Archive for July, 2007

After 1 Year, Kidnapped Israeli Soldiers Still Missing

Published by
tieki rae
at July 29, 2007 in Ehud Goldwasser, Eldad Regev, Gilad Shalit, Hamas, Hizbollah and Israel. 8 Comments

Five months ago, this is what I had to say about Ehud Goldwasser, Eldad Regev, and Gilad Shalit:

Imagine if they were your family members, if they were American soldiers, being held by a terrorist organization for 7 months with out any contact with the outside world and with little to no media coverage or international political pressure.

It’s unimaginable. It would be unacceptable to Americans.

The latest “news” comes out of Lebanon, a report that one of the captive IDF soldiers held by Hizbollah is dead.

One of the two kidnapped IDF soldiers in Lebanon are dead, according to estimates by German security sources, who were quoted in the Lebanese newspaper, An-Nahar, Saturday.

“Security forces understood that one of the kidnapped soldiers is still alive, however, the other is dead,” An-Nahar reported.

According to the report, senior diplomatic sources in Berlin said that the German government had begun to get seriously involved in negotiations for the release of captive soldiers, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser.

The report said that the Germans were in direct contact with the Christian general, Michel Aoun, who is currently in the midst of a presidential campaign in Lebanon.The diplomats were trying to get information regarding the fate of the two soldiers, who were kidnapped by Hizbullah last July. However, Aoun, who is cooperating with Hizbullah against the Siniora government, refused to comment on the issue.

If this were true, it would obviously be tragic news. The problem is that these reports tend have a lack of credibility. Since their kidnapping on July 12, 2006, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev have not been permitted visits from the Red Cross. They have had no contact with the outside world. No proof has been provided by Hizbollah that they even lived past the first day of captivity. Gilad Shalit’s situation with Hamas is not much better. In recent months, there have been some negotiations between Israel and Hamas that give the impression Shalit is still living. Hamas has also released some tape recordings of Shalit’s voice.

Perhaps I’m sounding repetitive, but how on earth is this tolerated by Israel and the rest of the civilized world? I cannot even come close to comprehending why the US has basically sat back and allowed Hizbollah (and Lebanon simply by association and lack of action) to do this to our greatest ally’s soldiers.

I can’t imagine what the families of the kidnapped soldiers are feeling right now, but I do think they are making the right move by publicly rejecting the report:

Goldwasser’s parents dismissed the report, saying Hizbullah was making “cynical use” of unsubstantiated information. “It’s a psychological game. If they want to transmit credible information, they should do so through ordinary channels,” said Miki Goldwasser, Ehud’s mother.“As for us, this information will only be real when the Red Cross visits them, or a tape is presented to us,” she added.

Karnit Goldwasser, Ehud’s wife, also released a statement:

Karnit Goldwasser, wife of kidnapped reservist Ehud Goldwasser, responded on Sunday to a report in the Lebanese media that one of the two captives held by Hizbullah was dead by saying that to her sorrow, she was “used” to such reports.

“They can’t play with my feelings, and I know that they wouldn’t just release information to [a] newspaper,” Goldwasser told Army Radio.

“I know Michael Aoun, so this report isn’t worth anything to me,” she said.

Karnit and Ehud were still newlyweds - married only 10 months - when all this began. Now, their 2nd wedding anniversary is approaching and she has devoted all of her time to find out whether or not Ehud is even alive.

Isn’t terrorism and international capitulation to terrorists wonderful?

Now, here is the part of the story that really infuriates me the most:

The issue of the kidnapped soldiers continues to make waves in Israel, as well as Lebanon. While Israel demands a sign of life from the two soldiers, Hizbullah Secretary-General Hasan Nasrallah said he would not give away information about Regev and Goldwasser for free.

“I’m the only one authorized to give information about their condition,” Nasrallah said in an interview with Al-Jazeera.

Are you kidding me?

Here in America, idiotic and traitorous liberals are whining and crying about the Gitmo detainees not having their Korans read to them at bedtime and all the while we don’t even know if these IDF soldiers who were kidnapped by terrorists are even alive.

I’ll ask again. Where is the international pressure on Lebanon and Hizbollah and Hamas to release these prisoners? Where is the outcry from human rights organizations about the refusal to provide medical care? Where is the non-stop media attention about this situation?

Hello?

————————-
For more information on Ehud Goldwasser, Eldad Regev, and Gilad Shalit, check out these websites:
Banim.org - “Thy children shall come again to their own border.”
Behind the Headlines - Information from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Sphere: Related Content

Rocky Mountain News: Studies Question Sex-Offender Restrictions

Published by
tieki rae
at July 24, 2007 in News, crime, prison and stupid. 22 Comments

Question: When you think of a facility for sex-offenders which is described as “a structured environment with close supervision by professionals and observation by their peers… a tight web of supervision, treatment, surveillance”, what comes to mind?

