We're not the only ones who are outraged - here are some outside outrages that caught our eye!
Are Your Kids Safe From Predators At School? The short answer is no. Ohio schools are 100% immune from any liability if any school employee or volunteer molests your child at school, on the bus, a field trip, or anywhere on a school function.
Dell Lies Exposed Dell technicians refuse to honor warranty and blatantly lie about "spill damage."
Mentally and Physically Disabled Man Locked in Bus Overnight Bus driver Linda Hockaday was late for church, that's her excuse for locking a man with the capacity of a two year old inside a bus and leaving him there in the bitter cold for 19 hours while his family searched for him.
And You Thought Tasers Were Bad... Instead of using Taser guns, police in Nashville (and other cities) now inject "unruly" subjects with an amnesia-inducing sedative. That's legal, right?
Unlikely Suspect Charged With Murder A young man is in jail for murder because he defended his home. Now the prosecutor wants to up the charges to seek the death penalty against him.
No Cancer Treatment For You! Immigration authorities allegedly denied a man treatment for cancer saying that a biopsy is an "elective procedure."
Cut the Drama Is our biggest problem not being able to post anything we want, anywhere we want? Honestly. I hope so.
The differences between the “bad guys” and the “good guys” in recent wars have been clear. The bad guys recklessly bomb innocent civilians, while the good guys drop targeted missiles on military hotspots. The bad guys oppress their people, while the good guys fight for freedom. Above all, the bad guys have no respect for the sanctity of life, while the good guys maintain that their first priority is the protection of human rights.
So we can only assume that most of the world’s human rights groups share NATO’s views on the latest developments in the Middle East… right? We are the good guys, so we must not be targeting civilians. If we accidentally kill some innocent villagers in Pakistan, they are just collateral damage; that doesn’t give Pakistan the right to defend its borders. If Israel sprays Lebanon with cluster bombs, which cover wide areas (and, consequently, kill many civilians) rather than specific targets, it is just a necessary evil; that doesn’t give anybody the right to call them “aggressors.” If Georgia drops illegal cluster bombs on Russians, then they are freedom fighters; when Russia allegedly drops them on Georgians, then they are oppressors.
Why do we allow countries like Russia to spread large clusters of bombs over Georgia? We all know that only American allies are allowed to circumvent international treaties, so why is it that our only reaction is to condemn the Russians for ignoring basic human rights? Is there something that we want to hide?
Right now, there are thousands of unexploded bombs lining the ground in villages and cities across Vietnam, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. Young children are often injured or killed when they unsuspectingly pick up an explosive that has been sitting undisturbed since the day that it first fell out of an American or Israeli or Soviet plan. Lebanon, for instance, found itself on the receiving end of over a million deadly explosives during their 2006 war with Israel – one for every four people in the entire country.
Israel’s official statement effectively summarized the world’s justification for using such horrible weapons, which have caused about 300 innocent civilian casualties after the end of their war with Lebanon (in addition to the hundreds more in Vietnam, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan), by eloquently stating that “International law does not include a sweeping prohibition of the use of cluster bombs.” Others have made statements along the lines of “everybody does it; why can’t we?” Several countries – including the US, Israel, Russia, and China – have declined to join the new treaty that forbids the use of weapons that aim to destroy broad areas rather than specific targets.
What was that old saying about the company you keep?
We want a President who can make decisions that will benefit us all. We want somebody who promises actions rather than words. We want him to tell us what he will do and then we want him to do it. So how can somebody possibly have the audacity to face us with the crazy idea that he will make changes? How can he say that he will “change” Washington without reiterating all of his ideas in each of his speeches? Why are the most educated people in the country still siding with somebody who uses complex “plans” and unpopular “expert opinion” instead of just telling us that he’ll cut taxes and lower gas prices?
The McCain campaign has been quick to point out that Barack Obama repeatedly promises reform without repeatedly saying how to achieve that reform. But we really need him to repeat himself? He has a clear plan in place for the war, the economy, the energy problem, healthcare, and all of the other issues… but effective plans are rarely simple enough to explain in a one-minute segment of a ten-minute speech. He knows that offshore drilling will fuel our oil addiction faster than it fuels our cars; that doesn’t mean, as McCain says, that he doesn’t want to produce more energy. He knows that the gas tax holiday will create long-term economic problems as a consequence of its slight short-term relief; that doesn’t mean that he is against economic improvement. He knows that the Bush/McCain upper-class tax cut will only increase the budget deficit; that doesn’t mean that he wants to raise taxes for all Americans.
