Going to go over to first-person on this one.
Vice President Dick Cheney made waves on Memorial Day, accusing Amnesty International of deceit when it compared Guantanamo Bay to a "gulag" in a scathing report on U.S. treatment of enemy prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba. Further, the VP said that he does not take the report seriously.
That's unfortunate.
I have major reservations about some of Cheney's comments. This stems from a conversation that I had with a soldier who had returned from service at Gitmo Bay (before the Abu Gharib scandal came to light).
He was extremely tight-lipped about what conditions were like there and if the prisoners were telling the military anything of value. If he had said "we're getting a treasure trove of information" or "they're not saying too much" or something like that, it would have been one thing, but this man had a guilty look on his face and told me that he didn't want to talk about it. Uh oh.
While this is not proof in itself, I know this man well. He tells the truth and would seriously consider disobeying orders if such an order violated his sense of right and wrong. He takes great pride in his work for the U.S. military; for him to clam up like that with that panicked expression on his face told me that there was a very serious problem and that he may have been forced to keep his mouth shut about what he was seeing. Who knows?
Then the stories and photos of prisoner abuse at the Abu Gharib prison made headlines around the world within a week of the conversation. It does not take a genius to figure out why my friend was so tight-lipped about his time at Guantanamo Bay. I have not asked him those questions again.
Cheney's view (and Limbaugh's too) is that our military provides for their religious needs, food, medical care and so on and so forth and that millions of people have been liberated from oppression in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is all true. It's also true that if the roles were reversed, and a Christian asked for a Bible while in Muslim custody, the same courtesy would probably not be extended that the U.S. military has shown to Muslim prisoners in providing them with the Quran and Muslim clergy to tend to the prisoners' religious needs.
However, if we expect Muslim nations to embrace democracy, we have to stop the perversions (literal and figurative) of international law on treatment of prisoners. And that includes terrorists, as evil as they are. This is complicating the U.S. image problem.
We also have to set the example for other nations to follow. Weakening the Geneva Convention by pretending that the rules do not apply to people based on what they are wearing at the time of their capture is idiocy. They are either criminals, or they are non-uniformed combatants that have rights under established international law. THERE IS NO IN-BETWEEN!!
That's what we would insist on if one of our Special Forces soldiers was captured while on a mission, and if he was wearing local attire instead of a U.S. military uniform. We'd want him to be treated humanely, right?
Let's extend that thinking: sexually abusing someone is a crime, is it not? Rape is a crime, is it not? Hooking electrical wires to a prisoner's genitals is generally considered torture which is illegal, is it not? Beating a handcuffed naked person to death is generally frowned upon is it not? Where were vaunted American values when this abuse was going on? It was checked at the door.
For Bush and Cheney to pooh-pooh the entire Amnesty International report out-of-hand is further proof that this Administration needs to change the way it does business. The government says that the U.S. has an image problem in the Muslim world yet insists that the U.S. is taking the lead in human rights issues. BS!
They are causing their own image problems. The Administration recently criticized the Iraqi security forces for mistreatment of prisoners. Did the pot just call the kettle black? It will criticize other nations, but it won't admit that it is a human rights violator itself?
And if the military wants to stop the insurgency in Iraq, they should continue door-to-door searches and work the problem instead of relying primarily on information taken from prisoners. They net more insurgents that way and seize more stockpiles of weapons, ammunition, bombs and other military/paramilitary equipment.
This Administration doesn't mind breaking international law or changing how it is interpreted for national security purposes. And it doesn't seem to mind treating Gitmo Bay prisoners and other prisoners around the world like they don't exist and therefore do not deserve to be treated humanely AT ALL TIMES.
And President Bush is going to have major egg in his face, too, if the indicators are correct. Those indicators are saying "you've been lied to" or "you're not telling us everything. Again."
More honesty, more dialogue and more attention to the problems! These issues will not go away just because Bush and Cheney say there aren't any problems, and that everything's hunkey-dorey. It most certainly is not hunkey-dorey.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Monday, May 30, 2005
France Rejects EU Treaty: Form of European Union Unclear
French voters thumbed their noses up at French President Chirac and voted to reject the new EU Constitution, plunging the confederation into chaos and throwing the entire ratification procedure into doubt. France, as a founding member of the European Union, was the first European nation to reject it outright.
Chirac has said that he will submit the treaty to the French Parliament to get around a 'no' vote, but since the treaty was defeated 55% to 45%, he may not do that for fear of losing his own job. His approval rating in France is currently at 39%, so he may get rid of his very unpopular Prime Minister. Parliament might also get cold feet since the people who elected them have already spoken on how they feel about the EU Constitution.
The Netherlands also have a ratification vote on Wednesday, and polls suggest that 60% of voters there will vote 'no'. It remains to see if the defeat of the EU constitution in France will make the 'no' vote any stronger in the Netherlands.
While it's enjoyable to see the bombastic Chirac suffer a political setback like this, it probably won't be good for the world economy or for EU foreign affairs around the world. EU efforts in Iran and Africa could well suffer from this election defeat in France.
The jury is still out on what will happen next.
Chirac has said that he will submit the treaty to the French Parliament to get around a 'no' vote, but since the treaty was defeated 55% to 45%, he may not do that for fear of losing his own job. His approval rating in France is currently at 39%, so he may get rid of his very unpopular Prime Minister. Parliament might also get cold feet since the people who elected them have already spoken on how they feel about the EU Constitution.
The Netherlands also have a ratification vote on Wednesday, and polls suggest that 60% of voters there will vote 'no'. It remains to see if the defeat of the EU constitution in France will make the 'no' vote any stronger in the Netherlands.
While it's enjoyable to see the bombastic Chirac suffer a political setback like this, it probably won't be good for the world economy or for EU foreign affairs around the world. EU efforts in Iran and Africa could well suffer from this election defeat in France.
The jury is still out on what will happen next.
Happy Memorial Day
The United States is observing Memorial Day today, remembering all of America's war dead and remembering those who gave the last full measure of devotion to their country and fellow soldiers on various battlefields around the world.
Happy Memorial Day, and thank you for your dedicated service, veterans.
Here's a web site that has all of America's wars listed, years of conflict numbers of dead and wounded. This site has not been updated in a while, but includes casualties from the Iraq War and Afghan War up to February 23, 2005.
May God bless the soldiers and families of those who continue to be in harm's way around the world. And may His blessings be with the families of soldiers who are being remembered on this day.
Happy Memorial Day, and thank you for your dedicated service, veterans.
Here's a web site that has all of America's wars listed, years of conflict numbers of dead and wounded. This site has not been updated in a while, but includes casualties from the Iraq War and Afghan War up to February 23, 2005.
May God bless the soldiers and families of those who continue to be in harm's way around the world. And may His blessings be with the families of soldiers who are being remembered on this day.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Group Denies Mother (Who Lost her Army/Marine Son in Afghanistan) Honor Because She's Not a U.S. Citizen
A Filipino mother, who is a permanent resident and a taxpayer in the United States, and lost her son in combat in Afghanistan, has been denied a Gold Star by the American Gold Star Mothers Inc., a group that honors moms who lost their sons or daughters in America's wars.
Army Staff Sgt. and U.S. Marine Anthony Lagman was leading his unit to route remaining Taliban and al-Qaeda forces from Afghanistan last year when they came under enemy fire. Sgt. Lagman was killed in action and his name was submitted to AGSM so that they could honor his mother. (He was a Marine and also in the U.S. Army--see this story)
It was not to be. AGSM found out she was not an American citizen and denied her the gold star that her son bought and paid for with his blood and his life.
If he was good enough to be accepted into the Armed Forces of the United States, and good enough to die for his adopted country, it shouldn't matter what nationality HIS MOTHER is. Many foreign nationals enlist in the U.S. military to speed up their U.S. citizenship applications and many of them are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan for their new flag and for their fellow U.S. soldiers. Are they any less worthy of being honored than those who were born here?
AGSM has the right to decide on their own rules, but they should keep their rules consistant with the changing make-up of the U.S. Armed Forces. And they should honor this fallen soldier's mom.
Army Staff Sgt. and U.S. Marine Anthony Lagman was leading his unit to route remaining Taliban and al-Qaeda forces from Afghanistan last year when they came under enemy fire. Sgt. Lagman was killed in action and his name was submitted to AGSM so that they could honor his mother. (He was a Marine and also in the U.S. Army--see this story)
It was not to be. AGSM found out she was not an American citizen and denied her the gold star that her son bought and paid for with his blood and his life.
If he was good enough to be accepted into the Armed Forces of the United States, and good enough to die for his adopted country, it shouldn't matter what nationality HIS MOTHER is. Many foreign nationals enlist in the U.S. military to speed up their U.S. citizenship applications and many of them are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan for their new flag and for their fellow U.S. soldiers. Are they any less worthy of being honored than those who were born here?
AGSM has the right to decide on their own rules, but they should keep their rules consistant with the changing make-up of the U.S. Armed Forces. And they should honor this fallen soldier's mom.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Filibuster Deal is a Good (If Temporary) One
Conservatives are moaning about the hijacking of their so-called “nuclear option” and liberals are moaning about trading judgeships in exchange for a tenuous cease-fire in the filibuster battle. The more they moan, the more the center cheers. This is a good deal.
Do the Republicans think that if they do away with the judicial filibuster now that the Democrats would be nice enough to give it back if the Democrats recapture control of the Senate?
Republican strategic thinking on this matter is remarkably short-sighted. There is NO way that the Democrats, should they become the majority party in the Senate again, will say “the Republicans took this weapon away from us, but we’re better than they and are GIVING IT BACK so the GOP can use it against OUR nominees for the federal bench.” Is there anyone out there who seriously believes that the Dems would do something like that? The Democrats would likely use the lack of a filibuster to ramrod their candidate through and the Republicans would be left to cry over spilled milk. THEIR spilled milk.
