Green goes after Emanuels seat.

Green Party candidate Alan Augutson has dropped out of the presidental race and will go after Rahm Emanuel’s seat in the house.

Here was his press release.

GREEN CANDIDATE DROPS ‘08 PRESIDENTIAL BID

Augustson to Target Emanuel’s House Seat

—–

Dear Greens, Friends and Allies:

As the heading above should make somewhat obvious, as of the time of
this writing I will cease to actively pursue the 2008 Green Party
nomination for President of the United States.

This is not an action I take lightly. The conditions that, I felt,
forced me to run have not changed: Green Presidential candidates exist,
but they are not waging visible, effective, issue-based campaigns. Some
appear to be waiting for the endorsement of a bigger name; others for a
big-name candidate to enter the race. I charge these people to remember:
a big-name candidate may not endorse the whole Green Party platform.
S/he may not be willing to run without the aid of PAC or lobby money.

And, worst of all, s/he may not run to win. I have said from the very
beginning that a candidate who does not have an intention to win, nor a
plan to govern thereafter, is not helping the Green Party. The time for
symbolic campaigns is long past; there is simply too much at stake.
There is no hope in the Green message if we concede that it is a losing
message. The voters, the media, and your fellow Party members will not
respect, contribute to, or vote for a candidate without the intellect,
persuasive power or strength of will to win an election. I charge my
fellow candidates to consider their commitment to change, and redouble
their efforts as befits a Presidential candidate.

I may re-visit the possibility of a Presidential bid at some later time.
For now, I am turning my attention to the pursuit of a different target:
the Fifth Congressional District of Illinois. This, my home district, is
currently represented by Mr. Rahm Emanuel (D), who is scheduled to run
unopposed in 2008. Mr. Emanuel has also, unfortunately, failed to heed
and obey the mandate of the American people in the mid-term elections.
He has supported the reprehensible so-called “USA PATRIOT Act” through
which we are made less free, though not one bit safer, with each passing
day. He has also callously failed to support a timetable for withdrawal
from Iraq, and has not given Universal Healthcare the support it deserves.

This is a more manageable target, and a smarter, more efficient use of
my time and energy. I believe the people of Illinois will stand up for a
real alternative, and from this position I will be able to push the
Green point of view more visibly and effectively than as a
severely-underfunded presidential candidate.

I remain grateful for the friends I have made throughout this process,
and hope that they will stay tuned as the Green Party continues the
quest to heal America. You have all my best wishes.

Respectfully,

Alan Augustson, MPP

Third Live Podcast!

Special thanks goes out to BlogTalkRadio for featuring us on their homepage for this show. This show is from Friday June 29th at 5pm pacific. Topic: Student/Youth Rights.
[MEDIA=8]
Download as MP3

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Cops attack teen skateboarders

Earlier this week some 50 high school students expressed their right to freedom of speech by bravely confronting Bush on the use of torture and demanding an end to it

But, on June 21st in the town of Hot Springs, some teens rights were brutally put to a stop. Arkansas Officer Joey Williams took the law literally into his own hands. He assaulted kids riding on skateboards.

Hot Springs, Arkansas (KTHV) - Hot Springs police are looking into an officer’s actions after an Internet video appeared to show him choking three teens who were skateboarding near the city’s famed Bathhouse Row.

We’re living in a country where innocent kids, who want to go out and just have some fun, are instead are getting beaten and harrassed by the police. I’m not anti police, and no one should be, but when police use excessive force to end a problem, because they are too stupid to fix the situation the right way, there is a problem.

The tape of the beating was posted Monday on YouTube:

There is still no official word on exactly why the teens were assaulted. Think Youth is keeping in touch with the both sides involved, an update will come shortly.

School says no “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS”

For America’s youth, freedom of speech just got a little less free.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Supreme Court ruled against a former high school student Monday in the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner case — a split decision that limits students’ free speech rights. [CNN.com]

It all started back in 2002 in Juneau, Alaska during a Salt Lake City Olympics torch run. Students raised the controversial poster just as a joke. The school administration took it seriously and saw it as promoting drug use.

“I find it absurdly funny,” he [Joseph Frederick] said. “I was not promoting drugs. … I assumed most people would take it as a joke.”

