The execution of Saddam Hussein was carried out a couple of hours ago by the Iraqi government. He was found guilty of crimes against humanity in the slaughter of 148 men and boys in a Shiite village following an assassination attempt on Saddam's life in the early 1980s.
But what of his 100,000 other victims?
My feelings on the death penalty notwithstanding, this sentence should have been delayed until the entire picture of Saddam's atrocities was known and he was held to account for every single life that he and his cronies took.
148 victims out of 100,000 were given justice. That amounts to less than 1% of 100,000 murder cases against Saddam.
He should have been forced to hear the names of every one of his enemies that he had murdered before any sentence was carried out. Now that will never happen.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Friday, December 29, 2006
Duke Rape Case Continues to Unravel: DA Should Drop ALL Charges and Prepare to Face the Music
The Duke lacrosse rape case continued to unravel this week with some of the charges being dropped, and the North Carolina state bar association filing complaints against the DA's inept handling of the entire affair.
The "victim" keeps changing her story and it's clear that there isn't enough evidence to carry anything forward. In addition, blunders in the interviewing of the victim (it never happened) and improper line-up identification procedures added to the prosecutor's problems. His prosecution of the suspects in the media is the main basis for the state bar complaints against him; the case against the DA opened two weeks after the woman reported the alleged rape.
Even if something did happen, the victim is unreliable. She's changed her story so many times that the entire case has been seriously undermined.
The remaining charges should be dropped.
The "victim" keeps changing her story and it's clear that there isn't enough evidence to carry anything forward. In addition, blunders in the interviewing of the victim (it never happened) and improper line-up identification procedures added to the prosecutor's problems. His prosecution of the suspects in the media is the main basis for the state bar complaints against him; the case against the DA opened two weeks after the woman reported the alleged rape.
Even if something did happen, the victim is unreliable. She's changed her story so many times that the entire case has been seriously undermined.
The remaining charges should be dropped.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Strategy for Winning In Iraq Isn't Working Because It Wasn't Designed for Muslim Country: It Was Designed for a Liberated Eastern Europe
The anticipated strategy change in Iraq needs to include a change in mind-set about HOW to win that war.
By mind-set, I mean the thinking that when our tanks rolled into Iraq, our politicians believed our troops would be warmly welcomed into Iraq and democracy would be embraced by all. "We are not conquerers, we are liberators."
The strategy used thus far in Iraq is from a playbook that was designed for if we got into a war with the Soviet Union in the 1980s and seized control of Eastern Europe after turning back a Soviet military thrust into central Europe. Or if NATO attacked the Warsaw Pact first to get rid of communism.
Something's got to change and soon.
By mind-set, I mean the thinking that when our tanks rolled into Iraq, our politicians believed our troops would be warmly welcomed into Iraq and democracy would be embraced by all. "We are not conquerers, we are liberators."
The strategy used thus far in Iraq is from a playbook that was designed for if we got into a war with the Soviet Union in the 1980s and seized control of Eastern Europe after turning back a Soviet military thrust into central Europe. Or if NATO attacked the Warsaw Pact first to get rid of communism.
Something's got to change and soon.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Why "ThunderFerret" and Not "Johnny Specific Somebody" On this Blog?
I recently received an e-mail from someone asking why I didn't use my real name on this blog.
There's a specific reason that I do not use my real name or identity on here, and it's definitely not because I fear retribution.
It's because several years ago, I had a web site domain name registered in my real name instead of a more anonymous "pen" name. From bits and pieces of stuff on the site, someone was able to figure out who I was, where I was and and acquired an address for me. Since I was working for a not-for-profit in a very public position at the time, they were also able to figure out where I worked, who my boss was, and got all of his personal information as well.
The person who did this did it with me watching from behind him to see how easy it would be for someone to put 2+2 together and steal my identity. All he had was the web site address. It was shockingly easy for him to acquire other information from there.
I deleted the site, and reformatted many parts of it to exclude most of my personal information.
Today, there was a news article on MySpace users having their identities stolen because they have WAY too much information out there for troublemakers to data-mine. This was confirmation that I'm correct in limiting my information and remaining anonymous online.
