This blog is dedicated to logical Reasoning, political consciousness, religious dialogue, intelligent thoughts, uncommon wisdom, current events, and humor.
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.
Here’s positive proof that any well-meaning endeavor and good intention can quickly turn into insincere and downright insulting venture.
Case in point: Global warming as a result of human activity has been debated for decades. We all know and have heard the arguments on both sides. Almost everyone has formed an opinion.
Sir Nicholas Stern advises UK government about the economic threat posed by global warming. According to a recent article in the Guardian, Stern labels climate change deniers as “ridiculous” and akin to “flat-earthers”. → source
In 2007, Ellen Goodman of The Boston Globe wrote an op-ed, stating: “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” → source
Seriously? I personally don’t claim to thoroughly understand climate change, and I’m among a minority of people who do not have strong opinions on this issue one way or another. But I’m fairly certain that those who genuinely do not believe in global warming (as a result of human activities) cannot be compared with flat-earthers and Holocaust deniers.
Also, notice the clever heading of the articles. It’s all about ‘climate change’ not ‘global warming’. Everyone knows that earth’s climate has changed by itself due to natural forces for millennia and long before the presence of humans. Oh, sorry, I didn’t mean to say millennia. It can’t be any longer than 6,000 years, of course! That was back when humans saddled dinosaurs and rode them like cowboys. If you believe that, please purchase your Creation Museum tickets here.
The point is that the old ‘global warming’ term always carried the implication that the current situation was a direct result of human activity. The new term ‘climate change’ insinuates natural causes; therefore, skepticism suggests mental disability.
Talk about a power vacuum in the Republican Party. Actually, it resembles a rift in the Republican continuum.
Technically, Rush is a Conservative. You may not agree with his views but, like it or not, he’s a force in the American politics. He possesses political powers and capital that very few can match. He’s the de facto leader of the Conservative movement in America today. You don’t believe me? Name someone else. I dare you.
But watch out! He’s also a very intelligent, calculating, and revengeful individual.
He’s intelligent because he has invented the right combination of message, insult and vision to have gathered over 20 million die-hard and uncharacteristically loyal listeners. That’s not easy to achieve. No one can match him.
He’s calculating because he can do the math. In clear absence of a powerful, visionary and proven leader, the Republican party is in desperate need of direction. Limbaugh understands, all too clearly, that this is his chance to unite Conservatives and, hopefully, Republicans.
He’s revengeful because he has sent a clear message to all Conservatives and Republicans: you’re either with him or you’re against him. Wow, where have I heard that before! Cross Rush and he will destroy your political future. I listen to him a couple of times a week for about 15 minutes as I go to lunch, and his message has been exceptionally clear. Conservatives must unite and destroy liberalism at any cost.
Even Michael Steele has bowed to him in submission → source
Michael Steele told Politico on Monday: “I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. “It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not.”
Rahm Emanuel
I will now pause so you contemplate Limbaugh’s power in amazement.
It is now clear to everyone that proving Rush is the leader of the right has been the Administration’s plan all along.
Rahm Emanuel must be happy; he got exactly the fight he was seeking. It’ll be a very dangerous and dirty fight. Rush is much more adept at it than Rahm.
I know it’s still early in the investigation of this case, and that he will likely serve some prison term. But does anyone else see the irony in all this. Madoff created a $50B ponzi scheme. Countless people lost their savings and investments. His actions negatively affected the lives of others. In contrast, Martha Stewart served a 4-month jail sentence in 2004 for improperly selling (through insider trading, as it’s claimed) 4000 shares of ImClone. That action, in contrast, did not directly harm others’ well being.
Dennis Prager, for those of you who don’t know him, is a Conservative radio talk show personality and a townhall.com columnist. At a recent appearance in Minneapolis, he made a very interesting claim. Watch this video.
In case you missed it, Prager said:
Equality, which is the primary value of the left, is a European value, not an American value . . . The French Revolution said Liberty, Fraternity, Equality. The American Revolution said Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Wow, which country do you live in Mr. Prager?
First, the Founding Fathers of our great country were . . . European! It is no surprise, therefore, to discover that some European ideas and values have trickled into the original vision of the new country that is now the United States of America.
