Hey Everybody! I just wanted to let you all know that I will be permanently moving over to the The Way I See It (ryanwrasse.blogspot.com). See you there!
We're not taking GOP-spot offline, but I will probably not be posting on here as frequently.
Monday, December 4, 2006
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Terrorism Prevention
For those of you who know me, you know that I am a terrorism/religious studies junkie. By junkie I mean that I enjoy researching, studying and exploring why terrorists commit acts, and how religion affects political decisions. I just wanted to clear that up in case the Homeland Security Department, FBI or CIA is reading this right now...I'm not a terrorist.
As far as terrorism goes, I am a staunch supporter of a proactive (Bush Style) verses reactive (Clinton Style) policy when it comes to addressing terrorism. In the realm of proactive policy, terror experts rely on two forms of analysis: Trend and Scenario. Below, I pose one basic version of each form. Realistically, the governement has to rely on a little of both, but which would you rely on more heavily?
Trend
I predict that the frequency of terrorist bombings in Mid-East countries occupied by US forces will increase somewhat exponentially as time goes on. I do not think this hypothesis is as obviously proved as some may think. Obviously, US forces are at a greater risk just by the very nature of being there, but I think there is a direct correlation between occupying US forces, time, anti-American sentiment and bombings. I use bombings as my comparative tactic because that seems to be the weapon of choice, second only to traditional firearms and rocket propelled explosives. If I had the time, I would like to do a comparison of all three, but for time’s sake I’ll focus solely on bombings. Since it is so relevant, I will use Iraq as my test country and will include Iraqi government, military and police targets in my comparison since they are directly related to our occupation.
Data:
March 20, 2003 (date of invasion) through September 20, 2003- 12 terrorist attacks
September 20, 2003 through March 20, 2004- 46 terrorist attacks
March 20, 2004 through September 20, 2004- 69 terrorist attacks
September 20, 2004 through March 20, 2005- 271 terrorist attacks
March 20, 2005 through September 20, 2005- 280 terrorist attacks
September 20, 2005 through March 20, 2006- 388 terrorist attacks
March 20, 2006 through September 20, 2006- 584 terrorist attacks
There were 1, 650 terrorist attacks within Iraq from the beginning of US occupation until September 20, 2006.
The data speaks for itself and strongly affirms my hypothesis that terrorist acts (bombings) committed against US forces and new Iraqi government, military and police forces would increase somewhat exponentially as time went on.
The first six months was rather low because the invasion had just begun, forces had not yet occupied the country and the old Iraqi government was still in power. As the invasion and occupation slowly increased so did the attacks. The six month period where attacks jumped from 69 to 271 indicated a shift from local uprising to internationally led terrorism including the emergence of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al Qaeda. A vast majority of attacks from that time period on were committed by al Qaeda or an affiliate group. I did not have time to compile the same data for Afghanistan, but the overall data for that country indicated the same as Iraq.
I think this trend is bound to increase as time goes on. The data does not does not indicate the attacks leveling off, nor does it even show that the attacks are slowing down. I see these numbers growing within the next five years. The major fuel that feeds this fire remains the occupation of US forces and as time goes on the anti-American sentiment grows. The only way to slow these attacks would either require US forces to leave Iraq, re-deploy or for the American government to freeze time. Don't get me wrong...I'm not proposing that we leave Iraq, I'm only addressing the question at hand: Will attacks go up or down while the US occupies Iraq? Not should we leave or stay?
Scenario
July 4, 2010
My family and I are making our way to 5th Avenue in New York City for the annual Fourth of July parade. It is so hot and sticky that I think I’m going to faint before I even make it to the parade route! My wife is pushing our 3 month old son in a stroller, bouncing over every crack in the sidewalk, as I carry our 4 year-old daughter block by block because she is too tired to walk on her own. My daughter loudly explains to me that she is tired, hot and thirsty all at the same time, as my wife echoes the same complaints. I turn around and squint as I look through the sun beams to find my wife’s face. I tell her that we will make a quick pit stop at a road side vendor to pick up a few bottles of water and a balloon for my daughter-this keeps her occupied until we make it to mid-town.
