Dana Perino and Helen Thomas on Iraq, War, and the Loss of Innocents
White House Spokeswoman Dana Perino and Helen Thomas on Iraq
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
The lovely and graceful Press Secretary Dana Perino stood before correspondents and the country. She stated, while at war the United States slaughters no guiltless men, women, or children. The innocent are not blameless. They are indeed, the enemy. Young, old, and middle age alike, all once thought to be above suspicion, are now considered terrorist. Friends are foe as Americans endeavor to spread good will and democracy.
There was a time, in days of old, when American citizens lived in a democratic state. It was a beautiful phase in our history. Then, we were able to believe the notion, all men are created identical. Our countrymen embraced the principle every being has a free and equal right to participate in a system of government where the people "choose" their representatives. In years past, the courts did not appoint or anoint a President. Remember George W. Bush et. Al. Petitioners versus Albert Gore. You might be more familiar with the case of stolen elections, circa 2004. Ah, those were the days. You dear reader, may recall those ancient times, long before the Bush Era.
Now, we honor the New World Order. Immersed in this horrific reality, we have learned to accept the unacceptable. American and allied forces have massacred near one million Iraqi citizens and call this justice. Yet, the White House declares, "[T]o suggest that we, at the United States, are killing innocent people is just absurd and very offensive."
If it is ludicrous and odious to propose that Americans murder harmless individuals in the name of freedom and democracy, then, I wish to be outrageous and abhorrent. I thank you Helen Thomas for being a humanitarian no matter the admonishment.
Q Does the President want no troops out from Iraq on his watch? I'm talking about all the troops.Ms. Perino: Well, 5,700 troops will be home by the end of the year, so that is some troops coming home. The President said that troop levels are going to be made by commanders on the ground, and that we're going to have to talk about –
Q Why should it be? Why can't the American people have a say?
Ms. Perino: -- return on success. The American people have had a say. They elected a President who is their Commander-in-Chief and is making decisions based on what his commanders on the ground are telling him.
Q And you think that was the vote of the American people?
Ms. Perino: They elected a Commander-in-Chief, and the President is bringing home 5,700 troops, based on the recommendations of his commanders on the ground and based on return on success. Hopefully in the future we can bring home more, but it's going to depend on what General Petraeus reports and remember he will come back in March.
Q Why should we depend on him?
Ms. Perino: Because he is the commander on the ground, Helen. He's the one who is making sure that the situation is moving –
Q You mean how many more people we kill?
Ms. Perino: Helen, I find it really unfortunate that you use your front row position, bestowed upon you by your colleagues, to make such statements. This is a -- it is an honor and a privilege to be in the briefing room, and to suggest that we, at the United States, are killing innocent people is just absurd and very offensive.
Q Do you know how many we have since the start of this war?
Ms. Perino: How many -- we are going after the enemy, Helen. To the extent that any innocent Iraqis have been killed, we have expressed regret for it.
Q Oh, regret. It doesn't bring back a life.
Ms. Perino: Helen, we are in a war zone, and our military works extremely hard to make sure that everyone has the opportunity for liberty and freedom and democracy, and that is exactly what they are doing.
I'm going to move on.
Phew! That was quite a conversation. Perhaps, this discussion is better defined as a combative retort on the part of one. Press Secretary Perino, was as this Administration often is, aggressively engaged. When in battle, I understand the need to "move on," "move forward," "surge," and "stay the course." The mission must be accomplished. This press conference, just as the conflict in Iraq need continue. Advancement or avoidance is policy when George W. Bush is your Commander-In-Chief; and I trust for Dana Perino, he is President of the United States, the decider, or at least her choice for this position.
Perchance Press Secretary, and the President's soldier-of-slant, Dana Perino would wish to invoke the military policy of "Do not ask. Do not tell," when in the presence of investigative reporter Helen Thomas. Intellectual inquiry can be intimidating. More likely, Perino would prefer Thomas be identified as a terrorist. If looks could kill, the glance Miss Perino shot the innocent and peaceful Helen Thomas would certainly have done the esteemed Journalist in. Obviously, in Perino's mind, Helen Thomas is an enemy combatant. My belief is Helen Thomas is a saintly speaker of truth and justice. Thomas reminds us of the American way. Oh, how we need to recall and act on what once was.
The Loss, The Logic . . .
Reexamining "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," By Mark Thompson. Time Magazine. March 13, 2007
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 5, 2007 at 09:00 PM in Aggression, Bush 43 Administration, Killing Machines, Loss of Life, Question Everything, Terrorism, War Crimes, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], Wars Bush Commanded, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Climate of Fear Permeates; Morton High School Students Protest
Climate of Fear
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
It was a quiet day in America; yet, the feeling of fear was palpable. Oceans away, in Baghdad, the air was filled with the smell of napalm. Frightened, as the young contemplated their future, seventy some courageous and committed students filed into the Morton West High School cafeteria in Berwyn, Illinois. Trepidation for their lives, and the lives of friends, family, and those innocent Iraqi citizens they never met prompted these pupils to take action. The young and eligible enlistees protested the war in Iraq.
Years earlier, dissent against this unjust battle was unthinkable. The Twin Towers fell. The Pentagon was hit. Other buildings were threatened and the nation panicked. America could not comprehend there might be blood shed on the tranquil shores of their homeland. Citizens were willing to do anything to ensure no more lives would be lost in the land of their birth. If it meant countrymen must sacrifice their freedoms, so be it. Immediately, Congress was called into session. Bills were passed and liberties lost. America was attacked; and thus, we were at war.
Theories were bantered about. Osama Bin Laden, the enemy behind the assault, was in Afghanistan. Terrorists were within our country. Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. The thousands killed on September 11, 2001 were just the beginning. Certainly, we must know as a continent, North America is no longer safe. Air travel has opened all borders. Trains, boats, and planes were no longer means of transport. These are potential missiles.
Acquiescent, the American public believed they were not safe. Yet, fearful as the people were they knew this country must come together and show its strength. At ground zero a crowd stood and chanted, "USA, USA!" The Commander-In-Chief took the bull by the horn or the bullhorn and calmed the throng. He said . . .
"I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon,"
It was then that the former friendly fellow, the man that had failed in most all of his business ventures, the son of a President whose success was said to be tied to his name, appeared decisive. The President, placed into the Oval Office by the Supreme Court, not by the people, became the protector. From the moment Bush stood on the mound of rumble and raised his voice, Americans followed his lead.
George W. Bush led his Secretary of State astray. Colin Powell addressed the United Nations with what Bush and Vice President Cheney knew was not "solid" intelligence. The Commander prompted his Cabinet to lie to Congress. The President's pal and Attorney General told a nation the Rules of the Geneva Convention are quaint. Our leader authorized torture. He trolled telephones. President Bush took us to the airport and asked us to take our shoes off. He read our library records and convinced us there was reason to forfeit our rights. The President of the United States played on our fears and we accepted his truths. Americans became apathetic and perhaps pathetic.
However, just as in years past, when an unpopular war was sold to the American public, when a threat [then communism, now terrorism] loomed large in the minds of those told to fear the youth responded, Morton High School's young scholars decided they must speak out. They entered the dining hall, a nook in the cranny of a huge building, a place where pupils often feel, or felt able to break from bureaucracy. For students, the canteen is considered a safety zone. Every high school has one, a place where pupils can relax, chat, gather, and forget the fears that flank them in the halls, and stalls of academia.
Yet, on this day, November first, All Saints Day, and a national day of peace, the lunchroom furnished no refuge. Apprehensive Administrators swooped down on the young scholars as they exercised their democratic right to free speech. Frightened school officials did just as a petrified President had done. Under the guise of informed authority, the Superintendent and Principal imposed retaliatory measures.
As is often true in a climate of fear, the terrified meet the terrified, and the trouble begins. When filled with fear a person in a powerful position does not wish to show his or her weakness. Thus, they adopt a punitive posture to appear in control; George W. Bush, Superintendent Ben Nowakowski , you decide.
The Berwyn School District bureaucrats selectively singled two-dozen students for expulsion. [Might these individuals be as those sent to Guantanamo Bay Prison, or off to Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other countries with poor human rights records, for interrogation.] Morton West, Morton High School District 201 Superintendent Nowakowski told parents, pupils involved in the protest that are seventeen years or older would also face police charges. [Ah, those of a certain age may be as the persons of Middle Eastern descent. People in power think it just to profile agitators.] High achievers, athletes, and those whose parent are well connected were exempt from the more severe penalties. [Frequent fliers, white businessmen, and little old ladies . . .perhaps these persons are above reproach.] Indeed, school officials telephoned many prominent Moms and Dads and warned them. Take your child home. Be sure your son or daughter returns to class. Cease or dismiss.
The injustice was obvious; even mothers and fathers were distressed. Parents questioned School Board members and Administrators. They asked, what have we as a people become when we suppress speech, suspend dialogue, and arrest those that assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Perhaps, after all these years of war and Weapons of Mass Destruction that never were, the adults realize they too must question authority.
Parents and students say that penalties were too harsh -- and unfairly dispensed -- for some of those involved in the protest. More than a dozen parents at the meeting in the Morton East auditorium told the board that students who play varsity athletics or have a high grade point average were given less stringent penalties.Maniotis said her daughter Barbara, a junior at the high school, participated in the protest but was given a 5-day suspension and does not face expulsion because she is an honor student with a 4.5 GPA. Other students received 10-day suspensions with the possibility of expulsion.
"She did the same thing they did," Maniotis said. "This entire incident is outrageous. The school missed out on a wonderful teachable moment. Instead, they cracked down on them right away and turned it into a punitive situation."
Parents have said they want their children reinstated and the penalties removed from their records.
However, the Board and the Superintendent chose to exert its power. The community gathered thousands of signatures in support of the students. Parents, neighbors, concerned citizens met with authorities and stated, the punishment for protestors is too harsh. Those in power argued the point. School authorities might have said, "We do not torture." Waterboarding, while repugnant, is just in "real life" situations.
