Diary Of A Hollywood Refugee

Thursday, December 30, 2004

A Man Without Honour

Jeremy Hinzman: a coward, a traitor, a man without honour.
Is it any surprise that Michael Moore is rallying behind him?

As a Canadian/American I am appalled that this traitor is still in Toronto. This self righteous lying coward has a website, a PR agent, a draft dodging attorney who solicited Michael Moore's support, is now the darling of Al Jeezera and Islamic fundamentalists, has been accorded rockstar status amongst terrorists, while pawning himself of as Quaker who underwent a spiritual epiphany as soon as he realized he would most likely be deployed to Iraq. Like the good soldier he had been trained to be, he took pre emptive action. When that failed, he did what all cowards do, he ran away! To Canada!

Jeremy may delude himself into thinking that he is some kind of pacifist hero, modern day "David" standing up against the "Goliath" American Gov't, but in truth this traitor, this coward, this liar, this piece of shit, is even more dispicable than the terrorists in Iraq.

Take it from this former hollywood insider, all fame has its price, and so with his newfound fame as a"rockstar to the terrorists " Jeremy's hands are now stained with the blood of all civilians who THEY kidnapped and beheaded, the blood of every one of our troups that THEY have ambushed and killed as well as the blood of all those that THEY wounded and killed in the Mosul mess tent suicide/homicide on Dec 21st. Thats the price you pay for your fame, Jeremy, and it not nearly high enough!

I can't spend any more time writing about this smug cowardly liar.

This piece sums up my feelings.

Men Without Honour
Jeremy Hinzman Ordered Deported

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Honour, Perserverence, Spirit and Heart

A few days ago, on the eve of Rumsfeld visit to Iraq, some guy posted on a message board, his utter distain about this war and Pres Bush. He insisted that the ONLY way to support our troups was to demand that our gov't pull out of Iraq immediately, since our troups have no business being there.

His comments were more vitrolic than I care to post in here.

Here is how I replied to him:

As much as I disagree with you, I respect your right ,S***** ,to oppose the war, and to voice your opinion, as do the men and women now deployed in Iraq. It's WHY they are there. To provide OTHERS with that same right and privilege.

I speak daily via Instant Message, email, and in some cases, phone, to deployed men in Iraq. While there are some guys that wonder why they are there, most of them clearly understand the greater good being achieved, the enormity of the impact of democratic elections in Iraq, and they are very proud to be a part of that history.

In today's press conference with Rumsfeld, one soldier, whose face and voice bore the frustration that I hear DAILY from those I speak to, asked WHY our media are NOT sharing with the world the GOOD NEWS about what is being accomplished in Iraq. Why are they only reporting about the strife, the struggles, and the seeming failures?

Its a question that each one of the over 50 deployed guys I speak to ask me constantly.

Our troups are rebuilding schools, soliciting school kits from the homefront and giving them out to Iraqi kids, who respond with gratitude, appreciation and love.

Our troups are providing medical attention to Iraqis, and are helping them to rebuild hospitals and roads.

OUR TROUPS are putting their lives on the line to EXTRACATE iraqi civilians that are in harms way in cities across Iraq.

The MSM doesn’t report all the great work our troups are doing for the people of Iraq and all the positive accomplishments achieved. They confront the evil that wants to thwart peace stability and democracy in Iraq. They are planting the seeds of democracy by restoring buildings, rebuilding and reopening schools, training and building the Iraqi police force, and confronting the insurgents in battle when necessary.

Now if you think that the upcoming elections, and the scent of democracy is not impacting on other Arab nations, then let me enlighten you:

"Some of the [Arab League] members maintain that the Baghdad government is not legitimate. Why? They argue that it is not elected and was appointed by the American occupation. This widespread view has some basis. However, the talk of the illegitimacy of the [Iraqi] government allows us to raise questions regarding most of the regimes in the region some of which emerged as a result of coups or internal conspiracies, when no one asked the people what it thought."
Abdel Rahman al-Rasheddirector-general of Al Arabia TV, writing in the London-based daily Al Sharq Al AwsatNovember 24.

