Bad News: Oh, the horror...

Multiple kids get gunned down in DC and all the media can talk about is a poor 15 year old girl who hung herself after being "bullied" ... and we say that preferential treatment is non existent anymore. More lives lost - and more tragically in DC - but the young white girl from Ireland gets the big story. And the whole idea that we cannot blame this young girl AT ALL for killing herself is ridiculous. People want to wonder why teachers/administrators had no clue what was going on... it's in the article! Phoebe kept to herself. She didn't really tell people what was going on. Her friends probably knew better. Where were THEY? Her parents SHOULD have known better. Where were THEY? We all want to blame someone but the obvious people, but at the end of the day she tied the noose and stepped away from the ledge. She hung herself and she didn't have to. Yes kids are cruel. And they will never stop being cruel. To think we can police this in schools will just push it out of their jurisdiction back to the parents who don't even have a clue of what's going on in the children's lives. Ridiculous. Personally, if we get choice over who to blame, I blame the Pope.

The Health Care Chronicles: The Health Care Debate

If the following words/names come out of your mouth when discussing the Health Care bill, I will not be willing to debate with you the merits of the bill because I will already know where you get your news and how you feel about the bill:
1) Socialism/Communism/Marxism/Maoism
2) "Obamacare"
3) "Ramming it through" or "Ramming it down our throats"
4) "Backroom deals" (or any of the "Lousiana Purchase", "Cornhusker Kickback", etc.)
5) Tea-party (if spoken about positively)
6) [Will continue to update as I hear more talking points]

On my own personal note, I'm not entirely sure how to feel about this bill that passed last night. I don't know enough about it yet. I am looking forward to learning what it contains before I make an up or down decision on it, but I will say that I fundamentally agree something needed to be done. I will also say that I hardly believe this to be a bill containing Socialism on the level many Republicans believe - we are not going to be standing in Soviet-style bread lines, or taking our marching orders from Stalin now. I am skeptical however at the fuzzy math that suggests we may be able to pay for this over the long-term. This country is deeply in debt (thanks largely to 2-3 decades of BOTH parties spending on their favorite items - defense, social programs, etc.) and I'm interested to get a chance to read the CBO estimate as to how this will be paid-for. I'm also keen on seeing some independent review of the CBO's numbers or interpretations of the bill - as long as it's coming from NON-PARTISAN sources. Whether or not this will reign in costs will be left to be seen soon.

Oh, and to all of those who claim to be Christians in America these days, I'm hardly a church-going Christian, but I know that Jesus would not have denied health care to the working poor. If you do not believe that health care is a basic human right of a developed nation, then you need to search deep down and ask yourself just how Christian you are.

Man-made Global Warming: Hoax or Win-Win Situation?

Having been through the research process a number of times, I know that you can make foregone conclusions based upon data. It's easy to get wrapped up in the results you're looking for rather than what may be the truth. That said, it's completely unfair to the thousands of scientists - who generally are apolitical - to accuse the climate change researchers of being politically and financially motivated. Many within the research-side actually have altruistic intentions of ensuring that we have not hit a tipping point. That said, there is some scientific-based skepticism that is definitely worthy of merit, particularly this guy Dr. Roy Spencer (www.drroyspencer.com) (who has never been funded by the oil companies to research alternatives to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis).

Are we jumping the gun with legistlation? Perhaps. At the end of the day however, even IF human-caused global warming is false, using less energy, researching and funding alternative sources of energy (including nuclear), all while doing more to make less of a CO2 impact on the environment is a win-win; we become more energy indepedent and stretch out our reserves of limited natural resources. The argument against doing so is short-sighted and only concerned for how it will affect our pocketbooks with little regard to what we may be leaving for our grandchildren.

Opinion does not equal scientifically/statistically researched hypotheses. I give weight to both sides of the argument on their scientific merits; opinions on both sides, I do not. Right now, there is a mountain of evidence that shows a global warming trend coinciding with an increasing CO2 global concentration. When/if the alternative hypotheses can mount that much data in opposition to the commonly held manmade causes, we can kick ourselves, but faith and skepticism are not on equal footing with the scientific method.

Hey World, does Obama really deserve the Nobel Peace Prize yet?

Don't get me wrong, generally speaking I am a fan of Obama and his style of governing. More-over it's nice to have someone who can pronounce words and string sentences together. However, what has Obama done yet to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? I mean, there are people who dedicate their lives to the cause of peace, but you give it to the guy that's not even been in office for a year. I know, you like the guy. And you wanted to send a message saying that you love the fact that he's not Bush (you won't get any complaints from me), but without Palin, McCain would've been at least a LITTLE better than Bush.