The school’s attorney in the case was the infamous Kenneth Starr who led the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Keep in mind this is a public school, and not a private one. The time it happened the students were outside of the school, but on a field trip. Shouldn’t we be allowed to say what we want as long as it’s not hurting anyone safety? I get why schools don’t allow shirts with guns on it, but c’mon this is going too far.

NOTE: Student rights while in school will be discussed this Friday at 5pm pacific (8pm eastern) on the Think Youth Live Podcast.

Students Confront Bush About Torture

On Monday June 25, 2007, 50 high school seniors graduating in the Presidential Scholars program gave Bush a letter demanding the end of torture citing human rights violations. It’s great to see our generation taking a stand already. The letter’s most important part said:

“We do not want America to represent torture. We urge you to do all in your power to stop violations of the human rights of detainees, to cease illegal renditions, and to apply the Geneva Convention to all detainees, including those designated enemy combatants,” the letter said. [washingtonpost.com]

Read more

Our Second Live Podcast!

Hosted by Dan Solis, Theo van der Deer, and KoKo Chassid from Monday June 25th at 4:00 pm pacific (7:00 pm eastern). Discussion about YouTube Cheater Maddogza (Trevor Dougherty)

[MEDIA=7]

Download as MP3

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Defund the Shadow Government that is Cheney

“Following Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion that his office is not a part of the executive branch of the US government, Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) plans to introduce an amendment to the the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill to cut funding for Cheney’s office.” [therawstory.com]
Read more

Why Not To Close Guantanamo Prisons

Bush is a dangerous man. When he makes a “concession” it turns out to be something worse. Like get rid of Bush, and you deal with Cheney.

Because Gitmo (and here I’m only referring to the prison) is a centralized place, it’s easier for abuses to be sought. If they do wind up moving the prisoners abroad, they’ll be no telling where they will be kept, thus making it hard for human rights agencies to track and document abuses. Instead of moving prisoners, it seems they should work on making Gitmo a prison that obeys human rights laws such as the Geneva convention, because when Bush changes a policy, it’s always for the worst.

Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)

BOSTON - A CNN reporter gave $500 to John Kerry’s campaign the same month he was embedded with the U.S. Army in Iraq. An assistant managing editor at Forbes magazine not only sent $2,000 to Republicans, but also volunteers as a director of an ExxonMobil-funded group that questions global warming. A junior editor at Dow Jones Newswires gave $1,036 to the liberal group MoveOn.org and keeps a blog listing “people I don’t like,” starting with George Bush, Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, the NRA and corporate America (”these are the people who are really in charge”).

Whether you sample your news feed from ABC or CBS (or, yes, even NBC and MSNBC), whether you prefer Fox News Channel or National Public Radio, The Wall Street Journal or The New Yorker, some of the journalists feeding you are also feeding cash to politicians, parties or political action committees.

MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

The donors include CNN’s Guy Raz, now covering the Pentagon for NPR, who gave to Kerry the same month he was embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq; New Yorker war correspondent George Packer; a producer for Bill O’Reilly at Fox; MSNBC TV host Joe Scarborough; political writers at Vanity Fair; the editor of The Wall Street Journal’s weekend section; local TV anchors in Washington, Minneapolis, Memphis and Wichita; the ethics columnist at The New York Times; and even MTV’s former presidential campaign correspondent.

‘If someone had murdered Hitler …’
There’s a longstanding tradition that journalists don’t cheer in the press box. They have opinions, like anyone else, but they are expected to keep those opinions out of their work. Because appearing to be fair is part of being fair, most mainstream news organizations discourage marching for causes, displaying political bumper stickers or giving cash to candidates.

Traditionally, many news organizations have applied the rules to only political reporters and editors. The ethic was summed up by Abe Rosenthal, the former New York Times editor, who is reported to have said, “I don’t care if you sleep with elephants as long as you don’t cover the circus.”

But with polls showing the public losing faith in the ability of journalists to give the news straight up, some major newspapers and TV networks are clamping down. They now prohibit all political activity — aside from voting — no matter whether the journalist covers baseball or proofreads the obituaries. The Times in 2003 banned all donations, with editors scouring the FEC records regularly to watch for in-house donors. In 2005, The Chicago Tribune made its policy absolute. CBS did the same last fall. And The Atlantic Monthly, where a senior editor gave $500 to the Democratic Party in 2004, says it is considering banning all donations. After MSNBC.com contacted Salon.com about donations by a reporter and a former executive editor, this week Salon banned donations for all its staff.

