In Support Of Publishing Photos Of Dying American Soldiers In Afghanistan

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?

Who Says Secession Is Bad?

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.

Michelle Bachmann’s Logic: CO2 Is Natural, Therefore Harmless!

I found this interesting. On April 22, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) talked about carbon dioxide in the context of global warming, climate change, or whatever it is called these days.

“Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.”

“Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful, but there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows  that Carbon Dioxide is a harmful gas. It is a harmless gas. “ 

I personally have not decided whether human activity is harmful to the environment. Tag me as indecisive. I don’t care. We simply do not have sufficient evidence, or time line, to irrefutably prove it one way or another, and we never will.

But I’m sufficiently intelligent to know one thing: natural does not necessarily equate to harmless. To think otherwise is just un-naturally stupid.

Do you know what else is natural Congresswoman? Poo. Is poo harmless in your world?

Tax Problems All Around For The Administration

Why is it that this administration’s cabinet members cannot go a few weeks before admitting to some tax problem?

The latest is Kathleen Sebelius who’s the Health and Human Services secretary nominee. She has now admitted that she made “unintentional errors” on her taxes and has corrected her returns from three different years. In total, she and her husband paid just over $7,000 in back taxes, along with $878 in interest.

Before Sebelius, it was Tom Daschle who was the first Health and Human Services secretary nominee. He withdrew his nomination over tax issues.

Before Daschle, it was Nancy Killefer, the Chief Performance Officer nominee, who admitted to tax problems.

Before Killefer, it was Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary.

Before Geithner, it was Ron Kirk, US Trade Representative.

Before Kirk, it was Hilda Solis, Labor Secretary.

I’m no genius, but I’m detecting a pattern here.

The Best Glenn Beck Interview Ever

Every once in a while, even Glenn Beck conducts a brilliant interview. This video is kind of long – 10 minutes. But it’s absolutely brilliant.

Glenn is interviewing Connecticut State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.The premise of the interview is very simple. Glenn is asking Blumenthal what law AIG executives broke when they dished out those bonuses. Irrespective of your outrage over bonuses, the right answer is none. And Blumenthal is not prepared for that.

Clearly Glenn Beck is capable of conducting a great interview, just not every day . . . or week . . . or month . . .

Animal Husbandry: The Act Of Taking Animals As Husbands?

Don’t ask me how I came across this bit of news. I don’t even remember. But you’ll love this display of unbelievable lack of education, culture, and common sense.

State of Florida is working on legislation to make bestiality illegal. OK, good! I’m all for that! It’’s perhaps a little too late, but better late than never.

The language of this proposal was carefully chosen to target those who derived or helped others derive “sexual gratification” from an animal. The amendment specified that conventional dog-judging contests and animal-husbandry practices are permissible.

The vote on the amendment was temporarily held up by Senator Larcenia Bullard (D, FL) who had a few unanswered questions: “People are taking these animals as their husbands? What’s husbandry?” → source

Even after it was explained to her that husbandry was the rearing and caring of animals, she still didn’t quite get it. She asked: “So that maybe have been the reason the lady was so upset about that monkey?” She was, of course, referring to a recent horrific incident in New York where a woman’s pet chimpanzee viciously attacked another person.

These are the politicians that we, the people, elect to Congress.

Bonuses, Suicide, Tits: Chuck Grassley Sums It Up.

Seems like Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

It all began on Monday when Sen. Grassley was steamed about AIG bonuses. He suggested that AIG executives should resign or “commit suicide.” Not surprisingly, he apologized the next day by claiming that he didn’t mean suicide literally. → source

So, how can Grassley redeem himself? Easy! He throws himself a press event and utters the following sentence: “From my standpoint, it’s irresponsible for corporations to give bonuses at this time when they’re sucking the tit of the taxpayer.”

One thing is not quite clear to me. Does the sucking tit part come before committing suicide or as a result of it?

(Eye Of) Newt Eyes Healthcare Reform

To say that Newt Gingrich, former Congressman and potential 2012 Presidential candidate, has lots of ideas for America is a monumental understatement.

