The war on Terror . . .

Once again, news stories about our war strategy in Afghanistan are dominating headlines. And the recent icing on the cake is President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize and how that may affect Afghanistan’s military direction.

Have you ever really paused to reflect on how our current strategy of ‘war on terror’ began? I’ve had this conversation numerous times and, almost regardless of political affiliation, the conversation resembles the following:

Q: Why are we in Afghanistan?
A: Because al-Qaeda attacked us, and the Taliban helped them.

Q: Why did they attack us?
A: Because they hate us.

Q: Why do they hate us?
A1: They hate our freedoms.
A2: They detest our wasteful lifestyle.

This is about the point where I shake my head in utter disbelief. How naive and stupid can we be as a nation? Terrorists don’t give a damn about our freedoms or how much of it we have. They couldn’t care less about our lifestyle either. They don’t have time for this non-sense. Grow up people. Jealousy is not their motivation. They attacked us because they detest our presence in the Middle East and our meddling in their affairs.

The conversation continues:

Q: Why are we in the Middle East?
A: To protect our interests.

Q: What are our interests?
A: Peace, democracy, Israel, ensuring 9/11 never happens again.

How small-minded! Most Republicans I speak to do not even cite oil as a top reason for our presence in the Middle East. Democrats jump all over the oil issue, but are unable to see the big picture.

The only reason we are in and care about the Middle East is oil. If you’re unable to see this truth, you live in a fantasy world. As a nation, we don’t care about democracy in other parts of the world. We are not interested in human rights. We are not able to control terrorism abroad. Don’t be fooled by what the government is telling us.

Democracy

Who’s our best friend in the Middle East despite the fact that they produced 19 of the 20 9/11 hijackers? Saudis, of course. Do they have a democracy? Far from it. When was the last time we threatened them with UN sanctions? Never. Why? Oil! I rest my case.

Who’s our other best friend in the Middle East? Israel. Do they have a democracy? Yes. Has that helped us in any decipherable way in the past few decades? I, as a member of the American public, am not aware of any. Are you?

Human Rights

Where was the last Olympics held? In China. Did we force them to confront their human rights violations in return for awarding them the Olympics? No. Why? They own our currency.

Terrorism and Spread of Democracy in the Middle East

The war on terror is not winnable. There, I said it. It is so un-impressively naive to believe that a democratically-elected government in Afghanistan is going to bury terrorism for us. Even if that was the case, then what? Pakistan is next, and we’ll have no choice but to invade them as well. At some point, we’ll have to deal with a nuclear face-off between India and Pakistan. In the mean time, Saudis will produce generation after generation of terrorists.

Democracy does not stop terrorism in the Middle East. In fact, there’s evidence that it will increase it. Israel is a democracy. Has any of that rubbed off on their neighbors in Palestine?

So much for protecting our interests in the Middle East.

Volkswagen’s fun theory

We the people . . .

A major news story recently is about Afghanistan and how President Obama must make a decision to either send more troops there or scale down the forces. This reminded that earlier this month, AP published a photo of a dying American soldier in Afghanistan. Aside from objections from the family (I’ll address this later), most of the outcry came from Conservatives (don’t tell me it’s not true, you know it is!). The basic premise was that publishing the photo is an attempt by the liberal media to break the resolve of the American people for support of the war(s).

First, that argument is pathetically disingenuous. Not a day goes by that I don’t hear Conservatives cry foul about Obama’s policies. The phrase most used is socialism. The objection most aired is that the government is taking over everything.

Let’s examine that argument for a moment. In a socialist state, the government controls everything and the people are along for the ride. The American government was established based on a constitution with a pre-amble of ‘we the people‘. Have we forgotten that? ‘We the people‘ should run the government (we haven’t for a long time, but work with me), not the other way around. Therefore, ‘we the people‘ have every right to see pictures of war casualties. That is our right, and it is the only way ‘we the people‘ can decide for ourselves whether the sacrifice is worth the price.

Second, although I whole-heartedly support the right of ‘we the people‘ to see war pictures, I see no altruism in AP’s act of publishing this picture. Director of AP photography, Santiago Lyon defended publishing the photo by saying:

“We feel it is our journalistic duty to show the reality of the war there, however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is.”