Why would the Republicans give up their only means of stopping a future nominee if they become outnumbered in the Senate AND they have major objections to a particular nominee that a future President nominates?
True, this cease-fire may not hold, but it’s showing the fringes on both sides that they cannot keep ignoring the moderates who make up the majority of both parties. They need to move away from their far right and far left stances and return to a more inclusive center position.
And the Republicans have to start thinking long-term about what they’re doing if they want to keep their majority and power intact.
Get with it, quit crying and belly-aching, and move on.
Do the Republicans think that if they do away with the judicial filibuster now that the Democrats would be nice enough to give it back if the Democrats recapture control of the Senate?
Republican strategic thinking on this matter is remarkably short-sighted. There is NO way that the Democrats, should they become the majority party in the Senate again, will say “the Republicans took this weapon away from us, but we’re better than they and are GIVING IT BACK so the GOP can use it against OUR nominees for the federal bench.” Is there anyone out there who seriously believes that the Dems would do something like that? The Democrats would likely use the lack of a filibuster to ramrod their candidate through and the Republicans would be left to cry over spilled milk. THEIR spilled milk.
Why would the Republicans give up their only means of stopping a future nominee if they become outnumbered in the Senate AND they have major objections to a particular nominee that a future President nominates?
True, this cease-fire may not hold, but it’s showing the fringes on both sides that they cannot keep ignoring the moderates who make up the majority of both parties. They need to move away from their far right and far left stances and return to a more inclusive center position.
And the Republicans have to start thinking long-term about what they’re doing if they want to keep their majority and power intact.
Get with it, quit crying and belly-aching, and move on.
Who’s In Charge of Defending U.S. Capitol Airspace? The Military or Homeland Security?
There is confusion over who is in charge of defending Washington’s airspace from inbound hostile aircraft. The military can shoot down hostiles; Homeland Security wants the same authority.
The Secret Service can also shoot down aircraft that look like they’re going to try to ram the White House by using portable Stinger missiles from their action stations. Their rules of engagement are different from the military’s ROE. Where does Homeland Security fit in here?
There’s not enough airspace for the military, Homeland Security and the Secret Service to operate safely. The Secret Service ROE should remain the same: engage hostile aircraft that get past the fighter umbrella that protects the Capitol. The question then becomes one between the U.S. military and the Department of Homeland Security.
The military is better equipped to handle shooting down inbound aircraft.
The role of Homeland Security should be to clear the airspace around Washington (and across the nation) in the event that the White House or other government buildings come under air attack and missiles need to be fired, either from the ground or by U.S. military aircraft that are pursuing a hostile. The last thing they need is for a fully loaded 757 or one of the new giant Airbuses to get shot down by a wayward missile.
Homeland Security was created to gather information and distribute pertinent information to government, military and law enforcement agencies across the country, not have their Coast Guard or Customs aircraft be armed with Sidewinder missiles and begin shooting down unidentified aircraft approaching Washington’s airspace. They should be providing advanced warning of potential terrorist attacks on targets like Washington, then allowing law enforcement and the military to do their jobs.
The role of the military IS to kill people and break things. Homeland Security doesn’t need to be doing the same thing. They have enough on their plate as it is. Leave the air defense of the Capitol to the military.
Here's the Washington Post story.
The Secret Service can also shoot down aircraft that look like they’re going to try to ram the White House by using portable Stinger missiles from their action stations. Their rules of engagement are different from the military’s ROE. Where does Homeland Security fit in here?
There’s not enough airspace for the military, Homeland Security and the Secret Service to operate safely. The Secret Service ROE should remain the same: engage hostile aircraft that get past the fighter umbrella that protects the Capitol. The question then becomes one between the U.S. military and the Department of Homeland Security.
The military is better equipped to handle shooting down inbound aircraft.
The role of Homeland Security should be to clear the airspace around Washington (and across the nation) in the event that the White House or other government buildings come under air attack and missiles need to be fired, either from the ground or by U.S. military aircraft that are pursuing a hostile. The last thing they need is for a fully loaded 757 or one of the new giant Airbuses to get shot down by a wayward missile.
Homeland Security was created to gather information and distribute pertinent information to government, military and law enforcement agencies across the country, not have their Coast Guard or Customs aircraft be armed with Sidewinder missiles and begin shooting down unidentified aircraft approaching Washington’s airspace. They should be providing advanced warning of potential terrorist attacks on targets like Washington, then allowing law enforcement and the military to do their jobs.
The role of the military IS to kill people and break things. Homeland Security doesn’t need to be doing the same thing. They have enough on their plate as it is. Leave the air defense of the Capitol to the military.
Here's the Washington Post story.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Jackson Trial Winding Down: He’s Going to Get Off—Too Much Reasonable Doubt
Michael Jackson’s trial has entered its final phase and it is widely believed that he will either be acquitted of the most serious charges against him or there will be a hung jury.
The accuser’s testimony has been shot full of holes; his brother and mother have been blown out of the water by revelations that they lied on the stand; and at least two of the celebrities who he was accused of molesting when they were children totally and completely denied it. Macaulay Culkin’s testimony was devastating to the prosecution, as predicted, and the prosecution has failed to produce credible witnesses. How could a prosecution go so badly off course?
This case was so screwed up from day one that an acquittal will be a relief. If, by some stroke of luck that the jury convicts Jackson, there will be appeals for years to come. If there's a hung jury, we may have to go through this entire strange drama again.
This case is still very disturbing, and only highlights that there is a difference between celebrity justice and the ordinary criminal justice system. It shouldn’t be that way, but there it is. OJ and Robert Blake escaped jail time; it looks like MJ will too (unless everyone’s misreading the signs.)
It should be noted that OJ lost the civil suit that followed his acquittal in the criminal case against him; a civil suit just got underway against Robert Blake and he isn’t faring too well; the accuser’s mom in the MJ trial has made hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawsuits against companies and will likely attempt to score big against MJ despite having no credibility whatsoever.
The clock is winding down fast; we’ll know shortly what will happen. Once the jury gets the case, there are two strong possibilities: either they will decide quickly, or they will deadlock and will stay that way. That's ThunderFerret's prediction on the matter.
The accuser’s testimony has been shot full of holes; his brother and mother have been blown out of the water by revelations that they lied on the stand; and at least two of the celebrities who he was accused of molesting when they were children totally and completely denied it. Macaulay Culkin’s testimony was devastating to the prosecution, as predicted, and the prosecution has failed to produce credible witnesses. How could a prosecution go so badly off course?
This case was so screwed up from day one that an acquittal will be a relief. If, by some stroke of luck that the jury convicts Jackson, there will be appeals for years to come. If there's a hung jury, we may have to go through this entire strange drama again.
This case is still very disturbing, and only highlights that there is a difference between celebrity justice and the ordinary criminal justice system. It shouldn’t be that way, but there it is. OJ and Robert Blake escaped jail time; it looks like MJ will too (unless everyone’s misreading the signs.)
It should be noted that OJ lost the civil suit that followed his acquittal in the criminal case against him; a civil suit just got underway against Robert Blake and he isn’t faring too well; the accuser’s mom in the MJ trial has made hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawsuits against companies and will likely attempt to score big against MJ despite having no credibility whatsoever.
The clock is winding down fast; we’ll know shortly what will happen. Once the jury gets the case, there are two strong possibilities: either they will decide quickly, or they will deadlock and will stay that way. That's ThunderFerret's prediction on the matter.
Center Holds Their Ground in the Senate: Compromise Reached on Judicial Filibusters
A moderate group of seven Republicans and seven Democrats made a deal to keep a nasty fight over judicial filibustering from spilling over into other Senate business, and the ideologues from both parties appear to be going along with it.
The deal calls for filibusters not to be used except in “extreme cases” (whatever that bland and unclear language means), and that three out of five judicial nominees will be given up or down votes on whether they get judgeships or not.
The other two are still under filibuster threat, which is widely seen as being the end of those nominations.
While this deal is a compromise and neither side is truly happy with it, it makes more sense to allow all five votes to happen; if the Democrats (or Republicans) feel that a nominee has problems, it’s their duty to convince their colleagues from BOTH sides of the aisle that they should vote ‘no’ on a particular nominee, not simply use the filibuster to prevent a vote from being taken.
As we’ve seen with the Bolton U.N. nomination, the Democrats were successful in getting several of their Republican colleagues on the Senate committee to come around to their point of view on Bolton’s treatment of subordinates. The end result was that the Bolton nomination was sent to the full Senate without the committee’s approval. That’s a group of Senators doing their J-O-B-S and presenting evidence to support their positions that convinced the opposition that the reasoning for the objections was sound.
A Senator discussing his grandmother’s recipe for apple pie for an hour on the Senate floor and then discussing the finer points of chess for an hour during a filibuster is a tremendous waste of taxpayer resources. It stops other legitimate business from being discussed and voted on. So hopefully all sides will use the filibuster sparingly and get on with important Senate business.
The deal calls for filibusters not to be used except in “extreme cases” (whatever that bland and unclear language means), and that three out of five judicial nominees will be given up or down votes on whether they get judgeships or not.
The other two are still under filibuster threat, which is widely seen as being the end of those nominations.
While this deal is a compromise and neither side is truly happy with it, it makes more sense to allow all five votes to happen; if the Democrats (or Republicans) feel that a nominee has problems, it’s their duty to convince their colleagues from BOTH sides of the aisle that they should vote ‘no’ on a particular nominee, not simply use the filibuster to prevent a vote from being taken.
As we’ve seen with the Bolton U.N. nomination, the Democrats were successful in getting several of their Republican colleagues on the Senate committee to come around to their point of view on Bolton’s treatment of subordinates. The end result was that the Bolton nomination was sent to the full Senate without the committee’s approval. That’s a group of Senators doing their J-O-B-S and presenting evidence to support their positions that convinced the opposition that the reasoning for the objections was sound.
