Mental Solstice

Vietnam, Iraq...Is There a Difference?

This is just a short quandary of mine. We know that over 58,000 American troops were killed or listed as "Missing in Action" in Vietnam. In Iraq we have nearly 3,000 killed and approximately 46,000 casualties. I have to add a side note here, for Iraq, the casualty list includes non-combat casualties and illnesses.

My question is...how are these numbers comparable? How are the Iraq numbers comparable to Vietnam, Korea, or WWII? We can create a false sense of security and interpolate the numbers of mortalities and casualties for the current "war" as not very high. I think this is what the current administration would choose to believe, and have the American populace believe.

However, we can also take into consideration certain geographic conditions ( a dry, flat terrain in the Mideast) and medical advances in the intervening years between wars to explain why many of our injured troops survive. Yes, this war has a high casualty rate, but a low mortality rate. These numbers are a credit to our medical profession, both military and civilian, and their heroism, and has nothing to do with the "deciders" in this war.

Lest we kid ourselves...we're still paying a high price.

Vee For...Whatever?

Do you want a victory in Iraq?

This question has been asked a lot during this election season, as if your vote will determine the outcome of the war. Supposedly, if you vote conservative, then victory is ensured. If you vote liberal, well then...

What would define a victory in Iraq? Will our leaders know if they have won? Will a victory involve ticker-tape parades and sailors kissing strange women in the street? How about some high-fiving and butt-slapping? I'm sorry, but if this is what BushCo envisions, they're seriously delusional.

What if you were against the war before it even started? Because I am, and always have been, against this war, I have a difficult time even defining what a victory would be in my mind. How can you be for an outcome, if you were against the action? What if you have begun to doubt the wisdom of the action in hindsight? If so, what do you perceive to be an acceptable outcome? Is it the same as when you first supported the action?

I do not want a victory in Iraq. In my mind, such a concept isn't even applicable in this situation. My version of an acceptable outcome has our soldiers home safely, and the rest of the mid-east dealing with the Iraqi government the best way they see fit.

But then again, wasn't this pretty much the situation before the U.S. invaded? Someone needs to stop the dog from chasing its tail. It looks foolish to the rest of the world.

What's In A Name?

Did you think "No Child Left Behind" pertained to fairness in education for all schoolchildren? Surely, you're not that gullible? If that was the purpose of the act, wouldn't it have been called "No Children Left Behind?"

The "child" the act refers to is Neilie Bush, as Barb likes to call him. Actually, the law's real purpose is to ensure that Neil isn't left behind the other Bush children in the family empire. His educational software company is making big bucks as a result of the law.

Paging A Pedophile

Yesterday, on our way back from the beach, my husband and I had a long discussion about whether or not former Florida Congressman (Rep.) Mark Foley is a pedophile. Should he be labeled a "Child Sexual Predator" or "Convicted Sexual Offender"? Had he actually had sex with a 16 year-old page, would he have been guilty of "Statutory Rape"? What about sexual offender notification laws?

We definitely agreed that if he emailed or IM'd minor congressional pages with sexually graphic language, he definitely did something inappropriate, and deserved to lose his congressional seat. However, should he also be criminally labeled (an aside, the age of consent in D.C. is sixteen)? Again, the answer was "yes", because he was in a position of power and influence.

However, my husband and I are also realistic, and we think labeling someone as a sexual criminal has, perhaps, gone too far. So we played legislator, and rewrote the child sexual predator and rape laws. We determined that a convicted, and labeled sexual offender should be:

1. Any church worker or volunteer who has sex with one under the age of 18 years old, or has contacts with such with the intent to seduce or entice...

2. Any teacher, school employee, or volunteer who has sex with one under the age of 18 years old, or has contacts with such with the intent to seduce or entice...

3. Any employer or designated supervisor thereof who has sex with an employee under the age of 18 years old, or has contacts with such with the intent to seduce or entice...

4. Any local, state or federal official, including those elected, who has sex with one under the age of 18 years old, or has contacts with such with the intent to seduce or entice...

5. (and other categories we couldn't think of because we were just too hungover).

6. Provided that the age difference between the complainant and the defendant is more than 2, 3 or 5 years (we'd leave this up to the state and child development experts to determine what is appropriate). For example, we're trying to avoid branding, as a sexual predator, a 19 y.o. camp counselor having consensual sex with a 16 y.o. camper.

Additionally:

7. Any person 19 or older, who is criminally convicted of sexual, lewd or lascivious contact with a minor 14 years old, or younger, will be labeled a sexual offender.

8. Any person who is convicted of forcing non-consensual sexual, lewd or lascivious acts on any person, regardless of age, will be labeled a sexual offender.

We are not lawmakers so the language would have to be prettied up. However, the gist of "our" laws is more about persons who are in positions of power over those individuals who are vulnerable because of their age. I hold the position that pedophilliacs are those persons who are attracted to prepubescent children (who are definitely entitled to legal protection). However, I also feel there is a need for legislation to protect post-pubescent children from those persons in a position to exert power over them. A majority of sex crimes involving sexually mature children are opportunistic and are more about power, and not about perverted sexual urges.

Happy September 11th!

What? Oh, I see, I'm being disrespectful, huh? Actually, I'm not. I'm very reverent about this day, and what it means to our country, the victims and their survivors.

However, I'm cognizant that September 11th means something other than death, destruction, or chaos to many people.

My parents got married on September 11, 1959. I was born Dec. 3, 1960. So that's a good thing, right?

