R.I.P. American actor Robin Williams dead at 63 in apparent suicide. Oscar Award-winning Americanactor Robin Williams has been found dead at his California home in what the Marin County Sheriff’s Department says was a suicide. He was 63.
Peaceful Buddhist Terrorist Navy Yard Shooter Aaron Alexis What We Don’t Know?
Peaceful Buddhist Navy Yard Shooter Aaron Alexis What We Don’t Know?
Just Thirteen are dead at the Washington Navy Yard after a gunman opened fire Monday morning. But who was Aaron Alexis? From his Buddhism to his Navy career, Nina Strochlic on what we know so far.
It’s now being called one of the top 12 deadliest shooting sprees in America. But before Aaron Alexis opened fire at Washington Navy Yard on Monday morning, killing 12 before being shot to death by law enforcement, he was a peaceful Buddhist, friends say. Clues to his motives are sparse, but Nina Strochlic runs down six things we know about him so far.
This handout photo provided by the FBI shows Aaron Alexis. Alexis launched an attacked Monday morning inside a building at the Washington Navy Yard, spraying gunfire on office workers in the cafeteria and in hallways, authorities said. At least 13 people were killed, including Alexis. (AP; Getty)
(1) He was a New York City native living in Washington, D.C.
Alexis spent four years in the Navy, mostly based at the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve in Ft. Worth, Texas, before being discharged in January 2011. During that time, he rose to a petty officer third class as an aviation electrician’s mate and received the National Defense Service Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, which apparently are commonly awarded to military personnel. The reasons behind his discharge are unclear, but a former landlord says Alexis told him he quit because “somebody doesn’t like me.” A Navy official told ABC Alexis’s departure was due to a number of misconduct problems.
(3) He had an arrest record.
A year prior to leaving the Navy, Alexis was arrested for allegedly discharging a firearm within the city limits of Ft. Worth, which is considered a Class A misdemeanor. According to the police report, a neighbor called 911 after a shot was fired into her apartment. “June told me that she is terrified of Aaron and feels that this was done intentionally,” the responding officer wrote. Alexis said he was cleaning the gun when it accidentally discharged into the ceiling, and he was taken into custody for questioning. It appears charges were never filed, but his landlords began an eviction process against him shortly after.
In 2004 Alexis was arrested in Seattle for allegedly shooting out a man’s car tires in what police say he called “an anger-fueled ‘blackout’” and claimed not to remember. A detective wrote in the police report that in speaking with Alexis’s father, he learned that Alexis “was an active participant in rescue attempts of September 11th, 2001.” The father also said his son had anger-management problems that were thought to stem from PTSD.
Before authorities identified Alexis as the shooter, media outlets like NBC and CBS made crucial mistakes reporting on the breaking story.
(4) He had a history of mental health issues.
The Veterans Administration had been treating Alexis for mental problems since August. He reportedly suffered from paranoia along with a sleep disorder, and had been hearing voices in his head. The host of ailments didn’t affect his security clearance, which would have been recalled if the Navy declared him mentally unfit.
(5) He was working for a Hewlett-Packard private contractor.
According to Alexis’s father, Algernon, his son was studying and working in a computer job for a private firm in Washington, D.C. On Monday evening Hewlett-Packard said he was employed by a subcontractor called the Experts, which “refreshes equipment used on the Navy Marine Corps Intranet networks.” Though it originally appeared that Alexis wouldn’t have had access to the headquarters of the Naval Sea Systems Command, the secure building where the shooting occurred, the company confirmed that Alexis had security clearance, which had been updated in July. “Discharge from the military does not automatically disqualify a person from getting a job as a military contractor or a security clearance. It depends on what the circumstances are,” said CEO Thomas Hoshko.
(6) He was a hard-drinking Buddhist.
According to Alexis’s landlord, friends, and a former roommate, Alexis was a practicing Buddhist who frequented a temple in Ft. Worth to meditate and help out. He had begun learning Thai and recently returned from a trip to Thailand. The owner of a restaurant where he once worked expressed disbelief, calling Alexis “a 13-year-old stuck in a 34-year-old body” and telling a reporter that Alexis was a heavy drinker who played videogames and always carried a gun. (He also had a concealed-weapons permit.) His friends also appeared incredulous that Alexis could be involved in the violence. One told reporters Alexis “could not be the shooter.” An aunt who says the family hasn’t seen him for a few years said she’d “be shocked if it was him.”
(7) He was a student.
Alexis was earning his bachelor’s degree in aeronautics online at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. The school has a branch that caters to military personnel and others seeking “flexible learning” opportunities. He is believed to have taken classes solely online, but the details of his enrollment haven’t been released.