There are people everywhere! They are pushing and shoving, all with the excitement of the Fourth plastered on their faces. Everyone seems happy and excited for the parade to begin-the cheers are almost deafening. Cabs honk as they scream past us one after the other. We begin to cross the street when in the distance we hear sirens blaring. The noise is getting louder and the fire engines are getting closer. This is no unusual scene in New York City, so we continue to make our way up the street.
Thank goodness! We finally made it! We get up to the parade route just as the Snoopy float makes its way around the corner. I hoist my daughter onto my shoulders so she can get a better look as my wife attends to our crying baby. As time goes on, I get continually weak and beat down. I stare up at the sun and wonder why the heat must be so intense. My wife cannot seem to get the baby under control and my daughter tells me she is not feeling well again. We drink the rest of our water and keep watching the parade.
I begin to notice people around me suffering from what seems to be the same thing that is ailing me. Just then, an older man in front of me collapses as I, too, get dizzy and fall to the side walk-my daughter comes crashing down with me. It feels like I’m choking! I can hardly breathe! I turn over, thinking I had a heat stroke, to check on my daughter. As I turn around, I notice that the baby is no longer crying and my wife is crouched down by the stroller. I seem to forget about my daughter for a moment and reach for the stroller. I pull on my wife’s shoulder and she slumps lifelessly to the ground. I lunge for the stroller only to find my bright-eyed 3 month old boy blue in the face and motionless. Suddenly I remember about my fall and my daughter. I spin around to find her, but quickly lose consciousness…
Terrorists released poison sarin gas through the underground subway system...as the poison spread throughout the city, it slowly leaked through the vents along the streets and sidewalks killing thousands.
As far as terrorism goes, I am a staunch supporter of a proactive (Bush Style) verses reactive (Clinton Style) policy when it comes to addressing terrorism. In the realm of proactive policy, terror experts rely on two forms of analysis: Trend and Scenario. Below, I pose one basic version of each form. Realistically, the governement has to rely on a little of both, but which would you rely on more heavily?
Trend
I predict that the frequency of terrorist bombings in Mid-East countries occupied by US forces will increase somewhat exponentially as time goes on. I do not think this hypothesis is as obviously proved as some may think. Obviously, US forces are at a greater risk just by the very nature of being there, but I think there is a direct correlation between occupying US forces, time, anti-American sentiment and bombings. I use bombings as my comparative tactic because that seems to be the weapon of choice, second only to traditional firearms and rocket propelled explosives. If I had the time, I would like to do a comparison of all three, but for time’s sake I’ll focus solely on bombings. Since it is so relevant, I will use Iraq as my test country and will include Iraqi government, military and police targets in my comparison since they are directly related to our occupation.
Data:
March 20, 2003 (date of invasion) through September 20, 2003- 12 terrorist attacks
September 20, 2003 through March 20, 2004- 46 terrorist attacks
March 20, 2004 through September 20, 2004- 69 terrorist attacks
September 20, 2004 through March 20, 2005- 271 terrorist attacks
March 20, 2005 through September 20, 2005- 280 terrorist attacks
September 20, 2005 through March 20, 2006- 388 terrorist attacks
March 20, 2006 through September 20, 2006- 584 terrorist attacks
There were 1, 650 terrorist attacks within Iraq from the beginning of US occupation until September 20, 2006.
The data speaks for itself and strongly affirms my hypothesis that terrorist acts (bombings) committed against US forces and new Iraqi government, military and police forces would increase somewhat exponentially as time went on.
