|
americanre
This Death Thing Is Killing Us - Subscribe
|
|
America has an unhealthy obsession regarding the termination of life. I'm sure that this comes from the majority of Americans claiming to be Christians, a religion which promotes death as life. But Who Would Jesus Execute? America is especially conflicted over who determines life and death - and for whom the death knell will sound. Throughout American history, death is a prominent feature, whether it be those falling by the wayside during the heroic travails of those coming to the New World seeking a better life, or the practice of removing the life force from those dastardly "inferiors" already living on "our" North American continent in order to provide that better life. Such a dichotomy might also apply to those people whose countries contain "our" oil needed to slake the monumental thirst of our SUK-Vs. Then there is the decision of who lives or dies in our society. In current day America, one can have one's life taken away through the due process of law (whether or not one is truly guilty). It's a favorite pastime of jurists across the land. In 2006, 91 per cent of all known executions took place in six countries: China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan - and the USA. Too many crimes in America result in the death penalty being imposed, and yet it remains the policy of penal choice for our lawmakers. Since 1977, over 1000 people have been executed, with another 3500 or so awaiting a similar fate. Yet of these, some may have been wrongly killed. Cases in Missouri, Texas, and Virginia demonstrate that there has too often been a rush to judgment. This thought is reinforced by the fact that 123 death row inmates across the nation were found to be innocent and released after winning new trials. A death penalty is by definition involuntary. But what of those who themselves choose to die? Should they be forced to live anyway? I'm not just talking about those in America who are terminally ill and have no quality in their lives. I'm talking about the 311 Italian prisioners serving life sentences who no longer wish to live a life of "dying a little bit every day". Now that Dr. Jack Kevorkian is about to released from prison, maybe the Italian authorities would like to hire him to provide this last request of the Italian prisoners? In addition, maybe Kevorkian could find work in Guantanamo, where another "detainee" chose the only likely way out of American captivity. It's OK for a nominally-legal governing entity to determine that your life requires cessation (See: Saddam Hussein), but don't you - or your significant other - decide without benefit of governmental jurisprudence to conclude your stay upon this mortal coil! That's both a crime and a "sin"! Another "sin" is for a woman to decide that she wants to terminate her pregnancy - the very one she wanted to avoid, but couldn't prevent, due to the religious beliefs of the pharmacist who refused to fill her prescription for birth control. If her inebriated lawfully-wedded husband wasn't about to be denied his God-given right to risk impregnating her, she gets to live with it - the hussy! Maybe someday, America will grow up and begin to exhibit adult wisdom in the conduct of our affairs. Until then, juvenile minds camouflaged inside adult bodies will continue to prevent our nation from really becoming that shining city on the hill, the image used so effectively by St. Ronnie Reagan to inspire the American people to abandon all the social and intellectual progress made in our land since the end of World War II. That's what is really killing me! |
|
americanre
Tell It To The Marines Jun 3rd, 2007 3:00:40 am - Subscribe
|
|
Chicago Tribune reporter Rex W. Huppke published a story concerning Cindy Sheehan's departure as the nominal anti-war protest figurehead, leading off with a rather inflammatory and misleading headline: Today's protester, lacking guts, gets no glory. As too many people only read the headline, Huppke was done a disservice by his editors, who were seeking to express glee over the emotional collapse of Sheehan's efforts through implying that today's anti-war protester is a sissy. I will point out shortly where they are very wrong. Huppke's article laid out some very cogent observations about why it is that opposition to the Oil War grows while participation in street protests diminishes: no draft, a cynical attitude toward politics, and a lack of belief that the individual can affect the world. They are also focused on more personal goals, which have admittedly become much more difficult to attain since the days of the Port Huron Statement. Jeremi Suri, a history professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, puts it this way: "Students have become very risk-averse. They care, but they're afraid that if they go out and get involved in something they might not get into law school or get the job they want." Considering