Sent from my iPhone
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Youtube is the Enemy of Compromise
Isn't it funny. Congress finds itself in an interesting position - one that it has, I don't believe, ever found itself in considering of recent history - that of having its constituents actively taking place in the debate on health care. And amazingly enough, horror of all horrors - expecting their elected representatives to take a position and tell the people where they stand.
The phrase that is the title of this entry was uttered by Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in California. This after numerous politiicians have made absolute statements regarding what the healthcare bill must or must not contain in order to get their vote. However, Rep. Gerald Connoly D-VA believes that instead of taking hard stands the representatives must be prepared to "give and take" in an effort to craft a compromise bill.
Thus leading to Mr. Pitney's observation that Youtube will make it much more difficult to get a compromise bill. It seems that the fact that your representatives make a promise and are shown in perpetuity making that statement prevents them from backing away from their position in the name of politics as normal. Better known as you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.
Well its about time. For once our representatives MUST know that we expect them to vote according to our wishes and not politics. To take a stand and HOLD that position in the face of politics as normal.
The question will be whether Youtube is enough to make them actually pay attention to us - the people who elect them.
The phrase that is the title of this entry was uttered by Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in California. This after numerous politiicians have made absolute statements regarding what the healthcare bill must or must not contain in order to get their vote. However, Rep. Gerald Connoly D-VA believes that instead of taking hard stands the representatives must be prepared to "give and take" in an effort to craft a compromise bill.
Thus leading to Mr. Pitney's observation that Youtube will make it much more difficult to get a compromise bill. It seems that the fact that your representatives make a promise and are shown in perpetuity making that statement prevents them from backing away from their position in the name of politics as normal. Better known as you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.
Well its about time. For once our representatives MUST know that we expect them to vote according to our wishes and not politics. To take a stand and HOLD that position in the face of politics as normal.
The question will be whether Youtube is enough to make them actually pay attention to us - the people who elect them.
When is "justice" "injustice"
I read a tweet today leading to an article from the AP. For those who never heard of the story - several individuals of the Army's 101st Division were accused of rape and murder of a family in Iraq. A heinous crime all the more so since our soldiers were there to protect the citizens of Iraq from the same type of action by their own government.
But that is not the focus of the story. One of the accused was discharged from the Army due a personality disorder prior to being charged with the crime. During his trial in civilian court (since he was no longer in the Army) the testimony from this defendant was that he did what he was ordered to do. Again not he context of this dissertation.
What I find appalling - and somewhat incomprehensible seeing that the crime was perpetrated while he was on active duty - is that the civilian court sentenced him to FIVE consecutive life sentences. This means, according to the AP report, that this young man will NEVER see freedom again. Well and GOOD! However, read the balance of the report. Those other members of the Army unit that participated. Tried and convicted by a Military trial process under the Uniform Code of Military Justice - which generally acknowledges that murder and rape are just as heinous as civilian law. However, these individuals were sentences that are, at face value, just as strict - up to 110 years. However, these individuals will be eligible for parole and will at some time be free again.
So to put this in perspective. At least four members of a military unit went to a residence in Iraq. Murdered three people (since our laws consider all participants in a felony to be equally guilty) and raped and murdered a teenager. The only difference being where they were tried and the severity and intensity of the sentancing. Who as stated when is justice "injustice." I answer when it is unequal.
But that is not the focus of the story. One of the accused was discharged from the Army due a personality disorder prior to being charged with the crime. During his trial in civilian court (since he was no longer in the Army) the testimony from this defendant was that he did what he was ordered to do. Again not he context of this dissertation.
What I find appalling - and somewhat incomprehensible seeing that the crime was perpetrated while he was on active duty - is that the civilian court sentenced him to FIVE consecutive life sentences. This means, according to the AP report, that this young man will NEVER see freedom again. Well and GOOD! However, read the balance of the report. Those other members of the Army unit that participated. Tried and convicted by a Military trial process under the Uniform Code of Military Justice - which generally acknowledges that murder and rape are just as heinous as civilian law. However, these individuals were sentences that are, at face value, just as strict - up to 110 years. However, these individuals will be eligible for parole and will at some time be free again.
So to put this in perspective. At least four members of a military unit went to a residence in Iraq. Murdered three people (since our laws consider all participants in a felony to be equally guilty) and raped and murdered a teenager. The only difference being where they were tried and the severity and intensity of the sentancing. Who as stated when is justice "injustice." I answer when it is unequal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)