The first six months was rather low because the invasion had just begun, forces had not yet occupied the country and the old Iraqi government was still in power. As the invasion and occupation slowly increased so did the attacks. The six month period where attacks jumped from 69 to 271 indicated a shift from local uprising to internationally led terrorism including the emergence of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al Qaeda. A vast majority of attacks from that time period on were committed by al Qaeda or an affiliate group. I did not have time to compile the same data for Afghanistan, but the overall data for that country indicated the same as Iraq.
I think this trend is bound to increase as time goes on. The data does not does not indicate the attacks leveling off, nor does it even show that the attacks are slowing down. I see these numbers growing within the next five years. The major fuel that feeds this fire remains the occupation of US forces and as time goes on the anti-American sentiment grows. The only way to slow these attacks would either require US forces to leave Iraq, re-deploy or for the American government to freeze time. Don't get me wrong...I'm not proposing that we leave Iraq, I'm only addressing the question at hand: Will attacks go up or down while the US occupies Iraq? Not should we leave or stay?
Scenario
July 4, 2010
My family and I are making our way to 5th Avenue in New York City for the annual Fourth of July parade. It is so hot and sticky that I think I’m going to faint before I even make it to the parade route! My wife is pushing our 3 month old son in a stroller, bouncing over every crack in the sidewalk, as I carry our 4 year-old daughter block by block because she is too tired to walk on her own. My daughter loudly explains to me that she is tired, hot and thirsty all at the same time, as my wife echoes the same complaints. I turn around and squint as I look through the sun beams to find my wife’s face. I tell her that we will make a quick pit stop at a road side vendor to pick up a few bottles of water and a balloon for my daughter-this keeps her occupied until we make it to mid-town.
There are people everywhere! They are pushing and shoving, all with the excitement of the Fourth plastered on their faces. Everyone seems happy and excited for the parade to begin-the cheers are almost deafening. Cabs honk as they scream past us one after the other. We begin to cross the street when in the distance we hear sirens blaring. The noise is getting louder and the fire engines are getting closer. This is no unusual scene in New York City, so we continue to make our way up the street.
Thank goodness! We finally made it! We get up to the parade route just as the Snoopy float makes its way around the corner. I hoist my daughter onto my shoulders so she can get a better look as my wife attends to our crying baby. As time goes on, I get continually weak and beat down. I stare up at the sun and wonder why the heat must be so intense. My wife cannot seem to get the baby under control and my daughter tells me she is not feeling well again. We drink the rest of our water and keep watching the parade.
I begin to notice people around me suffering from what seems to be the same thing that is ailing me. Just then, an older man in front of me collapses as I, too, get dizzy and fall to the side walk-my daughter comes crashing down with me. It feels like I’m choking! I can hardly breathe! I turn over, thinking I had a heat stroke, to check on my daughter. As I turn around, I notice that the baby is no longer crying and my wife is crouched down by the stroller. I seem to forget about my daughter for a moment and reach for the stroller. I pull on my wife’s shoulder and she slumps lifelessly to the ground. I lunge for the stroller only to find my bright-eyed 3 month old boy blue in the face and motionless. Suddenly I remember about my fall and my daughter. I spin around to find her, but quickly lose consciousness…
Terrorists released poison sarin gas through the underground subway system...as the poison spread throughout the city, it slowly leaked through the vents along the streets and sidewalks killing thousands.
Turkey Day
Well, I just got back from my first vacation from work and school in over 8 months...it was GREAT! The turkey tasted good, but the deer hunt was less than successful. I shouldn't say that-we ended up with 6 deer out of our 5 guy camp. Only two bucks (both small). Everyone made it home safe and sound, though.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Falk Concedes
Although former Attorney General candidate Kathleen Falk conceded the AG race today, I doubt we've seen the last of her.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Blogs more influential in 2006?
How do you think blogs were handled during the 2006 campaign? This is what I think.
The 2006 Campaign Through Pictures
Check out the 40 pictures I've posted from various campaign stops over the last few months. Featured in my album: President Bush, Mark Green, JB Van Hollen, John Gard, Nick Reid, Jeff Wood, Scott Suder, Dave Zein, Newt Gingrich, Gov. Mitt Romney, Scott West, Sandy Sullivan, Steve Weickert, Tim Phillips (AFP President) and many others. Check it out!