We like simple ideas. We would love to believe that we can reduce our dependence on oil by drilling for more oil. We would love to believe that we can keep our troops all over the world without having to pay for it in taxes. But in the real world, effective policies require intricate plans based on detailed economic analysis. Obama’s plans are well-known, but he can’t explain the policy analysis in every speech that he delivers; does that make him “vague”? We can have a President who just tells us what we want to hear… or we can have a President who actually does what we want him to do without much regard for whether or not we know that he’s doing it.
Any top Democrat will be able to tell you exactly what Obama’s stance is on any given issue. McCain, meanwhile, seems like he failed to effectively explain his “big ideas” even to Bobby Jindal, one of the frontrunners for his VP position. Instead, Jindal reverts to saying things that are obvious and popular; he was sure to mention, for instance, that McCain “understands that the energy crisis is [our] biggest economic obstacle.” Big-time Republicans like Mitt Romney and Mark Sanford also suffered the same fate as Jindal did. Does that mean that Jindal, Romney, and Sanford are all incompetent? Or does it just mean that they were all right to insinuate that the McCain energy policy, and the rest of his ideas, promise no improvement over the Bush administration?
The fact that the energy crisis is a big economic obstacle does not classify a “big idea”… I’d rather call it a “known fact.” Everybody understands our problems (except President Bush, who recently said that we don’t have any), but not everybody can understand the solution. Obama wants to let the expert number-crunchers figure out the details; McCain has been letting public opinion direct his course. Who do you think can make a better decision about the economy: your next-door neighbor or America’s top economists?
What is “vague”? Is Obama “vague” because the details are irrelevant to his speech? Or is McCain “vague” because the details are irrelevant to his plan?
At Rational Outrage, we're interested in facts and logical analysis--we're not here to promote a particular candidate. Have a conflicting view? Share it with us in the comments or, if you're so inclined, submit an article.
Once every four years, athletes from nearly every part of the world (yes, that includes Cuba and Palestine) make their way to attend a monumental event that celebrates our unity as humans and our progress towards international understanding. The world finally sees the fact that, through a peaceful series of games, we can identify ourselves not as enemies, but as friends. We can heal our animosity as we drop the labels of "Israeli" and "Palestinian", of "Ethiopian" and "Eritrean", of "Pakistani" and "Indian"; instead, we can learn to label ourselves as "human." We can bask in the beauty of our species as we watch a seemingly malnourished Kenyan finish ahead of his competitors who were trained by the world's top athletic coaches.
But wait… why are they playing The Star Spangled Banner at the award ceremony? I remember that guy wearing a Kenyan uniform in 2004… he's American now? And it seems unusual that all four US table tennis players actually lived in China until it became obvious that they weren't good enough to get to their own national team. Does the US really need to import players to get more recognition in Beijing?
Not surprisingly, China crushed us in the process of earning all four gold medals in table tennis, which effectively supplemented their 47 golds in the rest of the events. The US finished with 36 pieces of gold as a part of their Olympics-leading 110 total precious metal samples. The West and the East meshed together as Russia, Britain, Germany, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Italy, and France capped out the rest of the top ten. But what about everybody in between the West and the East? What about the huge hunk of matter in the Indian subcontinent, which houses 25% of the world's population but only earned 0.3% of Olympic accolade? What about Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America? What about Tibet and Kosovo, who couldn't send a delegation because their National Olympic Committees are not recognized by the International Olympic Committee? How can we leave out some of our biggest problem areas as we applaud the potential for international unity?
We easily dismiss the less athletic regions as they fail to publicize their presence at this global peace conference. It was a big deal – a matter of national pride – when India won a gold medal this year for the first time since 1980. Pakistan and Bangladesh, the 6th and 7th-most populated countries in the world, were far from even getting a bronze. Australia, meanwhile, houses a population that is one-eighth of Pakistan's and boasts a Beijing medal count of 46, which is more than the entire subcontinent has ever earned (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka have amassed a grand total of 32 medals since they sent their first team in 1928). In fact, Bangladesh has never won a medal. The Philippines (the world's 12th-most populated country) have won 9 in their entire history. Vietnam (13th-most populous) has received 2.