this assertion, one has to marvel at the graduating West Point cadet who refused to shake hands with Dick Cheney. Does he not know that Unka Dickhead has to power to assign him to someplace very hostile like Baghram or Baghdad until he can serve his commitment of four years and get out? But I digress. Huppke points out that modern technology helps to make this concern realistic, as images generated with cell phone cameras and put up on YouTube or MySpace sites can and will be used against them. In addition, Huppke feels that today's protester gets bored with the issue and moves on to more stimulating fare before anything tangible can be achieved. "It's just a lot of hot air," he sneers. Back in the Vietnam protest days, many of these same arguments could have been made against those who protested. There was a concern about one's future prospects, which led many more to submit to the draft when their notice came than those who refused, willing instead to face prison terms. Disdainful commentary, such as Huppke's current dismissal, was the norm. But there occurred and event so powerful that it changed the attitude dispensed when covering war protest. It took the veterans who survived and came home to join the protests to make the nation sit up and take notice. So it is today. Back on March 20, 2007, the Washington Post published a report by David Montgomery covering 13 Iraq war veterans in full desert camo staging an anti-war protest - entitled Operation First Casualty - by going on "patrol" from Union Station to Arlington National Cemetery. They were attempting to raise awareness in American citizens of what the Oil War really means through the use of '60s-style street theater. As one of the 13 said, "When I got home, the hardest thing for me was realizing the war does not exist here." The point wasn't getting through to everyone, including one observer who complained, "I don't know what they're doing, but they're in everybody's way." As Newton's Third Law of Motion states, For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The action of these Oil War veterans caused a reaction from the military, which is seeking to administer a reduction in discharge status to three Marines who participated in the above protest. But not all of the military-related citizenry of this nation have forgotten why throughout out history men went to war. They remember what it was that was to be protected by going to war - our rights. Gary Kurpius, the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and an Army vet who fought in Vietnam, rises to the defense of "Marines went to war, did their duty, and were honorably discharged from the active roles." Kurpius doesn't agree with the message of the protest, but he feels very strongly in their right to say it. The Marine Corps isn't about to start a war with veterans groups now that all the furor over the Walter Reed scandal has fallen below the attention threshold to the point where few noticed that pictures of wounded soldiers have now been administratively banned along with shots of flag-draped caskets returning from the front. Rather than disturb that fragile peace, they retreated to a position behind the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), claiming that one of these Marines expressed himself in an inappropriate manner to a Marine officer, who contacted him with the advisory that wearing all or part of a military uniform in such a protest violated Pentagon regulations. It's also against Pentagon regulations to participate in religious proselytizing while in uniform, but as Christians are infiltrating the military as never before, I guess it's all in who enforces the rules, isn't it? Only those who protest while in uniform are subject to the application of this regulation. Maybe it's the officer corps of this nation which is the group of sissies. The Marine invited the officer to perform a personal and impossible sex act, which was deemed "disrespectful to a commissioned officer" (This charge isn't being applied to the other Marines). As our embattled Marine puts it, "Marines don't pull punches." That esprit de corps makes a Marine doesn't allow for pulling punches. They are trained to hit hard, and if led by good officers, can achieve great things as their history attests. The nation and the world all think the Bush administration is wrong for conducting this Oil War. Thus, there is little sympathy for the officers who are making the Oil War possible. Complaining about a few discharged enlisted veterans doesn't make them sound like the hardened warriors the see themselves as being. If they can't stand the heat of the battle, they shouldn't be leading it for those who will turn their backs on them the moment they are no longer useful. At that point, they will be wishing that someone had put a stop to the madness before they were affected by it. They will be wishing that someone's protest was effective in doing so - and regretting their actions in preventing that outcome. They just might wish they had acted as that West Point Cadet had. |