A Senator discussing his grandmother’s recipe for apple pie for an hour on the Senate floor and then discussing the finer points of chess for an hour during a filibuster is a tremendous waste of taxpayer resources. It stops other legitimate business from being discussed and voted on. So hopefully all sides will use the filibuster sparingly and get on with important Senate business.
Monday, May 23, 2005
School Bus Brawl Leads to Two Students and Bus Driver Being Arrested
This is a strange one and the D.A.’s going to have fun trying to sort out who did what and who was acting in self-defense.
It started when a 13 year-old refused to obey the instructions of a bus driver, who was already very agitated.
The driver radioed his dispatcher to get a sheriff's deputy out to assist and then screamed at the student to “get up here!” The student screamed back “no!!” so the driver proceeded to the back of the bus. The boy’s 15 year-old brother waited for the bus driver to walk by, got out of his seat, called the bus driver a bad name which caused the driver to whip around, slap him and grab him by the throat.
The student is seen attempting to break away and throwing at least one punch at the driver who used more force to try to subdue the kid. The 13 year old ran to the front of the bus (which he should have done in the first place) and the bus driver came up, closely followed by the older brother, who pushed the driver, threatened to knock his glasses off his face and pushed him again.
So who was the aggressor? The driver started the physical stuff, the older boy threw a punch in what appears to be self-defense, but after the initial brawl ends the boy comes up and pushes the driver twice in an effort to restart the fight.
Striking a school official in Florida is a felony; attacking a student is also a felony; the students have been suspended from school for misbehaving on a bus, and the driver has been suspended with pay.
Here’s a link to the video of the incident. But this is a story that can have no happy ending. The driver and the brothers deserve what they’re going to get because they all crossed lines that should never have been crossed in the first place.
It started when a 13 year-old refused to obey the instructions of a bus driver, who was already very agitated.
The driver radioed his dispatcher to get a sheriff's deputy out to assist and then screamed at the student to “get up here!” The student screamed back “no!!” so the driver proceeded to the back of the bus. The boy’s 15 year-old brother waited for the bus driver to walk by, got out of his seat, called the bus driver a bad name which caused the driver to whip around, slap him and grab him by the throat.
The student is seen attempting to break away and throwing at least one punch at the driver who used more force to try to subdue the kid. The 13 year old ran to the front of the bus (which he should have done in the first place) and the bus driver came up, closely followed by the older brother, who pushed the driver, threatened to knock his glasses off his face and pushed him again.
So who was the aggressor? The driver started the physical stuff, the older boy threw a punch in what appears to be self-defense, but after the initial brawl ends the boy comes up and pushes the driver twice in an effort to restart the fight.
Striking a school official in Florida is a felony; attacking a student is also a felony; the students have been suspended from school for misbehaving on a bus, and the driver has been suspended with pay.
Here’s a link to the video of the incident. But this is a story that can have no happy ending. The driver and the brothers deserve what they’re going to get because they all crossed lines that should never have been crossed in the first place.
Saddam Jail Pictures Circulate Around the World: So What?
Pictures of Saddam Hussein in various stages of dress appeared in the British tabloid “The Sun” and other magazines around the world. The photos have deeply embarrassed the former Iraqi dictator as well as the U.S. military.
Why is the U.S. military embarrassed? Is Saddam being sexually abused by U.S. troops in the photos? No. Is Saddam being beaten in the photos by U.S. troops? No. Is he being tortured by U.S. troops in the photos? No. Is he doing his laundry in his undergarments in the photos? Yes. Is he sleeping in the photos? Yes.
Saddam is a prisoner of the sovereign Iraqi government and is no longer a prisoner of war. Therefore, the Geneva Convention does not apply in this case with regard to releasing photos of POWs for public interest. He’s a common criminal now, accused of horrific crimes.
As far as the photos being taken while he was in U.S. custody, it is not official U.S. military policy to take and release humiliating photos of prisoners. The photos of prisoners being abused at Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad were taken by soldiers who were NOT (arguably) acting under orders from the Department of Defense. Those soldiers in the Abu Ghraib photos are in the process of going through the military justice system.
The Pentagon has denied releasing any photos to the Sun or any other newspaper. The Sun says that the U.S. military was trying to break the spirit of the insurgency by releasing the photos.
It’s more likely that a guard at Camp Cropper (where Saddam is being held) either sold or gave the photos to the Sun and hoped that it would help to break the spirit of the insurgency. But the Sun attributed the statement to “unnamed sources” in the U.S. military. (More “unnamed sources” idiocy.)
What the U.S. military should do (and is doing) is find the idiot who took and sold the photos to the paper and bring the party responsible up on charges for violating U.S. military policy. And the Iraqi government should be talking to the Sun for violating whatever policy they have about humiliation of prisoners.
The only reason that the U.S. military is making a big deal out of this is that they don’t want to offend Arab sensibilities more than they already have been from the Abu Ghraib scandal, the retracted Newsweek report of the desecration of the Quran at Guantanemo Bay and the reported mistreatment of prisoners at U.S. military facilities around the world.
That's why the U.S. military is embarrassed about this mini-scandal. If they had been treating prisoners humanely all along, this story may well have gotten a "so what?" from the very people that the military is now afraid of offending further. This is very unfortunate.
Why is the U.S. military embarrassed? Is Saddam being sexually abused by U.S. troops in the photos? No. Is Saddam being beaten in the photos by U.S. troops? No. Is he being tortured by U.S. troops in the photos? No. Is he doing his laundry in his undergarments in the photos? Yes. Is he sleeping in the photos? Yes.
Saddam is a prisoner of the sovereign Iraqi government and is no longer a prisoner of war. Therefore, the Geneva Convention does not apply in this case with regard to releasing photos of POWs for public interest. He’s a common criminal now, accused of horrific crimes.
As far as the photos being taken while he was in U.S. custody, it is not official U.S. military policy to take and release humiliating photos of prisoners. The photos of prisoners being abused at Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad were taken by soldiers who were NOT (arguably) acting under orders from the Department of Defense. Those soldiers in the Abu Ghraib photos are in the process of going through the military justice system.
The Pentagon has denied releasing any photos to the Sun or any other newspaper. The Sun says that the U.S. military was trying to break the spirit of the insurgency by releasing the photos.
It’s more likely that a guard at Camp Cropper (where Saddam is being held) either sold or gave the photos to the Sun and hoped that it would help to break the spirit of the insurgency. But the Sun attributed the statement to “unnamed sources” in the U.S. military. (More “unnamed sources” idiocy.)
What the U.S. military should do (and is doing) is find the idiot who took and sold the photos to the paper and bring the party responsible up on charges for violating U.S. military policy. And the Iraqi government should be talking to the Sun for violating whatever policy they have about humiliation of prisoners.
The only reason that the U.S. military is making a big deal out of this is that they don’t want to offend Arab sensibilities more than they already have been from the Abu Ghraib scandal, the retracted Newsweek report of the desecration of the Quran at Guantanemo Bay and the reported mistreatment of prisoners at U.S. military facilities around the world.
That's why the U.S. military is embarrassed about this mini-scandal. If they had been treating prisoners humanely all along, this story may well have gotten a "so what?" from the very people that the military is now afraid of offending further. This is very unfortunate.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
“Nuclear Option” Talk is Nothing New—Congress is Making Political Hay to Their Cost
Eliminating the filibuster is a bad idea.
Everyone is agreed that, as a historical note, both parties have enjoyed the type of advantage that the Republicans currently have in the House and in the Senate.
For all the screaming they are doing about Democratic filibusters, the Republicans have taken advantage of using filibusters too: Senate Bill 1454 was filibustered by the Republicans, led by Trent Lott. They stopped President Clinton's choice for surgeon general from happening via filibuster (for good reason), they stopped Richard Paez from getting a judicial post via a filibuster. Senate Leader Frist joined in that one.
Before they go banning the filibuster, they should realize that they WILL be the minority party again and they may NEED the filibuster to fight the majority party for what's important to the Republicans. Anyone remember Jim Jeffords, the Vermont Republican who became an independent and swung control of the Senate back to the Democrats? Who is to say that something similar couldn't happen again?
Both parties have had BIG election day disasters in the past. Are the Republicans that confident that they will NEVER lose control of one or both houses of Congress? They are fools if they think that. The Democrats ought to check their attitudes too.
So, both sides need to cool down and work together to get the business of the American people done. By all means, change the rules, but don't get rid of filibusters.
Everyone is agreed that, as a historical note, both parties have enjoyed the type of advantage that the Republicans currently have in the House and in the Senate.
For all the screaming they are doing about Democratic filibusters, the Republicans have taken advantage of using filibusters too: Senate Bill 1454 was filibustered by the Republicans, led by Trent Lott. They stopped President Clinton's choice for surgeon general from happening via filibuster (for good reason), they stopped Richard Paez from getting a judicial post via a filibuster. Senate Leader Frist joined in that one.
Before they go banning the filibuster, they should realize that they WILL be the minority party again and they may NEED the filibuster to fight the majority party for what's important to the Republicans. Anyone remember Jim Jeffords, the Vermont Republican who became an independent and swung control of the Senate back to the Democrats? Who is to say that something similar couldn't happen again?
Both parties have had BIG election day disasters in the past. Are the Republicans that confident that they will NEVER lose control of one or both houses of Congress? They are fools if they think that. The Democrats ought to check their attitudes too.
So, both sides need to cool down and work together to get the business of the American people done. By all means, change the rules, but don't get rid of filibusters.
Trump Comes Up With Really Bad Idea for World Trade Center Site
Donald Trump went out on a limb today, calling the Freedom Tower a “piece of crap” and has endorsed a rival design that is closely modeled on the destroyed towers.
Why is Trump endorsing a design that has already failed? “Bigger and better” is definitely not better.
If those towers hadn’t collapsed, we would be measuring the body count in the hundreds, not in the thousands. Most of the casualties happened when the towers went down, not when the jumbo jets hit.
But, with the Freedom Tower design under review and the entire project in disarray, everybody is putting in their two cents.