Monday, November 13, 2006
Hmmmm...
I have it from a very good source that Tommy is getting ready to fundraise for his bid for Prez in '08. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Tommy. Don't get me wrong, he was a great asset to Wisconsin and is probably the "Papa Bear" for GOPers in Wisconsin, but I don't think he'll garner much support nation-wide. That's just me...
Prediction!
I checked around and I think I'm the first one to make this prediction: State Rep. Steve Weickert of Appleton will run against Congressman Steve Kagen in 2008 (wow, it hurts to use "Congressman" and "Steve Kagen" in the same sentence). I think the chances of John running again are slim to none.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Thursday, November 9, 2006
I'll get there
Sorry...I had another mid-term today and another one tomorrow. I'm trying to catch up on all of the work/reading I'm behind on. Just a recommendation...don't work on a campaign and take classes at the same time.
Wednesday, November 8, 2006
That didn't go so well
I'll comment on last night's disaster and let you in on my biggest pet peaves of the election. It's not over for Republicans, but some need to look in the mirror and see what's actually looking back at them.
We lost a lot of good people last night...Mark Green, Jean Hundertmark, John Gard, Jack Voight, Dave Zien and so on. Fortunately for us we're Republicans. We'll move on.
I have a mid-term this afternoon, so I'll have to wait until then to comment.
We lost a lot of good people last night...Mark Green, Jean Hundertmark, John Gard, Jack Voight, Dave Zien and so on. Fortunately for us we're Republicans. We'll move on.
I have a mid-term this afternoon, so I'll have to wait until then to comment.
Tuesday, November 7, 2006
Vote! Vote! Vote!
...but only once. Today is the big day we've all been practicing for. We've worked hard through the good times and the bad, but unless we get people to the polls all of our work was for nothing. Let's wake up tomorrow morning and be even happier that we are all Republicans!
Sunday, November 5, 2006
I voted...
Check out how I voted. Did I vote for Lorge?!?!?!?!?!? Maybe...maybe not. There's only one way to find out.
Thursday, November 2, 2006
The Way I See It
Check out my new blog, The Way I See It, devoted to exactly the way I see things. No spin. No BS. Just the way I see it. I'll still be blogging here, so don't forget about us.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
"Safety" is the Word
Stephen Colbert made Wisconsin famous again last night after poking fun at Rep. Frank Lasee and his latest legislative proposal to allow WI teachers to pack heat in the classroom.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Hmmm...
Coincidently, I received this email tonight from SGA President Ross Cohen:
Students:
I want to apologize for encouraging you how to vote a few weeks ago on the Constitutional Amendment and, instead, just encourage you to VOTE! It is imperative that all students vote on November 7th so that politicians pay attention to the issues that we care about. In the next two weeks, SGA will be committed to informing you on what issues and candidates are on the ballot and where you vote.
If you have any questions regarding what will be on the ballot, how to get registered (if you have not already) or where you vote, please do not hesitate to ask.
PLEASE VOTE!
Thank you,
Ross Cohen
Students:
I want to apologize for encouraging you how to vote a few weeks ago on the Constitutional Amendment and, instead, just encourage you to VOTE! It is imperative that all students vote on November 7th so that politicians pay attention to the issues that we care about. In the next two weeks, SGA will be committed to informing you on what issues and candidates are on the ballot and where you vote.
If you have any questions regarding what will be on the ballot, how to get registered (if you have not already) or where you vote, please do not hesitate to ask.
PLEASE VOTE!
Thank you,
Ross Cohen
Enough is Enough
A few weeks ago the UWSP Student Government Association passed a resolution condemning the Marriage Amendment, urging all students and faculty to vote against it and announcing that they will be advocating their position at voter registration booths. All of this information came to us in a mass email sent to all 10,000+ students and staff at UWSP, claiming that "UWSP students are against the marriage amendment." Their decision came days after the UW Board of Regents passed a similar resolution.