I don’t believe a word of it! Where has AP been for the past 8 years? Their claim of ‘journalistic duty’ doesn’t impress me. This is nothing more than a stunt in search of more readers, attention and revenue.

Third, my heart goes out to the family of the soldier. ‘We the people‘ have every right to view such photos if we wish, but that should not be at the expense of a grieving family. That soldier’s face could easily have been pixellated with the click of a mouse. His identity was not germane to the story; the rest of the picture conveyed the narrative adequately.

Finally, if you’re in the slightest bit afraid of what such pictures may do to the resolve of ‘we the people‘, or if you’re unable to stomach the gruesome nature of such pictures, then perhaps it’s time to rethink our war strategy.

Are we still ‘the people’ referred to in the preamble to the US Constitution?

So a few months ago, everyone was talking about secession – OK, maybe just some Republicans in southern US States. All went quiet for a while until just recently.

As I think about secession, I’ve come to believe that it is not necessarily bad for America or that it will negatively impact our country.

Consider this. The old Soviet Union was  a super power and the controlling center of many states – willing and otherwise. Soviet Union’s breakup resulted in many independent countries; some prospered and some continue to struggle. Nevertheless, I believe that all those independent states are more content now than they were under the Soviet umbrella.

Think about it. Russia is just as powerful as when it was the Soviet Union. That power may not resemble that of the days of the cold war, but it is unmistakable. Russia is able to derail many UN resolutions by voting against them. It is able to alter the course of international policy purely by projecting (or retracting) its support. How many times in the past few years have we heard that Russia and China formed an alliance to oppose international sanctions or policy proposals?

By the same token, a separated United States could also conceivably remain just as powerful and effective but perhaps in different and, as of yet, undetermined ways.

Here’s more food for thought. Consider a severely contentious issue in American politics. Let’s choose abortion. I’m willing to bet money that if we asked Californians whether Texans should have access to abortion, a majority will say that they don’t really care. The greatest thing that matters to Californians about abortion is preservation of their own right to abortion. On the other hand, I’m betting the same amount of money that if we asked Texans the same question about abortion involving Californians, a majority will say that no one in the US should have access to abortion. In other words, the more Conservative and religious the state, the more likely it will be to impose its views on the entire union.

What does this tell us? Well, remember what this country was based upon: individual liberties for all and a non-dictatorial central government. So, why not permit a State such as Texas to secede from the union if the values of its people are in direct contradiction to those of the rest of the United States? Texas and anyone who cares to join this independent state will be happier and more free. In the process, the balance of power will remain the same for the rest of the union, and the US will continue to exist and prosper over time (once we get past this recession).

Change and opportunity come in one package. Embrace them.

By now, everyone has heard about the infamous Erin Andrews peep-hole videos. Google it if you haven’t. A million people have blogged it already, so I will refrain from explaining the obvious. I will not weigh in on whether this was an inside job at ESPN, if this will boost Erin’s career, or how much pain this has brought to her life. But I have two observations that no one else seems to emphasize.

First, I find it fascinating that O’Reilly’s coverage of this event focused on how privacy in the digital age has all but disappeared. For a guy who regularly sends his producers out to stalk people that he doesn’t like, O’Reilly argument is stupid. He is one of the biggest violators of privacy himself. His whining about lack of privacy is hurting his credibility and my ears!

Second, I watched Geraldo Rivera’s segment on this issue, and I was stunned to hear him defend the right of the person(s) who recorded the videos. He said:

This is not necessarily a crime. Unless this is a state – there’s only 12 of them that I know – that require both parties to consent. If this is a single party state, and the guy is looking through a peep-hole, I don’t know what’s the crime? What’s the crime?

It really did take me a few minutes to make sense of why he was defending the videos. Now that I understand it, it’s so simple. Geraldo works for Fox News, and this is a clear way of justifying the hidden ACORN videos and defending the rights of the students who made them. I don’t see any other explanation.

By the way, don’t judge what I think of ACORN. You’re most likely going to guess wrong.

