We had a number of letters responding to the statements below of General Mattis, who went on record saying that he loved shooting people. Some of the responses we got were vehemently in defense of the General and this war. I raised the question whether the cheerleaders of this fiasco would be as zealous in the actual killing as they bravely appear to be on paper.
So far, none has answered the question, except one. I hope he doesn't mind my reprinting it here. A more thoughtful, eloquent statement on war, I haven't seen:
"I can't speak for anyone else, but I vacationed in sunny Vietnam and Cambodia for 19 months (1968-69.) Killing was as routine as having breakfast or shaving, especially during and after the TET. We all joked about it and poorly acted out our John Wayne roles; but it made us all crazy as hell for a long time, long after we shipped home. We left Austin as kids and came home very old men.
There is nothing noble or glorious to be found in taking the life of another human being. Anyone who believes otherwise is sociopathic, psychotic, or the village idiot. It is truly a human tragedy and a terrible burden for a Christian to live with. This I can speak to without any reservations."
--signed, "Jammer2." Posted 2/10/05 at 1:12 a.m.
Monday, February 14, 2005
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE FOR ALL
The following appeared in The Nation, November 16, 2004:
"Early this year, a comprehensive study published in the International Journal of Health Services reached this stunning conclusion: 'The United States wastes more on health-care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all its uninsured.' The authors, Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, associate professors at Harvard Medical School and founders of Physicians for a National Health Program, and Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, went on to write: 'Administrative expenses will consume at least $399.4 billion of a total health expenditure of $1,660.5 billion in 2003. Streamlining administrative overhead to Canadian levels would save approximately $286 billion in 2002, $6,940 for each of the 41.2 million Americans who were uninsured as of 2001. This is substantially more than would be needed to provide full insurance coverage."
--"Single-Payer: Good For Business," by Morton Mintz, The Nation.
. . .But if you'd rather take W's word for it, go right ahead. Meanwhile, here's hoping your kids stay healthy this flu season.
"Early this year, a comprehensive study published in the International Journal of Health Services reached this stunning conclusion: 'The United States wastes more on health-care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all its uninsured.' The authors, Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, associate professors at Harvard Medical School and founders of Physicians for a National Health Program, and Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, went on to write: 'Administrative expenses will consume at least $399.4 billion of a total health expenditure of $1,660.5 billion in 2003. Streamlining administrative overhead to Canadian levels would save approximately $286 billion in 2002, $6,940 for each of the 41.2 million Americans who were uninsured as of 2001. This is substantially more than would be needed to provide full insurance coverage."
--"Single-Payer: Good For Business," by Morton Mintz, The Nation.
. . .But if you'd rather take W's word for it, go right ahead. Meanwhile, here's hoping your kids stay healthy this flu season.
UH, COULD YOU RUN THAT BY ME AGAIN, MR. PREZ?
The following is for real. This is not a parody. It is not a joke. This is one-hundred-percent on the level, from your Prez and mine:
"Because the--all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those--changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be--or closer delivered to what
has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the--like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate--the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those--if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."
--The President of the United States, explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005.
"Because the--all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those--changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be--or closer delivered to what
has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the--like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate--the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those--if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."
--The President of the United States, explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Friday, February 04, 2005
AND NOW A FEW WORDS FROM SOME REAL AMERICANS
We here at Tholos get some pretty grueling criticism from a few of our readers on the Right, taking us to task for being so one-sided and UnAmerican. So, in the interest of "fair and balanced" commentary (to paraphrase Fox News), I thought it might be nice to bring in a couple of real red-blooded Americans and let them have their say. So, here it is, unedited, straight from their own mouths:
"I'm getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties. I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning. I just think it would be fun to nuke them."
--Ann Coulter, in a January interview in The New Yorker.
"Naturally, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot people. I'll be right up front with you. I like brawling. You know, you go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil, you know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."
--Lt. Gen. James Mattis, speaking to a forum in San Diego about strategies for the war on terror. His comments were met with laughter and applause from the audience.
. . . .And that's the news from the Right. God bless 'em!
"I'm getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties. I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning. I just think it would be fun to nuke them."
--Ann Coulter, in a January interview in The New Yorker.
"Naturally, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot people. I'll be right up front with you. I like brawling. You know, you go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil, you know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."
--Lt. Gen. James Mattis, speaking to a forum in San Diego about strategies for the war on terror. His comments were met with laughter and applause from the audience.
. . . .And that's the news from the Right. God bless 'em!
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
YOU NEVER SEE THIS ON TV
Washington D.C.--
January 20, 2005 protest of George W. Bush's Inauguration
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)