Sunday, September 16, 2007
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Truth In Advertising
My husband and I took a little road trip through Jerome and into Sedona. The ride was stunning though littered with "Vote for so and so" signs. It's an election year, so this is to expected. What wasn't was the elimination of one thing. Democrat and Republican.
Two years ago each displayed their party affiliation proudly. Now, "Republican" is like a bad word, not to be uttered in public. Considering "Truth in Advertising" I suggest we completely do away with party affiliation and just go with "For the people" and "In it for the cash Baby!"
I'm certainly not saying that all democrats are great and all republicans are bad. Though, I've yet to find a sane and rational republican... there has to be one, right?
I just think that if you're so proud to be something, anything, display it. Don't hide it, especially from voters. For example, If Bush ran again it should be labeled "Asshole" and Cheney, if he chooses to run for anything should be labeled "Anti-Christ". Got anything better?
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Oui ou Non?
It's become an American obsession, more evil than Bin Laden, more deadly than the republican party. What could this be? Smokers.
In most states there has been blanket no smoking laws. I can't speak for all states but New York state was blanketed without a vote. Now, I know, I know it's bad for you and second hand smoke is evil and the smell of smoke and smokers are disgusting. It's a bad habit, I know.
My question is, is it right for the government to tell a business owner what he can and can not do?
Before this law, one could walk up to two restaurants. One bragging on the door in large bold letters "NO SMOKING" the other "SMOKERS WELCOME". The patron had a right, like the business owner to choose. Now, we and they do not.
Granted, I know smoking is bad for you. But for one moment, consider this. I have a friend, an owner of a bar in Lake Placid. It's a sports bar and the majority of his business is local customers. Now, enter the no smoking law. My friend is going out of business and in need of filing his chapter 11. Is this right?
I do agree that restaurants who cater to children and malls and such should be non-smoking. But should we take away the right of the business owner and the patrons right to choose?
Whether I smoke or not, is not the issue here. My point being, the air we breath is toxic, or at the very least borderline. Remember in first grade when the teacher told you that you're breathing the same air as the dinosaurs? Well, it's all still relevant. Nuclear testing. Atomic testing. White Phosphorous (being used in Iraq to kill the bad-evil brown people). It doesn't go away. It's all still there and we are all breathing it. If one is so afraid of the air they breath, then why not stop that too. Or, my personal favorite, make the right stop talking - foul air and all...
I think, and this is just MHO, that we have no right forcing a private business owner into bankruptcy for the offended few.
Thoughts?
In most states there has been blanket no smoking laws. I can't speak for all states but New York state was blanketed without a vote. Now, I know, I know it's bad for you and second hand smoke is evil and the smell of smoke and smokers are disgusting. It's a bad habit, I know.
My question is, is it right for the government to tell a business owner what he can and can not do?
Before this law, one could walk up to two restaurants. One bragging on the door in large bold letters "NO SMOKING" the other "SMOKERS WELCOME". The patron had a right, like the business owner to choose. Now, we and they do not.
Granted, I know smoking is bad for you. But for one moment, consider this. I have a friend, an owner of a bar in Lake Placid. It's a sports bar and the majority of his business is local customers. Now, enter the no smoking law. My friend is going out of business and in need of filing his chapter 11. Is this right?
I do agree that restaurants who cater to children and malls and such should be non-smoking. But should we take away the right of the business owner and the patrons right to choose?
Whether I smoke or not, is not the issue here. My point being, the air we breath is toxic, or at the very least borderline. Remember in first grade when the teacher told you that you're breathing the same air as the dinosaurs? Well, it's all still relevant. Nuclear testing. Atomic testing. White Phosphorous (being used in Iraq to kill the bad-evil brown people). It doesn't go away. It's all still there and we are all breathing it. If one is so afraid of the air they breath, then why not stop that too. Or, my personal favorite, make the right stop talking - foul air and all...
I think, and this is just MHO, that we have no right forcing a private business owner into bankruptcy for the offended few.
Thoughts?
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Why?
The right insists that the left hates the troops. Nothing could be farther from the truth. However, reports such as these are disturbing. More than disturbing. They are, in my humble opinion, actions of hate and fear. A hatred and fear that has been instilled into the hearts of many Americans.
How many soldiers honestly believe they are fighting the orchestraters of 9-11? How many of the these men and women would not normally commit such atrocities under normal circumstances?
The documents, released by the American Civil Liberties Union ahead of a lawsuit, total nearly 10,000 pages of courts-martial summaries, transcripts and military investigative reports about 22 incidents. They show repeated examples of soldiers believing they were within the law when they killed local citizens.
The killings include the drowning of a man soldiers pushed from a bridge into the Tigris River as punishment for breaking curfew, and the suffocation during interrogation of a former Iraqi general believed to be helping insurgents.
Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer was convicted of negligent homicide in the death of Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush following a January 2006 court-martial that received wide media attention due to possible CIA involvement in the interrogation.
But even after his conviction, Welshofer insisted his actions were appropriate and standard, documents show.
"The simple fact of the matter is interrogation is supposed to be stressful or you will get no information," Welshofer wrote in a letter to the court asking for clemency. "To put it another way, an interrogation without stress is not an interrogation — it is a conversation."
Welshofer said in the same letter that he was "within the appropriate constraints that both the rules of law, and just as importantly — duty, imposed on me."
Considered against recent cases, including soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division convicted of killing detainees in Samarra, Iraq, last year and the ongoing courts-martial of Marines accused of killing 24 civilians in Haditha, these new examples shed light on the frequency soldiers and Marines may disregard the rules of war.
Nasrina Bargzie, an attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project, said the documents also show that theres an abundance of information being withheld from public scrutiny.
"The government has gone out of its way to hide the human cost of this war," Bargzie said. Releasing the documents now "paints at least a part of that picture so people at least know what's going on," she said.
The lawsuit seeks to compel the military to produce all documents related to all incidents of civilian deaths at the hands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 2005. The ACLU contends the materials are releasable under federal law.
The Defense Department declined to comment on the lawsuit until it could review its claims.
Among the files released to the ACLU were the court-martial records for two soldiers convicted of assault in the drowning of a man pushed into the Tigris for violating curfew and three soldiers convicted in the "mercy killing" of an injured teenager in Sadr City.
The teen had been severely injured; one soldier explained that he shot and killed the teen "to take him out of his misery."
Other killings included:
• A man shot after a search of his home near Balad uncovered illegal weapons and anti-American literature. Immediately after the shooting, according to testimony, Sgt. 1st Class George Diaz, who was convicted of unpremeditated murder, said, "I'm going to hell for this." Diaz also was convicted of mistreating a teenage detainee when he forced the youth to hold a smoke grenade with the pin pulled as Diaz questioned him at gunpoint.
• A suspected insurgent in Iraq by Staff Sgt. Shane Werst, who said the man appeared to be reaching for a weapon. Werst was acquitted of murder despite acknowledging he had fired and then planted a chrome Iraqi pistol on the suspect to make his claim of self defense more believable.
In a previously unreported case, Pfc. James Combs was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for shooting an Iraqi woman from a guard tower in what he claimed was an accident, though court documents and testimony indicate his weapon was set to fire multiple shots despite a regulation advising against such a setting.
Another previously undisclosed case involved Sgt. Ricky Burke, who was charged with murder for killing a wounded man alongside the road following a firefight. Staff Sgt. Timothy Nein, a member of Burke's military police company, testified he heard Burke say before the shooting, "It's payback time."
Burke, a member of the Kentucky National Guard, was found not guilty of the charges that stemmed from the same battle that led to the first woman since World War II being awarded the Silver Star.
My question is why? Why do they feel that these crimes are right or justified? What have we done? This is not a war on terror. This is a war for terror.
One would certainly think that if 9/11 taught us anything it was what it feels like to be hated for who you are, for what you are. It is sad that many still don't get it.
How many soldiers honestly believe they are fighting the orchestraters of 9-11? How many of the these men and women would not normally commit such atrocities under normal circumstances?
The documents, released by the American Civil Liberties Union ahead of a lawsuit, total nearly 10,000 pages of courts-martial summaries, transcripts and military investigative reports about 22 incidents. They show repeated examples of soldiers believing they were within the law when they killed local citizens.
The killings include the drowning of a man soldiers pushed from a bridge into the Tigris River as punishment for breaking curfew, and the suffocation during interrogation of a former Iraqi general believed to be helping insurgents.
Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer was convicted of negligent homicide in the death of Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush following a January 2006 court-martial that received wide media attention due to possible CIA involvement in the interrogation.
But even after his conviction, Welshofer insisted his actions were appropriate and standard, documents show.
"The simple fact of the matter is interrogation is supposed to be stressful or you will get no information," Welshofer wrote in a letter to the court asking for clemency. "To put it another way, an interrogation without stress is not an interrogation — it is a conversation."
Welshofer said in the same letter that he was "within the appropriate constraints that both the rules of law, and just as importantly — duty, imposed on me."
Considered against recent cases, including soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division convicted of killing detainees in Samarra, Iraq, last year and the ongoing courts-martial of Marines accused of killing 24 civilians in Haditha, these new examples shed light on the frequency soldiers and Marines may disregard the rules of war.
Nasrina Bargzie, an attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project, said the documents also show that theres an abundance of information being withheld from public scrutiny.
"The government has gone out of its way to hide the human cost of this war," Bargzie said. Releasing the documents now "paints at least a part of that picture so people at least know what's going on," she said.