"We are not being fair to the current Iraqi government. Not me, nor you, nor the other guest on this program, not even the viewers, but history will do justice to them. These people are establishing the first democracy in the Middle East. This country will be a platform for liberties in the whole region. In Iraq, the days of a leader who remains on his throne until he dies are gone. This is over. For the first time the Iraqi leader will be elected by Iraqi ballots"
Egyptian journalist Nabil Sharaf al-Din, speaking on Al Jazeera TV about the future of IraqNovember 23

"Arab regimes understand they have to start reforming. Yes, the U.S. invasion of Iraq made America some new enemies, but it also has triggered a huge debate about reform in the Arab world" said Ammar Abdulhamid, who helps run DarEmar, a pro-reform NGO in Syria. "For some people it forced the reform issue, because they said, 'Let's change ourselves before the Americans change us,' " noted Mr. Abdulhamid. "the Iraqi issue is forcing the issue of reform on everyone, and in some ways it is independent of what actually happens in Iraq," Mr. Abdulhamid said

America soldiers are NOT occupying Iraq; they are, at the request of the overwhelming majority of Iraqi's, rebuilding the country and teaching Iraqi's how to rebuild the country and they are planting the seeds of democracy, and they do it with honour, perserverance, spirit and heart!

No one said this would be an easy task!

The TERRORISTS who behead women children civilians, kill anyone and everyone, are those men that were in power in Iraq and were responsible for gassing and killing at will of thousands of Iraqi's.Mass graves equal to those found in Europe during Hitlers reign have been uncovered and massive caches of hidden buried weapons have been found everywhere in Iraq. In Falluja many places were located where these terrorists tortured and beheaded so many more people than is being reported.

These terrorists would trick our Soldiers and Marines into thinking they were injured ask for help,and our men -OUR DECENT OPEN HEARTED MEN -would render help only to be killed as these dispicable scumbags were booby trapped to explode - these were homicide/ suicides. Acts of cowards with no scruples. I don't believe in Hell - but if there is one -may they rot there eternally!

I support our deployed men and women by sending them care packages,emails, cards and I do it, S****, not because I am a republican, not because I support the war, not because I'm a conservative; I do it because THATS the best way to support our troups.

Tuesday, December 28, 2004

No True Glory

Harrison Ford is set to star as General Mattis in the feature film version of Bing West's book "No True Glory", about the recent Battle For Fallujah.

This has angered many people in the Military,in particular Marines, as well as many bloggers because of comments made by Harrison denouncing America's involvement in Iraq, while he was in a promotional tour in Spain.

Harrison complained about the direction American foreign policy was going. He did not feel military intervention was the "correct solution" (Obviously he is oblivious to the reality that diplomacy failed...time after time after time ) and he mentioned how much he regrets what the country has done to date.

So it seems very hypocritical for Harrison, who will be paid over $20 million, to accept a role playing the man who was responsible for organizing the assault on Fallujah. Since the Hollywood "intelligentsia" has an utter disdain for this war, and for this President, it is the height of hyprocrisy for those producers and studios to profit on the blood of those Marines while like Harrison, vitrolically condemning the war and Mr Bush.

One Marine's wife was so infuriated that she decided to write Harrison a letter.
My husband is a United States Marine proudly serving in Iraq. He has been there since February 2004. He was in a unit which provided support to the Marines actively engaged in battle both in April 2004 and November 2004. We are all proud of his duty to his country and the people of Iraq. Where one may disagree to the methodology of releasing Iraq from Saddam Hussein's grip, one should agree it was in the best interest of the Iraqi people.

Read the letter in its entirety at Blackfive.

Knowing his agents - they don't have the balls to forward it to him.

So Harrison will never know the pain and resentment that he has inflicted on the families of those and those themselves, who are putting their lives on the line for a country whose policies he vehemently disagrees with and who are involved in a war that he objects to. Obviously a $20 million paycheck is enough to help him conveniently justify his hypocritical actions and forget his objections, or at least put them aside while he makes this film.

I have no doubt Bing's intentions are honourable.He wrote a great book and I'm sure he wants the story to be told to a larger audience so as to pay tribute to General Mattis and the Marines who fought this battle. The irony of having those who don't support the war make a movie tribute to those who are fighting it daily is not lost on me.

Having said that, though, I have to wonder what purpose it will serve. Do we really need a movie featuring overpaid actors playing underpaid real life heros, especially when these Marines are still putting their lives on the line daily?

We witness these battles on the small screen, what on earth is to be gained by bringing this story to the big screen and with an actor who clearly disparages our country and our Military playing one of our country's top military leaders??

I cannot seem to find that same enthusiasm and support for the soon to be movie "Battle For Fallujah".

