Contact Me

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Camera or weapon? Who can tell the difference?

Cameras and guns alike are dangerous to Israel. The difference is they have to act like they believe free press and cameras are ok with them; they don't with weapons on suspected terrorists.

A journalist was killed by Israel recently. This is much more newsworthy than the thousands that die (including kids) who aren't famous or journalists, unfortunately. Israel appears concerned...

Government spokesman Mark Regev said Israel understood the role of an independent, free press in a free society.

"These are situations that are faced internationally and we have got to find a better way to try to make sure journalists are not caught up in crossfire," he told the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7560672.stm



Oh, wait. Not so fast...
The Israeli military will not take action against a tank crew that killed a Reuters television cameraman and eight other Palestinian civilians in Gaza and has defended the decision to shoot as "sound". http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/14/israelandthepalestinians.reuters?gusrc=rss&feed=media
So it wasn't concern so much as lip service.


Israel has a lot of these "mix ups". Perhaps they aren't as accidental as they want us to think...

Saturday, August 16, 2008

boycotts

Ok. Bush and others discouraged an Olympic boycott of China because its not fair to the athletes to bring politics into the sports competitions. Great. Human rights, sweat shops, Tibet, and a bunch of other stuff. We'll ignore it.

An Iranian wants to sign with the NBA now. Guess what? It's ok to punish athletes in this case.

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/basketball/news?slug=aw-nbairan081608&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

A flow chart of Bush policy would be a total web of confusion and contradiction, except if you map presidential power. That one's very simple, ballooning from 2000-2008.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Irony and double standards

"Russia has invaded a sovereign neighbouring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people," George W Bush said in Washington.

"Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st Century."

Hmmm…In which century did we invade Iraq? True, the people didn’t exactly elect Saddam Hussein, but it was a sovereign nation and relatively stable, unlike now. It is interesting to hear that come out of his mouth. I think I’m not surprised anymore by such irony. He once said bring ‘em on in talking about terrorists – that one surprised me. Why even joke about that as leader of the free world in a public setting??

*** *** ***

John Edwards has admitted to adultery. That’s disappointing, as I have favored him for Presidential and VP runs. This will no doubt ruin political aspirations. Not that that's all that matters. Adultery is serious and I don't condone it at all. My issue is that the private lives ruined or at least tainted the careers of Edwards and Clinton, but Bush will apparently bear no responsibility (he certainly won't admit he's wrong, let alone guilty) for questionable, not-so-transparent, and possibly illegal things he's done as President.

This seems a bit funny as you put Edwards’ and Bill Clinton’s marital issues in contrast to what Bush has done politically on the world stage. He invaded Iraq for essentially no reason. At best, we acted too hastily, without the whole story (no WMD, no 9/11 link, “spreading democracy is a legit reason to bomb, etc); at worst, he or the administration flat out lied.
Ron Suskind has a new book out that may expose that we knew Iraq had no WMD and fabricated a letter coming to the opposite conclusion--impeachable offenses. We’re holding people indefinitely in Guantanamo and even if they do get a trial, and aren’t guilty, we can still hold them indefinitely as long as this nonspecific, broad and general so-called war on terror goes on. We’ve sanctioned harsh interrogation methods (torture) and kidnapped people and tortured them in 3rd party countries. We even made up a new name for POWs, so we wouldn’t have to deal with the Geneva Conventions under this administration. Going to war so hastily or under a lie is absolutely reprehensible, yet Bush will encounter no consequences, unlike Edwards and Clinton for their private affairs (pun intended?). War has effects that range from monetary cost to the extensive human cost- the dead, the injured, the psychologically injured, soldier suicide, and the families and friends that have to bear this cost. And the military doesn't really take care of it's own. PTSD doesn't really exist to them. I have heard that some who admit to this to a military doctor are told that the cure is to go back over and kill more Iraqis. Nice. The military can break people down and turn them into killing machines, but does nothing to help bring them back to civilian life as a functional, happy human being bearing some resemblance to who they used to be.

Bush will remain blissfully ignorant of the effects of war (personally) and untouched by any number of consequences that should go along with such offenses as he has committed. War should be a last resort and it is becoming clearer that Bush doesn't have the same opinion- unless of course the country in fact DOES actually have nukes, like N. Korea- then, proceed with caution.

There is a good quote that you can win a war no more than you can win an earthquake.