Thursday, May 05, 2005


See who can decipher that acronym.

Isn't it always freaky when you venture a little into a new field and you have to learn all the acronyms for that. I can't remember what I was doing but the letters were all gibberish compared to what I already now.

Saw that PFC England's sentencing was declared a mistrial by COL Pohl, the military judge on the case. Her buddy, PVT Graner (who is apparently the father of her child and later married someone else), testified that he thought the pictures were for training and were depicting an "authorized use" of "prisoner handling" techniques. Bunk. IIRC he was a corrections officer IRL so I would have thought he would have known that leading naked prisoners around on a leash isn't proper "prisoner handling". He was just upset she pled guilty and seemed to be out to screw her over. I heard yesterday that the testimony was supposed to influence the jury during her sentencing hearing but if it ventured too far into defending her actions rather than mitigating them, it would be considered a defense and if you're guilty you don't need a defense so if you have one then you must not be guilty. Kind of left handed logic but what about the legal system isn't?

So her plea deal is thrown out and the case goes back to the post commander for action. He can start it over again. But if it goes bad for her then she may get the full sentence, 11 years IIRC. I saw a site yesterday that listed the outcomes of all the actions except one taken against the accused. Ganer and hers would be the longest sentences. And still, no senior officer has been charged (and probably won't). I would think a command environment that allowed this to happen is at least "conduct unbecoming an officer" (Article 34 under the Uniform Code of Military Justice). And they should bring charges "for the good of the service." But they won't. Not during this administration. It might be interesting in a few years to watch for a tell-all book and see what this has done to the careers of those in command during this fiasco.

I know that on the one hand it made me ashamed to have served in the Army but on the other, glad I was an Engineer rather than Military Police. We can look at this as the example of what Engineers do.

And it seems Kansas has regressed back into the 19th century. Their education department has decided that Evolution is only a theory and in the interest of fairness, other theories about the origin of life must be presented to student. Phrased that way it certainly sounds reasonable. And the creationist are now calling themselves proponents of "intelligent design."

Hearings on the issue have been cut from 6 days to 4 and they're only hearing from proponents of this new theory and not the evolutionist. That's gonna be fair and present all the evidence, now isn't it?

Apparently there are debates raging in at least 9 other states across the country, not all of them southern (okay that might have been an unnecessary poke, after all, Kansas isn't a southern state). Missouri is considering a bill which will require textbooks to include at least one chapter taking a "critical look" at evolution.

High school cheerleaders in Texas are apparently shaking their booty too much. They have a new law coming up banning "overtly sexually suggestive" routines. Seems it was introduced by their Democrats who were disgusted at their "shaking their behinds". So Dems can be uptight prudes too! (it's not that simple but I couldn't resist taking the poke)

No mention of what the definition of "sexually suggestive" will be.


Anonymous ryan said...

TANSTAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. ;)


Post a Comment

<< Home