They should never again put 25,000+ people into a death trap like the old World Trade Center. Those offices and businesses should be underground so that they will never be vulnerable to terrorist strikes from the air.
The World Trade Center was a symbol of New York and of the United States; it was attacked twice and destroyed once; it will be attacked again if it is rebuilt as it was before, so it should be hardened to protect the people who work within. It is easier to stop a terrorist bomber at a security gate than it is to stop a hijacked 767 going 500mph and heading toward a 1,368 foot high target.
So Trump’s dead wrong about his idea. It would be a symbolic move to rebuild bigger towers and pack them full of people. Nothing more.
It's a failed design and a bad idea, Mr. Trump.
Why is Trump endorsing a design that has already failed? “Bigger and better” is definitely not better.
If those towers hadn’t collapsed, we would be measuring the body count in the hundreds, not in the thousands. Most of the casualties happened when the towers went down, not when the jumbo jets hit.
But, with the Freedom Tower design under review and the entire project in disarray, everybody is putting in their two cents.
They should never again put 25,000+ people into a death trap like the old World Trade Center. Those offices and businesses should be underground so that they will never be vulnerable to terrorist strikes from the air.
The World Trade Center was a symbol of New York and of the United States; it was attacked twice and destroyed once; it will be attacked again if it is rebuilt as it was before, so it should be hardened to protect the people who work within. It is easier to stop a terrorist bomber at a security gate than it is to stop a hijacked 767 going 500mph and heading toward a 1,368 foot high target.
So Trump’s dead wrong about his idea. It would be a symbolic move to rebuild bigger towers and pack them full of people. Nothing more.
It's a failed design and a bad idea, Mr. Trump.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
White House Reporters Jump All Over Press Secretary: More Bumbling and Loss of Journalistic Integrity
As Newsweek magazine continues to reel from international criticism of its retraction of a story that the Quran had been desecrated at Guantanemo Bay, White House reporters jumped all over President Bush's press secretary at a briefing today. Here's a partial transcript:
Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not telling them. I'm saying that we would encourage them to help --
Q You're pressuring them.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying that we would encourage them --
Q It's not pressure?
MR. McCLELLAN: Look, this report caused serious damage to the image of the United States abroad. And Newsweek has said that they got it wrong. I think Newsweek recognizes the responsibility they have. We appreciate the step that they took by retracting the story. Now we would encourage them to move forward and do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done by this report. And that's all I'm saying. But, no, you're absolutely right, it's not my position to get into telling people what they can and cannot report....
Q Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you're saying here?
MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, let me finish my sentence. Our military --
Q You've already said what you're -- I know what -- how it ends.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm coming to your question, and you're not letting me have a chance to respond. But our military goes out of their way to handle the Koran with care and respect. There are policies and practices that are in place. This report was wrong. Newsweek, itself, stated that it was wrong. And so now I think it's incumbent and -- incumbent upon Newsweek to do their part to help repair the damage. And they can do that through ways that they see best, but one way that would be good would be to point out what the policies and practices are in that part of the world, because it's in that region where this report has been exploited and used to cause lasting damage to the image of the United States of America. It has had serious consequences. And so that's all I'm saying, is that we would encourage them to take steps to help repair the damage. And I think that they recognize the importance of doing that. That's all I'm saying.
From here it looks like the White House is not interfering with the free press: it's the free press interfering with American foreign policy! Fifteen people who had nothing to do with this false (and retracted) story from Newsweek lost their lives and dozens more were injured. Now the diplomats have to clean up Newsweek's mess. What a waste of resources.
And all because Newsweek didn't do their homework. They didn't get corroboration from THREE SOURCES. If they had, there wouldn't have been an issue. It would have been another case of prisoner abuse and utter disrespect for Islam's most sacred text. But instead we are left with confusion over who did what and why. Again.
This is much worse than the CBS scandal; no one died from their attempts to discredit President Bush during the Presidential campaign.
Can't trust the government to tell the truth, can't trust the press either.
Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not telling them. I'm saying that we would encourage them to help --
Q You're pressuring them.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying that we would encourage them --
Q It's not pressure?
MR. McCLELLAN: Look, this report caused serious damage to the image of the United States abroad. And Newsweek has said that they got it wrong. I think Newsweek recognizes the responsibility they have. We appreciate the step that they took by retracting the story. Now we would encourage them to move forward and do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done by this report. And that's all I'm saying. But, no, you're absolutely right, it's not my position to get into telling people what they can and cannot report....
Q Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you're saying here?
MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, let me finish my sentence. Our military --
Q You've already said what you're -- I know what -- how it ends.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm coming to your question, and you're not letting me have a chance to respond. But our military goes out of their way to handle the Koran with care and respect. There are policies and practices that are in place. This report was wrong. Newsweek, itself, stated that it was wrong. And so now I think it's incumbent and -- incumbent upon Newsweek to do their part to help repair the damage. And they can do that through ways that they see best, but one way that would be good would be to point out what the policies and practices are in that part of the world, because it's in that region where this report has been exploited and used to cause lasting damage to the image of the United States of America. It has had serious consequences. And so that's all I'm saying, is that we would encourage them to take steps to help repair the damage. And I think that they recognize the importance of doing that. That's all I'm saying.
From here it looks like the White House is not interfering with the free press: it's the free press interfering with American foreign policy! Fifteen people who had nothing to do with this false (and retracted) story from Newsweek lost their lives and dozens more were injured. Now the diplomats have to clean up Newsweek's mess. What a waste of resources.
And all because Newsweek didn't do their homework. They didn't get corroboration from THREE SOURCES. If they had, there wouldn't have been an issue. It would have been another case of prisoner abuse and utter disrespect for Islam's most sacred text. But instead we are left with confusion over who did what and why. Again.
This is much worse than the CBS scandal; no one died from their attempts to discredit President Bush during the Presidential campaign.
Can't trust the government to tell the truth, can't trust the press either.
Controversial U.S. Army School of the Americas Not on Base Closure List
The U.S. Army School of the Americas (now called the Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC)), which is based at Fort Benning, Georgia, is not on the closure list.
Fort Benning is important to leave alone, but it can do without the SOA/WHINSEC, which trains Central and South American commandos from countries that have very poor human rights records and are unafraid to use their military to keep their governments in power. Many of the commandos trained at SOA have turned their weapons on their own people to suppress freedom and democracy.
The most recent incident was in Columbia, where the Columbian Army 17th and 11th Brigades slaughtered civilians at the San José de Apartadó Peace Community near Urabá, Colombia, on February 21, 2005. The dead included women and children. The brigade leaders were graduates of the School of the Americas. Among those killed was Luis Eduardo Guerra, who was an outspoken opponent of the SOA and a Columbian democracy advocate.
The U.S. uses the SOA to fight the war on drugs and is failing because the commandos are not using their training to stop drug lords in their countries. These men are terrorists, not allies in the war on drugs or terror.
Here's a list of other notable graduates of the School. This school causes more problems than it solves. Why should this vicious cycle continue? Close it, and use the facility to do something useful, like train Iraqi or Afghan security forces.
Fort Benning is important to leave alone, but it can do without the SOA/WHINSEC, which trains Central and South American commandos from countries that have very poor human rights records and are unafraid to use their military to keep their governments in power. Many of the commandos trained at SOA have turned their weapons on their own people to suppress freedom and democracy.
The most recent incident was in Columbia, where the Columbian Army 17th and 11th Brigades slaughtered civilians at the San José de Apartadó Peace Community near Urabá, Colombia, on February 21, 2005. The dead included women and children. The brigade leaders were graduates of the School of the Americas. Among those killed was Luis Eduardo Guerra, who was an outspoken opponent of the SOA and a Columbian democracy advocate.
The U.S. uses the SOA to fight the war on drugs and is failing because the commandos are not using their training to stop drug lords in their countries. These men are terrorists, not allies in the war on drugs or terror.
Here's a list of other notable graduates of the School. This school causes more problems than it solves. Why should this vicious cycle continue? Close it, and use the facility to do something useful, like train Iraqi or Afghan security forces.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Public Displays of Affection Should Be Regulated by Schools: Girl Should Be Given Detention
This so-called controversy in Oregon about a 14-year-old girl getting detention for hugging her boyfriend isn't anything new. And it is not as big a deal as she is making it out to be. Get over it, girl, and hit the books. Kiss your boyfriend over the summer.
"Public Displays of Affection" or PDAs are closely monitored in many schools across Michigan. While some districts don't touch the issue, others have rules which govern the conduct of students while they are on school property or on school-sponsored activities. This is a good thing.
Look at the benefits of restricting/banning PDAs: fewer dramatic (and sometimes spectacular) break-ups in the hallways between classes (or IN the classrooms), less peer pressure to become sexually active, and more restraint (due to enforced rules of respecting one another's space) on what they decide to do when they're alone (and off school grounds) with their "significant other." Break-ups are always worse when there's a sexual or high-contact component to the relationship, and high school campus "90210" scenes are prime breeding grounds for trouble between teens who are having problems with their interpersonal relationships.
Those schools who don't address this issue are more likely to have a major problem with sexual tension which is very distracting to hormone-crazed teens and allows a very bad culture to take root in the hallways of schools and in the classrooms themselves.
Teachers in schools that had few rules about PDAs and made the switch after having major trouble with their students agree: the restrictions helped improve respect between the genders, helped with more of the blow-ups by reducing the tension, and destroyed the culture that says teens have to be sexually active in order to be cool. This is from a conversation that ThunderFerret had with a high school teacher yesterday.
Further, it's disgusting to walk through a school hallway and see a guy and a girl doing all kinds of stuff with their tongues in public. Educationally, it's very distracting and shouldn't be allowed in schools. If they want to work on their love life, they should do it on their own time.
So this Oregon school should stick to their rules and have the girl serve the detention. Rules are there to be followed, not changed because some 14 year-old decides she wants to swap spit with her boyfriend in the hallway. And Mom should be encouraging the schools to keep her daughter's behavior under control.