Second, without the concept of equality:
Sarah Palin, as a woman, could not have served along side John McCain as a VP nominee.
Barack Obama could not have run for President, much less win an election.
A fetus could not be granted the same rights as a full grown human. See my earlier post on this.
You are not to enjoy the same rights as someone who is more wealthy than you.
Much of Christianity’s teachings don’t make sense.
God is unfair in his love of humans.
Third, it’s been widely reported that a European socialist once said: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” He went on to become the first Republican-elected President!
Finally, the U.S. Constitution claims the following 2 points:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Notice the order in which the “truths” are presented in the second bullet point. Equality comes first. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are presented after equality as unalienable rights. In other words, equality is so obvious and “self-evident” that it is not necessary to list it as a right.
Perhaps next time you feel the urge to discuss American values, Mr. Prager, you can at least study the U.S. Constitution first.
A few days ago, I wrote a post about how much I dislike receiving calls from the 2 Presidential campaigns. I absolutely abhor all the non-sense and promises they convey in these messages. I even threatened to vote for Ron Paul if they continue their stupid, boring, and monotonous robocalls.
It appears that I’m not alone in having that sentiment. Politicians are beginning to get the message, and some have finally stepped forward with alternative solutions. Case in point: Zane Starkewolf is a Republican who’s running in California’s First District. He’s a really cool guy. Not only is he a self-professed “Green Republican” (what the hell does that mean? Is he not a Red Republican?), he is a ninth-level elven warrior from Dungeons and Dragons! Wow, that’s the embodiment of coolness.
He can’t be any more cool, can he? Apparently he can. His political robocalls are the bomb. Check this out.
Watch this video. This is Sarah Palin’s policy statement on US budget.
For anyone who doesn’t know about genetics research, just google it and you’ll see a vast array of publications and discoveries about the topic. Fruit fly research is the standard by which many genetic and birth defects as well as molecular biology are studied today. In fact, fruit flies have been used for protein, cell and genetic research for around 100 years. It is precisely this type of research that brings hope to areas such as autism.
I concede that over 50% of US population is unaware of the importance of fruit fly research in the areas of genetics and molecular biology. As the mother of a Down Syndrome child, however, Sarah Palin sure doesn’t seem very educated about genetic defects and research. Doesn’t anyone fact-check her speeches? Anyone? It is clear that she’s been busy recently. She’s definitely sacrificing her family for her country – and I truly mean that in a positive and respectful way.
The Republican media machine jumped into action by saying that she was only speaking of fruit fly research as it applies to agricultural, not genetics. Please, don’t insult my intelligence! Watch the video again and listen to her words. Her condemnation of fruit fly research came in the following context: ”. . . sometimes these dollars go to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good.“
Oh, I know. Perhaps she was only objecting to fruit fly research in Paris, France. She would have no objections if it was conducted in the US. We hate the French . . . don’t we? I forget what our official policy on the French is these days. Do we like them or not? It’s so hard to keep track.
I have also read (on various blogs) that Palin does not believe in genetic research due to her religious views and, hence, her objection to it. I don’t believe that. She’s much more intelligent than many on the left portray her. I assume her children receive vaccinations which, after all, is a direct result of genetic and protein research.
I love this bit from Rachel Maddow. Both she and Keith Olbermann are a little too far to the left for my taste, but I enjoy Rachel’s funny and sometimes sassy remarks.
Here’s a good link to learn more about fruit fly research:
We the people . . .
Posted by jmjorat 
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.
Posted by jmjorat 
Posted by jmjorat 
Sir Nicholas Stern advises UK government about the economic threat posed by global warming. According to a recent article in the Guardian, Stern labels climate change deniers as “ridiculous” and akin to “flat-earthers”. → 
Also, notice the clever heading of the articles. It’s all about ‘climate change’ not ‘global warming’. Everyone knows that earth’s climate has changed by itself due to natural forces for millennia and long before the presence of humans. Oh, sorry, I didn’t mean to say millennia. It can’t be any longer than 6,000 years, of course! That was back when humans saddled dinosaurs and rode them like cowboys. If you believe that, please purchase your Creation Museum tickets 
RSS Feed This Blog