|
americanre
This Way To The Egress Jun 11th, 2007 3:04:24 am - Subscribe
|
The Onion this week offered up a satirical view of the growing opposition by having Retired Gen. George Washington criticizing Bush's bungling of the Oil War to NBC's Meet the Press:"This entire military venture has been foolhardy and of ill design," said Washington. "The manifold mistakes committed by this president in Iraq carry grave consequences, and he who holds the position of commander in chief has the responsibility to right those wrongs." Sure, that was satire, but after U.S. military deaths in Iraq passed 3,500 this last week, Sixty-three percent of the American public want the United States to set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq by 2008. Erin Flanagan, whose brother died in Iraq last year, sought an answer from the Republican candidates at the most recent "debate", but was brushed off, as CNN reports:
An informed source testifies for the contrary position. Far too late to save his historical soul from eternal damnation, Colin Powell admits that Bush went ahead with "the Surge" despite warnings to the contrary from his top military advisors. Powell appears to have decided to bolt the Republican party, taking up the role of foreign policy advisor to Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama. So let Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson announce support for a total withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq. It will come to nothing if he and the rest of the Democratic Party fail to heed the warning issued by Democratic party chairman Howard Dean during the weekly Democratic radio address: "The American people hired Democrats last November to ensure that we end this war," Dean said. "So let me be clear, we know that if we don't keep our promise, we may find ourselves the minority again." Others in the real world also have had their say in opposition to the Oil War, beginning with Pope Ratz himself: The Vatican considered the war in Afghanistan to be justified, but not the one in Iraq. Benedict urged Bush to pursue a “regional and negotiated” solution to the violent crises engulfing the Mideast. Benedict has been vocal in his opposition to bloodshed in the Mideast, singling out Iraq this past Easter: “Nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees.” Bush's response?
This didn't sit well in Catholic Italy: Italian journalists immediately noted the breach in protocol: The pope formally is to be addressed as “Your Holiness,” not “sir.” In addition, Bush's entire demeanor expressed disdain for the Pontiff: On his way to see the 80-year-old pontiff, the US leader apparently recognized someone he knew, and could be heard greeting the person with a casual “How ya doin’?” The pool reporters also noted Bush’s relaxed posture, crossing his legs “Texan style” while facing the pope across his desk in the private study of the apostolic palace. Jon Ponder of Pensito Review notes the kid-glove handling by the American media on this sensitive topic:
Muddling is what Bush does best. Why else would a former representative of the closest ally to the Oval Office neo-confidence men take a shot at George as did Pope Ratz? Sir Christopher Meyer, the UK's former ambassador to Washington, said, "I personally believe that the presence of American and British and coalition forces is making things worse, not only inside Iraq but the wider region around Iraq. The arguments against staying for any greater length of time themselves strengthen with every day that passes." Even within the White House staff there is dissention over Iraq: In a written response to questions by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Bush war adviser Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute confirmed news reports that he had voiced doubts during a White House-led policy review that led to Bush's Jan. 10 announcement that 21,500 more combat troops would go to Baghdad and Anbar province. Gen. Lute also doesn't think much of the program to turn over the war to the Iraqis: "The question in my mind is not to what extent can we force them ... to a particular outcome but rather to what degree do they actually have the capacity themselves to produce that outcome," Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. It doesn't help when a major representative of the Iraqi government suffers the loss of numerous relatives in an attack upon his home at a time when efforts are underway to combine the various factions in the common cause of ousting the United States forces from Iraq and elsewhere in Southwest Asia. The recent moves by the Iraqi puppet regime against the Basra oil pipeline workers isn't going to help Bush remain in control of Iraq's oil. Neither will the news of the destruction of Iraq's