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?

Religion Determines Which Side of Climate Change Debate You’re On

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.

Am I wrong?

Rush (Republicans Under Serious Hammering) Limbaugh – Bow To The Leader, People

Rush Limbaugh

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. 

Bets anyone?

It’s NOT The Economy Stupid, It’s The Stupid Economy

By now, we all know that Congress failed to pass the $700 billion bail-out package on Monday. I’m glad. It does not imply that I don’t care about pain and suffering of the average American. I have learned that opposing any plan that President Bush says is absolutely urgent with dire consequences requires much needed time out and contemplation.

I reject Republicans’ whining that Nancy Pelosi’s speech, just prior to the vote, condemning Bush’s policies is the culprit for the failed bail-out. Karl Rove, on O’Reilly’s show on Monday night, said that the Republicans had no choice. Many in Pelosi’s leadership team voted against the bill, which prompted minority Republicans to also vote it down. Oh, please stop insulting my intelligence by presenting Republican lawmakers as a bunch of weak pansy pushovers that blindly follow Democrats’ commands to sit and stay. I’m not buying this ‘Pelosi Republicans’ non-sense. Subsequent to Pelosi’s speech, 60% of Democrats voted for the bill and 60% of Republicans voted against it. How could Pelosi’s speech have had such a spellbinding power over Republican lawmakers. Did she hypnotize them? Did she slip a Mickey in their drinks? If Pelosi can exert so much power over Republicans, Democrats better seize the opportunity and bottle this intoxicatingly potent and yet masterfully cloaked power. Gosh, I sure hope Democrats use it for good and not evil!

This is a bad bill by conservative standards. In what way is it acceptable to believe in conservative values which rely on self-regulating forces of free market, but expect to step in when things go south? If it’s OK for oil companies to make unprecedented profits despite the chocking effect on the American economy and consumers, it should also be acceptable to let market forces choke the banking system. If conservatism thrives on less-to-no regulation, then government involvement should not be an option for Republicans to pursue. Benefit and risk are the Yin and Yang of free market forces. Corporations should be free to benefit from fruitful risk-taking decisions. At the same time, they should swallow hard and suffer consequences of failure.

This is a bad bill by liberal standards. For a group with an ideology that epitomizes big bad corporations as red-hooded wolves who feast on poor old weak grandmas, this is a heck of a departure toward capitalism. Why would you want to force tax-payers to pay for mistakes of corporations? Where’s your compassion for people?

The economy and market forces are always partially at the mercy of natural harmonics. Everything is susceptible to movements of up and down, left and right, right and wrong, feast and famine, war and peace. You get the picture. Prosperity and recession are not immune from this natural experience. We’ve had prosperity for a while, and now it’s time for recession (maybe).

Alternative solutions from both Republicans and Democrats are ill-advised. Republicans introduced the idea of completely eliminating capital gains tax into the bail-out plan. That’s just stupid. The solution to a failed policy of reduced regulation is not to pile on more of the same. And this is not the right time for it. Democrats introduced more regulation such as a stock-transaction charge. This is equally as ridiculous.

Let the markets’ natural forces take their course. Quick, unprecedented and expensive fixes may temporarily sway the economy in a desired direction, but its effect will be short lived. The full force of its bounce back as a result of our feeble and misdirected impulse will be disastrously more painful and prolonged. We have a choice. We can mess with natural market forces, enjoy a short-lived period of prosperity, and soon suffer its consequences. Or we can face the music now, suffer a short-lived painful period of stagnation, but enjoy a quicker recovery out of this miserable mess.

I predict we will take the first approach. We are Americans. We want less pain, more prosperity, quick fixes, and we don’t want to pay for any of it. Well, guess what? That attitude has now caught up with us. Are we sufficiently intelligent to recognize it?

Rachael Ray Supporting Violent Terrorists? Holy Dunkin’ Donuts!

I know this has already been blogged to death, but I’d like a shot at it.

A Dunkin’ Donuts commercial was recently pulled off the air due to harsh criticism by Fox News commentator Michelle Malkin and other ultra conservatives. The commercial featured Food Network’s Rachael Ray wearing a scarf that resembles the keffiyeh – the traditional scarf of Arab men who may or may not be terrorists. In her on-line column, Ms. Malkin writes ” . . . many folks out there remain completely oblivious to the apparel’s violent symbolism and anti-Israel overtones.”