Yes, we can . . . I mean . . . yes, it does!

I dismissed this at first. I could not see how “yes we can” could possibly sound like “thank you satan” when played backward. But after listening to a number of recordings and trying it for myself, I totally believe it. The thing to remember is that “thank you satan” doesn’t have to sound perfect. It just has to be phonetically close. Listen for yourself → Thank-you-Satan

Try it for yourself. If you have Windows OS, go to Sound Recorder and record “yes we can”. Do this a couple of times in a row so that you can get the full effect. Then play it backward (Reverse option under Effects menu). With a little imagination, it will sound like “thank you satan”.

Now do it the other way. Record “thank you satan” a few times in a row, and play it in reverse. This time it will sound like “yes we can”.

There we have it. Our President is thanking Satan. Well isn’t that special?

Where’s the Church Lady when you need her. If you don’t get that reference, you must be very young and I hate you.

Here’s one for the annual Darwin awards.

In early September, two teenagers became trapped in a storm drain in Adelaide, Australia. They had a mobile phone with them. Instead of using it to call emergency services (000 in Australia), they used it to update their Facebook status. → source

Technology in the wrong hands is a dangerous tool. I will now pause while you make your own jokes.

And don’t even think about defending these girls. Yes, I know that it’s better for many to call emergency services rather than only one. I also understand that texting usually uses less battery power than a phone call. Finally, I am well aware that if the girls were kidnapped and couldn’t talk, a Facebook update may have been more appropriate.

I’m betting it was none of the above. Considering that girls generally mature earlier than boys, long-term prospect for humanity frightens me. We’ve all done stupid things, but come on!

On a related note, I’d love to become a fan of “teenage girls trapped in a storm drain for an eternity, OMG OMG”, but can’t find the fan page.

This reminds me of a Steven Wright joke:

The other day at Macy’s the power went out. Fifty people were stuck on the escalator for half an hour.

Either these two girls are absolute idiots or they are visionary geniuses. Only time will tell. But for now, there’s only one thing to say: use your !@#$%^&* phone!

That title ought to boost my traffic after a 4-month absence.

A wacky new thing is brewing in the UK. Unions and Podiatrists (now that’s a winning combination) are considering banning heels in the workplace. → source

Podiatrists state that wearing high heels can “cause blisters, corns, calluses, damaged joints, knee and back pain”. Gee, thanks for that penis-shrinking image. Also according to the article:

Some women argue that stiletto heels give them a power advantage in male-dominated workplaces because the shoes make them appear taller and enhance their sex appeal. Others consider the shoes demeaning and symbolic of the sexist subjugation of women and their health to satisfy male whims and fantasies.

I have news for those of you who think power and sex appeal come to women who wear high heels at work. It’s time to throw away your Snow White videos. You live in a fantasy world. The only men you gain power over are precisely the ones who see women as sexual objects in the first place. All you’re doing is fueling their fantasies. Duh!

I also have news for those of you who think heels subjugate and demean women. Wow, I applaud your misplaced sense of self-esteem! All those self-help, positive-affirmation books you’ve read have clearly given you a false sense of sexuality. It’s obvious that you think waaay too highly of yourselves. Trust me when I tell you that more than half of women in heels are not sexually appealing to males who do not use zit medication before being dropped of at High School. It’s time to get over yourselves.

Here’s another news flash. Why are high heels only about women? What about men? Have you ever thought about how wearing sexy heels may tease men? Aren’t you women, in a way, victimizing men? Think about it.

Why is there a debate? Why is wearing heels not the decision of each individual woman?

Heels or not, I personally don’t really care either way. I only have one request. Please refrain from wearing high heels with shorts under any and all circumstances. That’s not sexy in the least bit. Get a clue.

And as a parting gift, since I’ve alienated both men and women already, here’s a Yo Mamma joke:

Yo Mamma is so fat, she left the house in the morning in Stilettos and came back in the evening in sandals.

And no! That joke is not demeaning to women. It’s just a joke. If you disagree, then tell me how all the TV commercials depicting men as complete idiots and women as brains of humanity are not demeaning to men. See?!