CapeCodToday Blog Chowder

I didn't realize you were a sailor, Paul. Nor was I very aware of the virtues of the Stone Horse. But in profile she surely looks like a cutter! (D. Agnew)

Nice blog, John!

Monponsett and Buzz: What part of invading a sovereign state for no reason (except their oil) and causing the death of a million of their people do you find funny? Or perhaps it's the death of 3200 of our soldiers that you find a laughing matter.

RE Gonzales: He's got the full confidence of our 'president', 'cuz they both think torture is great, and lying to the American people is what they do best.
'I don't believe in nation building' / 'no prez ever wants to start a war' / 'we know Iraq has chemical WMDs' / 'we know Iraq has biological WMDs' / 'we know Iraq has nukular WMDs' / 'the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers' / 'the cost of the war will be covered by Iraqi oil' / 'mission accomplished' / 'justice dept did not collaborate with the white house on firing attorneys'.

Porcupine - how do you make this stuff up? You're correct that the article is wrong in stating, "But in November, the state of Massachusetts randomly chose Harwich to place a nonbinding Iraq question on the ballot."

But you are wrong in saying it was a private group - it was a bunch of volunteers that hate seeing innocents slaughtered for Haliburton profits, and we had nothing whatsoever to do with Sarah Peake's candidacy.

Having said that, I think it's wonderful that we have a state rep who recognizes the importance of this war and the will of her constituents, and who is willing to be proactive about it.

umassjsp: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, DOH! 9/11 was a failure of the Bush administration, DOH! And you refer to our November elections as 'fake polls'? I can see you understand democracy about as well as you understand current events.

Jack / maverick: 'Win this war'? Don't you remember? Bush announced that we won it back in '03 - mission accomplished! Create a civil war, then increase our troops by 10% - another brilliant plan for success.

Impeach Bush/Cheney!

I wish I were surprised by these atrocities. What surprises me is how many people don't believe that our side does them, or that we shouldn't talk about it.

RE: War (vs. Defense) Department - I believe that 9/11 clearly showed that we don't have a defense department (with an hour and forty minutes warning, NORAD was unable to get a single fighter over our own capital!). And then a NEW department was formed, Homeland Security (to allow the 'defense' department to continue what it's good at: war).

A new story indicates that the top commanders can't (or won't) control the sicko element within the rank-and-file, and why I can't ignore this phenomenon:
Soldiers "Hit Golf Balls Before Going Out to Kill Family"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1839522,00.html

What you took, Balboa, as a 'token comment' was actually my main point - that those at the top - through action or inaction - condone such atrocities. Witness the Gonzales legal opinion that torture is legal, prepared for his "Bring 'em on!" boss, George Bush.

I didn't mean to imply that atrocities were systemic, or to impugn the character of the overwhelming majority of our military. But such behavior (by U.S. forces) happened in the Korean war, Vietnam, Panama, and now in Iraq. There's a recurring theme, and if we don't like the theme, we've got to do something about it.

Yes, the Pentagon created a report about 321 war crimes and acknowledged that it was an incomplete list. They also kept the report secret for nearly 40 years, and punished the perpetrators with a slap on the wrist (e.g. Lt. Calley, for his role in the killing of 500 civilians at My Lai, spent 3.5 yrs under house arrest). That strikes me as more of an attempt to bury the issue than to fix it, which I consider condoning the atrocities.

And yes, I do know people serving in the military. But even if I didn't, as a taxpayer and citizen, I think I'd have every right to question the conduct of this war.

Hey there Balboa - I 'disparaged the ENTIRE MILITARY for my own ideological reasons'?! My criticism was of the brass and the civilian commanders - did you read that? As for 'your own ideological reasons' - those reasons would be an aversion to murder and torture - perhaps those reasons are unworthy? And... did you perhaps read the news article that I was commenting on?

and US Marine1 - was that Jane Fonda "quote" supposed to relate to something?

Balboa -

1. there's more RADIATION from space than from Pilgrim. But consider: a) there is NO SAFE DOSE OF RADIATION, so every bit matters. b) radionuclides are contaminants that emit radiation - far more dangerous as they can be ingested, where they continue to IRRADIATE from inside (where the skin won't even protect you from alpha emitters).
2. No one has studied Pilgrim's contribution to the cancer rates (didn't I say that?)
3 and 4. The waste is still there because, about 50 years after the introduction of nuclear power, we don't know what to do with it. Reprocessing has been tried unsuccessfully in this country - extremely polluting.
5. NRC Chairman Nunzio Paladino, not long after TMI.
6. There is a plan for hurricanes, and they're working on the avian flu type of thing.
7. Some do, but it a cheap preventative health thing. And the operator of the reactor, Entergy, is required to foot the bill (a pittance) as well they should as they own - and profit from - the hazard.