I guess you could say that I was a little upset. Let me get a few things out of the way...I believe in marriage between one man and one woman. I am not entirely behind civil unions. I do not support stripping benefits from unmarried couples or domestic partners (homosexuals or not). I do not think that any law maker, no matter how powerful they think they are, can pass a law preventing two people from loving each other. I would be just as upset with the UWSP SGA had they passed a resolution supporting the marriage amendment. I do not think it is the place for any student government assoc. to claim that the "entire" student body supports something when, in UWSP's case, less than 1% of the student body was polled. Finally, I am appalled that they would advocate a stance, whatever it may be, at voter booths, tainting our electoral process right at the base.
With that said, I would not vote for the amendment if the wording implied that benefits would be stripped from unmarried couples or domestic partners. Since it does not, I am voting "yes."
Here is a portion of an email that I sent to SGA Senators shortly after they passed the resolution:
This is the portion of your legislation that I am contending: "The proposed constitutional amendment would eliminate domestic partnership benefits currently received by many UW students, faculty, and staff, which will have a negative effect on the quality of education at UWSP."
At this point, this is simply untrue. The information I'm providing is meant to show SGA that they cannot accurately interpret the meaning of this legislation and cannot possibly grasp the total ramifications of the amendment should it be passed. First, I have attached a rather lengthy memo to Representative Gundrum from the non-partisan Legislative Council (Council to the State Legislature). Below are the pertinent sections, but I encourage you to read the entire document.
1) "While perhaps not dispositive on its own, the above contemporary expressions of intent, combined with the historical context and plain language of the proposed amendment, lend strong support to the conclusion that the intent of the Legislature with respect to the second sentence of the proposed amendment is to prohibit the recognition of Vermont-style civil unions or a similar type of government-conferred legal status for unmarried individuals that purports to be the same as or nearly the same as marriage in Wisconsin.[1] Similarly, the above expressions of intent also appear to directly refute the notion that the authors of the amendment intend to eliminate the ability of unmarried individuals to arrange their private affairs in ways that may happen to approximate legal rights or benefits extended to married persons."
2) "Many of these statutory rights and benefits, while automatically conferred on married persons, are not exclusive to marriage and can be completely or nearly replicated for unmarried individuals. For example, unmarried individuals may hold property jointly as joint tenants, which generally confers survivorship rights in the other joint tenant. They may create a joint tenancy by expressing an intent to do so. [See s. 700.19 (1), Stats.] A married couple, in comparison, if identified as husband and wife in the title to property, automatically holds property jointly, with survivorship rights, unless they express a different intention. [See s. 700.19 (2), Stats.] Thus, an unmarried couple can create a right of survivorship similar to that enjoyed by a married couple. Other examples of laws that authorize unmarried persons to claim rights and benefits similar to those conferred automatically upon married couples include inheritance rights via a will, health care decision-making via a durable power of attorney for health care, tax advantages through the use of trusts, and protections against domestic abuse. Private parties (and governmental units) can also assist unmarried individuals to enjoy rights or benefits similar to the rights and benefits traditionally afforded to married couples, or families. For example, an employer can choose to extend family status to unmarried persons for purposes of health care benefits. Similarly, a health club could extend family membership benefits to unmarried persons."
After a flood of angry emails SGA has just weathered the pain. There were rumors that they would recant their resolution, apologize for urging students to vote one way or another and reprimand the President for a sending out the mass email. So far...nothing.
We'll see what happens.
I guess you could say that I was a little upset. Let me get a few things out of the way...I believe in marriage between one man and one woman. I am not entirely behind civil unions. I do not support stripping benefits from unmarried couples or domestic partners (homosexuals or not). I do not think that any law maker, no matter how powerful they think they are, can pass a law preventing two people from loving each other. I would be just as upset with the UWSP SGA had they passed a resolution supporting the marriage amendment. I do not think it is the place for any student government assoc. to claim that the "entire" student body supports something when, in UWSP's case, less than 1% of the student body was polled. Finally, I am appalled that they would advocate a stance, whatever it may be, at voter booths, tainting our electoral process right at the base.
