Your Duty Is To Read This Article.

The many tragedies of war are difficult to discuss and so often do not meet the criteria for agenda setting news networks, yet it remains our duty as citizens of this country to understand a soldier's experience before advocating our troops be sent overseas to war.

Researchers of the mental health field made great strides since the Vietnam War to understand and advocate for veterans suffering from combat related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

However now in the aftermath of both the Iraq War and the neverending War in Afghanistan, veterans again are coming home to teach us about the traumatic effects of war, and its debilitating effects on their lives at home.

Recently David Wood (a military journalist of 35 years) came together with a well-rounded and dynamic group of psychotherapist, psychiatrist and psychologist to write an investigative piece for Huff Post that explained the profound implications of a new component to PTSD called Moral Injury.

Put simply Moral Injury is a "akin to (deep) grief or sorrow" that is cultivated by the repeated need to override a person's moral and ethical upbringing and lessons learned over a lifetime, about one's self and their understanding between 'right and wrong.' 

“When they come in for treatment, the first thing out of their mouth is not, ‘I did something unforgivable and I want to tell you about it.’ Because they are working as hard as they can not to think about it,” Nash said. “They don’t know that you are not going to judge them. They may be on their last little thread of self-acceptance and they don’t want you to cut the thread.”

As a consequence soldiers are traumatized psychologically, which makes it both painful and difficult to reintegrate into society and back into family life after war.

Therefore, the definition for PTSD must also expand to capture the complex moral dilemmas faced by soldiers during their time at war.

After roadside bomb

After Firefight

SOAP BOX

This new insight concerning PTSD calls for a need to raise public awareness around the REALITY of sending humans to war, and a subsequent demand from society that the US Defense Department better protect and train OUR men and women of service in efforts to better prepare them
BEFORE and AFTER they engage in combat.

DEFINED

"Social imperative refers to an interaction that is vital or an action that is characterized by an obligatory command. In order for these commands to be followed, a social force is needed."

CONCLUSION

The traumatizing effects of war are very similar between soldiers and civilians alike.

The pictures below speak to this effect.

Soldier with Afghani baby after firefight

Father and Son

Welcome....

HOME!

Bianca Grace
Please See Full Article Below
http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/moral-injury/the-grunts
http://www.ask.com/question/define-social-imperative

Don't Read This Post: or Is America a Police State Too? Part Two

An issue that took far too long to reach mainstream media was NSA surveillance. The NSA started spying heavily on US citizens quickly after 9/11. For those who don't know, the NSA has access to anyone's phone records, as well as internet history. This includes real time internet browsing and live phone calls. The NSA's website states its mission as:

"The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA) products and services, and enables Computer Network Operations (CNO) in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances."

One word I'd like to specifically point out is our "allies." It has been revealed that the NSA has been collecting information on 122 international leaders around the world in May 2009 alone. This includes German Chancellor Angela Merkel, as well as countless German citizens.
 
German Chancellor Angela Merkel

Even former President Jimmy Carter recently came out saying that he uses old fashioned mail because he believes the NSA is reading his emails. This led to NSA Director stating that the NSA isn't spying on him because "The reality is we don't do that, and if we did it would be illegal and we'd be ... held accountable and responsible."

Apparently, the rest of the world is getting tired of our invasive behavior. A UN human rights report attacked the US' inefficient NSA oversight, our use of drones, and the unjust length of jail sentences to minorities for drug charges. They stated that the US should: “reform the current system of oversight over surveillance activities." This oversight would use a judicial system to ensure that the NSA stays within the rights of US citizens as well as other countries the US apparently needs to spy on.   It would be one thing if the NSA actually contributed positively, but how did the Boston bombing manage to happen if the NSA was an efficient program?

The UN report also stated that the US should “take all feasible measures to ensure the protection of civilians in specific drone attacks and to track and assess civilian casualties as well as all necessary precautionary measures in order to avoid such casualties.” The use of drones has become a major issue since Obama took office. Over 2000 civilians have died to drone strikes since his presidency started.

The deaths in these drone strikes include many children as well.The UN suggests that the US should “establish accountability mechanisms for victims of allegedly unlawful drone attacks who are not compensated by their home governments.” The US almost doesn't hold itself accountable for its drone strikes. This is very unfair and only creates more hatred in the Middle East.