Experience has taught me that Hollywood only does whats best for itself.... but where there is life there is hope, and it's my hope is that bringing this story to the "big screen" even as we are able to watch it daily on the "small screen" will serve a higher purpose: to help those opposed to this war understand that supporting our deployed men and women and their mission is both an honour and a duty!

But I'm doubtful of that. Those that are opposed to this war seem to lack an appreciation of what our deployed men and women are doing, and for the most part they seem completely oblivious to all the GOOD that our presence in Iraq has resulted in.

I blame the MSM largely, since telling stories of death and failures in Iraq is is far more important that telling the stories of those who are building schools, delivering toys to kids, helping train Iraqi medical personnel, helping rebuild an Iraqi security force, rebuilding homes, helping women learn to be self sufficient, the list goes on! After their liberal agenda of disdain for Mr Bush and our goals in Iraq is what must be constantly reinforced at the expense of the entire truth.

Newsflash: The Iraqi's want an election, a gov't free of tyranny, an opportunity to enjoy the same freedoms Americans take for granted, and that MOST of Iraq is running smoothly. The hotspots are comparatively few....but you would NEVER know that by listening to ANY Mainstream Media!

I hope that a portion of the ticket sales (NOT the profits - Hollywood accounting always buries profits) will go towards providing thousands of care packages to our deployed men and women..and that a percentage will also go to those families whose loved ones paid the ultimate price.

I also believe that 20% percent of Harrison's salary show go towards a fund to help those families who lost Marines in in the Battle For Falluja: a battle that took place in a war he doesnt support from a country whose involvement he deeply regrets, but which will nonetheless provide him with a $20 mill paycheck!

Thursday, December 23, 2004

Friends, Creative Conversations, and Hollywood

A former "Friends" writers' assistant Amaani Lyle has sued WB and three writers for sexual harassment claiming that the writers created a "hostile work environment" by engaging in sex-related comments and bawdy jokes during writers' meetings. She, however, was NOT the direct target of many comments, but she did find them offensive, to say the least.

After losing the case, then winning the appeal, the case is now going to the California Supreme Court.

So it begs the question were these writers engaged in creative kibbitzing as a necessary part of their job OR were they engaged in malicious raunchy locker-room conversation inappropriate to the work they do?

It's easy to imagine that certain sexual raunchy creative considerations play an important role in shows like "Sex in the City" or " The Soprano's" and "Will and Grace" but "FRIENDS"?????

Quoting from the OC Register:
"One of the joys of the United States in general, and of artistic centers like Hollywood in particular, is the incredibly eclectic mix of words, images, and music that flow freely from creator to audience at dizzying speed. Virtually everyone can find a work that speaks to him, whether it be a religious text, a salacious soap opera, a silly sex farce, a wholesome children's story acted out by plush animals, or an episode of Friends. To take away any of these myriad options, as the Lyle decision threatens to do, would be to destroy more than individual speech rights. It would also destroy a large part of American culture."

An interesting argument but not always valid.

In reading the affadivits the writers admited to some really depraved conversations about the actors themselves that in my opinion have NOTHING to do with the show. They made endless jokes about David Schwimmer being gay, referred to all women as bitches and cunts,; Adam Chase constantly talked about how he wanted to have anal sex with Jennifer Aniston, and talked about how Courtney Cox' pussy was dried up and if you put twigs in it they would break. That's only the tip of the iceberg.

What has ANY of this got to do with "Friends" and how is any of this type of conversation a part of the creative process for THIS show??? The ridiculous claim that this kind of talk is considered "brainstorming" when it happens all day in the office,every week,is simply wrong.

As is The claim by the OC Register that
"The very drying up of new, edgy, and provocative art would not be far behind" if this kind of talk is censored(which is the implication if the Ms. Lyle wins her law suit) .

"Brainstorming" as part of the creative process needs to be put in context...not used as an excuse to allow a bunch of sick horney men to say anything they want about anyone.

I mean, if these writers worked on a children's show, and the same thing went on, WOULD THAT ABSURD ARGUMENT BE USED OR BE VALID?

More from The OC Register:
"More generally, if the Lyle opinion is allowed to stand, any Californian whose job involves dealing with controversial matters that raise issues potentially offensive to some people -- AIDS education, abortion counseling (pro or con), civil rights and affirmative action and much more---will be at risk of a harassment lawsuit. The only out provided for defendants by the California Court of Appeals is to prove that any "offensive" comments are made "within 'the scope of necessary job performance,'" a determination that, as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh notes, will necessarily involve vague and subjective perceptions of what speech is "necessary" to any particular job."