There's too much danger of having one's identity stolen and a world of financial ruin that could follow a such theft. I also don't want some Mexican to illegally acquire an American job with my (stolen) identity.
Bloggers who write that anonymous blogs are bad and have their personal information posted for anyone to see are hypocrites, since many of them actually post false names instead of their real ones; and those that publish their actual information are just looking for trouble from identity thieves.
Any legislation that requires bloggers to identify themselves should reflect identity theft realities and not arbitrarily force people to put revealing information online because of WHAT they're writing about. Senator McCain should keep that in mind as he's proposed anti-blogging legislation in the Senate.
"Thunder" was one of my ferrets; his picture is posted on this blog.
There's a specific reason that I do not use my real name or identity on here, and it's definitely not because I fear retribution.
It's because several years ago, I had a web site domain name registered in my real name instead of a more anonymous "pen" name. From bits and pieces of stuff on the site, someone was able to figure out who I was, where I was and and acquired an address for me. Since I was working for a not-for-profit in a very public position at the time, they were also able to figure out where I worked, who my boss was, and got all of his personal information as well.
The person who did this did it with me watching from behind him to see how easy it would be for someone to put 2+2 together and steal my identity. All he had was the web site address. It was shockingly easy for him to acquire other information from there.
I deleted the site, and reformatted many parts of it to exclude most of my personal information.
Today, there was a news article on MySpace users having their identities stolen because they have WAY too much information out there for troublemakers to data-mine. This was confirmation that I'm correct in limiting my information and remaining anonymous online.
There's too much danger of having one's identity stolen and a world of financial ruin that could follow a such theft. I also don't want some Mexican to illegally acquire an American job with my (stolen) identity.
Bloggers who write that anonymous blogs are bad and have their personal information posted for anyone to see are hypocrites, since many of them actually post false names instead of their real ones; and those that publish their actual information are just looking for trouble from identity thieves.
Any legislation that requires bloggers to identify themselves should reflect identity theft realities and not arbitrarily force people to put revealing information online because of WHAT they're writing about. Senator McCain should keep that in mind as he's proposed anti-blogging legislation in the Senate.
"Thunder" was one of my ferrets; his picture is posted on this blog.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Iraq War Limits Our Options Against North Korea, Iran and Sudan: Shortsightedness in Political Planning of Iraq War Is Biting Us Now
The U.S. involvement in Iraq is having a detrimental impact on America's foreign policy objectives and more attention needs to be paid to keeping order in America's other foreign endeavors.
Six-party talks with North Korea ended without agreement yesterday. On the agenda for the five powers talking to North Korea this Friday is whether to continue the six-party negotiating format, or to go over to something else. They're waiting to find out what impact last month's U.S. elections will have on America's foreign policy.
Sudan has until December 31st to accept a U.S.-brokered deadline to admit United Nations peacekeepers into Darfur or else face "consequences." But we don't have an ambassador at the U.N. right now to keep up the pressure. Stronger resolutions were opposed by some of the other veto-wielding nations on the Security Council.
Iran faces a weak U.N. Security Council resolution demanding an end to their nuclear enrichment program, or other (undefined) steps will be taken, leaving Iran free to do what it wants. The same powers (Russia and China) also threatened to veto the entire resolution if it wasn't watered down.
Political mistakes and manipulations by the Bush Administration in the Iraq War are backfiring big time right now. When January comes around President Bush needs to have a master plan to deal with all of these critical foreign policy situations. And this should not include unilateral military approaches to dealing with the issues.
For instance, when December 31st comes and goes, the U.S. shouldn't announce that it alone is imposing a no-fly zone over Darfur to force compliance with the U.N.'s wishes when the Sudan tells the international body what to go do with itself. And Sudan is going to do exactly that.
It also shouldn't abandon the talks in favor of unilateral miliary action against Iran or North Korea. We have one major war going on, one smaller war, and not enough available ground troops to handle much more. At this stage of the game, we won't be able to help South Korea with sizable U.S. ground forces if North Korea decides on one final gamble to settle the score with South Korea. All of our heavy divisions are tied up elsewhere.