With that said, I would not vote for the amendment if the wording implied that benefits would be stripped from unmarried couples or domestic partners. Since it does not, I am voting "yes."
Here is a portion of an email that I sent to SGA Senators shortly after they passed the resolution:
This is the portion of your legislation that I am contending: "The proposed constitutional amendment would eliminate domestic partnership benefits currently received by many UW students, faculty, and staff, which will have a negative effect on the quality of education at UWSP."
At this point, this is simply untrue. The information I'm providing is meant to show SGA that they cannot accurately interpret the meaning of this legislation and cannot possibly grasp the total ramifications of the amendment should it be passed. First, I have attached a rather lengthy memo to Representative Gundrum from the non-partisan Legislative Council (Council to the State Legislature). Below are the pertinent sections, but I encourage you to read the entire document.
1) "While perhaps not dispositive on its own, the above contemporary expressions of intent, combined with the historical context and plain language of the proposed amendment, lend strong support to the conclusion that the intent of the Legislature with respect to the second sentence of the proposed amendment is to prohibit the recognition of Vermont-style civil unions or a similar type of government-conferred legal status for unmarried individuals that purports to be the same as or nearly the same as marriage in Wisconsin.[1] Similarly, the above expressions of intent also appear to directly refute the notion that the authors of the amendment intend to eliminate the ability of unmarried individuals to arrange their private affairs in ways that may happen to approximate legal rights or benefits extended to married persons."
2) "Many of these statutory rights and benefits, while automatically conferred on married persons, are not exclusive to marriage and can be completely or nearly replicated for unmarried individuals. For example, unmarried individuals may hold property jointly as joint tenants, which generally confers survivorship rights in the other joint tenant. They may create a joint tenancy by expressing an intent to do so. [See s. 700.19 (1), Stats.] A married couple, in comparison, if identified as husband and wife in the title to property, automatically holds property jointly, with survivorship rights, unless they express a different intention. [See s. 700.19 (2), Stats.] Thus, an unmarried couple can create a right of survivorship similar to that enjoyed by a married couple. Other examples of laws that authorize unmarried persons to claim rights and benefits similar to those conferred automatically upon married couples include inheritance rights via a will, health care decision-making via a durable power of attorney for health care, tax advantages through the use of trusts, and protections against domestic abuse. Private parties (and governmental units) can also assist unmarried individuals to enjoy rights or benefits similar to the rights and benefits traditionally afforded to married couples, or families. For example, an employer can choose to extend family status to unmarried persons for purposes of health care benefits. Similarly, a health club could extend family membership benefits to unmarried persons."
After a flood of angry emails SGA has just weathered the pain. There were rumors that they would recant their resolution, apologize for urging students to vote one way or another and reprimand the President for a sending out the mass email. So far...nothing.
We'll see what happens.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Sandy Sullivan on Comedy Central
So, I ran into Sandy Sullivan, the ever-enthusiastic Secretary of State candidate, at a campaign event this last Sunday. We exchanged the typical "How's your campaign going?" and nothing really out of the ordinary (for Sandy) occurred. She started telling me about her recent travel around the national media circuit, including an upcoming spot with legend Larry King. I guess I really didn't think anything of it...
Yesterday, as I was watching my favorite late night Comedy Central show, The Colbert Report, I nearly choked on a pretzel. Colbert was going through his "Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger" segment as he offered a tip of the hat to Sandy and her claim to fame. I thought it was pretty interesting...
If I knew how to work the whole You Tube thing I would link the segment, but if you click on the Colbert Report link, find the "Tip of the Hat" segment on his homepage. It's worth your time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)