Peaceful Buddhist Navy Yard Shooter Aaron Alexis What We Don’t Know?
Just Thirteen are dead at the Washington Navy Yard after a gunman opened fire Monday morning. But who was Aaron Alexis? From his Buddhism to his Navy career, Nina Strochlic on what we know so far.
It’s now being called one of the top 12 deadliest shooting sprees in America. But before Aaron Alexis opened fire at Washington Navy Yard on Monday morning, killing 12 before being shot to death by law enforcement, he was a peaceful Buddhist, friends say. Clues to his motives are sparse, but Nina Strochlic runs down six things we know about him so far.
This handout photo provided by the FBI shows Aaron Alexis. Alexis launched an attacked Monday morning inside a building at the Washington Navy Yard, spraying gunfire on office workers in the cafeteria and in hallways, authorities said. At…
9 times US and partners used chemical weapons and WMDs —and got away with it
“International law” only applied to enemies of imperialism
There has been no evidence presented that the Syrian government is responsible for the chemical attack that took the lives of hundreds of civilians. But the U.S. government and Britain claim that their allegations alone give them the moral authority to launch military action, in direct violation of international law. What they leave out is the long history of the U.S. government and its partners using chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction—and getting away with it. Here are nine examples:
#1: World War I, 1914-1918
Modern chemical weapons were first used on a mass scale during World War I, when the imperialist powers of the world sent their soldiers to kill and die in clouds of mustard gas and phosgene to re-divide the world amongst themselves. Germany was the first to use this deadly new weapon, but all sides of the inter-imperialist war joined in. Gas attacks killed 90,000 soldiers and civilians, while being linked to another 1.2 million casualties. Over 10 percent of all chemists in the United States were involved in the production of chemical weapons during the war, and the government ordered 3,000 tons of its own homegrown type of gas.
#2: Britain in Mesopotamia in 1920
Facing a heroic uprising staged by the people of Iraq, British colonial authorities authorized the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations, arguing in their “Manual of Military Law” that “the rules of International Law… do not apply in wars with uncivilized States and tribes”. Winston Churchill, then the civilian head of the British air force, stated that he was “strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes,” which he argued, “would spread a lively terror.”
#3: The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945
In one of the most infamous crimes against humanity, the U.S. government dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 even though top military and political leaders knew that the war was effectively over. Approximately 180,000 people were killed immediately by the bombings, and hundreds of thousands died later of radiation poisoning in the first and only use of nuclear weapons in human history.
#4: Agent Orange in Vietnam, 1961-1971
Over the course of the Vietnam War the U.S. military dropped over 20 million gallons of a deadly chemical weapon called Agent Orange. This campaign killed or maimed 400,000 Vietnamese and led to 500,000 babies being born with debilitating birth defects, in addition to devastating the economic life of the Vietnamese countryside by destroying all plant life that the chemical contacted.
#5: Iran-Iraq War
During the 1980-1988 war between Iraq and Iran, the United States supported the Iraqi government led by Saddam Hussein against the post-Shah Iranian government. Secret documents that have recently been declassified show that the CIA was fully aware of Iraq’s brutal and illegal use of chemical weapons but still continued to provide intelligence and other forms of political and military support. Pictured is Hussein with Donald Rumsfeld, who personally managed the chemical weapons sales.
#6: Depleted uranium in Gulf War
In the 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq, the U.S. military used depleted uranium—a chemically toxic and radioactive waste product of nuclear energy—in armor-piercing munitions. The use of DU has been linked to higher radioactivity, cancer rates, and congenital malformations among Iraqi civilians and U.S. soldiers. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) estimated that the U.S. fired 1,000 to 2,000 metric tons of depleted uranium in 2003.
#7: White phosphorus in Fallujah, 2005
During the murderous assault on Fallujah in 2004, the U.S. military used white phosphorous chemical weapons as part of its campaign to level the Iraqi city, ultimately forcing 300,000 people to flee their homes. Although the Pentagon still officially denies that it used this brutal weapon, they are contradicted by countless eyewitnesses. One Marine who fought in the battle remembered, “I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah… Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone… I saw the burned bodies of women and children.”
#8: Israeli use of white phosphorous against people of Gaza, 2008-09
In its 2008-2009 massacre of hundreds of civilians in Gaza, Israel extensively used U.S.-made white phosphorous shells to terrorize densely populated areas – a form of collective punishment for daring to defy colonial aggression. Sabah Abu Halima, a Palestinian victim of an Israeli white phosphorous attack, recalled, “The fire was like lava, my family was burnt and their bodies turned to crisps.” Israel also has repeatedly used thousands of cluster bombs, which wreak enormous civilian damage.