historical heritage by American forces. But, warns Brent Budowsky, as bad as these things are, they pale in comparison to the openly stated desires by Bush - and those seeking to take his place - to use nuclear weapons on Iran. Many people oppose Bush's mad obsession to outdo Harry Truman's vaporization of two Japanese cities in 1945, including someone who helped to make Truman's attack possible: Ed Grothus worked for 20 years as a machinist at R Site, part of the Los Alamos, N.M. birthplace of The Bomb. “We did the hydrodynamics of implosions,” he told me. “We reduced the size of a bomb by 30 times while we increased the yield by 30 times.” Grothus wants to repair that failure and install at the entrance to Los Alamos a pair of 30-foot-tall white granite obelisks he had made, engraved with the following message of clear warning in fifteen languages: “Welcome to Los Alamos, New Mexico, the United States of America, the city of fire. Our fires are brighter than a thousand suns. It was once believed that only God could destroy the world, but scientists working in Los Alamos first harnessed the power of the atom. The power released through fission and fusion gives many men the ability to commence the destruction of all life on earth. . . .” Walter C. Uhler also hopes to raise awareness of the nuclear threat represented by George W. Bush, and insists that the White Knight coming to our rescue is ex-KGB agent Vladimir Putin: When it comes to the rank incompetence of our pathetic President, George W. Bush, and his reprobate Veep, I'm often reminded of Samuel Johnson's observation about "a foolish thing well done." Yet, the abysmally poor performance of the Bush administration during the past six years has me clinging to Dr. Johnson's phrase, even if in a slightly revised form. Now it's "a foolish thing poorly done." Bush's excuse is that he is promoting the spread of "freedom and democracy", but the White House-friendly Washington Post reports that Bush Is Losing Credibility On Democracy. Slate's Fred Kaplan cuts to the quick by noting: "To George W. Bush, at a time of steady deterioration in America's standing and credibility, freedom is just another word for nothing left to say." What there is to say is that freedom and democracy are not being spread by George W. Bush. Instead, Dilip Hiro clarifies what Bush is spreading: For countries -- small, middling, or great -- acquiring nuclear weapons is all about the most basic requirement: the survival of the regime or nation. Joining the "nuclear club" has proved an effective strategy for survival. As The Onion had Washington say:
"[I]n truth, it is the duty of any people that wishes to be free to fight for its own independence." As the oil workers of Basra demonstrate, they are fighting for their freedom. Others around the world are taking up the cause. It's time that the American people did as well. *~*~*~* |
|
americanre
Ann the C's McCarthy Moment Jun 27th, 2007 3:15:51 am - Subscribe
|
|
Elizabeth Edwards is my new heroine! In just a few days, she has demonstrated that she has more courage - and courage of conviction - than all of the 2008 Presidential candidates combined - including her husband. Just the other day, she took on the Radical Religious with her comments in San Francisco during the Gay Day Parade: "I don't know why somebody else's marriage has anything to do with me," she said. "I'm completely comfortable with gay marriage." If one really thought about this comment, one would be hard-pressed to refute it. Speaking of the hard press, said behavior is the domain of the Wicked Witch of the East Coast, Ann Coulter. For years now, Coulter has been spewing invective at all non-Republicans without any meaningful rebuttal - until now. The response, coolly measured and delivered, came from Elizabeth Edwards: "[I]n the South when someone does something that displeases us, we ... ask them politely to stop doing it. I want … to ask her politely stop the personal attacks. One only has to look at the unscientific MSNBC reponse poll (on the linked page) to notice that Coulter may finally have had her McCarthy Moment. Out of 7946 responses as of Tue 26 Jun 2007 07:45:07 PM PDT, 95% of the respondents agreed with Elizabeth Edwards that Ann Coulter should stop with her personal attacks against the Edwards family. It's yet another sad commentary that the women of the Democratic Party have been showing more gonadinal fortitude than the men, and yet there is nothing more fierce than a mother defending her cubs - even dead ones. Since Coulter is herself childless, and clearly had no meaningful parenting as a witchling, it's a concept that she neither understands, nor can combat.Since Coulter is herself childless, and clearly had no meaningful parenting as a witchling, it's a concept that she neither understands, nor can combat. Stick a pitchfork in her - the Wicked Witch of the East Coast is toast! Take heed, Malkin! You're next! |