School officials also sent a letter to the parents of all the school’s students calling the protest “gross disobedience” and reminding parents that any disruption to the educational process could lead to expulsion.
Disobedience and dissention must be deterred. There can be no distractions. Our mission is clear. If we are to accomplish our goal, all threats must be eliminated. Presidents and Principals, Secretary's of State and Defense and Superintendents remind us, we have reasons to fear. This is the "age of terror."
Americans know by now, as we accept our telephones are tapped, any time we question authority we are in insubordination. Countrymen chuckle on reflection as they ponder, I almost got sent to Guantanamo. We are anxious regardless of what is real, for in truth, reality is perception. As long as we perceive a threat, there is one, and those in power will act in accordance. Innocents will be sent to [Guantanamo Bay] prison without due process.
Morton High school Principal, Mister Lucas was fretful despite of what occurred or did not. The protesters, pupils were extremely peaceful. They did as they were told to do. Law enforcement officers observed all went well. Nevertheless, fear flourished amongst Administrators.
[S]everal students said the protesters, whose numbers had dwindled to about 25, obeyed the administration’s request to move from a high-traffic area in the cafeteria to a less-crowded hall near the principal’s office. There, they intertwined arms, sang along to an acoustic guitar and talked about how the war was affecting the world, said Matt Heffernan, a junior who took part.“We agreed to move to another side of the building,” Matt said. “We also made a deal that if we moved there, there would be no disciplinary action taken upon us.”
Matt said the group had been told that the most severe punishment would be a Saturday detention for cutting class that day.
Police officers were on the scene, and Berwyn’s police chief, William Kushner, said no arrests were made. “It was all very peaceful and orderly,” he said.
But at the end of the school day, Matt said, Dr. Nowakowski gave the remaining protesters disciplinary notices stating that they had engaged in mob action, that they were suspended for 10 days and that they faced expulsion.
The sense of being actively involved in the community and in the civic process is weighty and can be woeful. As a Morton High School student stated; upon reflection he had "feelings of confidence — of a job well done." However, faced with expulsion he also embraced anxiety "and fright, because my whole educational future is at risk.”
Education for American students is at risk whether they protest the war or not. As the battles in the Middle East intensify, our youngest citizens watch expectantly. Currently, they are not forced to take up arms; yet, the cost of an advanced degree, the expense of living on your own, salaries, or more accurately, practically speaking, minimum wages threaten the security of a young mind. Military recruiters know this, as does the Administration, local and Federal. Armed Forces representatives maximize on the fear and the White House blesses such actions.
The practice began just after America surrendered itself to permanent apprehension. The Twin Towers fell and so too did the Bill of Rights. The Constitution was set aside in favor of the Patriot Act. The Commander-In-Chief of the United States, George W. Bush proposed we leave no child behind. In the spirit of bipartisanship, Mister Bush garnered support for a initiative that would change the lives of young Americans forever. The "Education" President signed the measure and a new military force was born.
Sharon Shea-Keneally, principal of Mount Anthony Union High School in Bennington, Vermont, was shocked when she received a letter in May from military recruiters demanding a list of all her students, including names, addresses, and phone numbers. The school invites recruiters to participate in career days and job fairs, but like most school districts, it keeps student information strictly confidential. "We don't give out a list of names of our kids to anybody," says Shea-Keneally, "not to colleges, churches, employers -- nobody."But when Shea-Keneally insisted on an explanation, she was in for an even bigger surprise: The recruiters cited the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush's sweeping new education law passed earlier this year. There, buried deep within the law's 670 pages, is a provision requiring public secondary schools to provide military recruiters not only with access to facilities, but also with contact information for every student -- or face a cutoff of all federal aid.
"I was very surprised the requirement was attached to an education law," says Shea-Keneally. "I did not see the link."
The military complained this year that up to 15 percent of the nation's high schools are "problem schools" for recruiters. In 1999, the Pentagon says, recruiters were denied access to schools on 19,228 occasions. Rep. David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana who sponsored the new recruitment requirement, says such schools "demonstrated an anti-military attitude that I thought was offensive."
Slights or the restricted right of entry seemed odious to pro-war Congressman Vitter, a man too young to have fought in a foreign battle. Attitudes such as his may helped build a system of recruitment that expanded our military defense. Prior to the initiative that allowed military representatives to sell their schpeel to High School students interest and investment in America's youth was not equally distributed. Nor is it now. The difference is, under current law, military recruiters can more easily find men and women willing to enlist. With thanks to No Child Left Behind the armed forces can focus on those most in need. That is best. After all, the affluent have opportunities that ensure economic and academic success. The rich are less likely to enlist.
[I]t appears that the affluent are not encouraging their children and peers to join the war effort on the battlefield.The writer of the Post-Gazette article, Jack Kelly, explored this question in his story that ran on Aug. 11. Kelly wrote of a Marine recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, who went to an affluent suburb outside of Pittsburgh to follow up with a young man who had expressed interest in enlisting. He pulled up to a house with American flags displayed in the yard. The mother came to the door in an American flag T-shirt and openly declared her support for the troops.
But she made it clear that her support only went so far.
"Military service isn't for our son," she told Rivera. "It isn't for our kind of people."
The kinds of people that are targeted are poor or lower Middle Class. Plebeian families will sacrifice their progeny disproportionately. Morton West High School in Berwyn, is nestled in a working-class suburb just west of Chicago. Soldiers dressed in uniform, don sparkly metals, and wear shined shoes as they stroll the halls of this blue-collar neighborhood school campus. They smile and sweet-talk eager teens. Recruiters befriend students and promise them a bright future if they enlist. In part, this helped to provide perspective for the pupils and prompted the protest.
Disabled Gulf War veteran Cesar Ruvalcaba, dressed in his military uniform, chose to lash out at military recruiters allowed to roam the halls of the school."Shame on the administrators who think receiving military money from recruiters is more important than the education of their students," he told the board. "I am 100 percent disabled, and I learned the hard way that education, not carrying a machine gun, is the key to success. It's those people who are pro-war who would never drop everything and go fight for the red, white, and blue. These kids should receive extra credit for speaking up, not expulsion."
Morton High School students are not alone. After years of subjection, some schools are fighting back. Administrators have decisively stood up for their students. Principals refuse to be part of the Bush regime or relegate academics to expulsion. Principals ask whether funds from No Child Left Behind provisions are worth the cost, the lost of freedom.
Rift over recruiting at public high schools
A Seattle high school bars military solicitation, touching off debate over Iraq war and free speech.
By Dean Paton
The Christian Science Monitor
May 18, 2005Seattle - While most Parent Teacher Student Association meetings might center on finding funding for better math books or the best way to chaperon a school dance, a recent meeting here at Garfield High School grappled with something much larger - the war in Iraq.
The school is perhaps one of the first in the nation to debate and vote against military recruiting on high school campuses - a topic already simmering at the college level . . .
High schools are struggling with a similar issue as the No Child Left Behind Act requires that schools receiving federal funding must release the names of its students to recruiters. Some feel that's an invasion of privacy prompted by a war effort that has largely divided the American public. Others say barring recruiters is an infringement of free speech - and a snub to the military, particularly in a time of war.
Garfield High School took a decisive step last week with a vote of 25 to 5 to adopt a resolution that says "public schools are not a place for military recruiters."
All this comes as recruiters struggle to meet enlistment goals.
Perchance, Americans no longer wish to live a life in fear. Our countrymen finally decided to vote for change. However, it did not come. Now the children take up the cause. Perhaps they will be more successful. With the support of their parents, the impossible may be probable. Indeed, it is, slightly.
Last evening, the Superintendent of Berwyn Schools released a statement. [On the same day some troops are slated to return home to American shores, not because the President heard the people say exit Iraq, but because, physically, they could no longer remain in battle] suspended students could and would return to class. School records will not reflect, peaceful rebellions as a dishonorable reason for discharge. Although Administrative faces are saved, it is important to consider that this is a step. We may move closer to educational experiences and further from a culture of fear. One can hope.
I offer the link for your perusal. Please read the Superintendent's proclamation. Please share your thoughts, quietly. Remember class is in session. Recruiters may still be listening and the Bush regime remains in office.
As you, dear reader, breathe deeply and ponder the protestors' plight, might I submit, alls is not well; nor did this situation truly end well. Granted, the students will be reinstated. Those that wish to pursue a military career will, and those that do not, will not. However, there is more to this story. Power plays; those that instill fear, fear not. Even when we think the Authorities care; they are concerned, and will no longer abuse, use or manipulate, we discover they continue to do as they have done.
Eight million veterans got their education thanks to the World War II GI Bill, which covered tuition, fees, and books, and gave veterans a living stipend while they were in school. A 1988 Congressional study proved that every dollar spent on educational benefits under the original GI Bill added seven dollars to the national economy in terms of productivity, consumer spending and tax revenue.Unfortunately, the current educational benefits offered to veterans are far lower than the original GI Bill. In fact, they cover only 60-70% of the average cost of four years at a public college or university, or less than two years at a typical private college. Our veterans deserve better.
A new GI [Government Issue] Bill is being crafted in Congress. However, Americans have reason to think this too shall not pass. If we the voters learn from the Morton High School students and state what we think, perhaps, veterans will have the chance they were promised . . . that is if they live to return home.
Let s fear no more. Americans cannot sit silent. If you wish to communicate to your Congress Person, please do. The time is now.
Help Veterans Continue their Education.
Sources of Fear; Culture of Care. . .
Thursday, January 6, 2005; Page A01
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on November 15, 2007 at 01:00 PM in 'Regime Change' , Activism, Adult Influence on Children, Afghanistan, American Patriotism, Americana, Bush 43 Administration, CIA Prisons, Civil Disobedience, Civil Rights, Congress and Bush, Current Affairs, Domestic Security, Education or War, Emotional Decisions, Exit Iraq Now, Fear, Inequality in America, International Security, Iraq War, Lies, Military Missions, National Security, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Peace Movement, Politics, Question Everything, Saddam Hussein, Teach The Children, The Patriot Act , War and Peace, War is in the Wind, Wars Bush Commanded, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Cindy Sheehan. The Plea, Promote Harmony Peacefully
Cindy Sheehan Quits
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Dearest Cindy . . .