And if Washington chooses to settle the Iran question with force of arms, it's likely that U.S. forces in the region will be fighting the Revolutionary Guards in Iraqi and Afghan cities as well as the insurgency, al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
America's enemies are taking full advantage of the fact that the Iraq War is a tar baby and the U.S. military's strongest arm is already stuck. This perceived weakness is what is driving Iran and North Korea to be sure.
All of these problems can be dealt with if we have a cohesive strategy for Iraq, followed by a withdrawal and retooling of the U.S. military to put Iran and North Korea in their places.
Six-party talks with North Korea ended without agreement yesterday. On the agenda for the five powers talking to North Korea this Friday is whether to continue the six-party negotiating format, or to go over to something else. They're waiting to find out what impact last month's U.S. elections will have on America's foreign policy.
Sudan has until December 31st to accept a U.S.-brokered deadline to admit United Nations peacekeepers into Darfur or else face "consequences." But we don't have an ambassador at the U.N. right now to keep up the pressure. Stronger resolutions were opposed by some of the other veto-wielding nations on the Security Council.
Iran faces a weak U.N. Security Council resolution demanding an end to their nuclear enrichment program, or other (undefined) steps will be taken, leaving Iran free to do what it wants. The same powers (Russia and China) also threatened to veto the entire resolution if it wasn't watered down.
Political mistakes and manipulations by the Bush Administration in the Iraq War are backfiring big time right now. When January comes around President Bush needs to have a master plan to deal with all of these critical foreign policy situations. And this should not include unilateral military approaches to dealing with the issues.
For instance, when December 31st comes and goes, the U.S. shouldn't announce that it alone is imposing a no-fly zone over Darfur to force compliance with the U.N.'s wishes when the Sudan tells the international body what to go do with itself. And Sudan is going to do exactly that.
It also shouldn't abandon the talks in favor of unilateral miliary action against Iran or North Korea. We have one major war going on, one smaller war, and not enough available ground troops to handle much more. At this stage of the game, we won't be able to help South Korea with sizable U.S. ground forces if North Korea decides on one final gamble to settle the score with South Korea. All of our heavy divisions are tied up elsewhere.
And if Washington chooses to settle the Iran question with force of arms, it's likely that U.S. forces in the region will be fighting the Revolutionary Guards in Iraqi and Afghan cities as well as the insurgency, al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
America's enemies are taking full advantage of the fact that the Iraq War is a tar baby and the U.S. military's strongest arm is already stuck. This perceived weakness is what is driving Iran and North Korea to be sure.
All of these problems can be dealt with if we have a cohesive strategy for Iraq, followed by a withdrawal and retooling of the U.S. military to put Iran and North Korea in their places.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Rosie and Trump Trade Insults: Now THIS is Good Television
Insults continued to fly between Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell as their on-air feud intensified.
I'm enjoying it a great deal.
It started with Trump's public redemption of the current Miss USA, who has been under fire for underage drinking and other major issues. He gave her a second chance and Rosie weighed in on The View.
She said that Trump was no moral authority given his track record of being divorced twice. Then she was wisecracking about his bankruptcies, but made some mistakes about whether they were business bankruptcies or personal ones. Trump has never gone bankrupt personally; it was his businesses that went under. But she didn't make that distinction. She also said he was like "one of those snake-oil salesmen from Little House on the Prairie."
Trump fired back saying he was going to sue her for the bankruptcy comments, then went on a blitz of news and talk-radio programs to throw insults at Rosie's openly gay lifestyle, her weight and other points of (dis)interest.
Then Rosie's girlfriend got in on it and Trump took some potshots at her too.
This is GREAT! Trump won't back down from anyone and all Rosie's done is made another enemy who won't let this thing die. The sort of war of words that is going on between them is Trump's kind of slugging match, so look for it to get wilder and wilder.
I'm enjoying it a great deal.
It started with Trump's public redemption of the current Miss USA, who has been under fire for underage drinking and other major issues. He gave her a second chance and Rosie weighed in on The View.
She said that Trump was no moral authority given his track record of being divorced twice. Then she was wisecracking about his bankruptcies, but made some mistakes about whether they were business bankruptcies or personal ones. Trump has never gone bankrupt personally; it was his businesses that went under. But she didn't make that distinction. She also said he was like "one of those snake-oil salesmen from Little House on the Prairie."