Nice thoughts, but NOT relevant to this lawsuit. I hardly think anyone whose job involves dealing with sensitive issues like abortion would be discussing how dried up their friends pussy was or refering to women as cunts and bitches or discussing whom they'd like to fuck up the butt!

And it doesnt stop at talking: the writers on "Friends"would constantly simulate masturbating not just once in a while, including sound effects like banging on tables; they would have colouring books with pussy and cocks colored in(how young were these guys -like 9??) ;they laughed when making up stories about rape and stalking( ahh yes that is truly something to laugh about-JERKS) and one writer made a calendar that stated rude and obsence things.

To boot, the writers insisted that Ms. Lyle NOT take notes about any of the lewd and obscene things being said because they had nothing to do with the show.

Does the OC Register get that??? These conversations had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SHOW!! They were IRRELEVANT to the context of this show!!!

So, not only do the writers involved admit have engaged in this lwed obscene and lascivious behavior, they also have admitted that this "brainstorming" is not relevant to the show.

The article in the OC ends by saying
" If the Justices of the California Supreme Court appreciate what makes its state, and its country, special and worthy, they will step in and correct the lower court's mistake. Real friends don't let friends censor Friends"

Since when does preventing a group of married horney men speaking in this derogatory insulting manner about women, actors, gay men, sex, and sharing daily their sexual fantasies, preferences, and talent at being able to black out parts of a sentence so that only the word PENIS is left, constitute CENSORSHIP????

Especially when those writers admitted it had no relevance to the show!!
What or who are we censoring here?

If these guys worked on a childrens show,would they be able to use this same absurd argument: discussing their fantasy of having anal sex with one of the child stars would land them in jail.

Real friends do not let other friends use bullshit excuses like "creative brainstorming" to justify and protect this kind of lewd and lascivious behavior.

And neither should the California Supreme Court!!

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a prude by any means. I can start a conversation about The Book of Revelations and then seque into rimjobs without batting an eyelash. I'm used to lewd, raunchy conversations with guys -the kind of convos that would make a Marine blush-but if I was with a group of friends and they felt uncomfortable about the language and choice of topic...I would respect that and tone things down.

Should I consider that being censored?

Should I scream about my first amendment rights being violated?

The law in California specifically states that CONTEXT is important.There was no context for this kind of perpetual daily conversation and the enviroment created by it.

"Friends"is not a porn show and in terms of its script content and themes "Friends" is not "Sex and The City" or "Will and Grace" or "The Sopranos" .

I'm pretty confident in saying that those kind of conversations never really took place on these shows either. But frankly they'd be far more understandable in light of the themes of those shows- but only within reason. Context is very important, and the Calif. state laws are clear on that point!

It should be noted that not ALL the writers are included in this lawsuit. Ms Lyle identified three in particular who were the most offensive. In sworn affadivits they did not deny the behavior nor the sexual tone of the constant "brainstorming" conversations.


Friday, December 10, 2004


Do we invent our moral absolutes in order to make society workable?
Or are these enduring principles expressed to us by some transcendent or Godlike authority?

Lets examine this from various viewpoints:

1) Immanuel Kant, who history has apparently judged as the greatest of secular philosophers, addressed moral reasoning very much as a theologian. He believed humans, "are independent moral agents with a wholly free will, capable of obeying or breaking moral law". "There is in man a power of self-determination, independent of any coercion through sensuous impulses."

Nature, Kant said, is a system of cause and effect, whereas moral choice is a matter of free will, absent cause and effect. In making moral choices, in rising above mere instinct, human beings transcend the realm of nature and enter a realm of freedom that belongs exclusively to them as rational creatures.

2) Adam Smith - In "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" Adam Smith asked a fundamental question: Why do we regard certain actions or intentions with approval and condemn others?

First to understand Smith, you need to understand that at the time, that some people believed the only standard of right and wrong was the law and the sovereign who made it while others believed that moral principles could be worked out rationally.Smith took a completely new direction, holding that people are BORN with a moral sense, just as they have inborn ideas of beauty or harmony.(hmmm, interesting).

He believed that "our conscience tells us what is right and wrong" and that is something innate, not something "given us by lawmakers or by rational analysis." He also believed we have an inate ability to "sympathesize" so he felt that these "natural senses of conscience and sympathy ensure that human beings can and do live together in orderly and beneficial social organizations"

So our morality is the product of our nature, not our reason.