I meant to write this letter days ago after reading your farewell "Good Riddance Attention Whore." I watched as the number of electronic communiqués in response to your essay mounted. I thought my message might be lost and perhaps was not important. I decided to forego a seemingly fruitless endeavor.
Yet, as I reflected on my reading of your words, and those writing in reply, I was haunted. Still, I hesitated. I was drowning in sorrow as I observed the interchanges. Ultimately, I concluded I can stay silent no longer, for if I do I endorse the verbal struggle. Oh, how I long for peace, harmony, and tranquility in every aspect of life. I hope to express my thoughts in a manner that honors calm and furthers a shared understanding. However, if the present is as the past, what are meant to be peaceful ponderings may provoke.
Cindy, the chatter surrounding your letter of resignation reminded of what struck me most in your offering. I experience as you mention.
[T]he "left" started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of "right or left", but "right and wrong."I experience this as well. More often than not, my missives bring talk of divisiveness. When I am critical of those that send our young and now older to combat, I receive comments of how "evil" the right is. I may frequently speak of the neoconservatives with disdain; however, I think the Left is no less liable. For me, any being that thinks war is ever an option allows for the practice.
I have also been slammed for calling the Commander and his Cabinet criminal. While I do believe that all beings have the potential for enlightenment, some are extremely slow to evolve. The ego delays their ascent. I have faith that each of us will make errors repeatedly as we travel through this Earthly existence; nonetheless, when these blunders take sweet and vulnerable men and women into battle, I think that iniquitous.
For me, it matters not the Party affiliation; harming another is errant. I experience as you have.
I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike.I cannot comprehend the reprimands of one that thinks I am too harsh verbally, when I, without swearing explain my disdain for any being that is willing to hurt others. Merely calling for censure or impeachment, a nonviolent means for ending mass murder, is considered illogical and disappointing to this self-defined contrarian. Apparently for this self-proclaimed Buddhist, placing the onus on me seems apt. I am bombarded with barbs while men and women die on battlefields abroad.
It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party.The mad cap fellow I mention and I would each agree with this statement. However, he would remind me that the philosophical form of Zen, Hinduism that I hold dear is deeply flawed for it differs from the religious sect of Buddhism he prefers.
I sigh deeply. I trust that as much as I appreciate many of this man's musings, the need to be right or reproach drains me. I want no part of such exchanges. I long for peace in every effort eternally.
I am not a competitive person and have no interest in engaging is dialogues where one is left the victor, and the other defeated. I prefer peace. For me, even an arraignment is an opportunity for growth. It need not be confrontational. I only wish to lessen the power of those that think we have the right to punish another nation or our own citizens by putting them to death, or torturing them until they talk. Yet, consistently I realize bringing about harmony is not the intent of many in the movement.
I have also tried to work within a peace movement that often puts personal egos above peace and human life. This group won’t work with that group; he won’t attend an event if she is going to be there; and why does Cindy Sheehan get all the attention anyway? It is hard to work for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions.When working with an organization devoted to harmony, the two persons prominent is coordinating the events argued vehemently. Those assisting with the installation project then took sides. There was no tranquility among the pacifists; yet, they claimed to be people of peace.
While walking with a group dedicated to calm, marchers called out to the law officers. These peace protesters preferred to fight the fuzz. The antics of those supporting an end to war actually promoted the same on local streets.
Cindy, I relent as you have.
[N]o matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that [peaceful, loving] country unless you want it.Persons and political structures are as they wish to be. I cannot change them; nor do I desire to try. I speak out for I trust that my silence will not benefit them or me. In my own life much has been said when I was not ready to understand the meaning or significance. I trust that people and policies are in flux. They are evolving as am I. I can only hope that my love of peace will be honored within my lifetime. I accept that this may not be so. Nonetheless, for me and I trust the same is true for you Cindy Sheehan, I will continue to do as I can. However, I cannot sacrifice my own soul. If I am to stay strong, I cannot continually allow others to deplete my spirit.
Cindy, I thank you so much for sharing your self, your strength, and for remaining vigilant. I believe peace will come. You will be among those that made the transition possible. I am grateful.
Sincerely, with great respect . . .
Betsy L. Angert
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on May 31, 2007 at 02:05 PM in "Take me as I am!", Activism, Bloggers Unite, Cindy and Casey Sheehan, Communities, Communities and Communication , Compassion, Conflict, Complex, Discussion, Dreams Live and Die , Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Empathy and Evolution, Humans, Self-Destructive, Iraq War, Peace Movement, Peaceful Protests, Politics, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], “When is Enough, Enough?”, “You are either with us or against us” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Congress; "Support our troops. Bring them home!"
VideoVets TV Ad
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
Tell Congress to "Support our troops. Bring them home!"
MoveOn.org and soldiers far from American shores are asking for your assistance. Families here in the States hope that you will help. We, the public understand the hurts these persons experience. We feel them too. Americans long for a return to calm. Iraqis do as well. There is much evidence that this battle did not need to be. I invite you to speak your mind, talk from the heart, and do whatever you can to help our troops and to free the citizens of Iraq.
Most Iraqis Want US to Leave Now. Iraqis do not wish to live in an occupied nation. They never requested regime change. Replacing one autocrat with another did not and does not make sense to them. The common folk, those that do not profit from an American presence in the Middle East want United States troops to leave. Might we help them accomplish their mission.
Help get John Bruhns' story out thereBequeath what you wish. Your cash will help many. If we are able to maintain the message change could come. Perchance Congress will act if the images and words are cemented in their minds.George Bush keeps saying that he's the one who supports the troops and those of us who want to end the war don't. Someone has to take him on for that. And former Sergeant John Bruhns--who served in Iraq--is the man to do it. He's the subject of a new ad by Oliver Stone. Your contribution will help us spread his story--and those of the other VideoVets participants--far and wide through a big TV and online advertising campaign. Can you contribute? Complete the form below to contribute.
Your calls are welcome. Representatives and Senators need to know how serious you [we] are. We, the people want our children back from Iraq. Letters urging Congress to cut the funds are helpful.
Conversations within your community benefit American boys and girls. Afghani and Iraqi children will gain too. None of the young wish to die needlessly or in battle. Might we give our youth worldwide the life they were born to live.
On behalf of the troops, their brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers, I thank you. If I could speak more profoundly for those whose lives are torn asunder by the ravages of war, I would. I feel certain they to want to feel safe on their soil. Soldiers do not secure a town, a city, a country, a life, or a heart. Please help. Do whatever you might to ensure a global peace. I offer my gratitude and best wishes to you, to us all.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on May 8, 2007 at 12:51 PM in Advertising, American Patriotism, Citizens For Global Solutions, Communities and Communication , Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Iraq War, Middle Class, Middle East Resolution, Military Missions, War and Peace, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
War of Words. Bloggers, Broadcasters, Rappers Code of Ethics
Oprah on Imus (Public forum with Russell and others) 2
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
In this tome, I am not advocating autocratic censorship. I ask each of us to look within and consciously choose an empathetic ethical code.
"There is a problem." However, Americans do not agree what the problem is. Sexism, racism, homophobia, violence, or the words we use to promote such social ills. For weeks, language has been in the news, on the blogs, in the airwaves, and in music-industry executives meeting rooms. Free speech is the topic in question, as is the power of words. As children, we learned that "Sticks and stones may break our bones; but names will never hurt me." In fact, the opposite is true. Words and the inferences can cause greater, and more last injuries than twigs or rocks might. The body heals far better than the heart does.
After receiving numerous death threats, blogger Kathy Sierra called on the blogosphere to confront the culture of cruelty in cyberspace. This active author and public speaker, fears for her life. Missus Sierra recently canceled public speaking engagements and suspended her site. On her weblog, Kathy Sierra writes . . .
If you want to do something about it, do not tolerate the kind of abuse that includes threats or even suggestions of violence (especially sexual violence). Do not put these people on a pedestal. Do not let them get away with calling this "social commentary," "protected speech," or simply "criticism."For weeks, Missus Sierra has been immobilized. After becoming the focus of ample threats, inclusive of a post that featured a picture of her next to a noose, she stated . . .
"I have cancelled all speaking engagements. I am afraid to leave my yard, I will never feel the same. I will never be the same."The police are investigating the harassment and the blogosphere is blazing. Discussions of how women are treated online are fueling a fire. While, on her own site, Creating Passionate Users, Kathy Sierra receives much support, there are those that think her call for civility and courtesy is ridiculous.
In Death threats and blogging, by the famous Kos condemnation of a proposed code was evident.
[T]he rantings of a lunatic. For my part, I've gotten my fair share of such vile emails. Some of them have threatened my children. One or two actually crossed the line into "death threat" territory. But so what? It's not as if those cowards will actually act on their threats. For better or for worse, this isn't a country in which media figures -- even hugely controversial ones -- are routinely attacked by anything more dangerous than a cream pie.This dictum on Daily Kos was posted on April 12, days before an angry aggressor, Cho Seung-Hui avenged those he loathed at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The shooter's rants were his truth. His threats proved to be powerful. Cho Seung-Hui may not have sent his last package in a timely manner. Nevertheless, he did warn and alarm many years before he carried out this horrific and planned deed.Email makes it easy for stupid people to send stupid emails to public figures. If they can't handle a little heat in their email inbox, then really, they should try another line of work. Because no "blogger code of conduct" will scare away psycho losers with access to email.
Words can be wicked. They are often used as weapons. Expressions wound a heart and soul; they hurt. Yet, we excuse these repeatedly. Mel Gibson declared, "I am not anti Semitic" after a tirade that was terribly intolerant. This was not the Directors first show of fury against Jews. Nevertheless, it was excused. It did promote momentary concerns.
