Setting aside the inconsistent policy that black jeans, white jeans, yellow jeans, green jeans, pink jeans, and khaki jeans can be worn any day, my brain’s Complaints Department was more aggravated by the idea of celebrating Memorial Day. Besides, I had already determined what I would be wearing the following day.
Although I don’t particularly like to wear blue jeans and don’t even own a pair, I like ice-cream: especially chocolate. To take it even further, I like bar-bee-cued, slightly charred hotdogs with mustard and a good potato salad just as much as the next person; however, all of my parents and grandparents are in the ground and I can’t see any reason to celebrate that. Thus, I had decided to wear all black, on Friday, in memory of all my dead family members. “In memory of”: that’s what I thought and still think Memorial Day was and should be all about.
Sure, I’d rather be drinking beer at a picnic in a park than standing silently and solemnly in a cemetery over the spot where my mother’s remains are buried, but I wasn’t originally taught that Memorial Day was a day for fun. Moreover, I don’t think people who have lost loved ones in Iraq will look at Memorial Day as a day for fun. I imagine them feeling loss, sadness, emptiness, grief, and great pain.
For this reason, I bring you this following in observance of Memorial Day:
QUOTE
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
Vincent Bugliosi
May 19, 2008
In early December of 2005, a New York Times-CBS nationwide poll showed that the majority of Americans believed Bush "intentionally misled" the nation to promote a war in Iraq. A December 11, 2005, article in the Los Angeles Times, after citing this national poll, went on to say that because so many Americans believed this, it might be difficult for Bush to get the continuing support of Americans for the war. In other words, the fact that most Americans believed Bush had deliberately misled them into war was of no consequence in and of itself. Its only consequence was that it might hurt his efforts to get support for the war thereafter. So the article was reporting on the effect of the poll findings as if it was reporting on the popularity, or lack thereof, of Bush's position on global warming or immigration. Didn't the author of the article know that Bush taking the nation to war on a lie (if such be the case) is the equivalent of saying he is responsible for well over 100,000 deaths? One would never know this by reading the article.
If Bush, in fact, intentionally misled this nation into war, what is the proper punishment for him? Since many Americans routinely want criminal defendants to be executed for murdering only one person, if we weren't speaking of the president of the United States as the defendant here, to discuss anything less than the death penalty for someone responsible for over 100,000 deaths would on its face seem ludicrous.** But we are dealing with the president of the United States here.
On the other hand, the intensity of rage against Bush in America has been such (it never came remotely this close with Clinton because, at bottom, there was nothing of any real substance to have any serious rage against him for) that if I heard it once I heard it ten times that "someone should put a bullet in his head." That, fortunately, is just loose talk, and even more fortunately not the way we do things in America. In any event, if an American jury were to find Bush guilty of first degree murder, it would be up to them to decide what the appropriate punishment should be, one of their options being the imposition of the death penalty.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugl...e_b_102427.html
Vincent Bugliosi
May 19, 2008
In early December of 2005, a New York Times-CBS nationwide poll showed that the majority of Americans believed Bush "intentionally misled" the nation to promote a war in Iraq. A December 11, 2005, article in the Los Angeles Times, after citing this national poll, went on to say that because so many Americans believed this, it might be difficult for Bush to get the continuing support of Americans for the war. In other words, the fact that most Americans believed Bush had deliberately misled them into war was of no consequence in and of itself. Its only consequence was that it might hurt his efforts to get support for the war thereafter. So the article was reporting on the effect of the poll findings as if it was reporting on the popularity, or lack thereof, of Bush's position on global warming or immigration. Didn't the author of the article know that Bush taking the nation to war on a lie (if such be the case) is the equivalent of saying he is responsible for well over 100,000 deaths? One would never know this by reading the article.
If Bush, in fact, intentionally misled this nation into war, what is the proper punishment for him? Since many Americans routinely want criminal defendants to be executed for murdering only one person, if we weren't speaking of the president of the United States as the defendant here, to discuss anything less than the death penalty for someone responsible for over 100,000 deaths would on its face seem ludicrous.** But we are dealing with the president of the United States here.
On the other hand, the intensity of rage against Bush in America has been such (it never came remotely this close with Clinton because, at bottom, there was nothing of any real substance to have any serious rage against him for) that if I heard it once I heard it ten times that "someone should put a bullet in his head." That, fortunately, is just loose talk, and even more fortunately not the way we do things in America. In any event, if an American jury were to find Bush guilty of first degree murder, it would be up to them to decide what the appropriate punishment should be, one of their options being the imposition of the death penalty.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugl...e_b_102427.html
At this point, I would like to remind everyone of the “moment” at three o’clock Monday, when the nation is to press mute and pause in memory of Americans who lost their lives in Iraq.
QUOTE
A moment (or more) to observe
Laura Capitano
052508
During my Memorial Day research, I learned of the National Moment of Remembrance resolution.
The White House announced the program in December 2000, and it asks that all Americans pause at 3 p.m. local time Monday to observe, in whichever way they choose, those soldiers who have died in our nation's defense.
So set your cell phone alarm, teach your parents to set theirs and let's just all do this thing, because we all have the time and money and resources for this effort. And if you've read all this, plus join the 3 o'clock movement, that's two patriotic meditations for the day.
Feel free to take it further; you have all day.
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stor...282245275.shtml
Laura Capitano
052508
During my Memorial Day research, I learned of the National Moment of Remembrance resolution.
The White House announced the program in December 2000, and it asks that all Americans pause at 3 p.m. local time Monday to observe, in whichever way they choose, those soldiers who have died in our nation's defense.
So set your cell phone alarm, teach your parents to set theirs and let's just all do this thing, because we all have the time and money and resources for this effort. And if you've read all this, plus join the 3 o'clock movement, that's two patriotic meditations for the day.
Feel free to take it further; you have all day.
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stor...282245275.shtml
In closing, I offer a prayer to all and a special “hey mom” to my mother on this Memorial Day 2008.