Trump fired back saying he was going to sue her for the bankruptcy comments, then went on a blitz of news and talk-radio programs to throw insults at Rosie's openly gay lifestyle, her weight and other points of (dis)interest.
Then Rosie's girlfriend got in on it and Trump took some potshots at her too.
This is GREAT! Trump won't back down from anyone and all Rosie's done is made another enemy who won't let this thing die. The sort of war of words that is going on between them is Trump's kind of slugging match, so look for it to get wilder and wilder.
Presidential Pardon for Two Border Patrol Agents is a Great Idea: They Did Their Jobs
There has been a stir since August over the fate of two former Border Patrol agents who were forced to shoot a drug smuggler as he brought his poisons over the border from Mexico into the United States.
Former agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean were in pursuit of the suspect and believed he had a weapon and shot him in the buttocks to keep him from escaping, while in the course of their duties.
Charges were brought against the two agents; when they were convicted a couple of months ago, the department dismissed them. They were subsequently sentenced to 11-12 years for the shooting.
In addition, the drug fiend is suing the Border Patrol for $5 million. For what, denial of trade? He's lucky that the agents didn't hit him somewhere more vital and that he's still alive. The feds already paid his medical bills; that should be more than enough for a foreign drug smuggler who was engaged in breaking our laws and bringing his filthy poisons with him.
The convictions of the ex-border agents should be pardoned as soon as possible. 48 Senators and Representatives sent a letter to President Bush asking for his consideration. I hope he listens.
Former agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean were in pursuit of the suspect and believed he had a weapon and shot him in the buttocks to keep him from escaping, while in the course of their duties.
Charges were brought against the two agents; when they were convicted a couple of months ago, the department dismissed them. They were subsequently sentenced to 11-12 years for the shooting.
In addition, the drug fiend is suing the Border Patrol for $5 million. For what, denial of trade? He's lucky that the agents didn't hit him somewhere more vital and that he's still alive. The feds already paid his medical bills; that should be more than enough for a foreign drug smuggler who was engaged in breaking our laws and bringing his filthy poisons with him.
The convictions of the ex-border agents should be pardoned as soon as possible. 48 Senators and Representatives sent a letter to President Bush asking for his consideration. I hope he listens.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Deploying 40,000 More Soldiers to Iraq May Not be Enough
The White House is batting around an idea to briefly increase the number of troops in Iraq to stabilize it before beginning a gradual withdrawal from the war zone. The increase could raise the number of American troops in Iraq to around 180,000.
Let's put this into a historical analysis:
During Operation Desert Storm, the U.S. military used 575,000 soldiers to liberate a nation the size of New Jersey. It took 100 hours and an air campaign that took several weeks.
During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. military used 100,000 soldiers to conquer a nation the size of California. They've been fighting for three years and there's no end in sight. Current troop levels are around 140,000 in Iraq.
Guess what? An additional 40,000 soldiers won't make a whole lot of difference in the long run. Bumping the number up to 500,000 would.
They need to really think this through before sending more troops in.
Let's put this into a historical analysis:
During Operation Desert Storm, the U.S. military used 575,000 soldiers to liberate a nation the size of New Jersey. It took 100 hours and an air campaign that took several weeks.
During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. military used 100,000 soldiers to conquer a nation the size of California. They've been fighting for three years and there's no end in sight. Current troop levels are around 140,000 in Iraq.
Guess what? An additional 40,000 soldiers won't make a whole lot of difference in the long run. Bumping the number up to 500,000 would.
They need to really think this through before sending more troops in.
Calling Someone a Nazi to Score Political Points is Reprehensible; This Tactic Has No Place in Civilized Discourse
Public figures shouldn't launch personal attacks on others by labeling them as "Nazis." I don't like it when liberals do it to conservatives, I don't like it when conservatives do it to liberals, and I don't like it when people in general do it to other people to score political points.
The latest example of a TV personality attacking someone by comparing them to Nazis or to Hitler was The View's Joy Behar. She initiated a blatant attack on outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld while discussing the cover of Time magazine's Person of the Year issue. She didn't think naming everyone ("You") the Person of the Year was good enough, so she said: "You have to put, like, a Hitler type on the cover. Like, you put Don Rumsfeld there, or something."