#9 Military testing of radioactive chemicals in St. Louis communities, 1953-1954 and 1963-1965
The United States Military conducted top-secret experiments on the citizens of St. Louis, Missouri, for years, exposing them to radioactive compounds without their knowledge or consent. Approximately 10,000 residents of the Pruitt-Igoe public housing complex, primarily poor and Black, were exposed to the most chemicals. The Army told them they were testing harmless smoke screens, but in fact they were testing the chemical for potential use against the Soviet Union.
No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body.
No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother.
Think! Did your Mother Consciously Choose to be or not to be your Mother?
,,,
A Parents’ Problem or Woman’s?
By Margaret Sanger
Many people who believe in Birth Control as the means of voluntary motherhood say that the propaganda of the movement is directed too much to women and too little to men. They contend that the appeal should be to men quite as much as to women and that a strong effort should be made to arouse the masculine half of humanity to its responsibilities in relation to the evils growing out of the enslavement of the reproductive function.
It is true that the propaganda of the Birth Control movement in America has been addressed almost entirely to women. It has been couched in the terms of woman’s experience. Its prime importance to her has been continuously and consistently stressed. The reason for this course is at once fundamental and practical.
The basic freedom of the world is woman’s freedom. A free race cannot be born of slave mothers. A woman enchained cannot choose but give a measure of bondage to her sons and daughters. No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother.
It does not greatly alter the case that some women call themselves free because they earn their own livings, while others profess freedom because they defy the conventions of sex relationship. She who earns her own living gains a sort of freedom that is not to be undervalued but in quality and in quantity it is of little account beside the untrammeled choice of mating or not mating, of being a mother or not being a mother. She gains food and clothing and shelter, at least, without submitting to the charity of her companion, but the earning of her own living does not give her the development of her inner sex urge, far deeper and more powerful in its outworkings than any of these mere externals. In order to have that development, she must still meet and solve the problem of motherhood.
With the so-called “free” woman, who chooses a mate in defiance of convention, freedom is largely a question of character and audacity. If she does attain to an unrestrained choice of a mate, she is still in a position to be enslaved through her reproductive powers. Indeed, the pressure of law and custom upon the woman not legally married is likely to make her more of a slave than the woman fortunate enough to marry the man of her choice.
Look at it from any standpoint you will, suggest any solution you will, conventional or unconventional, sanctioned by law or in defiance of law, woman is in the same position, fundamentally, until she is able to determine for herself whether she will be a mother and to fix the number of her offspring. This unavoidable situation is alone enough to make Birth Control, first of all a woman’s problem. On the very face of the matter, voluntary motherhood is chiefly the concern of the mother.
It is persistently urged, however, that since sex expression is the act of two, the responsibility of controlling the results should not be shifted to woman. Is it fair, we are asked, to give her the task of protecting herself when she is, perhaps, less rugged in physique than her mate, and has, at all events, the normal, periodic inconvenience of her sex?
We must examine this phase of the problem in two lights – that of the ideal and of the conditions working toward the ideal. In an ideal society, no doubt, Birth Control would become the concern of the man as well as the woman. The hard, inescapable fact which we encounter today is that man has not only refused any such responsibility but has individually and collectively sought to prevent woman from obtaining knowledge by which she could assume this responsibility for herself. She is still in the position of a dependent today because her mate has refused to consider her as an individual apart from his needs. She is still bound because she has in the past left the solution of the problem to him. Having left it to him, she finds that instead of rights, she has only such privileges as she has gained by petitioning, coaxing, and cozening. Having left it to him, she is exploited, driven and enslaved to his desires.
While it is true that he suffers many evils as the consequence of this situation, she suffers vastly more. While it is true that he should be awakened to the cause of these evils, we know that they come home to her with crush-force every day. It is she who has the long burden of carrying, bearing and rearing the unwanted children. It is she who must watch bedside the beds of pain where lie the babies who suffer because they have come into overcrowded homes. It is her heart that the sight of the deformed, the subnormal, the undernourished, the overworked child smites first and oftenest and hardest. It is her love life that dies first in the fear of undesired pregnancy; it is her self-expression that perishes first and most hopelessly because of it.