What changed? First came the conservative outcry labeling the mainstream media as carrying a liberal bias. The growth of talk radio and cable slugfests gave voice to that claim. The Iraq war fueled distrust of the press from both sides. Finally, it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors.

As the policy at the Times puts it: “Given the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributors, any political giving by a Times staff member would carry a great risk of feeding a false impression that the paper is taking sides.”

But news organizations don’t agree on where to draw the ethical line.

Giving to candidates is allowed at Fox, Forbes, Time, The New Yorker, Reuters — and at Bloomberg News, whose editor in chief, Matthew Winkler, set the tone by giving to Al Gore in 2000. Bloomberg has nine campaign donors on the list; they’re allowed to donate unless they cover politics directly.

Donations and other political activity are strictly forbidden at The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN and NPR.

Politicking is discouraged, but there is some wiggle room, at Dow Jones, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report. (Compare policies here.)

NBC, MSNBC and MSNBC.com say they don’t discourage or encourage campaign contributions, but they require employees to report any potential conflicts of interest in advance and receive permission of the senior editor. (MSNBC.com is a joint venture of NBC Universal and Microsoft; its employees are required to adhere to NBC News policies regarding political contributions.)

Many of the donating journalists cover topics far from politics: food, fashion, sports. Some touch on politics from time to time: Even a film critic has to review Gore’s documentary on global warming. And some donors wield quiet influence behind the scenes, such as the wire editors at newspapers in Honolulu and Riverside, Calif., who decide which state, national and international news to publish.

The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms — at least among the donors, who are a tiny fraction of the roughly 100,000 staffers in newsrooms across the nation.

The donors said they try to be fair in reporting and editing the news. One of the recurring themes in the responses is that it’s better for journalists to be transparent about their beliefs, and that editors who insist on manufacturing an appearance of impartiality are being deceptive to a public that already knows journalists aren’t without biases.

“Our writers are citizens, and they’re free to do what they want to do,” said New Yorker editor David Remnick, who has 10 political donors at his magazine. “If what they write is fair, and they respond to editing and counter-arguments with an open mind, that to me is the way we work.”

The openness didn’t extend, however, to telling the public about the donations. Apparently none of the journalists disclosed the donations to readers, viewers or listeners. Few told their bosses, either.

Several of the donating journalists said they had no regrets, whatever the ethical concerns.

“Probably there should be a rule against it,” said New Yorker writer Mark Singer, who wrote the magazine’s profile of Howard Dean during the 2004 campaign, then gave $250 to America Coming Together and its get-out-the-vote campaign to defeat President Bush. “But there’s a rule against murder. If someone had murdered Hitler — a journalist interviewing him had murdered him — the world would be a better place. I only feel good, as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime. I certainly don’t regret it.”

Conservative-leaning journalists tended to greater generosity. Ann Stewart Banker, a producer for Bill O’Reilly at Fox News Channel, gave $5,000 to Republicans. Financial columnist Liz Peek at The New York Sun gave $90,000 to the Grand Old Party.

A few journalists let their enthusiasm extend beyond the checkbook. A Fox TV reporter in Omaha, Calvert Collins, posted a photo on Facebook.com with her cozying up to a Democratic candidate for Congress. She urged her friends, “Vote for him Tuesday, Nov. 7!” She also gave him $500. She said she was just trying to build rapport with the candidates. (And what builds rapport more effectively than $500 and a strapless gown?)

‘You call that a campaign contribution?’
Sometimes a donation isn’t a donation, at least in the eye of the donor.

“I don’t make campaign contributions,” said Jean A. Briggs, who gave a total of $2,000 to the Republican Party and Republican candidates, most recently this March. “I’m the assistant managing editor of Forbes magazine.”

When asked about the Republican National Committee donations, she replied, “You call that a campaign contribution? It’s not putting money into anyone’s campaign.”

(For the record: The RNC gave $25 million to the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004.)