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, called Gibson's apology "unremorseful and insufficient." Prominent Hollywood talent agent Ari Emanuel called for an industry boycott of Gibson in a blog posted Monday.Nonetheless, money ruled. His next movie "Apocalypto," distributed by The Walt Disney Company received rave reviews, even from periodicals that some consider Progressive. The almighty buck may not reduce bigotry. Actually, it may help to create it."At a time of escalating tensions in the world, the entertainment industry cannot idly stand by and allow Mel Gibson to get away with such tragically inflammatory statements," he wrote. "People in the entertainment community, whether Jew or gentile, need to demonstrate that they understand how much is at stake in this by professionally shunning Mel Gibson and refusing to work with him, even if it means a sacrifice to their bottom line.
"There are times in history when standing up against bigotry and racism is more important than money."
In recent years, [Mel Gibson] has turned his attention to producing films and TV shows through his Icon Productions. The hundreds of millions of dollars he made producing the 2004 film "The Passion of the Christ" has given the star the ability to finance his own films, giving him a measure of independence from the major studios.Some "artists" using racial slurs make millions. They defend their right to do so. Many or most apologize. However, there is skepticism. Why are they contrite. Can a heart change in a moment or is cash their concern.
When Michael Richards railed against Blacks in his audience, he was quite impassioned. His "hate speak" seemed infinitely sincere. Smears spewed; slights slammed, all said with sincerity. These affronts fell trippingly off his tongue. The comedian apologized while explaining, "I am not a racist." The response was "Really?" It is difficult to know whether Michael Richards has or will recover from such a blunder or the unbelievable statement, "I'm not a racist, that's what's so insane about this."
Will Don Imus be deeply effected by his debacle? The debate continues. Again, cash was cut off, at least temporarily. Imus was apologetic and ashamed, perchance more so after advertisers raised the volume on this discussion. Ultimately Don Imus lost his battle. The major television and radio networks that carried the Don Imus Show felt they could no longer support him. The load was too great; the rewards realized too little. Don Imus had become a distraction.
Executives at CBS and MSNBC saw where the numbers were heading. They may well have been genuinely disgusted by Imus' reference to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos," but their decision to dump him had little to do with moral outrage. They simply did the math. They'll miss the millions they would have earned from Imus' show, but they stood to lose even more if they let him stay on the air, and so he was toast.However, unlike Don Imus who justifies his antics as comedy, and whose money is or was tied to corporate sponsors, there are the rappers. They too are coming under attack.Free speech, meet free enterprise.
For political prominents, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Bruce Gordon enough is enough. These gentlemen want the smears to end. These Black leaders think even Black on Black rubs need to be eliminated from our common language. Two wrongs do not make a right. Racism, bigotry, and misogyny cannot be defined differently depending on who exhibits such behavior. Reverend Al Sharpton is calling on the Federal Communications Commission to punish artists and announcers alike for advocating violence in word and deed.
In 2005, this issue was fresh and addressed. Then, a member of rap group, The Game was wounded during a shooting outside a New York hip-hop radio station. The cause was clear; another hip-hopper, 50 Cent was on the air criticizing The Game. Tempers flared. The effect of word weaponry was realized. The rest is rap or American history. After this volatile event, civil rights leader Al Sharpton . . .
The founder of the National Action Network emphasized in the letter: "We cannot sit silently by while young Americans feel that shootings and bloodshed is now synonymous with success and celebrity. We understand you're in the business of making money, but it cannot be at the expense of polluting the cultural outlook of young Americans."However, two years later, rappers again speak to their creativity, just cause, and the need to communicate their concerns.
Rappers reason they are poets; they please the people. Although admittedly, not all the people. The recent allegations of racial and misogynistic rhetoric against Don Imus amplified a too often delayed or dissuaded discussion. Is it proper to demean women or people of other ethnicities. Might a poet use his or her artistic licenses? Is it just when an performer uses racial slurs, or vile vernacular against one of their own? Today, USA Today reported . . .
Imus fallout: Music execs discuss rap lyricsAgain, we stand still. Money moves mountains; yet, capital does not necessarily change minds. We think, and act on our beliefs. When people profess their deepest, darkest chauvinistic values, spirits are often broken. Lives can be lost.NEW YORK (AP) — In the wake of Don Imus' firing for his on-air slur about the Rutgers women's basketball team, a high-powered group of music-industry executives met privately Wednesday to discuss sexist and misogynistic rap lyrics.
During the furor that led to Imus' fall last week from his talk-radio perch, many of his critics carped as well about offensive language in rap music.
The meeting, called by hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons' Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, was held at the New York home of Lyor Cohen, chairman, and chief executive of U.S. music at Warner Music Group. The summit, which lasted several hours, did not result in any specific initiative.
Organizers billed the gathering as a forum to "discuss issues challenging the industry in the wake of controversy surrounding hip-hop and the First Amendment." Afterward, they planned to hold a news conference at a Manhattan hotel to discuss "initiatives agreed upon at the meeting." But by early afternoon, the news conference was postponed, because the meeting was still going on.
After the meeting ended, it was unclear whether there would be another one. Simmons' publicist released a short statement that described the topic as a "complex issue that involves gender, race, culture and artistic expression. Everyone assembled today takes this issue very seriously."
Although no recommendations emerged, the gathering was significant for its who's-who list of powerful music executives.
Rappers know this as do bloggers. Suffering students are realizing that words, written or spoken cannot be ignored. The common folk and tycoons agree; yet, they disagree. This is evident when we listen to recent Oprah Winfrey town-hall meeting. Hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons of Hip-Hop Summit Action Network stated his beliefs . . .
"We're talking about a lot of these artists who come from the most extreme cases of poverty and ignorance ... And when they write a song, and they write it from their heart, and they're not educated, and they don't believe there's opportunity, they have a right, they have a right to say what's on their mind," he said.I wonder; might our number one concern be the hearts and minds of all humans, men, women, Black, White, Yellow, Brown, Red, and Jew, Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians too. Whether we are born in poverty or into wealth, we are human. We hurt; we bleed. We can love; however, as long as our language degrades another, love will not survive. Perhaps, neither will we. I am reminded of the phrase, "race riots," or "the war against women." I fear the folly of expressing emotions in a manner that kills heart, mind, body, or soul. I prefer the words, "May peace be with you my brother and my sister.""Whether it's our sexism, our racism, our homophobia or our violence, the hip-hop community sometimes can be a good mirror of our dirt and sometimes the dirt that we try to cover up," Simmons said. "Pointing at the conditions that create these words from the rappers ... should be our No. 1 concern."
For me, a code of ethics need not be written or etched in stone; it must be lived because we believe in love, peace, and tranquility.
The Rap and Resources . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 19, 2007 at 12:00 AM in "Take me as I am!", Abuse, Advertising, Aggression, Americana, Black Men, Bloggers Unite, Business, Civil Disobedience, Civil Rights, Communities, Communities and Communication , Consumption and Content, Corporate Profits, Current Affairs, Daily Kos, Discussion, Economics, Emotional Intelligence, Ethics, Ethics and Profits, Manipulated Media, Markos Moulitsas Zúniga , Philosophy, Racial Discrimination, Social Order Teaches , Standards in Society, Violence, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Iraq Dissenters Peacefully March. Request 'Power to the People'
In 2003, American occupiers marched into Baghdad, and forcefully changed the Iraqi regime. United States officials proclaimed they took this action in the name of democracy. When, on April 9, the statue of the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein fell, American President George W. Bush [or the Navy] announced, "Mission Accomplished." The war was a success. At present, we cannot be certain who postulated the theory. The Administration tells us the Navy was responsible for this assertion. The maritime services say the White House made the banner famously seen in the background while President acknowledged a United States victory. Although, we do not know who avowed our triumph, we recall who contended the Iraq war was in its last throes.
Nevertheless, Mister Bush, and his Cabinet decisively declared, Iraqis hold dear the principles that serve Americans well. With the fall of the dictatorial leader, freedom is theirs. The American public was told, from that day forward, Iraqi individuals, would have the right to participate in their government. All the citizens of Iraq could, would, and do vote for their representatives. Indeed, the Iraq government is now of, by, and for the people, the American people.
With thanks to citizens of the United States social equality exists throughout this Middle Eastern country, even if it was imposed irreverently and ineffectually.
In 2007, on this the anniversary of the fall, in a country deeply divided, tens of thousands of people joined together. Iraqis' stepped on the national pennant of their oppressors. These religious and secular factions correctly believe Americans and allied forces marched on their national banner. Thus, the Iraqi's show their distain, reciting, 'One "good" turn deserves another.'
The demonstration, which has remained peaceful, was being held at the urging of militant Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr. He exhorted Iraqi security forces on Sunday to unite with his militiamen against the American military in Diwaniya, an embattled southern city in Iraq where fighting has raged for four days.While the American Mainstream Media criticizes the intent of Mister Sadr, and negates his credibility, it is interesting to observe the power of this man or this mission. The people of Iraq are truly speaking for themselves. They want the oppressors out! This ever-growing group of Iraqi soldiers and civilians, formerly fighting amongst themselves and with each other, is united in one cause, a “call for liberation.” These tired men and women, children too, wear tattered clothing. Their spirits are torn. Yet, they have the strength and the will to protest, peacefully.Mr. Sadr’s statement did not explicitly call for armed struggle against the Americans, but it still represented his most forceful condemnation of the American-led occupation since he went underground after the start of an intensified Baghdad security crackdown nearly two months ago.
The demonstrators marched to Najaf, 100 miles south of Baghdad, from neighboring Kufa, with two cordons of Iraqi police lining the route. Some at the rally waved small Iraqi flags; others hoisted a giant flag 10 yards long, the Associated Press reported. Leaflets fluttered through the breeze reading: “Yes, Yes to Iraq” and “Yes, Yes to Moktada. Occupiers should leave Iraq.”Ironically, that is what President Bush and Vice President Cheney said to the American public; they wanted to provide freedom for the people of Iraq. However, they are as they were, unwilling to do this. Their words did not reveal the truer plan. This war would be protracted. We intend to stay, to protect our oil interests, and to maintain bases in the Middle East.“The enemy that is occupying our country is now targeting the dignity of the Iraqi people,” said lawmaker Nassar al-Rubaie, head of Mr. Sadr’s bloc in parliament, as he marched, according to the A.P. “After four years of occupation, we have hundreds of thousands of people dead and wounded.”