With how negative this report is on the US I don't even need to point out that this wasn't reported on major US news stations.  News of "Big Brother's" unconstitutional behavior seems to be rarer than it should be.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/27/us-human-rights-reportun.html
http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.582679
 http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/gchq-and-nsa-targeted-private-german-companies-a-961444.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/keith-alexander-jimmy-carter_n_5031701.html#slide=3074346

Taliban attack election headquarters before voting

Five Taliban fighters were killed after they led an assault on the Kabul headquarters of Afghanistan's independent election commission headquarters on Saturday. This attack, as well as others from the Taliban are just in time for next week's presidential vote. 

Recent Taliban attacks include:

• 28 March: Gunmen trap several people inside guest house housing foreign aid workers in Kabul. Officials say they killed a 10-year-old girl playing outside in the street
• 25 March: Taliban suicide bomber strikes IEC office in Kabul, killing two policemen
• 20 March: 18 policemen killed in attack in eastern Afghanistan. Nine killed, including four foreign nationals, in separate attack on an upmarket hotel in Kabul

(source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26798922)

The Taliban quickly claimed this assault, as they have been threatening to continue to disrupt this election until it actually happens.

Photographed above: Warehouse inside the compound that was set on fire.

The Taliban members leading the assault were reportedly disguised as women as they entered the compound and opened fire. The assault ended with Afghan police killing the five attackers after a four-hour long gun battle.

Sources:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/29/taliban-attack-afghan-electoral-commission-hq-kabul

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26798922

K.Y.

Kill The Messenger

This post idea comes from not only the movie I just watched but it is one of the top 25 most censored pieces of media in the last year. It seems being a journalist, especially in an international setting has become a front line profession. In the past year the amount of journalists killed on duty likely due to the stories they are reporting has jumped by almost 50%. Has it really gotten to a point where people don't want something getting out so bad they are willing to kill someone just doing their job? The photo below was posted by wikileaks showing an image of before a helicopter killed members of a journalism team in Iraq.

Why do these journalists losing their lives to bring the public stories not get put in media themselves. Maybe anyone who posts any kind of media regarding this will be killed themselves? Am I going to be killed for this blog post? Probably. in 2012 over 200 journalists were killed on the job, most of them military journalists, which leads to the troubling issue that a lot of these journalists are being killed by U.S. soldiers. Which leads me to believe one thing, these foreign journalists are being killed by U.S. soldiers because the United States does not want U.S. citizens seeing what soldiers may be doing to people in war torn countries. In fear of mysterious packages showing up at my door I will let you all read on through the links below to see how corrupt and censored the deaths of journalists really is, and why some journalists may now have a reason to fear their career.

http://www.projectcensored.org/16-journalism-attack-around-globe/

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/feb/14/press-freedom-censorship

http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/1438

Private Life? or Private Lie?

In the U.S., we have a privilege that not many can enjoy in other parts of the world and its "freedom of speech, religion, among many other types of "freedoms and privacies". Wether or not we actually have such things is the critical question, one that many of us probably fail to ask ourselves. Do we really have such "freedom?" or is it all an illusion and we are being controlled by the so called Democratic government? Or does it really matter in an age where everything goes public on the social media even before we know it?

Following the 9/11 attacks, within 48 hours the Bush administration proposed the "Patriot Act" and passed it into a law within six months later. Among the ten articles of the act, it is stated that Intelligence agencies such as the NSA have the power to hear, track, and monitor all of our phone and email conversations. This law gave these agencies the absolute power to oversee everyones phone conversations if needed as a way to prevent any future terrorist attacks.The law also allowed the government to oversee and confiscate property of any foreign who is believed to be working with terrorist group who posed a threat. Among the articles, it was also stated that local and state law enforcement agencies will also have the power to request any information needed. Our "freedom" and "privacy", as we so often like to praise, has been questionable ever since the Patriot Act was passed.

 Under the circumstances that the act was proposed and approved, for many it could seem understandable why it was passed so quickly, but was it really revised as a law should be before becoming something that will affects the lives of millions of people in this case worldwide? Some of the critics stated that this law was not properly revised and that it was approved without taking into consideration its effects and consequences.

Through the "Patriot Act" our rights as citizens are put under the scope. We no longer have total freedom  as we used to, and our civil liberties are at risk. Yes, we can still freely express ourselves, the only difference now is that someone will probably be watching you. Even thought it can be for the greater good of security, we are now being overseen by a greater power at all times.

But, does it really matter if we are being watched, heard, and or tracked down by the government in an age where almost everything that happens in a person's life is published freely by them on social media sites? Is it really an issue of privacy when people now-a- days post everything out there?

