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?
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.
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.
Here’s a new one from the “I know God agrees with me” files.
The Texas School Board recently held a meeting in which board member Barbara Cargill argued for improving Earth Science standard by replacing the phrase “the concept of an expanding universe that originated 14 billion years ago” with wording that “leaves it up to [students and teachers] to discuss how many billions of years“.
This is what happens when we humans futilely pretend to understand the true intention of the scripture, and attempt to awkwardly fit everything we know into what we believe the scripture says. Here are my observations:
Everything we know, everything we observe, the amount of time it takes for the light of Sun to reach Earth, the gravitational models of stars, the orbits of planets, observed behavior of galaxies, carbon dating, etc. are all consistent with a universe that is about 14 billion years old. If you believe the age of the universe is only 6,000 years, then God must be personally sending your phone signals to cell phone towers, because those signals behave differently and have different speeds in a 6,000 year-old universe than ours.
Can science explain everything? Of course not. There are major holes in all theories. Here’s the point. Gravity existed long before Newton worked on his gravitational theory. Similarly, the nature of gravity was unchanged when Einstein modified Newtonian gravity in his 3 dimensional representation of astronomical objects. Theory does not mean untrue.
Contrary to what Ms. Cargill claims, there are not different estimates of the age of the universe. From a scientific perspective, the estimates are 13.7 billion years plus and minus about 200 million years. That’s an uncertainty of 1.5% which, by itself, does not constitute a different estimate. It’s a long way from 13.7 billion down to 6,000.
From the “I know that literal interpretation of the Genesis is right and I’m sticking to it” perspective, the universe was created 1,000 years after the Sumerians invented glue! If Jesus was around, he would reach out and slap you, followed by saying ‘if you’re not going to use the intelligence I’ve given you, then here’s your sign’.
Don’t get me started on the idea of “God created an aged universe”. You’re only fooling yourself, not God. Again, all you’re doing is making a futile attempt at fitting everything within the model of what you think the scripture says. Wow, God sure seems like a very impatient fellow if he had to fast forward the age of the universe. I wonder what remote control model he’s got? I want one.
Well, it was just a matter of time. Miss California will soon start in a new $1.5 million ad campaign that is funded by the National Organization for Marriage. → source
According to the group, the ad will call “gay marriage advocates to account for their unwillingness to debate the real issue: gay marriage has consequences.”
OK, let’s get real. I’m calling BS on this.
First, I have nothing but respect for Prejean for answering her Miss USA’s question exactly as she saw it. She didn’t pretend or bend the truth. Good for her.
Second, everyone – including most gay activists – knows that Perez Hilton is a pathetic low-life stupid loser jerk and an irrelevant prick. Enough said.
Third, National Organization for Marriage is just as pathetic as Perez Hilton, albeit an even bigger loser than him because it’s an organization with more influence.
National Organization for Marriage
Think about it: National Organization for Marriage (NOM). What should such a name connotate? To me, the name resonates the idea that this organization is established to address all things related to marriage. What are some of the most pressing issues with marriage? Google has the answer:
Infidelity
divorce rate of over 50%
If NOM wants to include gay marriage on their agenda, that’s perfectly fine. However, go to NOM’s website and look around a little just so that you can prove to yourself that I’m correct in the following assertion. There is not one mention of divorce and how to avoid it – not even under the heading of ‘why marriage matters’. There’s not one article about adultery and how to prevent it – not even under the heading of ‘the threat to marriage’. You’ll find no links to resources for marriage counseling. No where will you find anything on maintaining a long-term healthy marriage.
You will, however, find information on which California businesses to boycott, learn about their religious liberty ad campaign, and how to donate money so that they can lobby Congress against gay marriage.
National Organization for Marriage: just as pathetic as Perez Hilton, but bigger.
Those who know me are well aware that I don’t have a strong stand, either way, about climate change as a result of human activities. I never miss an opportunity to speak with people on both sides of the issue, which has yielded an interesting pattern for me.
Without too much generalization, we can all agree that most conservatives do not believe in global warming as a result of human activities, while most liberals do. We can further agree that religion is a strong pillar of conservatism. That doesn’t imply, and I didn’t say, that liberals are not as strong in their religious faith. Do not leave me irrelevant comments.
That said, the entire equation of global warming is a simple one for most religious individuals. God created everything, and gave full dominion of it to his most awesome creation (humans):
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
On the right side of the spectrum are most religious people who believe that because God created everything and because humans are the designated beneficiaries of everything on earth, using earth’s natural resources could not possibly harm it, much less cause its destruction.
In the middle are religious folks who believe that dominion does not imply domination. Hence, it is not only possible to harm the earth, it is the responsibility of humans to protect and preserve God’s creations. On the left side of the spectrum are non-religious people who, of course, believe earth can easily be harmed by humans because there’s no Divine power to stop it.
If you don’t believe in a higher power, then you are well versed in the concept of randomness and evolution. As such, have you ever considered that perhaps it is our natural evolutionary programming and destiny to destroy ourselves and our home? Therefore, there may be nothing we can do to prevent this inevitable conclusion. That doesn’t mean you should remain silent about your core beliefs. It merely implies that all efforts to conserve and preserve the environment may be fruitless at the end in light of humans’ built-in mechanism of destruction. The end may be a foregone conclusion.
If you do believe in a higher power, then you are likely to not worry about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or drilling for oil. Earth is only a temporary home for humans, and we simply do not have the power or the influence to destroy God’s earthly creations. Species go extinct by God’s will, not by humans’ carelessness. Ice caps melt as God desires, not because humans spew CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, there’s nothing to worry about.
Here’s the interesting dichotomy. Religion and conservatism are all about doing the right thing and personal responsibility. The one glaring exception seems to be in the area of environmental movement. In this case, religion appears to give us a free pass.
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?
The war on Terror . . .
Posted by jmjorat 
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 
Well, it was just a matter of time. Miss California will soon start in a new $1.5 million ad campaign that is funded by the National Organization for Marriage. → 
RSS Feed This Blog