A senior official in Mr. Sadr’s organization in Najaf, Salah al-Obaydi, called the rally a “call for liberation,” the A.P. reported. “We’re hoping that by next year’s anniversary, we will be an independent and liberated Iraq with full sovereignty.”
Upon reflection, this was and is obvious. When one country, or its Commander-In-Chief, in this case America and the Bush-Cheney Cabinet, concludes that they are privileged merely because they have military and monetary power, they often act as emperors. Pompous leaders propagate evil, while seeing it elsewhere. A superpower frequently exerts force against all that they declare an enemy. Much ill is wrought in the name of "justice." Sadly, wars are fought in a futile attempt to promote peace.
Americans, or their influential Administrators, with little information, believing they are right, fight for the freedom of those that they know nothing about. Lies are promoted facilitating the conquest. Thus, we have the Iraq conflict.
Certainly, it is a challenge to watch a dictator execute thousands of his own people. However, to enter a country and slay thousands more in defense of your belief is not a solution. To claim that "you," the United States of America have the right to dictate policy, or to chose governance, simply because you are saintly or sanctimonious, does not honor peace for all people. A punitive practice such as that Americans allowed is counter productive.
Mister Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, Missus Rice, please understand to justify "your" own reactive behavior, asserting that the other is evil or has done wrong, is infantile. I was a toddler when I learned "Two wrongs do not make a right." When will you ever learn? When will you give Iraq back to the Iraqi people. They are begging, pleading, for the right to be free.
The Iraqi dissenters are demonstrating as Americans might if our territory was taken over. They are assembling and speaking out against an autocrat who assumes authority against the wishes of the people.
“This is the right to assemble, the right to free speech — they didn’t have that under the former regime,” [Colonel Steven Boylan, an American military spokesman and aide to the commander of all American forces in Iraq] said. “This is progress, there’s no two ways about it.”After four plus years of violence, the citizens of Iraq feel they can take no more. There is aggression on the fields, in the streets, and in people's homes. Hearts are hurt. Individuals are lashing out. Hostility is everywhere; it is worsening. Forlornly, Iraqis are fighting their brethren. Thus, a call for change.
Mr. Sadr’s call for resistance came as the American military announced the deaths of 10 soldiers in five attacks over the weekend, the highest two-day total for American fatalities since the new security plan began Feb. 14. Five soldiers were wounded. Violence against Iraqis continued unabated on Sunday, with at least 43 people killed or found dead. Seventeen were killed and 26 wounded in a car bombing near a hospital and mosque in the insurgent enclave of Mahmudiya, south of Baghdad.Moktada al-Sadr realizes "United we stand; divided we fall." This organizer knowingly offers insight, stating the invaders that reside in our region under the guise of "liberator" are the terrorists. Mister Sadr may be helping the Iraq people find the will and the way to settle the sectarian disagreements among the people of Iraq. Moktada al-Sadr says 'We need to take our country back." In other words, Moktada al-Sadr offers the oft-heard expression, 'Power to the People.' I, for one, wish him, more precisely, the people of Iraq success. My hope is that citizens in every nation will take the power back peacefully.Mr. Sadr’s statement on Sunday indicated he might be ready to resume steering his militia, the Mahdi Army, toward more open confrontation with the American military.
The Mahdi Army has generally been lying low during the Baghdad security plan, but intense fighting broke out in Diwaniya on Friday between militiamen and American-led forces. The battles erupted when American and Iraqi soldiers isolated neighborhoods in Diwaniya to search for militiamen. Fighter jets hit militia positions on Saturday, and one police official said at least seven Iraqis had been killed and 15 wounded in the fighting. Residents reported American soldiers scampering across rooftops on Saturday evening.
The battles in Diwaniya have been the most violent in months between the Mahdi Army and the Americans, and could portend violence in other strongholds of the Sadr militia. Mahdi Army fighters began moving to Diwaniya and other southern cities when the Baghdad crackdown began.
“The strife that is taking place in Diwaniya was planned by the occupier to drag down the brothers and make them quarrel, fight and even kill each other,” Mr. Sadr said in a written statement. “Oh my brothers in the Mahdi Army and my brothers in the security forces, stop fighting and killing because that is what our enemy and your enemy and even God’s enemy hope for.”
Mr. Sadr added: “God ordered you to be patient and to unite your efforts against the enemy and not against the sons of Iraq. They want to drag you into a war that ends Shiitism and Islam, but they cannot.”
4 Years OF War...A Look Back..Metal Mashup..Blackened Waters
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 9, 2007 at 11:58 AM in 'Regime Change' , Aggression, Bush 43 Administration, Civil Disobedience, Exit Iraq Now, Iraq War, Spread Democracy, War and Peace, Wars Bush Commanded, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Support the Troops; Stop Escalation
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
Please view this glorious presentation. Support the troops. Stop Escalation
Dear Reader . . .
Tonight I saw a presentation that spoke to me. I share this message in hopes that you too are affected. I have long believed that to support the troops, we must ensure their safety. Placing soldiers in harms way hurts us as a nation. A country that cares for its people does not condone combat. Were I the Commander-In-Chief, I would do all that I could to sustain every life. I would not wish to take a young man or woman far from home and family. Subjecting an individual to undue stress is, in my mind, not just. I do not think a person of any age need endure the conditions of war.
I envision soldiers as peace officers, not persons parading across foreign lands fighting to survive. When our children are labeled invaders and occupiers, we all suffer. Our soldiers represent us. Try as the troops might to be truly compassionate, to be the gentle souls that they are, or were when safely residing in America, when their life is threatened, when guns and bombs greet them at every corner, they struggle to stay sane. Being genuinely calm and caring is a challenge when you must be combat ready.
The Iraqi people suffer the same circumstances. Daily life is in turmoil. They know not who to trust. Rather than escalate the violence or the troops I propose we begin working towards peace. Pull the troops out. Allow the Iraq people to govern themselves. Apologize for unwarranted unilateral attack and build global coalitions. Veterans are attempting to bring us together.
VoteVets.org, with Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, is leading the charge against the President's escalation of the war in Iraq with a new television advertisement. Our ad makes clear that if you support the escalation, you don't support the troops. We're backing up our ad with tours and targeted media pushes to ensure all Senators vote in favor of the bipartisan resolution opposing escalation in Iraq.You may wish to contribute to their campaign. They are asking for donations so that they may reach more people. The veterans want to send their message to our Representatives. Members of the Senate and Congress need to know that we support them in their support of the troops.
Please let your voice be heard. Vote with your heart, your mind, and a few dollars might help. I thank you. I trust the troops appreciate your authentic concern. May peace be with us all, everyone!
References for a Peaceful Pullout . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 6, 2007 at 04:21 AM in Congress and Bush, Exit Iraq Now, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Iraq War, Military Missions, Morality in an Immoral War, Policy, Politics, Soldiers, Spread Democracy, War and Peace, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], Wars Bush Commanded, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Climate Change; An Impeachable Offense?
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
Please Help the Polar Bears. View the video and act. Save the Polar Bears: The Coca-Cola Bear Ad Mash Up
The Bush/Cheney Administration denied global warming for years. Denouncing scientific evidence served this presidential pair and their business partners well. Entrepreneurial enterprises prospered. Profits grew as the icecaps melted. Ocean waters warmed, so too did the hearts of Chief Executives. Corporate coffers swelled. Misters Bush and Cheney benefited.
Therefore, the two and their cronies elected to create an Energy Task Commission comprised of corporate bigwigs. Scientists were barred from these "public" proceedings. Actually, the American people were not allowed to participate in policy decisions that concerned them directly. Environmentalists, oh no. They could not contribute or assist in creating a plan that might save the Earth. Worries about waste were not aired. Increasing the use of electrical and petroleum power were favored. The preponderance of evidence offered in committee focused on commercial financial gains.
Energy guidelines were illusive; possibly, because they were designed to generate more revenue, not to save the planet or preserve our natural resources. Please ponder the records.
A Bush administration report suggests that evidence of global warming has begun to affect animal and plant populations in visible ways, and that rising temperatures in North America are due in part to human activity.President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney enacted policies that accelerated climate change. The globe that we inhabit warmed. No one noticed, or at least few complained. Now, even those that worked with Mister Bush and Mister Cheney are screaming, "What were we thinking?" What were they thinking? Even Cheney's fund manager is up in arms and voicing his outrage.The report to Congress, issued Wednesday, goes further than previous statements by President Bush. He has said more scientific research is needed before he imposes new restrictions on greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
In 2001, after the release of a National Academy of Sciences report on global warming, Bush said the concentration of greenhouse gases has increased, in large part, because of human activity, but he emphasized that other factors could have influenced warming. Referring to the NAS report, he said, "We do not know how much effect natural fluctuations may have had on warming."
Several administration officials characterized the study as a routine annual summary of scientific research on global warming. John H. Marburger, the president's science adviser, said the report has "no implications for policy."
Cheney's Fund Manager Attacks ... CheneyNow, the polar bears are endangered. People throughout the nation are experiencing record breaking high and low temperatures. Tornado winds move more rapidly than they have in the past. Snows flakes fall and build incomprehensible banks. Weather is now an enigma. Perchance, some humans think it another enemy. We know not what the day will bring. We are only certain that humans harmed the environment. We do not only warm the planet, we pulverize the ears and organs of those that inhabit this world with us. People such as the President who focus on profits and creature comforts forget, we too are animals. What we cause will have an effect!
By Brett Arends
Mutual Funds ColumnistThe oil-based energy policies usually associated with Vice President Dick Cheney have just come under scathing attack. There's nothing remarkable about that, of course -- except the person doing the attacking.
Step forward, Jeremy Grantham -- Cheney's own investment manager. "What were we thinking?' Grantham demands in a four-page assault on U.S. energy policy mailed last week to all his clients, including the vice president.