Call me crazy, but I can’t think of a better structured environment with professional supervision and surveillance for these disgusting, perverted freaks of nature than a prison.

Well, apparently there is a debate currently going on in Colorado about what to do with sex-0ffenders who have been released from prison but still have high likelihoods of recidivism. This article tells the sad story of five poor little sex-offenders who tried to live together in a Denver suburb.

It all began in 1999 when five men dutifully went to the Lakewood Police Department to register as sex offenders.

Each gave the same address, which grabbed the attention of city officials, who quickly took action to close the house. Soon the City Council passed an ordinance permitting only one sex offender to live in a house in a residential area.

Lakewood’s approach spread like wildfire, with 16 other metro- area cities promptly passing similar regulations.

The citizens of Lakewood were obviously unhappy with the concentration of disgusting, perverted freaks of nature and therefore passed a law restricting said concentration. The five poor little sex-offenders were obviously offended and upset. They were living together for accountability and a stable environment. I’m sure it had nothing to do with the two teenage boys living in the house next door, frequently unsupervised, let alone the other families and children in the neighborhood. So, the five poor, little sex-offenders moved away into a different group home for other disgusting, perverted freaks of nature like themselves.

Here’s the plot twist:

But governments that passed laws over the past few years to keep sex offenders from living in group homes in their jurisdictions may have done so at the cost of public safety.

A number of studies, including one released last month by the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, conclude that restricting where offenders may live does not prevent repeat sex crimes.

Instead, the restrictions encourage sex offenders to “disappear,” blending into communities where they live in the privacy essential to committing new sex crimes, the studies say.

“Frankly, sex offenders like being told they can’t be around other sex offenders,” said Greig Veeder, executive director of Teaching Humane Existence, a sex offender treatment program. “It ruins their privacy. They can’t commit their crimes unless they have privacy.

Moral of the story? The laws against sex-offenders concentrating in residential areas backfired. Studies are now showing that these disgusting, perverted freaks of nature are less likely to re-offend if they live in “group homes” with 24-hour surveillance and staff, treatment, and accountability.

What keeps that from happening is having sex offenders living in a structured environment with close supervision by professionals and observation by their peers, English said.

“Residency restrictions prevent us from having sex offenders living together,” Veeder said, “but 25 years of my experience and significant research all support that the more you can make them live together, the easier it is to control them.

“It’s far better to have snakes in a basket than running around loose in the yard.”

The Colorado research, based on a 2004 survey of sex offenders, found that high-risk sex offenders living in shared living arrangements had significantly fewer probation and criminal violations than those living in other living arrangements.

Violations also were more quickly reported because of the heightened peer and professional oversight. Quick reporting is essential for speedy action to protect potential victims, the study noted.

“Offenders hold each other accountable for their actions and responsibilities and notify the appropriate authorities when a roommate commits certain behavior, such as returning home late or having contact with children,” the 2004 Colorado report said.

Again, call me crazy, but doesn’t that sound a lot like prison? These disgusting, perverted freaks of nature should obviously not be allowed outside barbed wire fences when they have such a high rate of recidivism. Group homes? Warm fuzzies by being accountable to your new best friend forever if you come home late or snuggle with children? Whatever. I say forget the baskets, keep the snakes in the slammer.

Sphere: Related Content

My Grandpa

Published by
tieki rae
at July 22, 2007 in family. 4 Comments

Early Friday morning, my dad’s dad passed away.

Grandpa, Dad, and Me

When it all comes down, he was a pretty cool grandpa. Even though he had been living in southwest Kansas for over 50 years, he never really lost his New York City accent. My grandpa had an Army tattoo on his arm from when he served in WWII. He always kept a full dish of Werther’s candies on the coffee table and another on his dresser. Maybe it’s weird, but those are the things that stand out most vividly in my memory and really define him as my grandpa.

For a while now, he had been fighting some health issues. I know it was hard for him to live like that, so I’m glad that he’s no longer in pain. That said, it seems surreal that he isn’t on this earth anymore. I can’t imagine what my dad and his siblings are going through right now, because he was their dad.

Today I’m flying from DC to Denver, where my parents will pick me up and we’ll travel to Kansas together for the services. I have a couple posts scheduled to come out, but other than that, Haemet probably won’t receive much attention this week.

God bless.

Sphere: Related Content

The New (and Improved) Haemet

Published by
tieki rae
at July 21, 2007 in blog, conservative and personal. 13 Comments

Some of you may be under the impression that I have been the laziest blogger ever for the past few weeks. This is patently false. Surely there must be others who post less than once every three weeks? ;)

This weekend, I decided to make the transition from Haemet Yeshachrer Otcha to ConservaBlogs.com.