Like, like, like.
Is she, like, a teen-aged teeny-bopper trying to sound intelligent? I'm not impressed.
Make no mistake: I'm not a fan of Donald Rumsfeld (see my prior posts), but I abhor the comparison that was made. It was sickening and wrong; even the audience didn't agree with her fine forensic analysis of the Time choice for Person of the Year.
Rosie ought to break out the duct tape and shut her up.
It seems like the more often people call one another Nazis or other adjectives which poison the atmosphere, the more the door to other bad words, such as the "n" word (for which other comedians have been heavily criticized for recently) is opened.
I think if things keep going as they are, we are in for a lot of terrible comments which will make the current atmosphere seem tame by comparison.
The latest example of a TV personality attacking someone by comparing them to Nazis or to Hitler was The View's Joy Behar. She initiated a blatant attack on outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld while discussing the cover of Time magazine's Person of the Year issue. She didn't think naming everyone ("You") the Person of the Year was good enough, so she said: "You have to put, like, a Hitler type on the cover. Like, you put Don Rumsfeld there, or something."
Like, like, like.
Is she, like, a teen-aged teeny-bopper trying to sound intelligent? I'm not impressed.
Make no mistake: I'm not a fan of Donald Rumsfeld (see my prior posts), but I abhor the comparison that was made. It was sickening and wrong; even the audience didn't agree with her fine forensic analysis of the Time choice for Person of the Year.
Rosie ought to break out the duct tape and shut her up.
It seems like the more often people call one another Nazis or other adjectives which poison the atmosphere, the more the door to other bad words, such as the "n" word (for which other comedians have been heavily criticized for recently) is opened.
I think if things keep going as they are, we are in for a lot of terrible comments which will make the current atmosphere seem tame by comparison.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
NO To Secular Christmas Cards: Happy December Won't Cut It
Here we go again with Grinches trying to hijack CHRIST-mas.
Some cards this year and my reactions:
Happy Holidays. (Fine.)
Merry Christmas. (Excellent.)
Happy Christmas. (Excellent.)
Happy Hanukkah. (Excellent.)
God Bless You... (Excellent.)
Happy December. (Straight into the garbage can.)
Merry Xmas. (See "Happy December")
Happy New Year (in place of proper Christmas cards). (See "Happy December")
Bah humbug to secular holiday cards. The Grinch-people are at it again, banning everything in sight and Christmas cards are being given special attention this year.
Happy December indeed. Thhhhp!
Some cards this year and my reactions:
Happy Holidays. (Fine.)
Merry Christmas. (Excellent.)
Happy Christmas. (Excellent.)
Happy Hanukkah. (Excellent.)
God Bless You... (Excellent.)
Happy December. (Straight into the garbage can.)
Merry Xmas. (See "Happy December")
Happy New Year (in place of proper Christmas cards). (See "Happy December")
Bah humbug to secular holiday cards. The Grinch-people are at it again, banning everything in sight and Christmas cards are being given special attention this year.
Happy December indeed. Thhhhp!
Iranian Conference on Holocaust Denials is Reprehensible and is a Cover for His Hostility to Israel
Iran's terrorist leader continued his anti-Jewish tirade with the announcement of a Holocaust conference to be held in Iran on Sunday and Monday.
The conference brought howls of protest from Germany, from Jewish leaders from around the world, from Israel (who the conference is targeted against) and from many others. It is expected that sixty leading Holocaust deniers from thirty countries will attend the conference.
President Ahmadinejad has already called for Israel to be destroyed and called the Holocaust a "myth."
He's also claiming that Iran is not hostile to Jews, despite forcing Jewish schools to teach an Islamic curriculum, forbidding Jewish texts to be taught in the Hebrew language but only in the Persian language, replacing Jewish principals and teachers with Muslim ones and forcing Jewish students to go to school on the Jewish Sabbath and pray on Muslim holy days. Jewish Iranians are also denied entry into institutions of higher Iranian education. (See the Reference.com entry here and scroll down to discrimination.)
This sounds like he's trying to turn Jewish Iranians into Muslims, doesn't it?
In any case, Iran is definitely hostile to Israel and this conference proves it.