It IS a great thing that he got it, but the simple fact that I am questioning the merits means that there's a Boston Harbor full of Tea-Baggers, Birthers, Beck-ians, and Limbaugh acolytes that are going to jump on this and let it support their wacky ideas of the coming Apocalypse. Yes, Obama has severely shifted the American tone in the World and it has been a great thing to try to win our good-standing back in the World, but I think this pick comes across as politically expedient and reeks of political correctness.

They could have waited a few years in my opinion. I have little doubt that as the Obama presidency moves forward, he (and his Administration/staff) will further attempt to bridge gaps and bring peace to the World - just as the US should use its standing to do - and what better way to help in about three years when reelection comes up? You see, the conservatives are going to foment over this for the next three years saying Obama is the President that Europe (they will say it in a very condesceding way) likes. This will further their message that he's a socialist/Marxist/blah-blah-blah-ist, but the dumb American public is going to buy into it. I just think the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama was a bit too preemptive.

It Came from the Comment Boards! #4: The Redskins Wreck Report Edition

The Redskins Wreck Report: Skins 14, Lions 19

Finally some people seem to get it on the comment boards as everyone calls for Zorn or Campbell's head; it's DANIEL SNYDER damnit!

"Snyder is the problem and it goes far deeper than his greed and the high prices he charges for tickets and parking. Prior to 1999, the Redskins were one of the premiere organizations in the NFL and you could see or feel that in the players, the type of leadership they had, and pride in the team that represents the nation's capital.

For more than 10 years, the Redskins, as an organization, haven't come close to that level of excellence on or off the field. They have been and continue to be an organization in disarray because of poor personnel decisions and a lack of leadership. Daniel Snyder, like Jerry Jones, meddles in every aspect of the organization. He's like a kid who bought the team and wants to do everything his way. And just like a kid, those desires change very often so you never know what direction the Redskins want to go."

This team has been in constant upheaval over the past 10 years. Nothing is consistent between coaching schemes, players, etc. This is ridiculous. Let's just keep changing it until we get it right? We've become so fickle as Redskins fans that we are too impatient to ALLOW change to occur over a few years. So we let go of QB's who go to other teams and win them games. And we let coaches go that go to other teams and win them games!

Jimmy Carter says Tea-Baggers are Racist.

I think there are legitimate concerns amongst the Tea-Baggers, but most of the vitriol seems to be spewed by those who - maybe outside of their own understanding why - simply hate Obama. I was no fan of Bush, nor do I constantly sing Obama's praises, but the accusations and out-right craziness that is on display for the entire country to see is rooted in something. There is a reason as to why some of the outrageous claims - palling around with terrorists, socialist/Marxist/facist/word-of-the-day-ist, Hitler, - stick to him better than some of the ridiculous things coming from the left did to Bush; Obama is different. Different in ways that to some are misunderstood/unfathomable. The clearest difference as to why people cannot or do not want to understand the man, or simply listen that he is trying to speak to all Americans, is because he IS different. These folksy people pouring out from their small towns have probably not had to deal with black people outside of avoiding certain areas of town or giving change to the bum on the corner. To them, there is a perception that someone who is half-black is all-militant and all-angry at the white man. Then they bemoan the left of caving to "white-guilt." Well, as a white man, I have nothing to feel guilty about, but certainly things to feel sympathetic towards. To me, the right is projecting onto those of us who have made it into the 21st century of race relations their own guilt.

So no, it's not ALL racism, and I understand the fear of the concentration of power in the government (AND in corporations), but I think it is safe to say that the most seething individuals - and therefore the most likely to make it on TV and into the American public's perception - are in fact acting out of racism.

An Eight Year Reflection

Today marks the 8th anniversary of the very tragic, horrific, and surprising attacks that on occured on September 11th, 2001. Not since Pearl Harbor had America had such a jolt to our collective sense of security and military standing in the world. My heart sincerely goes out to all of those who lost someone or who has lost someone in the War on Terrorism since.

There comes a time in the mourning process where, after going through the motions of anger and denial, that we need to reflect on what the loss means. I was not personally affected by 9/11, but at the same time I was. I did not lose a family member or a friend, but I did lose a sense of security that I know most Americans held dearly close. I recall shedding tears in the days that followed as I saw American flags draped over highway overpasses on 295 between Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC or when I watched replayed clips of the towers falling and the panic that was occurring on the ground.

It almost seemed surreal, and I think it was the reality of the situation - that I was not watching a movie - that affected me most. In a movie you know no one is ACTUALLY hurt. The World Trade Center towers falling would be merely a special effect, either done in a scaled model or completely on computers. The people running for their lives would be actors, who would either collect their cash for being an extra and go on with their normal lives or return to their trailer after getting lunch from craft-services. But this was real. To this date, I still have trouble watching those scenes of sheer terror. The looks on peoples faces cannot be replicated in a movie. The scenes of the firefighters covered entirely in dust in the fallout regions of the NYC streets were like nothing I have ever seen before. Then there were the bulletin boards that went up all over the city with pictures, names, and phone numbers with the simple intent that someone just wanted to hear a loved one's voice, or just to have confirmation of what they either feared to be true or had faith had not occurred.