First of all, Michelle Malkin is an idiot. She was born to Fillipino immigrants who looked and dressed differently from mainstream Americans, and I have no doubt that they were ridiculed for it. Ms. Malkin wouldn’t know anything about that. The hardship of her parents was, in no way, felt by her. She was born here in the US. 

Second, Michelle Malkin is an idiot. Almost all Saudi Arabian men wear similar head scarfs. All but one of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. President Bush has visited with the Saudi King many times. What does the King wear? You guessed it. Shouldn’t Ms. Malkin boycott oil or President Bush? By the way, do not even think about invoking the argument that most of us would protest anyone wearing a Klan hood or a Swastika symbol. Our President does not regularly meet with such people, and we do not call KKK or Nazi nations our best friends abroad.

Third, Michelle Malkin is an idiot. Similarities of Rachael Ray’s headscarf to Palestinian terrorists mean nothing. I have seen pictures of many terrorists wearing blue jeans. I am still waiting for the ‘fair and balanced’ Malkin to call for boycotting jeans.

Fourth, Michelle Malkin is an idiot. She knows nothing of true conservative values. We should not be concerned with what message we may send to terrorists based on what we wear. Terrorists don’t care. That’s petty nonsense, and we are a better and stronger nation than that.

Finally, Michelle Malkin is an idiot. When President Bush and his wife visited the Middle East in late 2007 (I’m not putting a link here, just Google it!), Laura Bush wore a headscarf. Following Ms. Malkin’s pathetic logic, wasn’t that a sign of sympathy for terrorists from the highest office in the nation? Was Ms. Malkin hiding under a rock then?

Did I happen to mention that Michelle Malkin is an idiot?! I believe I’ve sufficiently proven my point.

“Campaign for Children and Families” – An Organization With No Credible Morals And With Questionable Values

The “Campaign for Children and Families” is a California conservative organization that, according to it’s own website, is an innovative nonprofit, nonpartisan pro-family organization serving children and families in California and America.” It advocates homeschooling children (which I see a  lot of value in), and now it has taken issue with the California Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

Randy Thomasson, the leader of CCF, demonstrated his displeasure of this decision by pulling the oldest political trick: If you don’t agree with our view, you must be a Nazi. It’s Godwin’s law for those of you who are familiar with it. CCF’s website displayed the following quote a few days ago:

“Ask your county clerk if they were a Nazi officer during WWII and had been ordered to gas the Jews, would they? At the Nuremberg trials, they would have been convicted of murder for following this immoral order.”

CCF has since replaced the above text on their website, but Google cached pages tell a different story. That quote is very fascinating though. If county clarks were indeed Nazis, they would actually despise gays and lesbians, and Mr. Thomasson’s argument would be null and thus quite lame.

I will not debate whether gay marriage should be permitted or if it’s the right and moral thing to do. That is completely irrelevant to my argument. A 5 minute Google research yields the following results. Out of an estimated 73 million children in the US:

1. Up to 10 million children are being raised in a gay and lesbian households → source
2. 28.4 million children live in low-income families → source
3. 12.8 million children live in poor families → source
4. 9 million children are completely uninsured → source
5. 11.5 million children end up without medical care for part of the year → source

In addition, it is estimated that 200 million children world-wide don’t get basic health care → source

Each of the statistics I have cited above is from entities with passionate motives to inflate their numbers without purposeful deception. In other words, the numbers are collectively as accurate as they come. Here’s my argument to CCF and its members.

For you and your charter to be sincerely credible (nonprofit, nonpartisan pro-family organization serving children and families), you must corroborate it with action. Look at the numbers above. Has anyone in your organization ever bothered to do any research?

The conservative vision is much more grand, sound and encompassing than the Republican agenda of late. For you to be nonpartisan, your history must demonstrate that other issues such as health care are also on your radar scope. I can find no such evidence – on your website or anywhere else. For you to be pro-family, you must have taken genuine and indisputable steps toward supporting children in low-income and poor families. There is nothing on your website that substantiates that. And for you to be serving children and families, you must pay as much attention to pain and suffering as you do to moral issues. Don’t even get me started on your nonprofit status that is nothing but a joke.

Until then, you are merely a political mouth piece; nothing more. Have you considered that you will eventually have to answer for your lack of meaningful action in front of God? Think about it.