The conference brought howls of protest from Germany, from Jewish leaders from around the world, from Israel (who the conference is targeted against) and from many others. It is expected that sixty leading Holocaust deniers from thirty countries will attend the conference.
President Ahmadinejad has already called for Israel to be destroyed and called the Holocaust a "myth."
He's also claiming that Iran is not hostile to Jews, despite forcing Jewish schools to teach an Islamic curriculum, forbidding Jewish texts to be taught in the Hebrew language but only in the Persian language, replacing Jewish principals and teachers with Muslim ones and forcing Jewish students to go to school on the Jewish Sabbath and pray on Muslim holy days. Jewish Iranians are also denied entry into institutions of higher Iranian education. (See the Reference.com entry here and scroll down to discrimination.)
This sounds like he's trying to turn Jewish Iranians into Muslims, doesn't it?
In any case, Iran is definitely hostile to Israel and this conference proves it.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
People Need to Wear Seat Belts: Chances of Being Ejected from Vehicle in a Crash Increase Exponentially if They Don't
Too many people are losing their lives because they aren't buckling their seat belts. It happens every day, and the public isn't doing enough to educate itself on what can happen when someone neglects strapping themselves in.
Here's a demonstration of what can happen when someone falls asleep at the wheel and isn't wearing a seat belt. That's no crash dummy being tossed about. And he did not survive.
Here's what a crash looks like from the outside. It isn't funny.
Consider: it takes an average of three seconds to fasten the darn thing. Three seconds of sacrifice can save an entire lifetime.
I wrote a heartbreaking letter of sympathy to a friend of mine a couple of years ago who lost her youngest son to an auto crash after he was forcibly ejected from the back seat of the car in which he was riding in rural Houghton County, Michigan. I mourned his loss along with others who knew him better: his family and friends and his mom, Mary, who I knew particularly well from our Scouting activities together.
Two teenagers needlessly died in that accident. The 16 year-old driver was charged in the accident.
This year it happened again. This time it was one of my brother's friends who died early Friday morning after he was ejected from a SUV and it rolled over him.
I graduated with his sister Darcy from high school; his older brother was a year ahead of me; his younger brother was a year or two behind my brother. I wish there was something I could do; but there isn't.
All I can do is raise public awareness of how dangerous it is to not buckle up and I hope others will do so as well. Please encourage your loved ones, friends and strangers to use their seat belts; not only for the holidays, but always. There is simply no excuse for not buckling up.
I've been known to turn off the engine of my vehicle and wait until someone who was refusing to put a seat belt on did so. Aunts, uncles, cousins and neighbors have fallen victim to this tactic; even a former camp supervisor did about four years ago.
I wouldn't recommend what followed that incident: he ordered me out of the driver's seat, switched places with me, started the camp truck (I had hurriedly put my seat belt on in the passenger's seat), put it in gear and mashed on the gas. He promptly slammed us into a tree. I stayed in my seat; he hit the steering wheel and cracked his sternum and broke his nose. He was lucky that we hadn't built up much speed. I didn't have a scratch on me, except for some frayed nerves. Our boss was definitely not a happy camper and his boss wasn't either.
And the funny part was that I was held blameless as he was driving (and had been warned by the boss about speeding in camp before) and did not have his seat belt on. The truck was totaled.
Everyone in the car should have a seat belt on, no matter where they're sitting. We can reduce traffic fatalities immediately and substantially if everyone takes an additional three seconds....
Here's a demonstration of what can happen when someone falls asleep at the wheel and isn't wearing a seat belt. That's no crash dummy being tossed about. And he did not survive.
Here's what a crash looks like from the outside. It isn't funny.
Consider: it takes an average of three seconds to fasten the darn thing. Three seconds of sacrifice can save an entire lifetime.
I wrote a heartbreaking letter of sympathy to a friend of mine a couple of years ago who lost her youngest son to an auto crash after he was forcibly ejected from the back seat of the car in which he was riding in rural Houghton County, Michigan. I mourned his loss along with others who knew him better: his family and friends and his mom, Mary, who I knew particularly well from our Scouting activities together.
Two teenagers needlessly died in that accident. The 16 year-old driver was charged in the accident.