"Public Displays of Affection" or PDAs are closely monitored in many schools across Michigan. While some districts don't touch the issue, others have rules which govern the conduct of students while they are on school property or on school-sponsored activities. This is a good thing.
Look at the benefits of restricting/banning PDAs: fewer dramatic (and sometimes spectacular) break-ups in the hallways between classes (or IN the classrooms), less peer pressure to become sexually active, and more restraint (due to enforced rules of respecting one another's space) on what they decide to do when they're alone (and off school grounds) with their "significant other." Break-ups are always worse when there's a sexual or high-contact component to the relationship, and high school campus "90210" scenes are prime breeding grounds for trouble between teens who are having problems with their interpersonal relationships.
Those schools who don't address this issue are more likely to have a major problem with sexual tension which is very distracting to hormone-crazed teens and allows a very bad culture to take root in the hallways of schools and in the classrooms themselves.
Teachers in schools that had few rules about PDAs and made the switch after having major trouble with their students agree: the restrictions helped improve respect between the genders, helped with more of the blow-ups by reducing the tension, and destroyed the culture that says teens have to be sexually active in order to be cool. This is from a conversation that ThunderFerret had with a high school teacher yesterday.
Further, it's disgusting to walk through a school hallway and see a guy and a girl doing all kinds of stuff with their tongues in public. Educationally, it's very distracting and shouldn't be allowed in schools. If they want to work on their love life, they should do it on their own time.
So this Oregon school should stick to their rules and have the girl serve the detention. Rules are there to be followed, not changed because some 14 year-old decides she wants to swap spit with her boyfriend in the hallway. And Mom should be encouraging the schools to keep her daughter's behavior under control.
Newsweek Magazine Screws Up EXPLOSIVE Quran Desecration Story
Newsweek recently reported that U.S. military investigators desecrated a Quran by flushing it down a toilet in an effort to break Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners into talking.
Today the editor sent out an apology saying “We regret that we got any part of our story wrong and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst."
Too little, too late. Riots are breaking out all over the Muslim world in response to this story. People have died, others have been injured, and anti-U.S. sentiment is now on the rise in countries like Afghanistan, which can ill-afford an uprising against the peacekeepers and the fledgling elected government. In the Muslim world, desecrating a Quran is punishable by death.
The extremists in Muslim countries won’t accept Newsweek’s apology or explanation of what it did. They now have their cause. Thanks for nothing, Newsweek.
In basic journalism classes, they say at least THREE sources are to be used, not two, but Newsweek had to have their scoop and printed the information from two questionable sources without considering the consequences if their information was incorrect.
Did they miss the lessons that CBS provided when “60 Minutes” took shortcuts on a story?
Here's the story.
Today the editor sent out an apology saying “We regret that we got any part of our story wrong and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst."
Too little, too late. Riots are breaking out all over the Muslim world in response to this story. People have died, others have been injured, and anti-U.S. sentiment is now on the rise in countries like Afghanistan, which can ill-afford an uprising against the peacekeepers and the fledgling elected government. In the Muslim world, desecrating a Quran is punishable by death.
The extremists in Muslim countries won’t accept Newsweek’s apology or explanation of what it did. They now have their cause. Thanks for nothing, Newsweek.
In basic journalism classes, they say at least THREE sources are to be used, not two, but Newsweek had to have their scoop and printed the information from two questionable sources without considering the consequences if their information was incorrect.
Did they miss the lessons that CBS provided when “60 Minutes” took shortcuts on a story?
Here's the story.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
U.S. Military Rights to Bases in Uzbekistan Come at a Terrible Price
The media has been reporting heavy fighting in parts of Uzbekistan as freedom fighters attempt to overthrow their repressive government. Why is the United States government silent about what’s been happening over there?
Here’s why: the U.S. military is using Uzbek territory as a staging area for missions into Afghanistan. The Uzbeks signed onto the war on terror shortly after the September 11th terrorist strikes against the United States; in return, the Bush Administration has been very generous in trade concessions and in overlooking a few details about the Uzbek government.
It is a totalitarian government, headed up by iron-fisted President Islam Karimov, who has no bones about crushing free speech, a free press, and other liberties enjoyed by other nations in the region. Because he is a staunch ally of the United States, the human rights violations are recorded and then ignored.
The U.S. cannot keep doing this; Uzbekistan could turn into another Iran and we don’t need another one. The government of Uzbekistan is blaming radical Islamic groups for the violence that has beset the country; but if it turns into a general uprising, and the U.S. keeps supporting the dictator’s side, it could turn into a repeat of the overthrow of the Shah of Iran.
Human rights are not to be thrown away for the sake of an arrangement between a U.S. government that is already very secretive and a maniac who rivals Saddam Hussein in his brutal treatment of his people. That has to stop.
The U.S. has a moral obligation to speak out openly about what the government of this former Soviet republic has done to Uzbeks to keep itself in power.
Get with it, State Department!
Here’s why: the U.S. military is using Uzbek territory as a staging area for missions into Afghanistan. The Uzbeks signed onto the war on terror shortly after the September 11th terrorist strikes against the United States; in return, the Bush Administration has been very generous in trade concessions and in overlooking a few details about the Uzbek government.
It is a totalitarian government, headed up by iron-fisted President Islam Karimov, who has no bones about crushing free speech, a free press, and other liberties enjoyed by other nations in the region. Because he is a staunch ally of the United States, the human rights violations are recorded and then ignored.
The U.S. cannot keep doing this; Uzbekistan could turn into another Iran and we don’t need another one. The government of Uzbekistan is blaming radical Islamic groups for the violence that has beset the country; but if it turns into a general uprising, and the U.S. keeps supporting the dictator’s side, it could turn into a repeat of the overthrow of the Shah of Iran.
Human rights are not to be thrown away for the sake of an arrangement between a U.S. government that is already very secretive and a maniac who rivals Saddam Hussein in his brutal treatment of his people. That has to stop.
The U.S. has a moral obligation to speak out openly about what the government of this former Soviet republic has done to Uzbeks to keep itself in power.
Get with it, State Department!
Security Alert at White House Proves System Works
Last week’s emergency evacuation of federal government buildings in Washington following a violation of restricted airspace around the Capitol was an example of a well-designed system working.
What conclusions should the ground controllers reach if they cannot make radio contact, visual emergency signals being used directly in front of the approaching aircraft are being ignored, and the aircraft is already over a densely populated area?
Experts agree that airliners may be harder to take over now, so the next terrorist attack may come from a smaller aircraft from an unsecured airfield that terrorists have stolen.
We may have to face the reality that terrorists may succeed in ramming their captured aircraft into federal buildings, but their hopes of inflicting mass casualties will hopefully be dashed because their intended targets will have scattered for cover IF the system is used as designed.
A working government must be maintained, regardless of the condition of the capitol itself. And if that means that government employees are ordered to run for their lives when Washington airspace is violated, SO BE IT.
What conclusions should the ground controllers reach if they cannot make radio contact, visual emergency signals being used directly in front of the approaching aircraft are being ignored, and the aircraft is already over a densely populated area?
Experts agree that airliners may be harder to take over now, so the next terrorist attack may come from a smaller aircraft from an unsecured airfield that terrorists have stolen.
We may have to face the reality that terrorists may succeed in ramming their captured aircraft into federal buildings, but their hopes of inflicting mass casualties will hopefully be dashed because their intended targets will have scattered for cover IF the system is used as designed.
A working government must be maintained, regardless of the condition of the capitol itself. And if that means that government employees are ordered to run for their lives when Washington airspace is violated, SO BE IT.
U.S. Should Turn Over Posada Carriles for Trial in Venezuela
Venezuela has requested the United States turn over a former CIA informant for trial after declassified FBI documents revealed that he was responsible for blowing a Cuban airliner out of the sky in 1976.
The Cuban-born Venezuelan, Posada Carriles, has requested asylum in the U.S.
American officials are said to be examining the case very carefully. Hopefully the asylum request will be denied and Carriles will be handed over for trial.
He is not an American citizen, he is a terrorist who happened to work for the CIA. We should not allow terrorists safe refuge in our country. A terrorist is a terrorist. Period.
Here's the BBC story. And who cares about what Fidel Castro wants! He can go fly a kite.
The Cuban-born Venezuelan, Posada Carriles, has requested asylum in the U.S.
American officials are said to be examining the case very carefully. Hopefully the asylum request will be denied and Carriles will be handed over for trial.
He is not an American citizen, he is a terrorist who happened to work for the CIA. We should not allow terrorists safe refuge in our country. A terrorist is a terrorist. Period.
Here's the BBC story. And who cares about what Fidel Castro wants! He can go fly a kite.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Marines Recall 5,000+ Armor Vests Because They Won’t Stop a Bullet
The U.S. Marine Corps recalled 5,277 bullet-proof vests that the Marines issued to troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and Djibouti after a newspaper broke the story that some of the vests tested failed to stop a 9mm round, which is a minimum Marine Corps standard for body armor.
The vests, which were made by the Point Blank Body Armor of Pompano Beach, Florida, failed several tests. The Marines equipped their soldiers in forward combat areas with the vests, and it was only after the Marine Corps Times broke the story that they issued the recall.
The “Outer Tactical Vest” is part of the Interceptor body armor outfit and received much praise from the military and body armor experts. It’s very unfortunate that this batch of vests did not perform to minimum standards, and it’s even more unfortunate that the Marines did not prevent this vest from being issued when the problem was first discovered last year.
“Good enough” is NOT good enough. Not when it comes to saving lives of troops in harm’s way.
It should be noted that not all the vests tested failed. There were a couple of batches that did fail and those batches were sent along with the rest to the military for distribution to the troops.
It should also be noted that the Marines requested a waiver for the affected vests.
Here’s the story as reported by CBS, and here’s a link page from the Marine Corps Times that has all the documentation on the story. Why didn't the Marines do more to stop this from happening, and why did they wait for the press to get wind of the story before doing something to correct the problem?
