon where this country of America would possibly be if it were not for that soldier and his great dedication to his dangerous and sometimes forlorn duties.
Ofttimes, tragedies such as this will leave a lingering mark on the public psyche; and ofttimes we usually carry on as a society knowing this is part of life in all its quirks and derivatives. Perhaps, there are just commanding or intrusive forces that are out of our control. So, we just move on knowing or at least hoping some other type of force or entity will come and make things right. Thus, it is in our interest to just quickly try to erase the current impending incident from our mind.
Still, how many such incidents can any society absorb, especially a society (American) that has been appointed the policeman of the world. Furthermore, how much more can our soldiers absorb in their turbulent world in the Middle East theater? Sergeant Russell was on his third tour in Iraq, and presumably receiving treatment or counseling for his condition which we assume was psychological in nature. We assume he snapped so to say. That is the prevailing report so far. And we also know this isn't the first time a soldier has killed a fellow soldier or soldiers in the war.
I remember the Muslim sergeant at the very beginning who threw a couple of grenades in a tent and killed at least one officer among others. His reason was that we, the United States, were there to rape Iraq and his fellow Muslims. For Sergeant Russell, at least for now, we just assume it was the stresses of war, although I don't know for sure if he was involved in combat because I had heard his unit was a communications unit. There is a lot that still needs to be learned; and it's possible not everything will be revealed to the public for awhile...and to the conspiracy theorists, in whose camp I seem to stumble into from time to time, perhaps the "real facts" will never be known.
In fact, this brings to mind a movie that I watched on dvd the other day, In the Valley of Elah starring Tommy Lee Jones. Both situations--Sergeant Russell's and Spc. Deerfield's (Jones' son)-- involve or deal with the stresses or rigors of war. The decisions that need to be made in split-second moments out in the field at least in the case of Spc. Deerfield.
In his case, he was part of a combat unit that had standing orders not to stop for anything on the road for any reason while driving in a convoy (don't know if any such orders were actually issued in real life, but that's what the movie portrayed, and the movie claimed it was based on actual events). Apparently, this was to protect them from being ambushed. Well, Deerfield was driving and coming upon an Iraqi boy in the road. He knew his orders, but how can you just run over an innocent little boy on the road? What do you do? You're the one driving, and your fellow soldiers are screaming at you not to stop. Do not stop! In a split second, you have to weigh the consequences of your decision and act... a decision and act that may haunt you the rest of your life.
Well, if you watched the movie, then you know the outcome. Deerfield did run over the boy; and for the rest of his short life, he couldn't cope with the consequences. He eventually gets into a fight with a fellow soldier (apparently as a result of what happened in Iraq), gets stabbed (multiple times) by the soldier. Multiple times perhaps because his fellow soldiers were also having to deal with the boy's death and his looming rage simply prevailed.
So whatever Russell's rage may have been that caused him to kill, it's very understandable that Sergeant Russell's father is very upset to say the least; and in his grief--and at this time, it may just be the grief speaking--he has stated that the Army bears some responsibility in the matter. In fact, according to what I read on MSNBC through Google, the father claims the Army "broke" his son. I'm supposing he meant by the stress tests they were conducting on his son; and again, the stress from just being in that war theater multiple times whether he experienced combat or not (not always known who can or cannot handle such life's situations), perhaps seeing or experiencing something that shocked him may have been the trigger.
In any case, I was listening to radio-host Mike Gallagher the other day concerning this subject, and he did take umbrage to that statement made by Sergeant Russell's father. Mr. Gallagher was in no way deriding the elder Russell himself for he certainly did understand his grief; however, he saw it as his duty to defend not only the Army but the military as a whole, and he did it very well against a couple of callers who believed or went along with the elder Russell's view of culpability.