A spokeswoman for Forbes said the magazine allows contributions.

Briggs also is listed as a board member of the Property and Environment Research Center, which advocates “market solutions to environmental problems.” PERC has received funding from ExxonMobil and other oil companies, and tries to get the industry’s views into textbooks and the media. The organization’s Web site says, “She exposes fellow New York journalists to PERC ideas and also brings a journalistic perspective to PERC’s board. As a board member, she seeks to help spread the word about PERC’s thorough research and fresh ideas.”

Americans don’t trust the news or newspeople as much as they used to. The crisis of faith is traced by the surveys of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. More than seven in 10 (72 percent) say news organizations tend to favor one side, the highest level of skepticism in the poll’s 20-year history. Despite the popularity of Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann, two-thirds of those polled say they prefer to get news from sources without a particular point of view.

‘My readers know my views’
George Packer is The New Yorker’s man in Iraq.

The war correspondent for the magazine since 2003 and author of the acclaimed 2005 book “The Assassins’ Gate: America in Iraq,” Packer gave $750 to the Democratic National Committee in August 2004 and $250 to Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, an anti-war Democrat who campaigned unsuccessfully for a seat in Congress from Ohio in 2006.

In addition to his reported pieces, Packer also writes commentary for the magazine, such as his June 11 piece ruing Bush’s “shallow, unreflective character.”

“My readers know my views on politics and politicians because I make no secret of them in my comments for The New Yorker and elsewhere,” Packer said. “If giving money to a politician prejudiced my ability to think and write honestly, I wouldn’t do it. Fortunately, it doesn’t.”

His colleague Judith Thurman wrote the New Yorker’s sympathetic profile of Teresa Heinz Kerry, published on Sept. 27, 2004. Ten days later, the Democratic National Committee recorded Thurman’s donation of $1,000. She did not return phone calls.

Their editor, Remnick, said that the magazine’s writers don’t do straight reporting. “Their opinions are out there,” Remnick said. “There’s nothing hidden.” So why not disclose campaign donations to readers? “Should every newspaper reporter divulge who they vote for?”

Besides, there’s the magazine’s famously rigorous editing. The last bulwark against bias’s slipping into The New Yorker is the copy department, whose chief editor, Ann Goldstein, gave $500 in October to MoveOn.org, which campaigns for Democrats and against President Bush. “That’s just me as a private citizen,” she said. As for whether donations are allowed, Goldstein said she hadn’t considered it. “I’ve never thought of myself as working for a news organization.”

Embedded in Iraq, giving to Kerry
Guy Raz does work for a news organization

As the Jerusalem correspondent for CNN, he was embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq in June 2004, when he gave $500 to John Kerry.

He didn’t supply his occupation or employer to the Kerry campaign, so his donation is listed in federal records with only his name and London address. Now he covers the Pentagon for NPR. Both CNN and NPR forbid political activity.

“I covered international news and European Union stories. I did not cover U.S. news or politics,” Raz said in an e-mail to MSNBC.com. When asked how one could define U.S. news so it excludes the U.S. war in Iraq, Raz didn’t reply.

SOURCE: MSNBC

THE OPINION

I think anybody can donate to who they want there shouldnt be restrictions.

-koko

Media Matters vs The Politico.

Media Matters has a new gig against The Politico. The story was about how The Politico made a mistake in the Libby case here is the article that appeared in Media Matters.

In a June 17 Politico article on the “[p]ressure” Republicans and conservatives are putting on President Bush to pardon former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, chief political correspondent Mike Allen quoted an anonymous adviser to a 2008 Republican presidential candidate explaining that it would be “politically good” for Bush to pardon Libby because “[t]he very bedrock of believers in conservativism” are “united around” a pardon. At no point in the article, however, did Allen report the most recent polling data on the issue, which indicate that the vast majority of Americans opposes a pardon for Libby.

On March 6, Libby was convicted on federal charges of perjury and obstructing justice in connection with the investigation into the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000 on June 5.

In his June 17 article, Allen wrote:

Libby pardon politically good?

At first, the presidential contenders shied away from the topic, but former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said during their last debate in New Hampshire that the sentence was “grossly excessive,” and others said a pardon should be considered.