I have to admit, the change is a little overwhelming. There is so much I don’t know about blogging and it seems like I’ve joined a rather impressive group of conservative bloggers. Can you say intimidating? At the same time, it is obviously rather exciting. :)

Over the next couple weeks, I will probably be experimenting quite a bit with themes and widgets, plug-ins and other bloggy things I haven’t the slightest clue about. So, don’t be surprised if Haemet has a face-lift every time you come back.

Hopefully Haemet will be back on track after this switch is completed and I stop changing time zones every couple weeks. I never thought I would say this, but after my insane time in DC — Cornell in the fall is actually sounding pretty nice.

Sphere: Related Content

Incrementalism as a Pro-Life Strategy

Published by
tieki rae
at July 9, 2007 in Abortion, Pro-Life and partial-birth abortion. 18 Comments

Perhaps I am naive, but until this year I was completely unaware of the clashes between the various leading forces within the pro-life movement.

In my Evangelicals and American Politics class, I learned for the first time about the considerable differences in the immediate post-Roe era between groups like the National Right to Life Committee (dedicated to legislative action) and members of the rescue movement such as Randall Terry and company.  I would still like to do some research on the motives and methodologies of each group before making a complete judgment about who was right or wrong, but I honestly cannot see myself absolutely disagreeing with either side.  Is it really that novel of an idea to think that we need both legislative pressure and social action?  Lobbyists and protesters?  I would be hard-pressed to criticize either of their goals and actions.

Currently, I’m in the midst of an amazing learning opportunity — basically, I’m studying at the feet of some of the most influential pro-life leaders in the country and obviously enjoying every minute of it. :)  That said, there are a lot of questions that I’ve been asking myself and I’m interested in what a lot of you may think on the issue as well.

One of my assigned readings was a commentary (from Nov. 2003) by Thomas A. Droleskey of the American Life League.  I have always been impressed with the publicity materials produced by ALL.  Their pro-life t-shirts, signs, and various literatures tend to stand out with their boldness and include solid information.  They are a strongly Catholic organization, so some of their articles have not really appealed to me from that angle.

Anyway, I could not find the Droleskey article on the ALL website, but I was able to find it midway down the page here, titled “Affirming the Merchants of Death.”  The gist of this article and much of the other material propagated by ALL is that incrementalism is an inherently anti-life strategy.  Therefore, groups that use such a strategy (read:  National Right to Life Committee) are actually pro-abortion baby killers.  Don’t believe me?  Here is a quote straight from the horse’s mouth:

Here is a simple rule of thumb for pro-life Americans: ignore all of the political and policy judgments of the National Right to Committee. They have affirmed the very principles that have given rise to the culture of death in which we find ourselves at this point in salvation history. All of their pragmatism and incrementalism have failed the cause of saving preborn babies and are failing now the cause of those threatened by euthanasia.

Honestly, this blows my mind.  According to the American Life League, supporting a bill such as the Partial Birth Abortion Act is wrong because it does not make all abortions illegal right now.  Sure, it’s logical to say that ultimately this act probably won’t save many unborn children because women will just get different types of abortion.  Nevertheless, we have established a boundary!  We’ve shown that there is a line that Congress and the Supreme Court will refuse to cross.  No, it’s not perfect, but I recently heard an analogy that makes a lot of sense:  compare the road to making abortion illegal to a large room.  Logically, we simply cannot cross the room in one step.  We’re physically incapable of flying to the other side, so we have to take it step by step.  If each step is successful, we will arrive at the other side of the room.

Is this a satisfying metaphor?  No.  More than anything else in the world I wish we could make all abortions illegal right now.  If there were any sort of plausible way to do that, I would support it 1000000%.  There simply isn’t such a way at this time.  Abortion has become socially acceptable, or at least unmentionable.  The inherent sanctity of life has become a back-burner priority to many politically ambivalent Americans.  This does not mean our goal is unachievable, but it does mean that it may take some time and effort — as horrible as it is to think of the unborn children that will continue to die.

Now, that said, I do believe that some leaders within the pro-life movement take incrementalism much too far.  They argue that it would be best to accept electable candidates who support a rape/incest exception just so that we have mostly pro-life individuals in office.  I simply cannot accept that option.  If we’re not in favor of a rape/incest exception, why would we want to elect people who will only support legislation with such a rule?  That is one criteria which falls into the “all or nothing” category, in my opinion.

Alright, I’ve rambled enough and I have homework/reading to do.  Please, please, please skim that article or think about incrementalism as a pro-life strategy and tell me your thoughts on the issue.  How do you think the pro-life movement would be most effective?  In an ideal situation where we had unlimited funding to spend toward saving the lives of unborn children, what methods would you employ to reach that goal?

Sphere: Related Content