Some of Newt’s ideas are refreshingly radical and yet suspiciously alarming at the same time. He would like to require exercise for school children, extend tax breaks to grocery stores that open in the inner city, give bonuses to food stamp recipients who buy fruits and vegetables, make students walk to school if they live close enough, and lots more. → source

Wow, for a die-hard Republican, he certainly walks a thin tight rope of socialism. Government mandates? Really? I wonder what Boss Limbaugh thinks of all this. Gee, I sure hope Newt doesn’t have to apologize!

Anyway, Newt has a fabulously unbelievable – and to some extent deliciously unthinkable – idea for reforming health care. He believes it’s time to consider paying teenage girls not to get pregnant. → same source as above

Yes, you read right! Pay teenagers to not get pregnant. Ironically, his plan does not include paying teenagers to not have sex. That would be too logical – and admittedly difficult to verify without a chastity belt. Just pay them for not getting pregnant . . . while they inevitably engage in sex.

Forgive my ignorance, but isn’t that what Republicans typify as socialism? Isn’t it an example of government hand-out? Can it not be construed as a type of affirmative action? Doesn’t it circumvent personal responsibility without incentivising by the government? Will it require a bail-out at the end?

Newt also believes that states should consider paying teenage girls who become pregnant to take prenatal vitamins to forestall paying additional health expenses for neonatal care down the road. → same source as above

Pay careful attention to the above paragraph: states should consider . . . Some one please leave me a comment and explain conservatism idea of less government to me. How do we the people end up with less government in our lives if, at the end, we shift regulations and mandates from the federal government to the states?

Bobby Jindal’s Response – For God’s Sake, Use The Force Young Jindal

I admit it. I did not listen to or watch President Obama’s speech on Tuesday addressing the joint sessions of Congress. I did, however, watch the Republican response by Bobby Jindal. I always listen to the opposition response (Democrat or Republican). That’s where I learn more detail, and I use that as my measuring stick. I had no intention of blogging about Jindal’s response. It’s already been blogged to death. But what the heck . . .

Where did Republicans find this guy? He’s as charismatic on camera as John Kerry. His uncomfortable reading of the tele-prompter was as non-engaging as watching Mr. Rogers anchor the nightly news. Mr. Jindal, didn’t anyone inform you that a story about your immigrant parents is now cliche? It’s been doen already by Obama – and masterfully. If you keep talking about it, the Republicans may begin investigating the authenticity of your birth certificate too. The only portion of Jindal’s speech that I could get into was the last few minutes when he spoke about what conservative values mean. 

Rachael Maddow’s views are too far to the left for me, but I got a chuckle out of her reaction to Jindal’s rebuttal. She’s really funny sometimes.

But watch out everyone. Rush Limbaugh is mad and he’s not going to take it anymore. During his radio show on Wednesday, 2/25/09, he gave a stern warning to conservatives:

“Because if you think people on our side, I’m talking to you, those of you who think Jindal was horrible, in fact, I don’t want to hear from you ever again if you think that what Bobby Jindal said was bad or what he said was wrong or not said well, because, folks, style is not going to take our country back.”

No Rush. You’re wrong. Style counts. Reagan’s success was not accidental. He had style. He had charisma. He brought people to his side. He spoke elegantly. He didn’t fumble through his speeches. And, more importantly, he fully comprehended the concept and importance of being popular. 

By the way, here’s a nice article about 10 things you probably don’t know about Bobby Jindal.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/05/22/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-bobby-jindal.html

White House Counsel Greg Craig’s Colorful Resume

So I was doing a little research the other day about the new administration when I came across this little nugget. The White House Counsel is Greg Craig. The name sounded familiar to me, so I looked him up. Here’s a little window into what he has done in the past. Wikipedia his name and you’ll see much more.

In 1977, Craig represented John Kearney, the first FBI agent ever to be indicted. Mr. Kearney was accused of illegal wiretapping, breaking and entering, and mail opening in connection with the FBI investigation of the Weatherman (organization).

In 1981, Craig represented John Hinckley, Jr., who tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan. Craig successfully led Hinckley’s insanity defense.

In 1991, Craig represented Senator Ted Kennedy during the rape trial of William Kennedy Smith. It is important to note that Senator Kennedy himself was facing no charges in this trial.

In 2000, Craig represented the Cuban father of Elian Gonzale during the child custody dispute.

In 2004, Craig represented United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan who was under investigation for scandals involving oil-for-food program.

Craig has been a longtime adviser to former president Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And much, much more.

An interesting person to have in the White House.