“When Scooter first got indicted, the reaction was that it was unthinkable to consider a pardon — everybody was in the Marc Rich mode,” said an adviser to one of the Republican presidential campaigns, referring to the controversial last-minute pardon for the fugitive billionaire by President Bill Clinton.

“Now, it’s about 75 percent there that it would be politically good. The only people who aren’t going to like it are people who slam you every day, anyway.”

The adviser explained a possible political upside for the president, who is at historic lows in the public opinion polls, this way: “The very bedrock of believers in conservativism — across the spectrum, from the religious to the intellectual to the ones who care about national security to the federalists and libertarians — have been disappointed in some way by this administration. This is something they’re all united around.”

The lobbying is subtle, according to participants. They say that making the case directly to the president or his top aides would be insulting and could backfire. Instead, friends of Bush and Libby have been quietly working cocktail parties and other venues, laying out their logic for a pardon.

When these people do talk to presidential aides, they confine their remarks to what they consider safe ground — how hard the ordeal has been on Libby and his family.

Allen quoted several other Republicans and conservatives supporting a Libby pardon, as well as Dave “Mudcat” Saunders, adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who “said the brouhaha over heiress Paris Hilton would make it easier to get traction for charges that Libby was getting special privileges.” Allen also cited two other articles on the subject of conservatives pushing for a Libby pardon — a June 7 New York Times article by reporter Jim Rutenberg and a June 14 article by Slate.com chief political correspondent John Dickerson — writing that “Libby’s friends cooperated with” these articles in order to “get their messages to the top echelons of the White House.” None of the three reporters, however, mentioned polling data in their articles indicating just how unpopular a Libby pardon would be. According to the most recent polling on the issue — conducted after Libby’s conviction but before his sentencing — two-thirds of Americans oppose a pardon for Libby.

* A March 9-11 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that 69 percent of Americans believe Bush “should not give a presidential pardon to Libby,” compared with 18 percent who believe he should.

* A March 9-12 Time magazine/SRBI poll found that 72 percent of Americans think Bush “should not” pardon Libby, compared with 18 percent who think he should.

* A March 11-14 Gallup poll found that 67 percent of Americans believe Bush “should not issue a presidential pardon for Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby,” compared with 21 percent who believe he should.

Why Food Isn’t A Good Source For Renewable Energy

Congress is currently debating a bill that would transform America’s energy laws. But it seems some of these lawmakers just don’t get it.

First some believe liquid coal is a good replacement for petroleum. Sure it gets us off foreign oil, but it is not renewable. Nor will it do anything to end pollution, as coal is a far worse polluter, even worse than diesel.

Then comes using food as energy. I’m sure corn and soybean farmers are happy, but when when the grocery bills start increasing average Americans will again be dissatisfied. If crops become our main form of energy, food prices will increase significantly, and that would no doubt increase global hunger, again because of increased food prices.

So what should America be researching? Nuclear Fusion. Much safer then traditional nuclear plants, and has the potentiality to produce far more energy. And then we could look at reducing our energy usage, which in turn reduce the amount of foreign energy used. Building a national passenger rail network those of Japan and Europe would do a lot to end pollution and fuel consumption from aircraft. Divesting funds from highways, the government could invest more in light rail, subways, and bus rapid transit lines. But it looks like all this will do is transfer money from the current enemy, Big Oil, to future, unsustainable enemies.

It Was All Under the American Flag.

A True Account of a Vietnam Veteran and His Life.

“To My Grandmother With Love, Joe.”

When 19 year old Joseph Garcia decided to join the U.S. Navy he felt it would perhaps change his life for the better. He felt down and out of luck and in 1968 he said Vietnam “was the talk of the town” in East L.A. “It was all about who’s better, bigger, stronger, and the big one, smarter.” he said after explaining his reasoning for enlisting.
Early Life and Big Decisions

Born on January 27, 1950 in Hanford, California Joseph Garcia was “a good little boy” as described by his mother Alice Serrano. But she also said he was “muy travieso,” a Spanish term used to describe a very mischievous kid. His family moved in 1960 and he grew up in City Terrace, an unincorporated community in Los Angeles County, California.