 

Our generation is one that likes to post pictures of every meal, and everything, at all times, yes. But this shouldn't mean that the government should be allowed to monitor everything. People choose to put out to the world what they wish, The Patriot Act does not even give you a choice as to what is being observed and dissected. 

D.S.

The Great Internet Heist!

The heist continues...
A review, summary and important update on the battle for Net Neutrality

In January of 2014 the US Court of Appeals ruled in favor of corporate conglomerate Verizon's plea to banish the FCC's regulatory 'net neutrality' policy, which forced internet providers to deliver all data streaming through their servers equally.

If you would like to see a simple, through and clear explanation of what Net Neutrality actually is and what it's loss means in under 2 minutes...Watch this brief clip.



This means that our FREEDOM to 'dig for news' or search the web and view global array of information would be limited to only those companies (i.e. website venues) that could pay for preferitial treatment from the likes of Verizon, Comcast and AT&T!

After this is established then the tier program will be introduced and consumers will have to buy into a package deal (once again) that BUNDLES these preferred sites for you!
Here is an example:

Last I checked my bill for internet services was high enough!

Soap Box Section: 

Something is seriously wrong with the model of capitalism now being pursued by corporations in America who have taken up doing everything in their POWER to continue to making a profit by dumping 'their cost' onto the consumer. While this may be nothing completely new OUR FREEDOM has just been SOLD to the highest bidder. Verizon can now sequester their viewers into tiers and force them to pay for an ever shirking range of internet resources.

May I add this was passed by a 'We the People' Justice Department ruling just 3 months ago.

Nobody asked me....

Don't Drink the Kool-aid America!

Voice your opinion and stay informed.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/uh-oh-ats-new-chairman/

B.Grace
Sources Cited:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/net-neutrality-ruling-opens-door/
http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/10/house-senate-get-separate-bills-to-kill-net-neutrality/

What is Net Neutrality?

Is America a Police State too?

Protesters across the world are being arrested and killed daily for their anger towards their government. As we have posted before, most of these issues are ignored or not adequately covered by US media outlets. Many of the protests are becoming incredibly violent and they display that many countries around the world are in fact police states. Where does this leave America?


Violent crime in America has gone significantly down since the early 90s. However, the media tends to imply that crime rates are not improving.

As you can see from this graph, 68% of people believe that crime has been going up rather than decreasing. The only way many of these people receive news of crime rates is from the media. It's odd that most of the population believes that crime is increasing.

One thing that may be explaining peoples' misconceptions about crime is the increasing militarization of local police. According to the Justice Policy Institute, state and local spending on police went from $40 billion in 1982 to $100 billion in 2012. If crime was decreasing so steadily in America why would we need a major increase in spending?

More and more towns are seeing military grade weaponry on local police. In 1994 a law allowing the pentagon to give Cold War military weapons to local police was passed. This may explain the significant increase in police brutality. It is estimated by the US Department of Justice that between 400 and 500 innocent civilians are murdered by the police every year. The Justice Policy Institute estimates that police officers  killed 587 people in 2012 alone. So since 9/11 more people have been killed by police than were killed in the Iraq war.

In the 1980s there were over 3,000 SWAT raids per year. In 2012 there were over 12,000 SWAT raids.The police are also very quick to attack black suspects, it is estimated that a black person is killed by police once every 28 hours. On top of this, in many states it is illegal to film a police office.

So with an increase in police militarization, along with an increase in police brutality, it seems that America is secretly becoming a police state. Many people believe that crime is going up, but in reality, the true crime has been coming from the police. It is estimated that you are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist. I personally believe this stat is much higher.



Some of the information I used in this post came from this short documentary. It's very informative but also quite graphic.

Other sources:
http://www.alternet.org/more-americans-killed-police-terrorists-crime-down-why-police-aggression?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark 
 http://www.gallup.com/poll/150464/americans-believe-crime-worsening.aspx
http://www.standupamericaus.org/local-national/militarization-of-local-police-continuing-story/ 
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/americans-killed-cops-outnumber-americans-killed-iraq-war/ 
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/1-black-man-killed-every-28-hours-police-or-vigilantes-america-perpetually-war-its?page=0%2C1 

We didn't find the plane, but there's no survivors.

As we blogged about on here a few days ago, there's been a plane missing very mysteriously, you may have heard about it. That plane being MH370. This morning I saw some breaking news, the Malaysian Prime Minister, Najib Razak, was holding a press conference. In said press conference, Razak informed the world that with some new analysis (done by British company Inmarsat) it could be confirmed that MH370 ended up in the Indian Ocean. He also mentioned that we can now conclude that there are no survivors of MH370. 