Titled "While America Slept, 1982-2006: A Rant on Oil Dependency, Global Warming, and a Love of Feel-Good Data," Grantham's philippic adds up to an extraordinary critique of U.S. energy policy over the past two decades.
What Cheney makes of it can only be imagined.
"Successive U.S. administrations have taken little interest in either oil substitution or climate change," he writes, "and the current one has even seemed to have a vested interest in the idea that the science of climate change is uncertain."
Yet, "there is now nearly universal scientific agreement that fossil fuel use is causing a rise in global temperatures," he writes. "The U.S. is the only country in which environmental data is steadily attacked in a well-funded campaign of disinformation (funded mainly by one large oil company)."
We can thank President Bush for lowering the standards that were helping to reverse the damage. This Administration ignored the natural balance and thus hastened the decline. The Bush/Cheney clan denied that humans influence what happens here on Earth. Hence, they allowed actions that reeked havoc throughout the planet. Currently, the two reluctantly admit to the effect humans have on the environment, or at least scientists are forcing them to face what they hid.
On the Climate Change Beat, Doubt Gives Way to CertaintyNow we know what we always knew, but chose to ignore. Our President and Vice President have profoundly changed our planet. Their energy policies have devastated the world climate. Might we ask; is global warming an impeachable offense?
By William K. StevensIn the decade when I was the lead reporter on climate change for this newspaper, nearly every blizzard or cold wave that hit the Northeast would bring the same conversation at work.
Somebody in the newsroom would eye me and say something like, “So much for global warming.” This would often, but not always, be accompanied by teasing or malicious expressions, and depending on my mood the person would get either a joking or snappish or explanatory response. Such an exchange might still happen, but now it seems quaint. It would be out of date in light of a potentially historic sea change that appears to have taken place in the state and the status of the global warming issue since I retired from The New York Times in 2000.
Back then I wrote that one day, if mainstream scientists were right about what was going on with the earth’s climate, it would become so obvious that human activity was responsible for a continuing rise in average global temperature that no other explanation would be plausible.
That day may have arrived.
Similarly, it was said in the 1990s that while the available evidence of a serious human impact on the earth’s climate might be preponderant enough to meet the legal test for liability in a civil suit, it fell short of the more stringent “beyond a reasonable doubt” test of guilt in a criminal case.
Now it seems that the steadily strengthening body of evidence about the human connection with global warming is at least approaching the higher standard and may already have satisfied it.
The second element of the sea change, if such it is, consists of a demonstrably heightened awareness and concern among Americans about global warming. The awakening has been energized largely by dramatic reports on the melting Arctic and by fear — generated by the spectacular horror of Hurricane Katrina — that a warmer ocean is making hurricanes more intense.
Each day, the Earth decrees, 'We must condemn these perpetrators of environmental crimes.' The winds and waterways are clamoring for justice. They act out seeking long overdue attention. Mother Nature is requesting we help her. She says, 'Please honor our shared planet.' Do not do as the self-proclaimed compassionate conservative and his cunning colleague have done. Do not destroy natural resources. Preserve the balance. We might consider that with every tempest, with each extreme temperature change, with rampant animal extinctions the environment is screaming, 'Prosecute President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney.' Please, let us heed the call!
Please speak to Senator Barbara Boxer. She is asking for suggestions.
Climate Change and the Bush/Cheney Clan . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 6, 2007 at 04:17 AM in Change the World [Within], Cleanliness. Godliness., Consumption and Conservation, Economics, Environment, Ethics and Profits, Facts or Fictions, Global Warming, Humans, Self-Destructive, Hurricanes , Nature, Nature or Nurture, Quality of Life, The World Can’t Wait, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Mother Earth Is Not Well. Her Climate Changed. Did Your Notice?
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
Please Ponder the Inconvenient Truth Trailer. As you view this video, reflect on the trauma of today's tornado in Florida.
Please indulge me, allow me to make a comparison that may seem obscure to some. Surely, the Bush/Cheney clan has yet to grasp what others and I have said for years. Humans are harming the balance of nature! We can choose to deny this. Citizen of the world can see them selves as separate from nature; however, we are one. A report released today by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, validates this "claim." I offer this analogy in hopes that a personal realization may make the point more profoundly.
Weight loss may be equated with global warming. Those of us that have lost tonnage know that for years, months, or weeks few notice the pounds dropping away. We are aware of the subtle changes because we choose to be. When we work to be sensitive to the mind/body connection, when we work to honor each of these separate entities as one, we become aware of the nuances that surround change.
Long after we have lost substantial poundage, people begin to perceive what was occurring for quite some time. They hesitantly say, 'Haven't you lost weight?' They ask for they are still not certain. They wonder if what they think they see is what is truly happening. Meanwhile, those of us that are aware wonder, what took them so long? Twenty of forty pails of blubber are gone and they are just beginning to notice. The same is true of global warming. I feel certain, for decades, the glaciers understood they were shrinking. Polar bears were attuned; there was a definite reduction in resources. All entities that live off the land grasped the Earth was in crisis. Only those confined to their cushy, comfy lives had no complaint. The self-aggrandized humans remained calm as all other beings suffered feeling the planet's pain.
Finally, when the world can wait no longer humans are beginning to acknowledge that maybe they are part of the planet. Mankind has an effect on the Earth; in fact, s/he is 'very likely,' the cause of global warming!
Today, the airwaves are flooded. Two stories are on the minds of many, the tornado in Central Florida and the newly established "fact," long denied by the Bush/Cheney clan, humans 'very likely' the cause of climate change and the ever increasing storms. Conveniently, for the neoconservative tribe, confirmation is not certain. The term 'very likely' allows polluting corporations, the public in their massive Sports Utility machines, and homeowners, ensconced in lifestyles dependent on burning fossil fuels to dismiss the claims that they might be responsible for the devastation we witness all around us.
Those that want to believe the onus is on Mother Nature still can. Humankind can continue to claim they are not to blame for the havoc we see throughout the planet. Weather conditions ebb and flow; this is simply part of the natural cycle. Nevertheless, I think today's news may take us closer to the Inconvenient Truth Humans have a hand in what occurs in their habitat.
Granted, we can continue to live as we have done and deny the certain correlations. The Bush/Cheney clique has done so since they were first given the opportunity to do so. Their subtle shifts in policy accelerated the deficit on a massive scale. Companies were condoned for carelessly ignoring environmental needs. However, just as with weigh loss, if we allow the process to continue much damage will be done. Some of it cannot be corrected. If we choose to be unaware and accept what we do not wish to detect all will worsen. When a thin person becomes dangerously thin, eventually, they die, just as our planet is.
While many have shared such facts before, me among them, little has improved. Nevertheless, I wish to write to our Administrators again. I doubt they care what the common man such as I thinks or feels. They have expressed as much when speaking of "surge." They will "move forward" with little regard for the thoughts of others. Bush/Cheney declare control is in their command. Protests from Congress and citizenry fall on deaf ears. Still, one can try.
Dear Perpetrators, President George W. Bush, and Vice President Richard [Dick] Cheney . . .
I struggle to begin. While I think every human is to blame, as executors of the largest superpower, I place much of the onus on the two of you and of course, on your cronies. I acknowledge and accept that the lifestyle sustained by Western cultures did not begin with the Bush/Cheney conglomerate; nevertheless, prior to your taking office, gains were made to restore a natural balance. Since this Administration took the rein, that is what we have seen, torrential rains, winds, hale storms, and hurricanes.
Flooding has devastated many parts of the country. Snowstorms are abundant. Icy downpours deluge the terrain. Ice caps are melting. Tornadoes are the tempest that awaits homeowners everywhere. Today, there is Florida.
On Christmas Day Florida felt nature's surge and unlike the policy that "protects" Iraq, troops and dollars were not sent here. The newly placed governor of this state, Charlie Crist, not your brother Jeb, wrote you of his concern only two days ago. Cable News Network journalists spoke of this as they hurriedly rushed to report on the current conditions in Florida. Just after the February 2, 2007, tornado tumult struck Central Florida the nation learned of your priorities.
Tony Harris: Jeanne, I think that's interesting. We take a look at these pictures in the air, and we can see quite clearly, and, in our own mind, it certainly is a federal disaster that we are witnessing. But you are right to point out that there is a whole process that has to play out here before the federal government declares it as such and makes funds available.Life was no better under Jeb; perhaps it was worse. Hurricane Wilma came and Florida was virtually ignored.Jeanne Meserve, CNN Homeland Security Correspondent: That's absolutely right. There's a very clear-cut process, which has to be followed. There is a great anxiety on the part of federal officials not to step on the feet of Florida, but, on the other hand, if Florida is saying this is a major disaster, we want your help, they hope that the federal government will then apply it. That doesn't always happen. apparently. Someone handed me a letter written by the governor of Florida to the president on January 30th of this month, appealing the fact that after four -- excuse me, tornadoes hit Florida on Christmas Day, the governor had requested a major disaster declaration for the state, and they haven't gotten that yet. So, they're still waiting for that.
It seems that victims of Katrina received all the money and attention. However, that too proved to be untrue. Corporations capitalized on this catastrophe. Oh, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, I know you have friends in high places. I would not wish to think that you catered to their needs and denied compassionate concern for the people you swore to represent.