Conditions, rather than theories, facts, rather than dreams, govern the problem. They place it squarely upon the shoulders of woman. She has learned that whatever the moral responsibility of the man in this direction may be, he does not discharge it. She has learned that, loveable and considerate as the individual husband may be, she has nothing to expect from men in the mass, when they make laws and decree customs. She knows that regardless of what ought to be, the brutal, unavoidable fact is that she will never receive her freedom until she takes it for herself.
Having learned this much, she has yet something more to learn. Women are too much inclined to follow in footsteps of men, to try to think as men think, to try to solve the general problems of life as men solve them. If after attaining their freedom, women accept conditions in the spheres of government, industry, art, morals and religion as they find them, they will be but taking a leaf out of man’s book. The woman is not needed to do man’s work. She is not needed to think man’s thoughts. She need not fear that the masculine spirit, almost universally dominant, will fail to take care of its own. Her mission is not to enhance the masculine spirit, but to express the feminine spirit; hers is not to preserve a man-made world but to create a human world by the infusion of the feminine element into all of its activities.
Woman must not accept; she must challenge. She must not be told how to use her freedom; she must find out for herself. She must not be awed by that which has been built up around her; she must reverence that within her which struggles for expression. Her eyes must be less upon what is–more clearly upon what should be. She must listen only with a frankly questioning attitude to the dogmatized, fossilized opinions of church, state and society. When she chooses her new, free course of action, it must be in the light of her own opinion – of her own intuition. Only so can she give play to the feminine spirit. Only thus can she free her mate from the bondage which he wrought for himself when he wrought hers. Only thus can she restore to him that of which he robbed himself in restricting her. Only thus can she remake the world.
The world is, indeed, hers to remake; it is hers to build and to recreate. Even as she has permitted the suppression of her own feminine element and the consequent impoverishment of industry, art, letters, sciences, morals, religions, and social intercourse, so it is hers to enrich all these.
Woman must have her freedom–the fundamental freedom of choosing whether or not she shall be a mother and how many children she will have. Regardless of what man’s attitude may be, that problem is hers–and before it can be his, it is hers alone.
She goes through “the valley of the shadow of death” alone, each time a babe is born. As it is the right neither of man nor the state to coerce her into this ordeal, so it is her right to decide whether she will endure it. That right to decide imposes upon her the duty of clearing the way to knowledge by which she may make and carry out the decision.
Birth Control is a woman’s problem. The quicker she accepts it as hers and hers alone, the quicker will society respect motherhood. The quicker, too, will the world be made a fit place for children to live.
,,,
Margaret Sanger, “A Parents’ Problem or Woman’s?,” March 1919.
Published article. Source: Birth Control Review, Mar. 1919, 6-7 , Margaret Sanger Microfilm S70:817 .
This is part of a series of articles written in response to a letter to the editor signed M B H under the title “Birth Control A Parents’ Problem or Woman’s?” that appeared in the in the Nov. 1918 issueBirth Control Review, 7. It was immediately followed by a response from Sanger which indicated the Birth Control Review would publish a discussion of the issues raised in future issues. For these discussions see, Lily Winner, “A Woman’s Problem,” Dec. 1918, 5, 15-16; Mary Ware Dennett, “The Problem of Both,” Dec. 1918, 16; E R C, “Problem of Both,” Jan. 1919, 11; {no author}, “A Fathers’ Problem Too,” Jan. 1919, 11; M. C. Lasell, “The Woman’s Problem,” Jan. 1919, 15-16; Lulu MacClure Clark, “Woman Must Solve it Alone,” Jan. 1919, 16. An editorial preceding this article reads: “This article by Margaret Sanger closes the discussion of this subject, which has been given space in several numbers of the BIRTH CONTROL REVIEW.”
This Blog Has Now Moved to Funnycracks.com! In order to serve you better with faster load times, better looking content and more humor, we have decided to update and move Things Could Be Worse to FunnyCracks.com.
Welcome to TIP. ABC, CBS, NBC and all the cable news channels are all bought and paid for and report what they are told to report. The MSM lies to and instigates people into political argument and gossip that leads to dead-end roads and distracts from the real issues. There is much better informational news reporting away from the Democrat and Republican tail-spinning arguments that are usually rooted in confusion and hate.. TIP is your alternative.
…
…
#1: World War I, 1914-1918
#2: Britain in Mesopotamia in 1920
#3: The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945
#4: Agent Orange in Vietnam, 1961-1971
#5: Iran-Iraq War
#6: Depleted uranium in Gulf War
#7: White phosphorus in Fallujah, 2005
#8: Israeli use of white phosphorous against people of Gaza, 2008-09
#9 Military testing of radioactive chemicals in St. Louis communities, 1953-1954 and 1963-1965