On Sept. 11th, 2001, while at my own office here in Alabama, we were dealing with the horrible news of planes crashing into the WTC, we also found out our co-worker had a beautiful baby girl at 7:00 a.m. CDT that morning. Also, a wonderful thing, right? As an aside, the family and medical staff, knowing what was going on, asked that the TV be "on the fritz" in the birth suite for a couple of hours, so that mom, dad and baby could innocently enjoy each other, before realizing what had been wrought upon our wonderful nation.

So, I'm giving a shout-out to all those who have something to celebrate today. Go for it. Don't feel ashamed! You deserve your day too!

Segmentation or Segregation?

Wal-Mart recently announced a new marketing strategy. According to a recent statement it "will retool its 3,256 U.S. stores over two years to give them a more customized mix of goods and layout for six key groups of customers, including Hispanics, African-Americans and affluent shoppers." Each local store, supposedly, will carry more goods of interest to its immediate market.

From what I can interpret from this article there will be affluent Wal-Marts (whatever the hell that means, because I can't envision such), African-American Wal-Marts, Hispanic Wal-Marts, and so on. Wal-Mart spokesman, Eduardo Castro-Wright, said this will only mean specializing about 3,000 of 200,000 items sold in a typical Supercenter.

I think it's great if a retailer recognizes the diversity of its market, and thus, carries goods of interest to all citizens in that particular locality. However, I have long said, in my opinion, racial discrimination is still rampant as far as retail marketing is concerned. All it takes is a trip through several Wal-Marts,(and to be fair other large retail chains, such as K-Mart, etc.), to realize the difference between stores in affluent areas and those in lower socio-economic neighborhoods. One only has to notice the signage, the organization, the cleanliness, etc., to see the vast difference.

So is Wal-Mart's new plan really a way to better serve very distinct markets? Or is it away to justify the slovenliness of its stores on certain sides of town? Or, gee whiz, perhaps, is it a way to keep minorities out of the stores that are marketed to its more affluent shoppers, and keep "them" on "their side of town?"

As a note, I don't like Wal-Mart, and will only go into one kicking and screaming. However, I've been in enough of them to recognize the smell of skunk.

Free Speech v. Censorship?

There has been so much discourse over ABC's "Path to 9/11." This "docudrama" allegedly blames the Clinton administration for 9/11. Go to Democratic Underground's forums, and you'll see that it has been the main topic of conversation for the past several days.

Is it free speech to fictionalize actual history? Particularly when it's a recent and well-documented event? Or is it defamation when the onus, unfairly, is placed on one person or group of persons? What about when Scholastic, Inc. issues talking points to thousands of public school teachers for discussion of said "docudrama" in classrooms (to Scholastic's credit, they are hurriedly amending their package)? What if the network admits to fictionalizing several scenes? I seem to remember a similar uproar over the fictionalized "The Reagans", which was merely about the life of a president and his family, and not about an event that affected an entire nation's psyche.

Me thinks...the Clinton administration, perhaps, dropped the ball on assessing what Osama Bin Laden was capable of. However, would the American populace have accepted an assassination, and the collateral damage of innocent dead, on a man whose major crime, at the time, was simply calling for violence on American citizens? What about the consideration of the fact that he has since perpetuated violence on our soil, and we're still no closer to capturing him? And we would now (since 9/11) be more immune to the collaeral damage, given what we have suffered over here, on our soil?

I DO feel the response to the attack on the USS Cole (Oct. 2000) and any assessment of Al Qaeda intentions, thereafter, falls squarely on the Bush administration. They were fairly warned by Clinton's people that a major attack was imminent, and they ignored such. Perhaps they were too busy covering up nude statues at DOJ, or vacationing in Crawford, Texas.

Will I watch "Path to 9/11?" I don't know. I will acknowledge that I'm pulled towards anything controversial. I always want to be "up on the latest," whether it's for the purpose of informing myself, or educating "them."

Laboring

Definitely not having a baby (more about this later)...just taking yet another break for Labor Day...However, I'm jazzed about writing here after Sept. 5th.

Shaking My Head

I watched the pretznut's press conference this morning, and I wondered where I went wrong in my life. I'm reasonably smart, articulate, ambitious (or once was), inquisitive, fair-minded, compassionate and interested in other people and cultures. So why didn't I aspire to a high public office like George? Oh wait! I forgot, it really has nothing to do with aspirations, mine or George's. It has to do with what your daddy and his cronies can buy for you. However, I still can't, for the life of me, figure out why they bought the White House for this dimwit, and not Jeb (not that it's any condolence, but he's more intelligent).

Wake me when it's over...

Sweating Blood - Lamont v. Lieberman

This senate race took a very bloody turn today when Lieberman's website and email capabilities "went down." In my very varied career choices, I served, for four years, as a webmaster of an intranet for a very large financial institution (that no longer exists, having been bought out by a larger corporation). Although it was an intranet, and could not be accessed by the general public, we were responsible for the loan decision mechanism that would grant (or not) loans quickly to our customers, as well as hosting other important internal information. Big money went into the servers and bandwidth to host such capabilities...and even they failed at (many) times!

The news of Lieberman's site going down, brought on heart palpitations, dry mouth, and memories of times past. From what I can discern, old Joe got what he paid for. He was (allegedly) paying $15 per month to a web host for his $12 million campaign's website. Oh. My. God. This is basement cheap! If this is true, what was the man thinking? Given his support of the Bush admin's running of the Iraqi war, should we be surprised? Is this just simply more evidence of the pervasive incompetence of beltway insiders? And his whining that it was his opponent's fault...that's just bunk. Joe, you shoulda had the thing more secure (if you were indeed hacked into), and I guarantee ya $15 per month isn't going to buy you security. I think Joe's fate was sealed when he was kissed by Judas...er, GWB.