Katrina WatchGeorge and Dick, if I may be so bold to speak to you simply. I recall plain speaking is your preference. It began with what is still not fully disclosed. The Energy Task Force committee chaired by you, Dick. An influential magnate, such as yourself, might be expected to have powerful connections, and you do Mister Vice President. Many of your friends and followers are found in the energy field. As Vice President, Mister "helpful" Halliburton Richard Cheney realized he could make friends and influence enemies. Thus,
September 19, 2006
A state judge in Baton Rouge has determined that Bourget's, the politically connected custom motorcycle shop that has sold almost $120 million of trailers to FEMA, does not have to pay a fine for selling travel trailers without a license, according to attorneys who have read the judge's unsigned ruling. The Times-Picayune reports that the decision also appears to let Bourget's off the hook for potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in Louisiana sales tax, the attorneys said.May 9, 2006
Through a partnership with a smaller, minority-owned company, a multinational firm with ties to the Federal Emergency Management Agency has landed four re-bid deals that could be worth $400 million, federal records show. The Times-Picayune reports that the contracts were awarded to PRI/DJI, a joint venture between Del-Jen Industries and the Asian-American-owned PRI Inc., therefore qualifying under the terms of a federal program for disadvantaged businesses. However, Del-Jen is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fluor Corp., which held a mammoth FEMA disaster relief work contract that was up for re-bidding when Katrina hit. FEMA then broke that contract up and awarded four $500 million deals for temporary housing work, but later agreed under pressure to re-bid them. PRI/DJI’s success has angered competitors who say it’s outrageous that one partnership — especially one linked to the disaster relief giant — would win four of the 36 contracts awarded when no other company appears to have landed two. FEMA insists the process has been aboveboard.
In the spring of 2002, under order from a federal judge, the U.S. Department of Energy released to National Resources Defense Council [NRDC] roughly 13,500 pages relating to previously secret proceedings of the Bush administration's energy task force. (President Bush formed the task force in early 2001 to develop a national energy policy, with Vice President Cheney at the helm.) Even though the government heavily censored the documents before supplying them to NRDC, they [the papers still] reveal that Bush administration officials sought extensive advice from utility companies and the oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy industries. [Then they] incorporated their recommendations, often word for word, into the energy plan.It is a challenge to accept that those that profit from exploitive practices will serve our environment well. When businesses speak on behalf of the public the policy must be questioned. Economics 101 dictates, when corporations benefit the consumer likely suffers. It would be nice to imagine that these two groups would or could work in tandem; however, rarely does this occur.
Thus, you may recall from your studies at Yale, Harvard, and the University of Wyoming, supposedly a system of checks and balances was established in this nation. The government is an institute working in the people's interest. It is designed to function of, by, and for the people. Commoners are considered the foundation. However, this principle is often ignored. Companies, in a Capitalist society, work on their own behalf. Consumers are only a means to a lucrative end for entrepreneurs.
Perhaps, this is where America went wrong. We hired, elected, or more accurately selected a businessman such as the two of you to serve us. Citizens might have known that commerce and Corporate moguls supply only what meets their demand. Too often, the interests of the Band of Bush Renegades, conflicts with the wellbeing of others, the masses. What works well for the Super-Rich frequently leaves those of lesser means behind. Such is the current situation. The abundantly affluent are ruling the infinitely impoverished.
Nevertheless, that is our circumstance. The results are revealing. Immediately after the George W. Gang came into power changes were made. Less than two months after taking office you, Misters Bush and Cheney saw fit to alter environmentally friendly policies.
Bush withdraws new arsenic-in-drinking-water standardThis proposal was quickly retracted; however, it was one of many blunders never rescinded, only strengthened. For a time, globally countries were working together to reduce toxins in the air, the water, and on land. The Kyoto treaty was signed. The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated and signed in accordance with the principles established by the United Nations Framework Convention. In 1992, Climate Change was considered a vital issue. Former President and father to the current, George Herbert Walker Bush signed said treaty and the senate ratified the plan.
March 20, 2001The Bush administration announced it would withdraw a new standard for arsenic in drinking water, choosing the interests of the mining industry and some small water suppliers over protecting the health of millions of Americans. EPA's final arsenic standard of 10 parts per billion (ppb) would have lowered allowable levels of arsenic in tap water from the current standard of 50 ppb, an outdated standard established in 1942. The 10 ppb standard was the result of more than a decade of public hearings, scientific reviews, and planning with health experts and industry representatives. A few years ago, the World Health Organization and the European Union implemented a 10 ppb standard. It would cost 90 percent of Americans living in areas with high levels of arsenic less than $3 per month to clean up the contaminant in their water supplies.
On April 18, the Bush administration called for new studies on the impacts of arsenic standards ranging from 3 ppb to 20 ppb. The move will mean at least a year's delay in reducing levels of this cancer-causing poison, and may mean EPA will seek an unacceptably weak new standard.
The Climate Convention requires all countries, including developing countries, to establish programs to address greenhouse gas emissions and to report on progress. The 1992 treaty also requires developed countries such as the United States to take the lead in limiting greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, the 1992 treaty commits the United States and other developed countries to establish programs designed to return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. Current U.S. emissions are about 15 percent greater than they were in 1990.It makes sense that a nation that comprises one sixth of the world population; yet uses one quarter of the resources would work to set an example. However, President Bush we know that you do not wish to enforce suffering. I recall you also stated this is why you do not want Americans to sacrifice during a time of war. You prefer that people prosper. Therefore, the nation plunges into debt as billions are spent each week on a protracted war. Mister Bush, I have heard of your benevolent desire to put money into people's pockets. You passed tax cuts to empower individuals. However, sadly, the infrastructure crumbles.
Perchance, more is effected, as we, in the United States cause great climate change. Chaos abounds.
Bush Administration Errs on Kyoto Global Warming Agreement Opposing the international climate treaty the Unites States signed in 1997, President Bush and members of his administration have made misleading and erroneous comments.Please refer to this article for a detailed accounting of the fallacies that pass for facts. Misters Bush and Cheney I cannot help but notices that the economic needs of entrepreneurs play a major role in your rulings and reactions. Might I introduce you to the concerns of citizen and of the creatures that inhabit this planet. People, the little plants, animals, and us make your life possible. Without us, there would be no one to buy the products you and your friends produce. Without the plants and animals there are no resources.In March 2001, after reneging on a campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, President George W. Bush announced his administration's opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 international accord setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions. In renouncing the protocol, the president and members of his administration have used a number of seriously flawed arguments.
Effects of global warming already being felt on plants and animals worldwideThen there is the study released only this morning. Certainty for the influence of humans seems a foregone conclusion.Global warming is having a significant impact on hundreds of plant and animal species around the world -- although the most dramatic effects may not be felt for decades, according to a new study in the journal Nature.
"Birds are laying eggs earlier than usual, plants are flowering earlier and mammals are breaking hibernation sooner," said Terry L. Root, a senior fellow with Stanford's Institute for International Studies (IIS) and lead author of the Jan. 2 Nature study.
"Clearly, if such ecological changes are now being detected when the globe has warmed by an estimated average of only 1 degree F (0.6 C) over the past 100 years, then many more far-reaching effects on species and ecosystems will probably occur by 2100, when temperatures could increase as much as 11 F (6 C)," Root concluded.
Climatic and biological changes
In their Nature paper, Root and her colleagues analyzed 143 scientific studies involving a total of 1,473 species of animals and plants. Each study found a direct correlation between global warming and biological change somewhere in the world. For example, several studies revealed that, as temperatures increased in recent decades, certain species began breeding and migrating earlier than expected. Other studies found that the geographical range of numerous species had shifted poleward or moved to a higher elevation -- indicating that some plants and animals are occupying areas that were previously too cold for survival.Were these biological and behavioral changes isolated events, or did they reflect a worldwide pattern consistent with global warming? After exhaustive statistical analyses of all 143 studies, Root and her co-authors concluded that global warming is, in fact, having a significant impact on animal and plant populations around the world.
"Our study shows that recent temperature change has apparently already had a marked influence on many species," they wrote, noting that a rapid temperature rise in combination with other environmental pressures "could easily disrupt the connectedness among species" and possibly lead to numerous extinctions.
Panel Issues Bleak Report on Climate ChangeMy fear is now that we are noticing what is, the speed of the slide will be far faster than predicted. Consider the person loosing weight. The progression from pleasingly plump to perfect is slow. However, if a person continues to lose weight once they have reached an optimal mass, the transformation is swift. A healthy hunk can become thin as a rail in no time. Glaciers and ice caps are as people. The decent from a firm and full frozen landscape to a terrain mapped by racing rivers and streams is rapid.
By Elisabeth Rosenthal and Andrew C. RevkinPARIS, Feb. 2 — In a bleak and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate change scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is "unequivocal" and that human activity is the main driver, "very likely" causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.
They said the world is already committed to centuries of warming, shifting weather patterns and rising seas, resulting from the buildup of gases in the atmosphere that trap heat. But the warming can be substantially blunted by prompt action, the panel of scientists said in a report released here today.
The report summarized the fourth assessment since 1990 by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, sizing up the causes and consequences of climate change. But it is the first in which the group asserts with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming since 1950.
In its last report, in 2001, the panel, consisting of hundreds of scientists and reviewers, put the confidence level at between 66 and 90 percent. Both reports are online at http://www.ipcc.ch.
If carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reach twice their pre-industrial levels, the report said, the global climate will probably warm by 3.5 to 8 degrees. But there would be more than a 1-in-10 chance of much greater warming, a situation many earth scientists say poses an unacceptable risk.
Many energy and environment experts see such a doubling as a foregone conclusion sometime after mid-century unless there is a prompt and sustained shift away from the 20th-century pattern of unfettered burning of coal and oil, the main sources of carbon dioxide, and an aggressive quest for expanded and improved nonpolluting energy options.
Even an increased level of warming that falls in the middle of the group’s range of projections would likely cause significant stress to ecosystems and alter longstanding climate patterns that shape water supplies and agricultural production, according to many climate experts and biologists.
Therefore, I plead; I beg. Mister Bush you may not have ever struggled with a weight problem. My dieting analogy may be beyond you. Perchance Mister Cheney knows of where I speak. Might the heavier persons in your life assist in your understanding? President Bush, Vice President Cheney before it is too late, please look at what has happened, what occurs today. Remember the devastation of yesterday and yester year. Please begin to acknowledge your role and forego openings such as "humans 'very likely' cause climate change." Accept that we do.
Before it is too late, let us act together as one. I ask you to acknowledge that what we refuse to see will not serve us well. Let us look at our environment as a whole. We are part of the world we inhibit. May we honor it. If we do, I trust it will respect us. We are reaping as we sowed. Let us propagate practices that help the Earth to grow and we with it.
