The Inequality of Civilion Life

How the men who committed very similar crimes, are treated so differently

Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs: Accused of plotting to kill 3 Iraqi Villagers and removing their fingers as trophies. 

Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich: Accused of leading a military unit in the massacre of 24 unarmed Iraqi Villagers, including women, children, and one man in a wheelchair. 

Beyond the fact that these are both atrocities that we hate to know exist, let alone in any way be connected to such things. We have to take into account how the act of war tends to bring these things out in people. You cannot ask someone to ruthlessly kill another group of human beings and expect them to remain completely sane. Any psychologist will tell you that putting someone in that situation for long periods of time can lead to drastic personality/morality shifts. I am in no way defending any war crime committed by these or or any other soldiers, I personally feel that they should be held responsible for their actions. What I am trying to shed some light on is the fact that one of these men was sentenced to life in prison, while one of these men entered a guilty plea and was convicted of Negligent Dereliction of Duty, and sentenced to 3 months in prison and a pay cut. I along with many others, would like to know why one soldier was treated so differently than another. Why one's life is essentially over and one of them gets to continue pursuing a career in the military? And how military judges can put such a low price on Iraqi lives...(continue)

Calvin Gibbs: Life In Prison 

Frank Wuterich: Negligent Dereliction of Duty

Negligent Dereliction of Duty: willful or negligent failure to perform assigned duties or performing them in a culpably inefficient manner. That doesnt sound like leading your team into two homes of Iraqi civilians and massacring 24 of them to me... 

Drug Testing Welfare Recipients, Unconstitutional?

We all are aware of the social safety nets put in place to help "catch" and some would say, rehabilitate, people who have been severely impacted economically. Things such as food stamps and welfare that help many impoverished Americans put food on their table, and a roof over their family's heads. Recently there has been proposed legislation that would require recipients to submit to drug testing. It said only to be in the interest of making sure government, neigh taxpayer; money not go toward supporting illegal activities.

                                                           
                                                                      NHSDA Estimates

 One thing most supporters of this sort of legislation will fail to mention, is the fact that before a person receiving food stamps or welfare may take this drug test, they must provide the money for said drug test, and they will not receive any monetary assistance until it has been analyzed, and the results deemed clean by the state. It sounds kind of counter productive, making sometimes desperate people pay money to receive money. Proponents say that once the test is passed, the recipient will then be reimbursed his or her money. So if you're not on drugs, what's the risk? The risk has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that you're asking people who have proven to you; they have such a small amount of money that they actually qualify for you to give them money. You're asking them if you can essentially borrow the money for their drug test. The consequence for not passing the drug test should be the fact that you don't receive the assistance for the things you need to survive, not that you receive nothing and lose money as well.

                                                           Actual Florida Testing Results

                                           Florida Welfare Recipients On Drugs: 2%
                                           Floridians On Drugs: 8%


In my opinion, this is one of two things. Either a way to ensure that they pay out less in welfare checks, whether it be from failed tests, or the much more likely scenario of someone not being able to afford the test in the first place therefor no longer qualifying for the service. Or just another law put in place to further demonize the poor. This is a law that no matter the justifications, circumvents the American ideal of equality. This law further perpetuates the stereotype that just because one is poor, they must commit crimes and do drugs. Or that someone may have become poor due to the use of illicit substances. Either way it's a truly personal attack on a group of extremely vulnerable people. We need to make sure such stereotypes are never solidified into law.