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.
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?
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.
Sharpen your #2 pencils everyone. History revisionists are hard at work. The plan is to exonerate the Bush administration from the events of 911.
A recent email from RNC chairman, Ron Duncan, to a number of registered Republicans states:
“For the last eight years, President Bush has led our country with firm determination and a steady hand in the face of numerous challenges and crises. He restored honor and integrity to the White House and protected America from another terrorist attack.” → source
Wow! Really? For the past 8 years?! Don’t you mean for the past 7.5 years? Those first few months were very crucial, you know!
It’s not as if the administration had any advanced warning about the impending terrorist attacks. I mean, there was no presidential briefing titled “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.” or anything similar!
Even the former Vice President is not missing a beat – so to speak. During an interview on Meet the Press, Bob Schieffer asked Cheney: “I’d guess I’d ask you the question that Ronald Reagan used to ask. Are we better off now than we were 8 years ago?”
Dick Cheney: “Well, I think we’ve done some very good things in the course of the last 8 years. Defending the country against further terrorist attacks like 911 I think is a major accomplishment for example . . .”
Did you catch that? He’s a masterful speaker. In other words, 911 was not his problem and it did not occur during his watch.
Do you really think that was a simple mistake and he really didn’t mean to imply that? Do you also think that the ‘bridge to nowhere’ really was a bridge to a major metropolitan area?
So, if God forbids something happens in the next 4 years, Obama has failed. In contrast, a report titled “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.” landing on Bush’s lap was non-actionable.
So, the mortgage meltdown was caused by the Republicans and on their watch, right? No so fast!
As early as April of 2001, the Bush administration, while working on its 2002 budget, called the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a “potential problem” that could “cause strong repercussions in the financial markets.” In 2003, John Snow, the then Treasury Secretary, lobbied Congress to create a new federal agency to effectively regulate the two mortgage giants. At that time, Barney Frank, a ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, was adamantly arguing that “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis.”
Barney Frank: “The more people, in my judgement, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially, and withstand some of the disaster scenarios, and even if there were problems, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.”
Even Alan Greenspan, during a House Financial Services Committee Hearing in 2005, argued for regulating Fannie and Freddie.
John McCain added his concerned voice in 2006 during a speech on the Senate Floor: ” . . . and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market . . . the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.”
This entire situation is laced with irony. Here we have Republicans arguing for more regulation while key Democrats arguing that the system is working just fine – mostly in the name of providing affordable housing to all.
I am fully aware that current financial and mortgage disasters were caused by a series of fairly complicated events. Clearly what’s presented here does not fully explain everything, but it is certainly something to think about.
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 
To say that Newt Gingrich, former Congressman and potential 2012 Presidential candidate, has lots of ideas for America is a monumental understatement.
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