References for Global Climate Change . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 2, 2007 at 02:00 PM in Business, Consumption and Conservation, Corporate Criminals, Corporate Profits, Current Affairs, Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] , Florida, Global Village, Global Warming, Humans, Self-Destructive, Hurricane Wilma, Hurricanes , Inequality in America, Jeb Bush, Katrina, Looking at Life, Loss of Life, Nature, Nature or Nurture, Politics, President Protects America , Propaganda and Politics, Quality of Life, Rich Get Richer, Richard [Dick] Cheney, Vice President , Storms and Suffering Survivors, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
3,000 Soldiers Slain; One Story ©
First Sergeant Charles Monroe King was one of many marred by the Iraqi war. His story is a sad and humanly touching tale. I offer this saga as I speak of the three thousand American soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq. Perchance we are all mired in the misery of this mission. This exposé on Sergeant King written by his partner and published in today's New York Times brought me to tears . It might make you well up with grief as well. I feel certain the families of the three thousand troops that lost loved ones will relate. They have their own anecdotes to tell.
From Father to Son, Last Words to Live By By Dana Canedy January 1, 2007To read more of this narrative please select the links to this article.He drew pictures of himself with angel wings. He left a set of his dog tags on a nightstand in my Manhattan apartment. He bought a tiny blue sweat suit for our baby to wear home from the hospital.
Then he began to write what would become a 200-page journal for our son, in case he did not make it back from the desert in Iraq.
For months before my fiancé, First Sgt. Charles Monroe King, kissed my swollen stomach and said goodbye, he had been preparing for the beginning of the life we had created and for the end of his own.
He boarded a plane in December 2005 with two missions, really — to lead his young soldiers in combat and to prepare our boy for a life without him.
Dear son, Charles wrote on the last page of the journal, “I hope this book is somewhat helpful to you. Please forgive me for the poor handwriting and grammar. I tried to finish this book before I was deployed to Iraq. It has to be something special to you. I’ve been writing it in the states, Kuwait and Iraq.
The journal will have to speak for Charles now. He was killed Oct. 14 when an improvised explosive device detonated near his armored vehicle in Baghdad. Charles, 48, had been assigned to the Army’s First Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment, Fourth Infantry Division, based in Fort Hood, Tex. He was a month from completing his tour of duty.
For our son’s first Christmas, Charles had hoped to take him on a carriage ride through Central Park. Instead, Jordan, now 9 months old, and I snuggled under a blanket in a horse-drawn buggy. The driver seemed puzzled about why I was riding alone with a baby and crying on Christmas Day. I told him.
“No charge,” he said at the end of the ride, an act of kindness in a city that can magnify loneliness.
On paper, Charles revealed himself in a way he rarely did in person. He thought hard about what to say to a son who would have no memory of him. Even if Jordan will never hear the cadence of his father’s voice, he will know the wisdom of his words.
Never be ashamed to cry. No man is too good to get on his knee and humble himself to God. Follow your heart and look for the strength of a woman.
Charles tried to anticipate questions in the years to come. Favorite team? I am a diehard Cleveland Browns fan. Favorite meal? Chicken, fried or baked, candied yams, collard greens and cornbread. Childhood chores? Shoveling snow and cutting grass. First kiss? Eighth grade.
In neat block letters, he wrote about faith and failure, heartache and hope. He offered tips on how to behave on a date and where to hide money on vacation. Rainy days have their pleasures, he noted: Every now and then you get lucky and catch a rainbow.
Charles mailed the book to me in July, after one of his soldiers was killed and he had recovered the body from a tank. The journal was incomplete, but the horror of the young man’s death shook Charles so deeply that he wanted to send it even though he had more to say. He finished it when he came home on a two-week leave in August to meet Jordan, then 5 months old. He was so intoxicated by love for his son that he barely slept, instead keeping vigil over the baby.
I can fill in some of the blanks left for Jordan about his father. When we met in my hometown of Radcliff, Ky., near Fort Knox, I did not consider Charles my type at first. He was bashful, a homebody and got his news from television rather than newspapers (heresy, since I’m a New York Times editor).
But he won me over. One day a couple of years ago, I pulled out a list of the traits I wanted in a husband and realized that Charles had almost all of them. He rose early to begin each day with prayers and a list of goals that he ticked off as he accomplished them. He was meticulous, even insisting on doing my ironing because he deemed my wrinkle-removing skills deficient. His rock-hard warrior’s body made him appear tough, but he had a tender heart.
As we reflect on the life and love of Charles we cannot help but imagine the many lives this war touches.
Tens of thousands more men and women perished in this battle royale. Foreign-born troops and innocent civilians lose their lives daily in the combative countryside of the Middle East. Even those that survive are scarred badly. Physical wounds run deep; emotional pain runs deeper. Those that never traveled to Iraq are affected by this war. Yet, the troops are perhaps more profoundly torn.
They want to support their Commander-In-Chief; they need to justify their actions. If they do not, cognitive dissonance might drive them crazy. Currently, many service men and women have resolved the conflicts in their own minds. Finally, the force of a rising death toll has put things into perspective. Soldiers are no longer justifying an unjustifiable war; nor are they siding with the Bush Administration.
Poll: More troops unhappy with Bush’s course in IraqFor years, the President of the United States was and is perhaps the most hated man worldwide, though I suspect neoconservatives or at least his parents would say George W. Bush is merely misunderstood. However, in years past, the military still supported him. That is no longer the case. Service men and women are more than slightly disillusioned.
Military City. Army Times.
By Robert Hodierne
Senior managing editorThe American military — once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war — has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll..
For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war.
When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.
Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slightly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While approval of the president’s war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.
Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.
Professor David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland, was not surprised by the changing attitude within the military.
“They’re seeing more casualties and fatalities and less progress,” Segal said.
He added, “Part of what we’re seeing is a recognition that the intelligence that led to the war was wrong.”
Whatever war plan the president comes up with later this month, it likely will have the replacement of American troops with Iraqis as its ultimate goal. The military is not optimistic that will happen soon. Only about one in five service members said that large numbers of American troops can be replaced within the next two years. More than one-third think it will take more than five years. And more than half think the U.S. will have to stay in Iraq more than five years to achieve its goals.
Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now. A surprising 13 percent said we should have no troops there. As for Afghanistan force levels, 39 percent think we need more troops there. But while they want more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective.
The mail survey, conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty military subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole; the survey’s respondents are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population.
Among the respondents, 66 percent have deployed at least once to Iraq or Afghanistan. In the overall active-duty force, according to the Department of Defense, that number is 72 percent.
The poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional career military. It is the only independent poll done on an annual basis. The margin of error on this year’s poll is plus or minus 3 percentage points..
Some say, the President lied to the public and to those that serve this nation. Mister Bush claims he did not.
George W. Bush told us [citizens of the USA] Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. He declared Saddam Hussein an enemy of the state. He initially assured us that the tyrant was a threat and sponsored the death and destruction we witnessed on September 11, 2001.
Years later, though evidence calls his assertions into question, the President sticks to his guns. He stays the course. However, many of his cohorts no longer stand beside him.
When considering this conflict, even those that once believed in the battle are beginning to question the viability of this action. Yet, as recently as September 11, 2006 the President was working to convince a public that was no longer confident. Judge for yourself; how well does he state his case?
On September the 11th, we learned that America must confront threats before they reach our shores, whether those threats come from terrorist networks or terrorist states. I'm often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat -- and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take. The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. And now the challenge is to help the Iraqi people build a democracy that fulfills the dreams of the nearly 12 million Iraqis who came out to vote in free elections last December.Humph, the United Nations did not endorse the war effort; nor did all member nations. The Towers did in fact fall. However, Saddam did not participate in that devastation.
The former Iraqi leader was executed days ago, captured years earlier, and the violence in Iraq continues. Individuals throughout this planet hate America, now more than ever, or at least they loathe our leaders. Terrorism against the US is on the rise. All this is true. We witness these facts daily.
Americans do agree with Mister Bush in one respect; on September 11, 2001 close to three thousand of our fellow countrymen and women died. Today Americans are still dying.
As of January 1, 2007, three thousand [3,000] American soldiers have lost their lives. Twenty-two thousand [22,000] more have lost their limbs, their eyesight, their friends, and family members. Too many to mention have lost their sense of sanity. They saw too much.
Every soldier and every civilian affected by this traumatic war had or has a heart and soul as sensitive as that of Charles Monroe King. All of them had a story to tell, a life to share. Iraqi civilians, service men, and women are legendary in the lives of their loved ones. Troops from all participating countries are.
Even in death, people are remembered, except by George W. Bush. For this man, this megalomaniac the troops are numbers on a piece of paper. Some live and some die. If we need more service men or women we will find them. We have reserves and the retired. The President believes we can always recruit. Offer the poor more money and they will sign up. For George W., all but his own babies are possible enlistees. President Bush displays his disconnected state daily.
Within days, George W. Bush is expected to announce another surge. Increased military forces will be sent to Iraq. No matter that the Iraq Study Group thought this unwise. It makes no difference that the Joint Chiefs of Staff do not endorse this strategy. Now, that even the yeomen disagree with the President policy, he still moves "forward."
Mister Bush has proudly proclaimed he does not pay attention to polls. Apparently, this is true. The President cares not for the individual soldiers or for the thoughts of the average American citizen. He only needs to honor the dead or the injured with decorum. That alone is his duty.
The Commander-In-Chief shows little compassion. He is not conservative with his dollars; nor does he hesitate to deliver more troops. Loss matters not to George W. Bush. So hold on to your hats, your loved ones, and your life. You may be next. You too may become a story, as Charles Monroe King is. Your life history may be safely tucked away on the front page of your local newspaper.
Soldiers and Their Story . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 1, 2007 at 06:50 PM in 'Regime Change' , Bush 43 Administration, Dreams Live and Die , Exit Iraq Now, Iraq War, Middle East Resolution, Military Missions, Soldiers, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], Wars Bush Commanded, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