I was in Pakistan for the 1992 and 1996 Olympics. We all rallied behind our only hope in Barcelona – the field hockey team that brought home a gold medal from Los Angeles – and felt ashamed to celebrate when the team's bronze finish became our only victory. It was a small pleasure when compared with the jubilant chaos that erupted we won the cricket World Cup earlier that year, but we would have extended our revelry had we known that Pakistan would never win another Olympic medal. The Atlanta games bore no fruit as we painstakingly watched the Australians, with their diminutive population, take over our field hockey bronze medal spot in addition to their 40 other awards. We were crushed; luckily, I would soon migrate to the place whose representatives make standard practice of finding their way to the medal stand.
Here in America, we follow the Olympics with the hope of demonstrating our prowess to the rest of the world: we may only have one-fourth of China's population, but we can still manage to earn more medals than they can on their own home turf. In Pakistan, we just had the distant wish that we may hear our national anthem on an international television broadcast, as we did once in 1984. Any hopes of a camaraderie with the West are dismissed as the educated youth decide that they want to live in the country whose flag waves at the end of seemingly every event. It's a big international high school gym class, where the popular football players count how many times they can nail the skinny nerds in a dodgeball game. All of the world's nations get together to be crushed athletically by the people who also run the global economy. And we do it to promote peace.
It seems that President Bush’s top security advisor, the man responsible for his trip to China for the Olympics, doesn’t know the difference between Tibet and Nepal. During a recent appearance with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, he repeatedly used the word “Nepal” to describe the country whose 58-year-long rule by China has been a major international concern in the few months before the Olympics. The President, meanwhile, has ignored calls for him to boycott the Olympic opening ceremony, despite the fact that many other world leaders have publicly clarified that they have no intention of supporting Beijing on that day. These two facts, especially when coupled together, can only lead us to believe that the administration is far from concerned about the innocent victims of the injustices in Tibet. For the benefit of the security advisor (whose name, by the way, is Stephen Hadley), I thought I’d outline the difference between Tibet and its neighbors:
TIBET: Victim of an unprovoked Chinese invasion in 1950. Ever since then, the rights of Buddhist majority have been suppressed by the Chinese government, which openly expects atheism from its citizens. Tibet is home to most of the Buddhist monks that we often see on TV wearing orange robes.
NEPAL: An independent kingdom in the Himalayas, only 10% of whose population is Buddhist. Most people in Nepal are Hindu, many of them speak Hindi (the primary language of India), and their traditions are far more Indian than they are Chinese or Tibetan. The Dalai Lama, the leader of the Buddhist people, has never lived here and Tibet is in no way affiliated with Nepal (aside from their proximity). Nepal is known mostly for Mount Everest, but definitely not for Buddhism.
BHUTAN: Unlike Nepal, Bhutan is a Buddhist kingdom that neighbors Tibet. This would have been a better comparison because, although Tibet is not a kingdom, Bhutan does have a strong tradition of Buddhist principles.
MYANMAR: Again, this would have been a better comparison. This is another Buddhist state and it did change political hands around the same time as Tibet (Myanmar, then known as Burma, became independent from Britain about the same time as China invaded Tibet). Furthermore, Myanmar is about the same size as Tibet.
So why did Mr. Hadley confuse Tibet with Nepal? There were three countries that are much more similar to Tibet than Nepal is… but my guess is that he doesn’t know that. Confusing Tibet and Myanmar is understandable to some extent; it’s analogous to confusing Syria and Jordan (similar cultures, different political systems). But confusing Tibet and Nepal is more analogous to confusing China and India (shared border, but very different in terms of culture/ethnicity/religion/government).
Apparently, he doesn’t care enough to learn the difference… and America’s relative apathy in the matter is a testament to how isolated our society is becoming in this increasingly globalizing economy. I wonder what percentage of Americans could successfully find Tibet (or Nepal) on a world map.
On July 17, 2007, President Bush signed an Executive Order allowing the government to freeze the property of any person “threatening the stabilization effort in Iraq”. The order received a fair amount of international news coverage, but here at home it seems that no one noticed—and that’s too bad, because you might be surprised who’s at risk.
At the same day’s White House Press Briefing, Tony Snow assured the press that the measure was aimed at “insurgents and those who come across the border” and referenced prior executive orders, summing up, “So anybody who is caught providing support or poses a significant risk of providing support to those who may come across the borders, who may be -- who may not fit neatly into those other two categories, this provides ways of going after those who provide financial, logistical or other support for them.”
And life went on. That all sounds perfectly reasonable--except, of course, that the Executive Order itself wasn’t nearly so narrowly tailored as Mr. Snow’s remarks; the true intent and extent of its possible application can’t be known. And the real possible applications of this executive order are terrifying.