The vests, which were made by the Point Blank Body Armor of Pompano Beach, Florida, failed several tests. The Marines equipped their soldiers in forward combat areas with the vests, and it was only after the Marine Corps Times broke the story that they issued the recall.
The “Outer Tactical Vest” is part of the Interceptor body armor outfit and received much praise from the military and body armor experts. It’s very unfortunate that this batch of vests did not perform to minimum standards, and it’s even more unfortunate that the Marines did not prevent this vest from being issued when the problem was first discovered last year.
“Good enough” is NOT good enough. Not when it comes to saving lives of troops in harm’s way.
It should be noted that not all the vests tested failed. There were a couple of batches that did fail and those batches were sent along with the rest to the military for distribution to the troops.
It should also be noted that the Marines requested a waiver for the affected vests.
Here’s the story as reported by CBS, and here’s a link page from the Marine Corps Times that has all the documentation on the story. Why didn't the Marines do more to stop this from happening, and why did they wait for the press to get wind of the story before doing something to correct the problem?
Monday, May 09, 2005
White Supremacists Disrupt Boston-Area Holocaust Remembrances
In a disgusting display of racial hatred, a group of white supremacists from Arkansas (?) crashed a Holocaust memorial service that survivors, their families, government officials and the general public were attending in the Boston area. It was to note the liberation of all the Nazi death camps as German armies were surrendering and the war was ending in Europe sixty years ago on Sunday.
Members of the so-called White Revolution clashed with an angry crowd, and the police were hard-pressed to keep people from tearing other people apart. Two people were arrested, and at least one police officer was injured in the line of duty after scuffles broke out where there was a limited police presence.
The Governor of Massachusetts was there and said "Today of all days, to have white supremacists come here from Arkansas, is most disappointing. I wish they'd go back home where the came from and bury themselves under the rocks that they crawled out from."
The presence of neo-Nazis and other groups at Holocaust commemorations around the world is very disappointing. They show up where they’re not wanted and make people hate their despicable cause even more.
Here's the story.
Members of the so-called White Revolution clashed with an angry crowd, and the police were hard-pressed to keep people from tearing other people apart. Two people were arrested, and at least one police officer was injured in the line of duty after scuffles broke out where there was a limited police presence.
The Governor of Massachusetts was there and said "Today of all days, to have white supremacists come here from Arkansas, is most disappointing. I wish they'd go back home where the came from and bury themselves under the rocks that they crawled out from."
The presence of neo-Nazis and other groups at Holocaust commemorations around the world is very disappointing. They show up where they’re not wanted and make people hate their despicable cause even more.
Here's the story.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Boy Dies After Camp Counselors Deny Him Access to His Emergency Inhaler
This story raises more questions than answers.
A 13-year-old boy at a camp for troubled teens died after being denied access to his emergency inhaler.
According to the CBS News story, the boy was being restrained "by counselors who said he was acting belligerently" and that the boy had asked for his inhaler in the first fifteen minutes of being "restrained", (whatever that entails).
The camp emergency medical technician saw no outward signs of the boy being in respitory distress and said "no" due to the boy's past history of asking for the inhaler whenever he was being restrained.
Some 90 minutes later, the boy went limp from oxygen deprivation and died the next day in the hospital.
What on earth happened here?
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation has launched an investigation and the people involved in this story are on administrative leave.
People go into full-blown asthma attacks all the time; anything can trigger them. It could be laughing too much, or stress, or being emotionally upset by something, or could be exercise-induced.
If they had to use physical force to restrain this kid, it stands to reason that he might have been physically resisting the counselors, and triggered an asthma attack that got worse until the airflow was restricted enough that he had a stroke or heart attack.
He would have known that he wasn't getting maximum air into his lungs and asked for help. He didn't get it.
They should NEVER have ignored someone's request for their inhaler. What were they thinking? Didn't they know anything about asthma? This was a very poor judgment call on the part of the EMT. Was he/she experienced in camp-style setting, or was this EMT a rookie to camp operations? Were there standing medical orders on what to do in certain situations, and were they followed? And what changes will be made to Georgia's troubled-youth camp procedures to make sure that something like this never happens again?
Lots of questions in a very troubling story.
A 13-year-old boy at a camp for troubled teens died after being denied access to his emergency inhaler.
According to the CBS News story, the boy was being restrained "by counselors who said he was acting belligerently" and that the boy had asked for his inhaler in the first fifteen minutes of being "restrained", (whatever that entails).
The camp emergency medical technician saw no outward signs of the boy being in respitory distress and said "no" due to the boy's past history of asking for the inhaler whenever he was being restrained.
Some 90 minutes later, the boy went limp from oxygen deprivation and died the next day in the hospital.
What on earth happened here?
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation has launched an investigation and the people involved in this story are on administrative leave.
People go into full-blown asthma attacks all the time; anything can trigger them. It could be laughing too much, or stress, or being emotionally upset by something, or could be exercise-induced.
If they had to use physical force to restrain this kid, it stands to reason that he might have been physically resisting the counselors, and triggered an asthma attack that got worse until the airflow was restricted enough that he had a stroke or heart attack.
He would have known that he wasn't getting maximum air into his lungs and asked for help. He didn't get it.
They should NEVER have ignored someone's request for their inhaler. What were they thinking? Didn't they know anything about asthma? This was a very poor judgment call on the part of the EMT. Was he/she experienced in camp-style setting, or was this EMT a rookie to camp operations? Were there standing medical orders on what to do in certain situations, and were they followed? And what changes will be made to Georgia's troubled-youth camp procedures to make sure that something like this never happens again?
Lots of questions in a very troubling story.
Putin is Thinking and Talking Like a Soviet: Democracy in Danger in Russia
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s very public lamentations of the collapse of the Soviet Union as THE “catastrophic geopolitical event” of the 20th Century, and his defending the Red Army’s occupation of the Baltics after World War II as being “at the invitation of the Baltic countries themselves” is proof that Russian democracy is backsliding toward a dictatorship.
He is refusing to discuss the fifty-plus year occupation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in terms that the people of those nations can relate to. He won’t touch the conduct of Russian Black Beret soldiers who went on a rampage in the Baltics after those nations broke away from the USSR. And he won’t express regret at the misery that the Soviet Union brought to the people of the Baltics.
Putin’s demanding that the United States stop “interfering in Russia’s traditional sphere of influence” is also very troubling. The last time anyone checked, Russia’s sphere of influence is the Russian Federation, not the former Soviet republics. Russia’s control of Russian territory itself is also questionable, given the fact that they can barely control Chechnya.
Putin is a barely-reformed Soviet who will return Russia to neo-communist control and work to re-establish his Soviet Union. Let’s call a spade a spade: NATO is needed to stop Russia from threatening countries like Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Belarus, and other former republics of the USSR that are quite happy to have their independence from Russia.
Democracies rarely go to war against one another; dictators do wage war against each other and against democracies. It’s in Russia’s best interests to have stable democracies on its borders. If Putin is worried about war between Russia and the nations that border it, then he should focus on strengthening Russian democracy and quit cracking down on free markets, on the media and on living up to the promises that he has made to the Russian people.
And he should stop the Cold War rhetoric that has been coming from the Kremlin. It’s making his neighbors nervous.
He is refusing to discuss the fifty-plus year occupation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in terms that the people of those nations can relate to. He won’t touch the conduct of Russian Black Beret soldiers who went on a rampage in the Baltics after those nations broke away from the USSR. And he won’t express regret at the misery that the Soviet Union brought to the people of the Baltics.
Putin’s demanding that the United States stop “interfering in Russia’s traditional sphere of influence” is also very troubling. The last time anyone checked, Russia’s sphere of influence is the Russian Federation, not the former Soviet republics. Russia’s control of Russian territory itself is also questionable, given the fact that they can barely control Chechnya.
Putin is a barely-reformed Soviet who will return Russia to neo-communist control and work to re-establish his Soviet Union. Let’s call a spade a spade: NATO is needed to stop Russia from threatening countries like Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Belarus, and other former republics of the USSR that are quite happy to have their independence from Russia.
Democracies rarely go to war against one another; dictators do wage war against each other and against democracies. It’s in Russia’s best interests to have stable democracies on its borders. If Putin is worried about war between Russia and the nations that border it, then he should focus on strengthening Russian democracy and quit cracking down on free markets, on the media and on living up to the promises that he has made to the Russian people.
And he should stop the Cold War rhetoric that has been coming from the Kremlin. It’s making his neighbors nervous.
Happy Mother’s Day
Happy Mother’s Day to all the moms out there, wherever you may be.
Have a great holiday!
Have a great holiday!
Photographer Who Took Photo of U.S. Army Soldier Carrying Wounded Iraqi Child to Hospital Has an Excellent Blog
Michael Yon, author of "Danger Close," is currently in Iraq and has an AMAZING blog that tells of his travels with the 1st Infantry Division (among other units) and their experiences in and around Mosul, Iraq.
Here's his link. It's definitely worth watching for updates. He was the photographer who snapped the now-famous photo of the U.S. Army soldier carrying a severely wounded Iraqi child to an Army hospital following a terrorist bombing a few days ago.
He follows up on many of his stories and the difference in coverage between what the networks report and what this guy reports are like night and day.
The media didn't bother to report that the same U.S. Army unit that was attacked in Mosul (where the famous photo was taken) went back to the same neighborhood the next day to see what they could do to help the families that had wounded or dead family members that the terrorists had hurt to get at the Americans. It's a very facinating read and goes to remind everyone that there's always more than one side to a story.
I hope you enjoy reading his blog as much as I did.
Here's his link. It's definitely worth watching for updates. He was the photographer who snapped the now-famous photo of the U.S. Army soldier carrying a severely wounded Iraqi child to an Army hospital following a terrorist bombing a few days ago.
He follows up on many of his stories and the difference in coverage between what the networks report and what this guy reports are like night and day.