This year it happened again. This time it was one of my brother's friends who died early Friday morning after he was ejected from a SUV and it rolled over him.
I graduated with his sister Darcy from high school; his older brother was a year ahead of me; his younger brother was a year or two behind my brother. I wish there was something I could do; but there isn't.
All I can do is raise public awareness of how dangerous it is to not buckle up and I hope others will do so as well. Please encourage your loved ones, friends and strangers to use their seat belts; not only for the holidays, but always. There is simply no excuse for not buckling up.
I've been known to turn off the engine of my vehicle and wait until someone who was refusing to put a seat belt on did so. Aunts, uncles, cousins and neighbors have fallen victim to this tactic; even a former camp supervisor did about four years ago.
I wouldn't recommend what followed that incident: he ordered me out of the driver's seat, switched places with me, started the camp truck (I had hurriedly put my seat belt on in the passenger's seat), put it in gear and mashed on the gas. He promptly slammed us into a tree. I stayed in my seat; he hit the steering wheel and cracked his sternum and broke his nose. He was lucky that we hadn't built up much speed. I didn't have a scratch on me, except for some frayed nerves. Our boss was definitely not a happy camper and his boss wasn't either.
And the funny part was that I was held blameless as he was driving (and had been warned by the boss about speeding in camp before) and did not have his seat belt on. The truck was totaled.
Everyone in the car should have a seat belt on, no matter where they're sitting. We can reduce traffic fatalities immediately and substantially if everyone takes an additional three seconds....
Friday, December 08, 2006
Actor Wesley Snipes Surrenders to IRS at Orlando International: Faces Tax Evasion Charges
"Blade" actor Wesley Snipes surrendered to agents of the Internal Revenue Service this morning as he re-entered the U.S. through Orlando International Airport. He had been in Africa filming a new movie when a warrant was issued for his arrest. Two months of negotiations lead to a deal where he would turn himself in.
His accountant is on trial right now for tax fraud in Philadelphia.
Snipes plead not guilty to all the charges and posted bond. He will be allowed to return to Africa to finish filming on the movie before returning January 10th for another hearing.
It should be interesting to see how this develops.
His accountant is on trial right now for tax fraud in Philadelphia.
Snipes plead not guilty to all the charges and posted bond. He will be allowed to return to Africa to finish filming on the movie before returning January 10th for another hearing.
It should be interesting to see how this develops.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Congress Only Worked 103 Days Last Year and Got Little Accomplished: Exactly What Are We Paying Them Full Wages For?
Democrats in the House of Representatives announced a five-day work week for the House when the new Congress is seated in January.
HUH??!
That's what they're supposed to be doing!
As it turns out, the House was in session for 103 days last year. And they received full pay for working less than 1/3 of the year??!
They ought to repay the other two thirds for not showing up for work. No wonder Congress didn't get anything done!
HUH??!
That's what they're supposed to be doing!
As it turns out, the House was in session for 103 days last year. And they received full pay for working less than 1/3 of the year??!
They ought to repay the other two thirds for not showing up for work. No wonder Congress didn't get anything done!
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Is Anyone Out There REALLY Surprised That Hillary is Exploring Running for President in 2008?
Hillary Clinton's exploring whether or not to run for President in 2008 should come as no surprise to anyone. She was running the moment she and Bill checked out of the White House in 2001.
And even if she says she's not interested in running in 2008, she's already said that (then changed her mind.) She isn't officially out of the running until AFTER the primaries are held and the Democrats have their elected nominee.
It is a stated goal of this blog to campaign against HRC should she run. Remember--if SHE gets into the White House, we'll get HIM again, too.
And even if she says she's not interested in running in 2008, she's already said that (then changed her mind.) She isn't officially out of the running until AFTER the primaries are held and the Democrats have their elected nominee.
It is a stated goal of this blog to campaign against HRC should she run. Remember--if SHE gets into the White House, we'll get HIM again, too.
Richards' Tirade Against African-Americans is a Total Farce: He Should Have Apologized and then Shut Up
"Seinfeld" star Michael Richards' racially charged tirade against two African-American men in a comedy club was bad enough by itself, but his appearances on Dave Letterman's show and on Rev. Jesse Jackson's talk-radio show were perfect examples of what not to do in a situation like that.