A bit of historical perspective might be helpful. During the Vietnam era, those deemed by the White House to be possible destabilizing forces included not only anti-war protestors of varying stature (including Martin Luther King, Jr. and later his widow, Coretta Scott King), but also certain Democratic Congressmen who opposed the war.
Here’s the listing, directly from the Executive Order itself, of people and entities to whom it applies (emphasis added):
any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Let’s consider a hypothetical. Your brother makes a donation to a political organization that, among other things, protests the war in Iraq. One day, during a protest, certain members of that organization get a little out of control and damage some property. When the police come to break up the rally, tempers flare and a couple of members resist arrest. The organization’s assets are frozen. After the government has reviewed the organization’s list of contributors, your brother’s assets are frozen. Your brother comes to you for help, and you give him $500 in cash to tide him over while he straightens out what you think is surely a mistake. Your assets are frozen.
Outrageous? You bet.
Unlikely? Reasonable people may disagree.
Legal under the terms of the Executive Order? Absolutely.
Would our government go that far? I don’t know. I’m not here to argue that point. I’m just wondering why, if this is as far-fetched as it sounds, the White House felt it necessary to include terms that would make it all possible.
Issue: Nations around the world join forces to put an end to the use of cluster bombs because of the high incidence of civilian injury and death--sometimes long after the conflict is over. But the United States, like Russia, China and Israel, refuses to sign the treaty.
Impact: The United States further abdicates the role of world leader, while still clinging stubbornly to the title. The continued use of cluster bombs is bad enough, but far worse is the message to the world that force by any means necessary is the way to go--and the path to be chosen by the largest and most powerful nations on earth.
Issue: A blind couple is prosecuted for employing a commonly accepted method of composting in their own garden.
Impact: Your tax dollars at work making life difficult for people with the audacity to grow vegetables--and an apparent legal preference for chemical fertilizers over organic matter that might actually help the environment.
Issue: Police departments in major cities across the country aren't content to arrest self-made criminals, but have decided to hit the streets and see whether they can create some more.
Impact: Time and tax dollars poured into sting operations designed to test ordinary people and create crimes that would never have been; meanwhile, who's minding the store? Hundreds of thousands of unserved felony warrants lie inactive across the country while police experiment in subways, department stores and on streetcorners.
Issue: A disabled child is left to die by a negligent mother, and the people charged with her protection stand by and let it happen; sadly, Danieal Kelly is only one example of the wide-ranging failure of the systems that are supposed to keep our children safe.
Impact: The impact on this particular child was a slow and painful death, and she is not alone. Right now, as you're reading this, other children are living in similar circumstances; other parents and caseworkers are ignoring their needs and waiting for someone else to do something. The most helpless among us will not survive unless we all step up and do our part--and insist that others do theirs.
Sex Offender Registration / Residency Restrictions Do More Harm than Good
Fifteen years ago, the mother of a kidnapping victim had a good idea--an idea that made a lot of sense. That idea involved the creation of a registry for use by law enforcement to track child molesters. Soon other states got on the bandwagon, and the classes of crime included in the registries mushroomed. Then those registries were shared with the public, voluntarily or under legal mandate. And then the public found out that there were sex offenders down the block (never mind that those "sex offenders" might have urinated outdoors after too much to drink late one night or had sexual relationships with girlfriends just a few years younger than themselves after they'd crossed the line into adulthood), and we didn't like it. New state laws cropped up across the country restricting where convicted sex offenders could live, and now, we're finally seeing the fruits of those frantic efforts. States are spending tens of millions of dollars to attempt to keep convicted sex offenders in stable places where they can be tracked, and losing the battled. Homelessness has skyrocketed among convicted sex offenders, and with it, the rate of recidivism.
Once every four years, athletes from nearly every part of the world (yes, that includes Cuba and Palestine) make their way to attend a monumental event that celebrates our unity as humans and our progress towards international understanding. The world finally sees the fact that, through a peaceful series of games, we can identify ourselves not as enemies, but as friends. We can heal our animosity as we drop the labels of "Israeli" and "Palestinian", of "Ethiopian" and "Eritrean", of "Pakistani" and "Indian"; instead, we can learn to label ourselves as "human." We can bask in the beauty of our species as we watch a seemingly malnourished Kenyan finish ahead of his competitors who were trained by the world's top athletic coaches.
It seems that 