The media didn't bother to report that the same U.S. Army unit that was attacked in Mosul (where the famous photo was taken) went back to the same neighborhood the next day to see what they could do to help the families that had wounded or dead family members that the terrorists had hurt to get at the Americans. It's a very facinating read and goes to remind everyone that there's always more than one side to a story.
I hope you enjoy reading his blog as much as I did.
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Threatened North Korean Nuclear Test Will Lead to North Korea’s Downfall
North Korea is moving toward conducting a nuclear test and some nations involved in the six-way talks with North Korea are threatening to take the North Korean problem to the U.N. Security Council. Pyongyang has said that if the Security Council imposes sanctions that it would consider it a “declaration of war.”
What could the North Koreans do?
They could attack South Korea with the third largest army in the world, or hit Japan with Nodong missiles, or attack U.S. Navy ships that are in the region.
But it’s more likely they would do something to keep the United States and South Korea off-balance and not get into a shooting war with them. The North Koreans might do this by attacking the vast US/South Korean minefields that are between the two Koreas with heavy artillery fire and then stopping once the minefields in the DMZ and south of the DMZ were reduced or neutralized.
The U.S. has used these mines to keep the million-soldier North Korean Army from crossing the DMZ for decades, and North Korea employs minefields of it's own to keep the U.S./UN/South Korean armies from invading the North (or to keep their own people from escaping south). It is estimated that there are over a million mines planted into the DMZ (here's a report). And that's just the mines used by South Korea and the U.S.!
This would fit into North Korea’s pattern of negotiation. They always like to talk from a position of strength. But if they persist in their recklessness they may find themselves embroiled in a war that they cannot win. It would mean the end of North Korea as we know it (a united Korea free from communism would be good, but not at the cost of thousands of Korean, American and Japanese lives).
It’s very doubtful that it would escalate into a localized nuclear exchange between the United States military and North Korea, but if a war were to start, there’s no telling how it might end. The loss of life could be catastrophic.
North Korea’s communist government has to realize that it’s finished if the talks are unsuccessful. They have everything to lose by going forward with their nuclear weapons program. Hopefully they stop their blustering and start to talk business.
Then it can get around to...voting their government out of existence, outlawing the Communist Party, holding free elections and bringing their leaders up on crimes against humanity.
What could the North Koreans do?
They could attack South Korea with the third largest army in the world, or hit Japan with Nodong missiles, or attack U.S. Navy ships that are in the region.
But it’s more likely they would do something to keep the United States and South Korea off-balance and not get into a shooting war with them. The North Koreans might do this by attacking the vast US/South Korean minefields that are between the two Koreas with heavy artillery fire and then stopping once the minefields in the DMZ and south of the DMZ were reduced or neutralized.
The U.S. has used these mines to keep the million-soldier North Korean Army from crossing the DMZ for decades, and North Korea employs minefields of it's own to keep the U.S./UN/South Korean armies from invading the North (or to keep their own people from escaping south). It is estimated that there are over a million mines planted into the DMZ (here's a report). And that's just the mines used by South Korea and the U.S.!
This would fit into North Korea’s pattern of negotiation. They always like to talk from a position of strength. But if they persist in their recklessness they may find themselves embroiled in a war that they cannot win. It would mean the end of North Korea as we know it (a united Korea free from communism would be good, but not at the cost of thousands of Korean, American and Japanese lives).
It’s very doubtful that it would escalate into a localized nuclear exchange between the United States military and North Korea, but if a war were to start, there’s no telling how it might end. The loss of life could be catastrophic.
North Korea’s communist government has to realize that it’s finished if the talks are unsuccessful. They have everything to lose by going forward with their nuclear weapons program. Hopefully they stop their blustering and start to talk business.
Then it can get around to...voting their government out of existence, outlawing the Communist Party, holding free elections and bringing their leaders up on crimes against humanity.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Photo Captures Horror of War and Terrorism
This photo ran in newspapers all around the world today. It's captured international attention and casts the U.S. military in a way that has not yet been seen since the start of the war in Iraq. Photos like this are few and far in between since the international media doesn't want to put the U.S. in a good light in Iraq.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
New Star Wars Movie Denounced by Some as a Bloodbath: So What? (SPOILERS)
Before you read any further, this post does contain some spoilers for the new Star Wars film. Stop reading here if you don't want part of the story revealed. Otherwise, please scroll down.
*
*
*
*
George Lucas is taking flak from parents' groups for showing so much violence in the upcoming “Star Wars: Episode III—Revenge of the Sith.” Specifically, the violence mentioned was the Jedi being annihilated by the Sith and the murder of the Jedi younglings by Anakin and the clonetroopers.
Also, Anakin Skywalker’s transformation into Darth Vader is said to be particularly gruesome as he will sustain severe injuries at the hands of Obi-Wan Kenobi before he bursts into flames next to a lake of lava. Palpatine’s injuries at Mace Windu’s hands which leads to his disfigurement was said to be nasty too.
The film has received a PG-13 rating for a very good reason. Some parents are unhappy with that fact. Up until now, parents could let their kids go to Star Wars without them, but now that there’s a PG-13 rating on “Revenge of the Sith” they have to go with the children if they’re under the age of 13. Too bad. Get over it. That’s what the real problem is.
On the other side of the coin, some Star Wars fans have felt that George Lucas pulled his punches in the first two movies of the new trilogy. “The Phantom Menace” and “Attack of the Clones” were very good movies, but once again, they were geared toward a younger audience. Jar Jar Binks, anyone?
“The Phantom Menace” felt like it had been sterilized of any dirt and grime. “Attack of the Clones” was better, but still Lucas held back. Some felt he should have shown Anakin killing more Tusken Raiders in a fit of rage after his mom died of her injuries and showed more Jedi being slaughtered on Geonosis. They thought the same thing about the titanic first battle between the Republic Clonetroopers and the Federation droid army toward the end of Episode II, but Lucas wanted a PG rating and cut stuff out.
Lucas is telling his story and can do so any way that he wants.
If one needs another perspective, look at the title of the franchise: “Star Wars.” Not “Star Kids” or “Star Barney” or “Star Wimps.” Star WARS.
Wars involve violence, do they not? They involve killing, do they not? Lucas has to establish that Vader helped the Emperor wipe out the Jedi. If Lucas was really mean-spirited about it, Jar Jar Binks would have been beheaded by a swipe of Anakin’s lightsaber in “Revenge of the Sith.” Doubtless this would have pleased many older fans, but would have been terribly upsetting to the kiddies who continue to dress up as Jar Jar at Halloween.
The speculation will finally end on May 19th. It has a PG-13 rating. So what? It’s about time!
Kids should be accompanied by a parent as a lot of bad stuff will be happening in this film. Better yet, parents should screen the film before allowing their under-13 children to see it.
*
*
*
*
George Lucas is taking flak from parents' groups for showing so much violence in the upcoming “Star Wars: Episode III—Revenge of the Sith.” Specifically, the violence mentioned was the Jedi being annihilated by the Sith and the murder of the Jedi younglings by Anakin and the clonetroopers.
Also, Anakin Skywalker’s transformation into Darth Vader is said to be particularly gruesome as he will sustain severe injuries at the hands of Obi-Wan Kenobi before he bursts into flames next to a lake of lava. Palpatine’s injuries at Mace Windu’s hands which leads to his disfigurement was said to be nasty too.
The film has received a PG-13 rating for a very good reason. Some parents are unhappy with that fact. Up until now, parents could let their kids go to Star Wars without them, but now that there’s a PG-13 rating on “Revenge of the Sith” they have to go with the children if they’re under the age of 13. Too bad. Get over it. That’s what the real problem is.
On the other side of the coin, some Star Wars fans have felt that George Lucas pulled his punches in the first two movies of the new trilogy. “The Phantom Menace” and “Attack of the Clones” were very good movies, but once again, they were geared toward a younger audience. Jar Jar Binks, anyone?
“The Phantom Menace” felt like it had been sterilized of any dirt and grime. “Attack of the Clones” was better, but still Lucas held back. Some felt he should have shown Anakin killing more Tusken Raiders in a fit of rage after his mom died of her injuries and showed more Jedi being slaughtered on Geonosis. They thought the same thing about the titanic first battle between the Republic Clonetroopers and the Federation droid army toward the end of Episode II, but Lucas wanted a PG rating and cut stuff out.
Lucas is telling his story and can do so any way that he wants.
If one needs another perspective, look at the title of the franchise: “Star Wars.” Not “Star Kids” or “Star Barney” or “Star Wimps.” Star WARS.
Wars involve violence, do they not? They involve killing, do they not? Lucas has to establish that Vader helped the Emperor wipe out the Jedi. If Lucas was really mean-spirited about it, Jar Jar Binks would have been beheaded by a swipe of Anakin’s lightsaber in “Revenge of the Sith.” Doubtless this would have pleased many older fans, but would have been terribly upsetting to the kiddies who continue to dress up as Jar Jar at Halloween.
The speculation will finally end on May 19th. It has a PG-13 rating. So what? It’s about time!
Kids should be accompanied by a parent as a lot of bad stuff will be happening in this film. Better yet, parents should screen the film before allowing their under-13 children to see it.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Brain-Damaged Firefighter Wakes Up After 10 Years of Silence
A firefighter who was severely brain-damaged "woke up" after being silent for a decade and began speaking to his family and doctors.
He was injured fighting a house fire in 1995 and was buried under rubble after the burning roof collapsed. His air supply was cut for several minutes and he was left comatose for ten weeks. Afterwards he was in a non-responsive state.
According to the story, doctors say that it's unusual for a long-term patient to recover after ten years like this. The word of the day appears to be "amazing."
Here's the story.
He was injured fighting a house fire in 1995 and was buried under rubble after the burning roof collapsed. His air supply was cut for several minutes and he was left comatose for ten weeks. Afterwards he was in a non-responsive state.