Whatever opinion one may have about the occasional tragedies that occur in America's Middle East war, in the long run let us remember that these men and women who serve over there in harm's way are truly remarkable. Let us not mitigate their long-suffering dedication. Their passion to serve this great country in whatever way necessary. Take it to heart, when you see or hear news of a fallen soldier, especially if he was a local citizen. Take it to heart when you see a memorial dedicated to a certain soldier who died. Reflect upon not only that soldier, but his family as well. Reflect upon where this country of America would possibly be if it were not for that soldier and his great dedication to his dangerous and sometimes forlorn duties.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Some More Flu News
Just checked on Yahoo news that there are now 141 cases of the Swine flu in the U.S. Here in San Antonio or the South Texas region, some more cases were reported or confirmed... Seguin, Tx. for instance. Some more schools and other public places were going to be closed. For awhile, because of the virus, it was determined that the regional high school track meet would need to be canceled which caused much consternation mainly because it was a possibility that the athletes with the best running times, best high jumps, etc. would not be competing at the state meet. The plan, I believe was to take the best times from more recent meets and choose the participants accordingly. Well, after all that, the athletic governing body of Texas, the UIL, decided to reverse its decision to cancel the regional meet.
And it is hard to determine which places need to be closed, what events need to be canceled, and so on. I can understand the government's difficulty in making these decisions, which is why--in the ironic sense--I found at least one report on the national news yesterday amusing. Some schools in the Ft. Worth area had been closed because of the outbreak. Well, the mothers of these kids (and they were young kids, first or second graders) decided to organize a gathering, and the kids were shown playing baseball or softball. I'm sure many frowns arose from that; but you certainly can't expect mothers of young children to be keeping them indoors all day even with the current circumstances. Just wait till you're a parent.
I was watching an article on CNN showing Dr. Sanjay Gupta in Mexico seeking "patient zero" or the person who started all this. I believe he was in a town called Longoria. He found the patient which turned out to be five-year old boy. Apparently, the boy had been ill in late February or early March; and by the time he recovered, it had been too late to determine that he had indeed carried the virus and that it had already spread. So that is what I am going by so far.
So, of course, conspiracy theorists--which I do have a healthy respect for ( Healthy respect for because I have yet to see anyone produce the African Green Monkey which was supposed to be the instigator of the AIDs virus. Where is it?)--weigh in with their thoughts. "Government control, government control," is usually the mantra attributed to these people, "the government (federal that is) is seeking more control by falsifying facts about this virus so that the president can eventually declare martial law." Far-fetched? Well, did we ever think that the Federal government would eventually own about sixty percent of GM under the guise of trying to get it back on course? Something to think about.
And it is hard to determine which places need to be closed, what events need to be canceled, and so on. I can understand the government's difficulty in making these decisions, which is why--in the ironic sense--I found at least one report on the national news yesterday amusing. Some schools in the Ft. Worth area had been closed because of the outbreak. Well, the mothers of these kids (and they were young kids, first or second graders) decided to organize a gathering, and the kids were shown playing baseball or softball. I'm sure many frowns arose from that; but you certainly can't expect mothers of young children to be keeping them indoors all day even with the current circumstances. Just wait till you're a parent.
I was watching an article on CNN showing Dr. Sanjay Gupta in Mexico seeking "patient zero" or the person who started all this. I believe he was in a town called Longoria. He found the patient which turned out to be five-year old boy. Apparently, the boy had been ill in late February or early March; and by the time he recovered, it had been too late to determine that he had indeed carried the virus and that it had already spread. So that is what I am going by so far.
So, of course, conspiracy theorists--which I do have a healthy respect for ( Healthy respect for because I have yet to see anyone produce the African Green Monkey which was supposed to be the instigator of the AIDs virus. Where is it?)--weigh in with their thoughts. "Government control, government control," is usually the mantra attributed to these people, "the government (federal that is) is seeking more control by falsifying facts about this virus so that the president can eventually declare martial law." Far-fetched? Well, did we ever think that the Federal government would eventually own about sixty percent of GM under the guise of trying to get it back on course? Something to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)