 Watch the press conference itself, here: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight-370.html?_r=0

  I can say that I certainly felt a bit sad, when things or people are just "missing" you hope in some way they way they will turn up again. So sadness was felt, but my overwhelming reaction was more like "...uh that's it?" It's clear that Razak needed to make a statement of some sort but there just seemed to be such a lack of information. That is why I think this story has everyone so intrigued: we don't know what the hell is going on. 

 Not knowing exactly what is going on certainly has not stopped U.S. new sources from taking this story and running with it. There has been so little concrete knowledge of what is going on that they just seem to have to work with what they have. CNN in particular seems to be obsessed with this story:

 What can CNN and other news sources possibly talk about now? Well they'll probably just talk about this press conference for as long as it takes for a new story to come along. Comedian Rob Delaney sends his condolences to the loved one's of the plane:

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight-370.html?_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/24/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane-up-to-speed/

K.Y.

"Airspace Violation"

Saturday a Syrian plane was shot down for "invading turkish airspace." Tough not to call this a little aggressive from Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan. The response from Syria was that this was an act of "blatant aggression." After doing a little digging it is tough not to agree. The deceit in the media is the contradicting statements about the actual path of the plane. I have read articles that state how far into turkish airspace the plane went and yet the plane crashed in Syrian territory about 1300 meters from the Turkish border after supposedly going only .6 miles in Turkish airspace. Erdogan followed this act of warfare by strongly standing behind what he did saying that "if you violate my airspace, our slap after this will be hard." It seems as if there was no warning for the jet to return to Syrian territory but more as if the plane was just shot down on sight. The image below shows smoke from the plane after it crashed in Syrian territory. 

When looking at the turkish side of the story one could see why this plane was so quickly shot down. One report states the jet was warned 4 times when it was in Syrian airspace getting close to turkish airspace but did not detour away. What these media outlets are leaving out is what was going on in the area where the plane was shot down. The area has a large amount of Syrian rebel military activity going on, yet I really had to dig to find anything stating this jet may have been related to the military action. This is not the first time a Syrian plane or helicopter has been shot down by Turkish forces, So is there a bigger reasoning behind firing on a jet at the slightest breach of territory? I would call this an act of blatant military aggression but it is difficult to find all the facts with so many contradicting stories about whether the jet was warned or not and whether the jet did or did not make an attempt to turn around. See the links below for brief articles about the jet being shot down and comment for any thoughts or theories on what the true story is here. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/23/us-syria-crisis-airplane-idUSBREA2M09X20140323

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/heavy-clashes-syria-turkish-border-23023925

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26706417

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/23/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Eleven Years Later

On March 19, 2003 the United States along with coalition forces launched their first attacks on Iraq. the primary mission was to disarm Iraq, free its people and the world of the great danger that Iraq pose.

Images of Iraq on the night of March 19, 2003

Saddam's message to his people

According to our leaders, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in their power which made them a greater threat to the U.S. and the world as a whole. If there was knowledge of the existence of these weapons in the late 90's, why no one did anything about it before?

Or maybe they did. In the late 90's the U.S. attacked Iraqi military installations on whats was known Operation Desert Fox, as way of stopping their manufacturing of WMD. After those attacks, Iraq refused the entrance of the United Nations inspectors into their country. Could it have been that our entrance in 2003 was to verify that they did have weapons? Or a response to the 9/11 attacks?

  

The invasion has been seen as the second Gulf War because history seems to be repeating itself. The question that arises is then the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found? This is just part of what has been happening for the past 11 years, which started in Iraq and its now in Afghanistan, but what we have little knowledge of is the real cost of such invasion.

When we look up the costs of such war, most of the results will show the economical perspective of it, as if the millions of lives that have been lost do not count. 

There are many more costs then just monetary ones. Millions of lives have been lost, and many of our Veterans are returning home with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which severely impairs their ability to transition back into society. 

The trend seems to be that very little is ever revealed to the public about the real costs of war, while it is being waged. In the case of the Iraq War, news networks simply did not show viewers the cruel reality of ground footage, and the Defense Department did not want the citizenry to know how badly things where going in order to maintain public support. Many studies have shown not just how many billions of dollars we have spent on wars overseas, but how devastating they have been to local populations death tolls and US soldiers alike, as well as the shocking number of wounded soldiers sent back home to fight another day now just to live.  

