This blog is dedicated to logical Reasoning, political consciousness, religious dialogue, intelligent thoughts, uncommon wisdom, current events, and humor.
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.
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?
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.
By now, we all know about President Obama’s visit to Notre Dame. It was filled with controversy for Christians and especially for Catholics. Please! Get real! I have 2 quick observations:
First, I find it fascinating that the Republican party – the party that prides itself on less regulation and more personal responsibility – is so determined to pursue Constitutional Amendments against gay marriage and abortion. Whatever happened to leaving regulations to the States? Whatever happened to leaving personal matters to individuals’ decisions? Clearly, all that big talk apply only if they agree with your religious views and political agendas.
Second, let’s assume abortion is killing a living baby. I can truly accept and, in a way, believe that. Now, some one tell me how abortion can be viewed as a much worse act than killing a living person. Remember the 10 Commandments? Remember the sixth one: thou shalt not murder? No where does it say thou shalt not murder only the unborn.
I find it absolutely hypocritical that most Christians who are so against abortion are precisely the same individuals whose core ideology is the same as that of Rush Limbaugh’s and Dick Cheney’s. The same ideology that merits we (the U.S.) are the king of the world, we should govern the world and protect ourselves at any cost, and if some innocent lives are lost in the process, so be it. Every time we drop bombs and rockets to kill terrorists, we inevitably kill some innocent by-standards in the process. Some of those innocent souls are children, newborns and even unborn. Therefore, we are violating the sixth commandment. Where’s the outrage? Where are the protests?
In no way am I suggesting that we should not fiercely protect ourselves or avoid pre-emptive strikes. And I’m not so naive to think that we can do all that with no non-military casualties. But then I don’t have an existential crisis, and I’m not hypocritically against abortion while practically supporting the deaths of unborn and pregnant women in war. That is not for me to resolve. Those of you Christians who are against abortion and thought Obama’s visit to Notre Dame was an abomination must work this out between yourselves and your God. And be careful what conclusion you reach. If you believe that God agrees with your views and supports your plan, you have reached the wrong conclusion. It should be exactly the opposite!
Eternal damnation is not just for those who support or perform abortion. It is also for those who violate the sixth commandment. That could be you. Think about it.
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.
Larry Ford of Fort Walton Beach, FL has a message. He doesn’t like President Obama, and he definitely wants everyone to know it. So he did what any other person in his position would do to protest. He erected a sign at a busy intersection that reads: → source
JAN 20, 2009
A DAY OF DARKNESS
HUSSEN
In case you’re wondering or confused, the last line of the sign read Hussen – as in a mis-spelled version of Hussein. When someone pointed out that Obama’s middle name was mis-spelled, Mr. Ford replied:
“I think everybody knows who I’m talking about, don’t you?” he said. “American people are the stupidest people in the world, but something like that I think they can figure out.”
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.
We have certainly kicked off the new year with a wave of Op-Ed articles that have completely different tones than in the past 8 years.
On January 4, the New York Times published an Op-Ed article written by John Bolton (former ambassador to the UN) and John Yoo (law professor and former deputy assistant attorney general) titled “Restore the Senate’s Treaty Power”. In it, they argued that the Senate must exercise its constitutional power to prevent the President from taking unilateral international actions. Mr. Bolton and Mr. Yoo are worried that President Obama will push through a Kyoto style treaty agenda.
Like past presidents, Mr. Obama will likely be tempted to avoid the requirement that treaties must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The usual methods around this constitutional constraint are executive agreements or a majority vote in the House and Senate to pass a treaty as a simple law (known as a Congressional-executive agreement).
No kidding? How convenient! Now that a Democrat is about to become President, it is apparently of the utmost importance to ensure that Congress’ power is in place. The Constitution has been around for a couple of hundred years. Where the hell were you guys in the past 8 years? Oh, that’s right! With a conservative administration in power, there was no Constitution to worry about, was there?
The article went on:
The framers of the Constitution designed the treaty process with a bias against “entangling alliances,” as Thomas Jefferson described them in his first inaugural address. They designated the Senate as the body responsible to protect the interests of the states from being bargained away by the president in deals with foreign nations. The framers required a supermajority to ensure that treaties would reflect a broad consensus and careful, mature decision-making.
What is truly sad about all this is that I completely agree with the Op-Ed. Senate’s treaty power must be enacted and exercised. But it should have been enacted 8 years ago. I ask again, where the hell were you gentlemen during Bush’s Presidency? Was your computer broken? Could you not have written this Op-Ed 8 years ago?
Even by their own admission, Mr. Bolton and Mr. Yoo conceded that President Bush did not seek a supermajority in the Senate during his years in office.
President George W. Bush resisted many efforts at global governance. But his administration still sometimes fell into the temptation to flout the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority in the Senate.
You guys (Bolton & Yoo) are pathetic. You are correct in your view, but pathetic in your timing and execution. Don’t you know that until you demonstrate you are willing to drink your own Kool-aid, no one other than members of your own base will hold you and your opinions in high regard?
The war on Terror . . .
Posted by jmjorat 
We the people
Posted by jmjorat 
Posted by jmjorat 
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 . . .
RSS Feed This Blog