The aftermath of the tirade has been a total farce. His going on Jackson's show was a total waste of time; all the civil-rights leaders did was make an example of him, and Jackson later said that he didn't believe the apology that Richards mumbled WHEN they allowed him to talk. He was on the air for two hours; Jackson and his associates spoke for three quarters of the time, taking turns lecturing the comedian.
I listened to the entire show and from my point of view, they didn't care about what Richards said; all they did was climb on the soapbox that he provided for them and beat the daylight out of him with his own words. They were clearly out to destroy him for what he said.
He should not have gone on Rev. Jackson's show. It was all showboating by Jesse Jackson and his colleagues; nothing of substance came of it.
What he should have done was gone on a neutral show where he could have explained himself completely, apologized, then disappeared from sight for a while. Instead he's been in the news just about every day waging a PR campaign. And no, Jesse Jackson's radio show isn't neutral ground on most issues.
Richards is compounding his original mistake with more mistakes that are causing further damage to his reputation. He needs to get out the news and get his act together.
The aftermath of the tirade has been a total farce. His going on Jackson's show was a total waste of time; all the civil-rights leaders did was make an example of him, and Jackson later said that he didn't believe the apology that Richards mumbled WHEN they allowed him to talk. He was on the air for two hours; Jackson and his associates spoke for three quarters of the time, taking turns lecturing the comedian.
I listened to the entire show and from my point of view, they didn't care about what Richards said; all they did was climb on the soapbox that he provided for them and beat the daylight out of him with his own words. They were clearly out to destroy him for what he said.
He should not have gone on Rev. Jackson's show. It was all showboating by Jesse Jackson and his colleagues; nothing of substance came of it.
What he should have done was gone on a neutral show where he could have explained himself completely, apologized, then disappeared from sight for a while. Instead he's been in the news just about every day waging a PR campaign. And no, Jesse Jackson's radio show isn't neutral ground on most issues.
Richards is compounding his original mistake with more mistakes that are causing further damage to his reputation. He needs to get out the news and get his act together.
One Major Mess: What Do We Do With 80 Year-Old Nazi SS Guards Accused of Aiding in the Holocaust?
Ever since the end of World War II, the U.S. government and outside agencies have discovered the presence of Nazi SS prison guards who quietly escaped justice in Europe and ended up over here living amongst us. All concealed their true identities; many became U.S. citizens. When they're been discovered, they've been stripped of their citizenship and taken into custody to await transport back to Europe to stand trial for their alleged crimes during the Holocaust.
Now these former SS men are 80 years old or older. And their home nations don't want them back. They don't want to hold trials because of the embarrassment it would cause them.
Six such men are in such a situation in Michigan.
They've been stripped of their citizenship and are awaiting expulsion. But Europe doesn't want them back. The International Criminal Court cannot put them on trial as their crimes predate the ICC's founding in 2002. And these men have fewer years ahead than they do behind.
It's kind of hypocritical that Germany is willing to press charges against Donald Rumsfeld for alleged crimes against humanity in Iraq, but won't put members of the SS on trial for crimes committed during the Holocaust against Jews in the name of the German people.
So what is to be done with these SS men now?
If we do nothing and let them go, justice remains undelivered for their victims. If the decision is made to prosecute them here, will they all understand what's going on, especially those suffering from dementia or from Alzheimer's?
What a major mess.
Now these former SS men are 80 years old or older. And their home nations don't want them back. They don't want to hold trials because of the embarrassment it would cause them.
Six such men are in such a situation in Michigan.
They've been stripped of their citizenship and are awaiting expulsion. But Europe doesn't want them back. The International Criminal Court cannot put them on trial as their crimes predate the ICC's founding in 2002. And these men have fewer years ahead than they do behind.
It's kind of hypocritical that Germany is willing to press charges against Donald Rumsfeld for alleged crimes against humanity in Iraq, but won't put members of the SS on trial for crimes committed during the Holocaust against Jews in the name of the German people.
So what is to be done with these SS men now?
If we do nothing and let them go, justice remains undelivered for their victims. If the decision is made to prosecute them here, will they all understand what's going on, especially those suffering from dementia or from Alzheimer's?
What a major mess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)