According to the story, doctors say that it's unusual for a long-term patient to recover after ten years like this. The word of the day appears to be "amazing."
Here's the story.
Time for New News: Get Over the Runaway Bride
It’s time for the media to give the so-called “runaway bride” and her jilted fiancé room to breathe and to make their decisions on what they’re going to do next without national attention on them.
They should cover whether or not the bill for the four day search that was launched to find her will be sent to her, as that is a matter of public interest since it was taxpayer money that was spent to muster their entire police department into search parties.
They should also cover any criminal proceedings that may occur.
But leave the personal stuff alone; the press should be hanging out at city hall and the courthouse, not in front of her house reporting every little tidbit.
We’ve heard enough about this already.
They should cover whether or not the bill for the four day search that was launched to find her will be sent to her, as that is a matter of public interest since it was taxpayer money that was spent to muster their entire police department into search parties.
They should also cover any criminal proceedings that may occur.
But leave the personal stuff alone; the press should be hanging out at city hall and the courthouse, not in front of her house reporting every little tidbit.
We’ve heard enough about this already.
Florida’s Expanded Self-Defense Law Falls Short on a Few Details
The State of Florida has enacted a new law that expands a person’s right to open fire on people that may or may not be threatening them or their families.
This is a law that is just waiting to be used and abused. It goes way past legitimate self-defense.
What will happen when someone comes knocking on an armed citizen’s door at night? Instead of finding out who’s knocking, will they open fire and kill a pizza man trying to find out where someone lives so he can deliver a pepperoni pizza? Instead of being prosecuted for criminal neglect as they should be, the armed citizen might claim self-defense and it will be legal because they thought the pizza man was trying to break in.
This law, while intending to protect people from criminals, also puts innocent life in the crosshairs as well.
Perhaps instead of letting people out of jail so soon, they ought to hold onto dangerous criminals longer and get rid of the gangs on the streets that threaten people. By getting the idiots into jail and keeping them there, they reduce the possibility of a situation where someone is forced to open fire to defend themselves from a criminal who means to do them harm.
The bill is not entirely bad. But it’s too broad and may allow criminal action to take place in the guise of legitimate self-defense.
A person does have a right to defend his or her family. But where does the line exist between using deadly force to deal with a perceived imminent threat, and outright self-defense?
The courts have to be able to determine that, and this law cuts them out of the process.
Someone who actually breaks into a house or attacks someone and gets shot should not be able to sue or press charges as is the case these days. That part of the new Florida law is entirely correct. It rights a wrong that has been responsible for sending the victim to jail and allowing the criminal to sue for damages. For what? Restraint of trade?
So, they ought to look at this law again, and make sure that the law is clearly spelled out so that there are no loopholes. Legitimate defense is one thing, but for a law to say that a person can now open fire WITHOUT trying to escape their attacker first is way out of line. It turns no-choice defense into aggression.
And it will be the untrained nincompoops that own handguns and have had no training whatsoever who will be quick on the trigger and slow on the common sense.
This is a law that is just waiting to be used and abused. It goes way past legitimate self-defense.
What will happen when someone comes knocking on an armed citizen’s door at night? Instead of finding out who’s knocking, will they open fire and kill a pizza man trying to find out where someone lives so he can deliver a pepperoni pizza? Instead of being prosecuted for criminal neglect as they should be, the armed citizen might claim self-defense and it will be legal because they thought the pizza man was trying to break in.
This law, while intending to protect people from criminals, also puts innocent life in the crosshairs as well.
Perhaps instead of letting people out of jail so soon, they ought to hold onto dangerous criminals longer and get rid of the gangs on the streets that threaten people. By getting the idiots into jail and keeping them there, they reduce the possibility of a situation where someone is forced to open fire to defend themselves from a criminal who means to do them harm.
The bill is not entirely bad. But it’s too broad and may allow criminal action to take place in the guise of legitimate self-defense.
A person does have a right to defend his or her family. But where does the line exist between using deadly force to deal with a perceived imminent threat, and outright self-defense?
The courts have to be able to determine that, and this law cuts them out of the process.
Someone who actually breaks into a house or attacks someone and gets shot should not be able to sue or press charges as is the case these days. That part of the new Florida law is entirely correct. It rights a wrong that has been responsible for sending the victim to jail and allowing the criminal to sue for damages. For what? Restraint of trade?
So, they ought to look at this law again, and make sure that the law is clearly spelled out so that there are no loopholes. Legitimate defense is one thing, but for a law to say that a person can now open fire WITHOUT trying to escape their attacker first is way out of line. It turns no-choice defense into aggression.
And it will be the untrained nincompoops that own handguns and have had no training whatsoever who will be quick on the trigger and slow on the common sense.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Laura Bush’s Roasting of President Bush…Priceless
The media has made a huge deal out of First Lady Laura Bush’s comedy routine at the White House Correspondents' Dinner on Saturday night, and rightly so.
It’s about time that Laura got to show off what she can do. Her roasting of her husband was…priceless. Despite the joke about the male horse, which some overnight armchair reporters said went a little far, her punch lines and delivery was nearly perfect.
People are looking forward to seeing and hearing what Letterman and Leno have to say on their shows tonight about her performance.
The White House is said to be extremely pleased with the First Lady’s takeover of the President’s speech. He was an extremely good sport about it.
It’s about time that Laura got to show off what she can do. Her roasting of her husband was…priceless. Despite the joke about the male horse, which some overnight armchair reporters said went a little far, her punch lines and delivery was nearly perfect.
People are looking forward to seeing and hearing what Letterman and Leno have to say on their shows tonight about her performance.
The White House is said to be extremely pleased with the First Lady’s takeover of the President’s speech. He was an extremely good sport about it.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Two Teens Feared Lost at Sea Found Safe and Sound
In a miraculous turn of events, two teenagers who were feared dead were found safe, six days and one hundred miles away from where they went off course. The pair were on a Sunfish sailboat and put in around Sullivan’s Island, South Carolina, despite a small boat warning due to high winds and tide.
The boys realized they were in serious trouble almost immediately, and attempted to swim back to shore with the sailboat in tow, but the tide was too strong and they were swept out to sea. They were swept northward and were spotted six days later off of Cape Fear, North Carolina.
Here’s the story. What a happy ending!
The boys realized they were in serious trouble almost immediately, and attempted to swim back to shore with the sailboat in tow, but the tide was too strong and they were swept out to sea. They were swept northward and were spotted six days later off of Cape Fear, North Carolina.
Here’s the story. What a happy ending!
Another Pro Wrestler Dies Young: Conflicting Stories on What Happened
Chris Candido, a wrestler working for the TNA promotion passed away this morning at the age of 33. He had suffered an injury at a pay-per-view on Sunday and had surgery on Monday to correct the problem. It’s not clear what happened to him after that.
Pro wrestling has had a major problem for a long while: their wrestlers, while bigger and stronger than any of the previous generations, use steroids and other drugs that cause heart attacks and major health maladies. They also take more chances in and out of the ring too.
As a result, today’s stars die younger than the previous generations of stars before them.
Here’s an incomplete list of well-known wrestlers/managers that have died before their time (not in any particular order & which North American promotions they made their names in are included in parenthesis):
- Chris Candido, 33, cause unknown (TNA)
- Road Warrior Hawk, 34, heart attack (NWA, AWA, WCW, WWF/WWE)
- “Mr. Perfect” Curt Henning, 44, cocaine-induced heart attack (WWF, WCW)
- Chris Adams, 46, murdered (UWF, WCW)
- Renegade, 27, suicide (WCW)
- “Mad Dog” Buzz Sawyer, 32, heroin overdose (NWA)
- Bruiser Brody, 42, murdered (Many promotions)
- Terry “Bam Bam” Gordy, 40, heart failure (WCCW)
- “Crash” Holly, 32, suicide (WWE)
- Brian Pillman, 35, heart attack (WCW, WWF)
- Yokozuna, 34, heart failure (WWF)
- Eddie Gilbert, 33, heart attack (Mid-South, UWF, WCW)
- Miss Elizabeth, 42, drug overdose (WWF, WCW)
- “The British Bulldog” Davey Boy Smith, 39, heart attack (WWF)
- Gino Hernandez, 29, suicide (NWA, WCCW)
- Dino Bravo, 45, murdered (AWA, WWF)
- Hercules Hernandez, 47, heart attack (Mid-South, NWA, WWF)
- “Ravishing” Rick Rude, 40, heart attack (WCCW, NWA, WWF, ECW, WCW)
- Owen Hart, 34, died in ring from 78-foot fall off of ceiling (Stampede, USWA, WWF/WWE)
- Pitbull II, 36, oxycontin drug overdose (ECW, NWA)
- Russ Hass, 27, heart attack (MCW Southern)
- David Von Erich, 25, drug overdose (WCCW/NWA)
- Mike Von Erich, 23, suicide (WCCW)
- Chris Von Erich, 21, suicide (WCCW)
- “Texas Tornado” Kerry Von Erich, 33, suicide (WCCW, NWA, USWA, WWF)
There were others. When one considers how few pro wrestlers there are, the incidence of deaths from "other than natural causes" or "cancer" is alarmingly high. It's much higher than many other professions.
It’s very sad to see so many wrestlers that I grew up with dying so young. The Von Erichs kept killing themselves; that was hard to believe. Die-hard fans were heartbroken over all the Von Erich brothers but one (Kevin) going to their graves. Wrestling’s “first family” was gone forever.
Wrestling needs to clean up its act and get their talent away from drugs that are killing their best and brightest stars. Steroids are dangerous and they are illegal. The wrestlers don’t need watermelon-sized muscles to be excellent performers. Many of the performers above were top-card draws for the promotions; why aren’t the promotions being stricter on drug testing?
This is why pro wrestling isn’t fun to watch anymore. Too many heart attacks and drug overdoses and the resulting devastation to the wrestlers' families, friends and fans. The message that the promotions send to their young fans is too raunchy as well; that needs to be substantially changed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)