The lawsuit seeks to compel the military to produce all documents related to all incidents of civilian deaths at the hands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 2005. The ACLU contends the materials are releasable under federal law.
The Defense Department declined to comment on the lawsuit until it could review its claims.
Among the files released to the ACLU were the court-martial records for two soldiers convicted of assault in the drowning of a man pushed into the Tigris for violating curfew and three soldiers convicted in the "mercy killing" of an injured teenager in Sadr City.
The teen had been severely injured; one soldier explained that he shot and killed the teen "to take him out of his misery."
Other killings included:
• A man shot after a search of his home near Balad uncovered illegal weapons and anti-American literature. Immediately after the shooting, according to testimony, Sgt. 1st Class George Diaz, who was convicted of unpremeditated murder, said, "I'm going to hell for this." Diaz also was convicted of mistreating a teenage detainee when he forced the youth to hold a smoke grenade with the pin pulled as Diaz questioned him at gunpoint.
• A suspected insurgent in Iraq by Staff Sgt. Shane Werst, who said the man appeared to be reaching for a weapon. Werst was acquitted of murder despite acknowledging he had fired and then planted a chrome Iraqi pistol on the suspect to make his claim of self defense more believable.
In a previously unreported case, Pfc. James Combs was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for shooting an Iraqi woman from a guard tower in what he claimed was an accident, though court documents and testimony indicate his weapon was set to fire multiple shots despite a regulation advising against such a setting.
Another previously undisclosed case involved Sgt. Ricky Burke, who was charged with murder for killing a wounded man alongside the road following a firefight. Staff Sgt. Timothy Nein, a member of Burke's military police company, testified he heard Burke say before the shooting, "It's payback time."
Burke, a member of the Kentucky National Guard, was found not guilty of the charges that stemmed from the same battle that led to the first woman since World War II being awarded the Silver Star.
My question is why? Why do they feel that these crimes are right or justified? What have we done? This is not a war on terror. This is a war for terror.
One would certainly think that if 9/11 taught us anything it was what it feels like to be hated for who you are, for what you are. It is sad that many still don't get it.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Mirror Ignored
I read this, in complete and utter disbelief.
Plans by a Christian group to send an evangelical video game to U.S. troops in Iraq were abruptly halted yesterday by the Department of Defense after ABC News inquired about the program.
Operation Start Up (OSU) Tour, an evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among soldiers, will not be sending the "apocryphal" video game in care packages as planned, according to the department.
Let's forget that "separation of church and state" thing for a minute and think about this. The premise of this game is to "convert" or kill.
"It's a horrible game," said the Rev. Timothy Simpson of the Christians Alliance for Progress. "You either kill or covert the other side. This is exactly what the Osama bin Ladens of the world have portrayed us."
Poor Rev Tim, like he and all of the rest of the religions right, they feed upon the lies of a corrupt administration. Hopefully, I am not the only one who sees the irony of the poor mans statement.
Sadly, this is what they think. This is the mentality of the bushites. They see fear and hatred for anything that just might be different without ever seeing themselves. What must these self important people think of Bush bringing "democracy to the Middle East"? That's good right?
What about "Thou shalt not kill.."? Did the religious right leaders feel the need to add "unless the son-of-a-bitch is different than you?" Or what about "judge not"? was the final phrase added to that too?
What about U.S. soldiers that are atheists? Muslim? Jewish? Must our lovely government ignore their religious, or non beliefs as well? Is there truly no end to this hypocrisy?
Plans by a Christian group to send an evangelical video game to U.S. troops in Iraq were abruptly halted yesterday by the Department of Defense after ABC News inquired about the program.
Operation Start Up (OSU) Tour, an evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among soldiers, will not be sending the "apocryphal" video game in care packages as planned, according to the department.
Let's forget that "separation of church and state" thing for a minute and think about this. The premise of this game is to "convert" or kill.
"It's a horrible game," said the Rev. Timothy Simpson of the Christians Alliance for Progress. "You either kill or covert the other side. This is exactly what the Osama bin Ladens of the world have portrayed us."
Poor Rev Tim, like he and all of the rest of the religions right, they feed upon the lies of a corrupt administration. Hopefully, I am not the only one who sees the irony of the poor mans statement.
Sadly, this is what they think. This is the mentality of the bushites. They see fear and hatred for anything that just might be different without ever seeing themselves. What must these self important people think of Bush bringing "democracy to the Middle East"? That's good right?
What about "Thou shalt not kill.."? Did the religious right leaders feel the need to add "unless the son-of-a-bitch is different than you?" Or what about "judge not"? was the final phrase added to that too?
What about U.S. soldiers that are atheists? Muslim? Jewish? Must our lovely government ignore their religious, or non beliefs as well? Is there truly no end to this hypocrisy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