At the age of 15-16 he joined the local ‘Pomeroy Boys’ gang where he first got involved with drugs and crime. He was a “drop-out of [high] school…” and times were getting worse. The young troublemaker now felt that he needed to escape immediately. His personal life was getting to him. When asked why he made the final decision to enlist he said, “No money, no job, I hated my mom, didn’t have a dad, no clothes, shoes, teeth were rotting […] etc. etc.” Vietnam was a good way out. It was a way to stay out of jail.

It was February of 1968 and all of Joe’s friends were getting drafted to serve in the already unpopular Vietnam War. It was his time to decide to enlist. But this decision did not involve the input of his mother. On August 22, 1968 Alice was surprised to hear from her son that he was going to enlist and fight in Vietnam. This surprise made her cry. She felt that after supporting him as much as she could for so long she knew it was time to let go. She also knew Vietnam was a good way to keep him off the streets and out of jail.

His friend, known as Big John, drove him down to a Los Angeles Naval recruiting center on the same day. The original recruitment plan consisted of him and some of the Pomeroy Boys enlisting with him. But this buddy plan never came through and it turned out to be a one person plan. He stayed at the recruitment center from 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. The fateful day’s events included mostly taking a test. Approximately 2 to 3 weeks later he found out that he was being accepted to serve in a Naval Mobile Construction Battalion. After feeling that he would never be anybody or amount to anything he said, “I was excited about even being accepted.” He went back to the Los Angeles induction center where he had a 6 hour physical and was immediately sent to Naval Station San Diego for training.

“I was excited about even being accepted.”

Naval Station San Diego is the largest naval base on the west coast of the United States. The 2 hour drive from Los Angeles to San Diego was the beginning of Joe’s life changing experience. There he spent 10 weeks in boot camp and survival training. After training he was able to go on leave so he visited his beloved grandmother and grandfather. After the 30 day break it was time for him to go to Vietnam. The date was sometime in June of 1969. His mother Alice and Uncle Felix drove him down to Edwards Air Force Base located on the borders of Kern and Los Angeles Counties. But Joseph Garcia and many others were just barely heading to Vietnam and he himself would not return until about two years later.

The Journey Begins.

Joe was enlisted to the U.S. Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 11, a group also known as the Seabees. The unit was in charge of heavy construction and some manual labor. Seabees are usually involved in construction of roads, bases, and airstrips. In Vietnam Joe’s MCB 11 was third phase in fighting for the Navy, meaning that if the fighting got too tough for the first two phases he would have to fight. Luckily for him the opportunity never arose.

U.S. Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 11 Logo.

The same logo of Joe Garcia’s Seabee battalion. The logo commemorates the 1968 MCB 11.

The 18 hour flight from Edwards AFB to Da Nang, Vietnam in June was an exciting moment in Joseph’s Vietnam experience. He remembers the flight well and he especially remembers the excitement that filled the airplane. He was so excited about just being on an airplane that he said he “didn’t think about the future or the past.”

Map of Da Nang, Vietnam. Joe was stationed here during his entire service. The U.S. had a large military base in Da Nang during the Vietnam War.

The Navy men landed in Da Nang, Vietnam at 9:00 am. This was where Joe was stationed throughout his entire service in Vietnam. As soon as they landed and got off the plane they got mortared by Viet-Cong soldiers. He said as the first time he heard an incoming, “I knew it was death.” Luckily for him, death did not know him. They were immediately ordered to head to an underground bunker that could only fit about 20 people yet about 300 people tried to push and squeeze in. Surprisingly, his first injury was during this first mortar attack escape when he fell on his stomach and another Navy soldier stepped on his hand.

But perhaps Joe’s most vivid and powerful memory was while viewing “America’s ability to destroy something.” He was in awe of America’s military power and when he commented on this he said it “made me proud to be an American.” The enemies of his battalion were the civilians, the Viet-Cong, and the Chinese Red Army. And because he was part of a team he never really felt scared.

He was also impressed with the United States’ military techniques. But he also felt that when seeing America in action “your whole life depended on communication.” And once that communication was broken your ability to plan and attack was gone.