What makes it even worse is that even today, after most of the lies have been exposed, very little has been said by the government in retrospect of what a terrible tragedy and mistake it was to pursue Iraq in a full scale war. Also most news providers have not mentioned their part in its construction on the main screen, or have done so from a minimalist perspective. Therefore one can see that keeping a low profile and letting time be the antidote for mass amnesia has benefited those controlling the news in keeping up with their agenda!

D.S.

To get a closer look please visit:

www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/war.casualties/index.html

www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/870845/Iraq-War

www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.int.bush.transcript/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline

Boeing 777 missing! Your guess is as good as mine...

On March 8^th the entire world watched in disbelief as news came pouring through the wires that Malaysian Airlines had lost contact with flight MH370, a Boeing 777 that night carrying 239 passengers. Now almost two weeks later  the only thing the public knows for sure is how creative human beings can be when they feel a need to fill in the blank! At this point there are hundreds of reporters working on different aspects of the story, but due to lack of verifiable information concerning the planes whereabouts it is a nearly impossible mystery to solve at the moment. Though never fear, American media networks have found a way to seize this opportunity by delivering one ridiculous story after another to the public.

From the FOX camp we have received a highly sensationalize and paranoid terrorist plot schematic from so called ‘military experts,’ following Rupert Murdoch’s tweet predicting the plane was being loaded with explosives in Pakistan.

From camp CNN American’s have gotten a heavy dose of possible Bermuda triangle scenarios that insinuate the plane was sent through a portal to a different dimension, or maybe that it was divine intervention! (This is truly sad and deprived)

Last but not least, investigations being conducted on passengers that were aboard the plane has given conspiracy theorist some food for thought.
It was found that 20 Freescale Semiconductor employees were in the flight, who were instrumental in design and recent promotion of a new high-tech radar microchip that can be used in defense systems, for the US based company.

What does it all mean...

Well there are some pretty bland news stories on that can be found on the BBC website that address 'down to earth' issues, like looking at maps and what aeronomic experts have been working on...but that’s too boring. My bottom line is that humans lives were lost, and the storyline has gone well past what I consider morally ethical in the medias ridiculous attempts to increase ratings.

Bianca Grace

Works Cited:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/missing-malaysian-plane-brings-out-the-worst-in-the-media/

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26609687

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/465557/Malaysian-plane-20-on-board-worked-for-ELECTRONIC-WARFARE-and-radar-defence-company

Where in the world is Venezuela?

 Venezuela has become a hotspot for government protests in South America. With President Maduro essentially having absolute power, this country is reminiscent of the happenings in the countries we have discussed previously. Much of the protests have come as a response to a staggering 57 percent inflation rate in the Venezuelan economy.

These numbers are terrifying and Maduro's reign has been filled with nothing but controversy. He recently said of protesters, " "If they don't retreat, I'm going to liberate those spaces with the security forces." How easily the use of the word 'liberate' is thrown around.

 The latest controversy felt by Maduro's presidency is the arrest of multiple Venezuelan mayors, including San Diego mayor Endo Scarano. Scarano will spend the next 10.5 months in prison for failing to keep protesters from barricading the streets. Scarano is one of the most popular mayors in Venezuela; in 2013 Scarano won his election by over 75%. Clearly he is incredibly popular in San Diego, yet this matters little to Scarano's tyranny.

At least 30 people have died in these protests and over 450 have been injured. On top of this, almost 2,000 people have been arrested. However, very little coverage is being seen in the American media. What could possibly explain this? Of course, the issues in Ukraine are very important. However, they did not get much coverage until Russia became involved. There is certainly room for the media to discuss Venezuela as well though.

Instead, Fox News thinks that Johnny Cash's great niece is more important than the lives lost protesting Venezuela's corrupt government.

Or maybe America is not being informed because ABC news thought that Charlize Theron is riding a Jetski, something that the average American obviously cannot afford.












With the death toll in Venezuela growing, and no end in sight, the American people need to be informed of these issues. Instead, we see stupid stories about nothing leading the headlines of major American news stations while the American public stays blissfully ignorant of issues that are shaping the planet that we live on.



http://www.kspr.com/news/nationworld/Deaths-mount-as-protests-rage-in-Venezuela/21051646_25075592
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/20/venezuela-acts-againstoppositionmayors.html
http://www.cne.gob.ve/resultado_municipal_2013/r/1/reg_071301.html