2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I was an infantryman in Baghdad during OIF III.  I was fired at multiple times, responded to multiple IED strikes and deaths, had a wife that committed multiple acts of adultery in my absence, and did not kill anyone when I returned to the states.  Oh, and I have a diagnosed case of PTSD.

I was beside myself with anger and rage at times, but did not react within any form of aggression towards another person.  The thoughts were there, but nothing more than that.

After listening to the interview with Jesse Bratcher, he made not statements that lead me to believe that he is anything but someone who got caught in an act of premeditated murder.  I understand that he could not comment on many aspects of the case, but past that, he wasted his opportunity to help his cause in the least.

It sounds as if the PTSD defense was the only card he was holding and the courts did not call his bluff.  It is ridiculous. 

Of course, all people react differently to combat stress.  Some are stronger than others and some channel it appropriatley. 

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

The disclaimer at the beginning of the audition packet should have been enough to steer the girl away from the play.  If she and her family are so opposed to such "questionable dialogue" perhaps they should keep her at home in their safe little bubble. 

Public education is designed to serve all who attend, but not all who attend should expect to have the curriculum or choices made by their educators, personally catered for them. 

If the play was approved for production, then that should have been enough for them to go forward.  The family that was offended should have just waited for the next opportunity for their daughter to audition for a different play.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and is free to express their thoughts and ideas, but raising a stink about this play stifles the abilities of all others involved to voice theirs. 

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context