Another vivid memory of Joe’s experience in the Vietnam War was the harsh racism of the Vietnamese towards him and other non-white Americans that served in Vietnam. Of the 2.59 million men and women that served in the Vietnam War 170,000 of them were Hispanics like Joseph Garcia. Vietnamese perception of Americans was a white male that was out to harm or kill them. Joseph remembers the Vietnamese trying to run them over and spit at them. He said “To them an American was somebody white.” The Vietnamese had no idea of American diversity.

“To them an American was somebody white.” 

It Finally Came to an End.

No matter what you believe about the Vietnam War, be it negative or positive, is not important. The only important factor was these Navy soldiers and other American soldiers’ bravery throughout the war defeating who they were told to defeat without question.

Of the 1,100,000 people that died in the Vietnam War 58,148 of them were serving Americans. Joe himself killed only about 7 “underground” civilian soldiers during the whole war that he and his battalion felt threatened by. But deaths still affected him greatly; especially the deaths of American soldiers. He remembers one time while in Vietnam he saw a hangar full of dead American soldiers. His comment to the horrible sight was “There’s something about that courage.”

But in the end the Vietnam War proved to be mostly unsuccessful. It was not completely successful because the war ended with a treaty and disengagement of the U.S. in 1973. Joe was able to leave on August 24, 1970 “on a hot summer day.” He was released from Washington State Seattle Naval Hospital and later flew home. Besides the outcome of the war there’s no denying the sacrifice of the American soldiers that courageously served and died. Joseph Garcia was lucky to get out alive and move on with his life. He got married, had children, and even became a grandfather. Even though the thought that he survived the war never crossed his mind until many years later he now thanks God for letting him live through Vietnam. But as he said about the soldiers that did not make it was, “It was all under the American flag.”

The experiences Joe took from his service in Vietnam still affect him greatly even today. He turned to drugs and alcohol, and was diagnosed as manic depressive. Today he is now clean and sober from drugs and alcohol. He has been an AA member for “2 years plus.” He lives in Long Beach, California where he works at the Long Beach Veterans Affairs Hospital as a Housekeeper/Decontamination Unit member where he helps sick and disabled fellow war veterans. He also enjoys playing the guitar, harmonica, and singing at family parties.

Joseph Garcia has had a tough life. He has made some bad decisions and some good ones too. But now he lives day by day thanking God. He now has developed a deep relationship with his mother Alice and family. His story is one of sadness and in the end acceptance for his life decisions which includes moving on with his life after war like so many other veterans have before and after him.

Joseph Garcia today at the age of 56 about 38 years after his Vietnam experience. His experience changed his life and made him the man he is today. He is a brave and strong guy.

Joseph Garcia (56) and his mother Alice Serrano (77) today. They have since developed a strong relationship since his experience in Vietnam. Even though memories of the past are never forgotten they never will be missed.

The Gay Bomb is gonna kill us! Wait, it’s not?

That’s right! The US military was planning to develop a “gay bomb.”
What the hell is that? Apparently, the bomb affects the hormones so that the enemy soldier will turn homosexual and be more interested in sex than fighting.

What… the … hell… is…. that…? Are we so desperate to win this war that we have to build a “gay bomb?” The gay bomb shouldn’t work anyway. I mean… most of the enemy soldiers are fighting for God, not because they want to get laid.

The proposal was made by the Air Force in 1994 and asked for $7.5 million to build it. It was considered “distasteful but nonlethal.” They hoped that chemical used in the gay bomb would turn the soldiers homosexual. And… how is this going to fight the war? Read more

Freedom of Housing

The Berkeley city council has banned the following list of activities, smoking near buildings in commercial areas, lying on the sidewalk, public urination and defecation, drinking in public, possessing a shopping cart and shouting in public. This is all in an effort to get rid of the estimated 800 homeless in Berkley, California.

So now owning a shopping cart is illegal? I guess all those kids with toy shopping carts need to take them to the dumpster. And also if your child has wandered off in the public park, and you’re shouting his name, that too would be illegal. And then no more protests that involve protesters laying on the ground.

And this all ties back to the fact that conservatives decry people who say “we should live more compact life styles, by occupying condos or apartments.” I hear these people decrying new urbanism, and a general move to more density as limiting housing choices. Someone should be able to live on a 1 acre lot if they want to, and another person should be able to live on the street if they want too. Let’s not limit housing choices.

Next Page »