That would imply that our sense of a transcendental code of morality is explained by God's implementing it into the nature of our souls when He created us.

To that we look to Romans 2:15--"Which shows the work of the law written in their hearts,their conscience also bearing witness ". Wait it gets better!

If youre an aethist then are you not a moral being? Are you not capable of living a morally driven life of love and service to others? If you don't believe in God...can you not live a moral life?

And if you do live a moral life, without a belief in God, then where does your sense of what is morally right and wrong come from?

Tuesday, December 07, 2004

These Are Times That Try Men's Souls

I wrote this in April 2004 , but it seems just as relevant now.

As the headlines of late scream about the destruction and death the insurgents are spreading in Iraq, few people seem to be speaking about all the positive exciting changes that are going on, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

In several recent Arab newspapers (because my parents speak Arabic they are adept at translating the language properly) what's being discussed is that the gov't's in Iran, Syria, and Libya, are all beginning to move towards more openness, greater social reform, and a more enlightened approach to eduation.

They say that this is a direct result of what has happened in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It's not because they fear that Americans will try to remove them from power or declare war on their countries. It's because they see the experiment in Iran and in Afghanistan is slowly working, and from there they see what is possible - that they too can move forth into the 21st century while honouring their Islamic roots.

In Afghanistan, American soldiers are training new military personel and police in order to help bring about a central miltary force, which in turn will diminish the power of warlords and eliminate the "mini warlordism"that now exists. This makes the country safer for all peoples. Highways are being built, women are included in the new governing body, music is being played, art is being created, and women along with men are being educated, and becoming literate. Women are becoming self sufficient, being taught how to farm sheep, and sell the wool to earn an income.These changes are slowly but successfully being implemented in a country where the Taliban once oppressed everyone.

Democracy is becoming a reality. At ground level, social, economic and women's justice movements are being nurtured and promoted. The schisms in the human community won't disappear overnite - but this is a great beginning.

Pre -9/11 when the Taliban ruled this was barely dream. Now it's a reality that becomes stronger and more vibrant daily. And an election is around the corner, where not only men but for the first time ever women will be able to vote for their new leader!

The same thing is happening throughout most of Iraq. Inroads are being made daily - rival Kurdish parties have come together to work within an Iraqi parliament when elections come. "Kirkuk is our Jerusalem," they say, and that oil-rich area — long the center of Iraqi Kurdistan, before Saddam's ethnic cleansing —" should be their regional capital in unified Iraq".

It's true that the transfer of power and control to the governing body will not come without some pain, yet it is still excitedly and eagerly being embraced.

The dream of a democratic and secular Iran, whose Islamic roots and traditions are respected, and whose landscape is one of opportunity and hope, is also growing stronger and more vibrant each day.

Democracy is more than just the right to vote....it must be preceded by and include literacy, education for women as well as men, (a sizeable portion of the countries financial resources must be poured into the education of women and girls) access to technological advances, womens rights, the elimination of the massive economic inequality through a more equal distribution of wealth and resources, and religious freedom.This is part of the dream of what a new Iraq and Afghanistan will look like.

These changes cannot be expected to take place overnite; they won't, and whether or not you agree that the removal of Saddam was legitimate, it's clear his removal has made room for these changes to begin to foster.

These changes will continue to grow inspite of the insurgents sick attempts to hold on to the last remaining vestiges of an autocracy that benefitted them at the expense of other Iraqis. Saddam was removed for HIS continual violation of a surrender treaty that he agreed to and that the entire world signed off on, and regardless of the inability to find WMD's (Saddam's scientists duped him and in turn us) it was still a legitimate removal.

There are those who believe that the change should have been allowed to occur on its own...as if that was ever going to happen....HOW long as Castro been in power???

And there are those in the Islamic community that feel the imposition of a democratic government is yet another example of American colonialization. They feel that if Iraq wants to elect a fundamentalist gov't - it should do so -and that in time the people will come to see the problems with that type of gov't and insist on change organically.

Perhaps they need to be reminded that Hitler was elected freely and then there were NO MORE elections until he was removed forcibly. The British also fought dearly to hold on to the New America but in the end, the dream of freedom prevailed. A new order was being born and the birth pains were challenging, but today those of us who live in America know they were worth it.

