July 2013

By Wink

You know the story: From his ‘neighborhood watch’ car George Zimmerman spots a suspicious-looking (black) kid walking down the street, probably up to no good. He calls 911 to report a suspicious person and is told, by the 911 operator, NOT to confront the kid.

Repeat: The 911 operator told him NOT to confront the kid.

Hey, what good is carrying a gun around if you can’t use it on bad guys? Zimmerman gets out of his car, and confronts the ‘suspect.’ (Note: Since no crime had been committed, there were really no ‘suspects’ anywhere, except in Zimmerman’s head.)

For some crazy reason 17-year old Travon Martin is frightened by a total stranger running up on him waving a gun. Presumably, and according to Zimmerman’s version, Martin started to beat up Zimmerman, so George shot Trayvon in self-defense. (Needless to say we don’t get Martin’s version of the events.)

Since Zimmerman was found not guilty we can make this determination about the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law: In Florida it is legal to ‘defend’ yourself if you have a gun, but wrong to defend yourself if the other guy has the gun. Deadly wrong.

The defense successfully argued that the person without a weapon, the one simply walking down the street after a trip to the convenience store, was the aggressor. On Anderson Cooper one juror said “both were responsible, both could have walked away.” Really? The boy with the gun pointed at him could just walk away?

I would love to see that juror just turn and walk away when someone points a gun at her.

Try this on for size: A 17-year old white kid is walking home on a quiet street when a black guy walks up and pulls a gun on him. The white guy fights back but is shot dead by the black man.

How does that trial end?

This is what we call a rhetorical question.

Read more

By Wink

Did you lose a child or a spouse in Iraq? No? Good for you. Four thousand-plus families did. Tens of thousands more are permanently disabled. A recent study showed 22 veterans commit suicide every day.

Please remind me what our ‘reason’ was for going into Iraq. Oh, yeah, ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and to avenge the Bin Laden ‘9-11’ attacks.

Two tiny little details: Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and they were totally unconnected to 9-11.

So why did we go into Iraq? I will give you 36 million reasons why.

This is the amount, $36,000,000, that Dick Cheney was paid by Haliburton when Dick Cheney chose Dick Cheney to be George W. Bush’s vice president.

Right, Bush chose Dick Cheney to choose a veep, and Cheney chose himself.

———————–

Here is the totally made-up conversation I imagine Cheney had with Haliburton when he left…

Haliburton: Dick, Please take this $36 million along with our gratitude, for being such a good employee.

Dick:  Gee, thanks guys. Let me know if there is ever anything I can do for you.

Haliburton:  Well now that you mention it, Dick, why don’t you and ‘W’ see if you can start a war, and then give us a service/supplies contract where we don’t have to compete to be the lowest bidder, and allow us to charge taxpayers any amount we can imagine for those services. That wouldn’t be asking too much would it?

————————-

Don’t misunderstand, Cheney is not just a money-grubbing whore (although he certainly is that), he is also a neocon who thinks American muscle can ‘fix’ the world. And if some company wanted to pay Cheney $36m to fix the world, that is just a nice bonus, literally.

And if starting a random war doesn’t actually fix the world, well, at least he has his $36m to fall back on.

And if starting a random war kills 4000 young Americans, and tens of thousands are disabled, and the torturous after-effects cause 22 post-military service suicides every single day, hey, this blow can be softened in 36,000,000 ways.

Who knows the largesse Haliburton has showered Cheney with since he left office. He is no longer required to report these business dealings.

This article isn’t really about Dick Cheney or the $36 million. It is about us, who we are. The ‘Haliburtons’ get the wars started, and intentionally divide Americans into war supporters (patriots) and non-supporters (those who allegedly “hate the troops”).

Why do we blindly follow when a president, time after time, tries to scare us into another war?

This is not a Democrat versus Republican issue. Kennedy/Johnson got us into Vietnam, ‘W’ got us into Iraq. Obama could get us into something. Presidents keep dragging us in to arbitrary wars. They are sold as some effort to stop communism or tyranny but, almost inevitably, they are simply money making machines for the friends of presidents and congressmen.

We may whine about who is patriotic and who is not, but it is the soldiers who pay the price, and the Haliburtons (and Cheneys) who reap the profits.

There are certainly justified uses of our military. The hunt for Bin Laden was one, but ‘W’ was too stupid to focus on Bin Laden and instead bought into Cheney’s story of the ‘problem’ that was Iraq. The cost? Trillions of American dollars, thousands of American lives and obscene, blood-dripping profits, taken from your tax dollars.

People should be outraged over this, and the outrage should never stop.

 

I mentioned this to a coworker, someone who is not mentally challenged, and he said, “So what?”   Nothing I said would have any effect on him.

We mindlessly follow, time and again.

U-S-A!   U-S-A!

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (3 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
Loading...
Read more