An aggressive foreign policy, implemented thru the World Bank and the IMF, and often shortsighted, has created some of the hubris that exists and set the stage for anger targeted at America. But that is slowly changing as well. By supporting the dictatorships of Afghanistan (when the Taliban ruled), Saudi Arabia and Egypt, America can at times be its biggest obstacle to the democratization of those countries. The Cold War policies of an era gone by remain with us today, but we are learning with each day to look at our mistakes, to understand why they have happened, to correct them when we can, and to move forward.

We must now learn to understand and to value the history of Islam and its contributions to humanity and we must ensure that it is those positive contributions(art, math, literature, education and religious tolerance)that are remembered and restored to muslim countries as they move towards globalization, and democratization.

When the world is made safe for democracy, it is made save for religious freedom (not religious terrorism) and it is made safe for all people.

"There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads onto fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures."

In light of about a dozen American combat deaths yesterday, it may be difficult to remember that now more than ever is the time that " given their freedom from a savage tyrant, the three groups that make up Iraq could, with our help, create a rudimentary democracy that would turn the tide against terror".

There are those in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran, as well as in America who understand that the tide has changed and the time to take the current and forge new ventures is now.

Saturday, December 04, 2004


What do you value that you would fight and die for?

For some people, the answer to that question is Freedom.

Freedom is the cornerstone and foundation of America, the inalienable right given to all individuals; freedom to assemble, freedom of speech, freedom to worship as one pleases, freedom to belong to ANY political party - democratic, republican, independant, communist, facist.

Freedom: fostered, preserved, and protected rigoursly in the United States.

But with Freedom comes great responsiblity as well as bounderies.

We are not free to take something someone has simply because we want it - nor to hurt or injure someone simply because... (fill in whatever reason or excuse you choose). We are held accountable for our actions and our choices. And while people have the right to assemble, and to voice their discontent at our gov'ts policy - to voice their discontent at the our presence in Iraq- there are bounderies of both decency and civility that exist and should be respected.

When you spit on someone - that boundary has been crossed - as far as I'm concerned.

Freedom to express oneself may be protected...but since when is spitting on someone an expression of anything other than ignorance, and stupidity? And why does that have to be protected?

Spit on me..and the next move you make is from a hospital bed....or at the very least I'd slap you HARD...really hard...and while someone may think I was being excessive in my response...I'm betting 9 out 10 ppl would applaud me.

I suppose I could turn my cheek and walk away, but screw that - spitting on me is attacking my person. And when my person is attacked that opens the door widely for me to exercise a reasonable response: Kick his ass from here to hell and back!

If we all have the freedom to exercise our beliefs, and that includes serving our country and our president, we also all have the right to disagree, but we still have a responsbility to voice that disagreement in a way that doesnt degrade someone else.

Disagree with me on my political views and you can voice that disagreement verbally, in writing or in peaceful protest, and that's fair and protected, but spit on me, and you've crossed the line.

My friend, while going to work, where he earns his livelihood, was spit on, by someone who felt that his chosen profession - which is to serve our country in the Marines - was disgusting in light of all the "atrocities" being visited in Iraq. My friend turned his other cheek - his uniform dictates the conduct that he must uphold. But let's face it if the press got wind of a guy in uniform responding as I DID, well, we all know the backlash would be vitrolic.

Freedom can be unfair at times! But Freedom is valuable and should never be taken for granted. Visit other countries where speaking against the gov't will ensure that you aren't given the option to spit because you are silenced permanently and suddenly you appreciate how very fortunate we are to enjoy the freedoms that we do.

People that have chosen to serve in any area of the military have chosen to protect all of us including the "spitter" from the insanity of others who would take our own personal freedoms and trample on them completely - obliterating them -if given the chance to come to full power. That is a concept that the "spitter's" feeble mind is incapable of comprehending.

In the spitters mind, Bin Laden has a right to fly civilians planes into buildings, blow up trains, kills jews, americans, and anyone whom he sees as the "infidels" and deny anyone the freedoms that Americans fought long and hard to attain; freedoms that we cherish like freedom of speech including voicing dissention against the governments actions or policies without having one's tongue cut out. The 'spitter' believes that the US gov't and those that work for it - those that protect the right of the "spitter" to voice his discontent by protesting- are worse than Bin Laden and are worth spitting on!

Fuck him!

When he spit on my friend, a Marine, he spit on the U.S. Constitution, on civility, on decency, and on every freedom that we have.

He spit on me and he spit on you.

While the "spitter" enjoys his freedom without respecting anyone else's freedom - those who serve our country never take that freedom for granted -they respect it, value it, fight for it, and are willing to die for it.