I was 20 years old. Too old to not understand, but too young to have seen death on that scale - in America - before. In the days that followed, the welled up sense of patriotism in my heart and mind lead me to want to seek vengeance. We had so much good-will built up in the international community as many countries joined us in solidarity. Being mindful of international politics even before taking a class, I had mentioned to friends on 9/11 that I thought Osama bin Laden likely had some part to play. When reports started coming in about the Taliban and their complicity in the events with bin Laden I thought, "We've got to get those fuckers!"

In this way, I understand where people are coming from when they imagine an enemy that needs to be obliterated and sent back to Hell, figuratively or literally speaking. However, over the past eight years, I've grown callous to the machismo/bravado-laced arguments for foreign policy by force. We sit, eight years later, without Osama bin Laden in our custody (if he is even still alive), fighting two separate wars (and not a single war on two fronts), and piles of military debt, both literally in the gross amounts of money spent on both wars and figuratively in the service that many Americans have given to our country. There is no doubt in my mind that our service-people, though still trudging through Iraq and Afghanistan with a pep in their step, are growing weary. Sons and daughters want their mommy or daddy back home. Wives and husbands, girlfriends and boyfriends want their significant others to not have to be redeployed.

Taxpayers want answers and results. The weak case for Iraq was for the protection of America from weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), though it seemed much less weak at the time. I was taking an international politics course at the time of the lead-up to the Iraq war, so I was intimately aware of the history of Iraq and the entire Middle East, particularly in the past half century, focused primarily on Saddam Hussein's rule. I saw the merits in the arguments for and against the war and was ultimately not convinced by George W. Bush's speech, but rather Tony Blair's speech to the House of Commons. Here we sit, still in Iraq, working to rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed while looking for the unfound WMDs and then rooting out the insurgents we attracted to the region. And people have the audacity to intone the losses incurred on 9/11 to continue to pursue this costly venture, as if somehow we are going to break the mold of the colloquial definition of insanity - doing the same thing and expecting different results.

The War on Terrorism is a war that is nothing like what we have fought before; it is a battle of ideologies. Surely, comparisons can be drawn between this war and the Cold War purely by the fact that it was a war against an opposing ideology - Communism - fought largely on the basis of containing and eliminating said ideology, but beyond that is where comparisons fall flat. In the Cold War our enemies were states or nation-states; the USSR, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, etc. Now we are dealing with nations of people. People who are not necessarily tied to their country of origin as much as they are to the ideals of radical Islam. This makes the identification, location, and extraction of any of these terrorists quite precarious. We need the world on board with us in order to achieve capture and elimination, but we have lost a lot of the good-will that was generated post-9/11.

I would never wish another 9/11 on America, but I fear that in our attempts to prevent an event of this magnitude and horror we are almost asking for it. We have done nothing to address the root causes of terrorism; it's like saying we are going to fix a leaky pipe by collecting the water, getting rid of it and continuing to replace the bucket - it's not fixing the pipe itself. That does not mean I have all of the answers, nor do I have concrete suggestions on how to address the root causes. I'll leave that up to the policy makers who have had many more classes and much more experience on these matters. I think the Obama administration is making the right moves in trying to address the War on Terror more diplomatically, but there is a great deal of damage that has already been done thanks to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice. Their assertions that "might is right" and the fundamental belief that we are free from reproach carried with it a sense of arrogance overseas and there is no better example of their reckless ideology than what occurred at Abu Graib prison.

We have to ask ourselves, despite the money spent and despite the increase in government (Department of Homeland Security - an increase in government that was not bemoaned at all by Republicans or town-hall meetings with enraged citizens), are we any safer than we were on that fateful September morning? If based solely on appearances and rhetoric, I think most would resoundingly say, "Absolutely," but appearances and words can be funny like that. Sure, we are more AWARE of the dangers that can befall us, after all, we have our nifty terror alert color scheme. We are more AWARE of who would seek to harm our country and our people. But does that make us any more adept at preventing a tragedy such as 9/11 to catch us by surprise again? Arguably, I would say no, because we, "the West", are over there as "the Infidel" making few in-roads in trying to understand the causes of terrorism and how to prevent or at least minimize its multiplication.

And at the risk of being accused of being anti-Semitic, which is quite often the case if this argument is made, I think much of the detestation of the US in the Middle East stems from our unwavering support of Israel. Again, it all boils down to the collective US belief that "might is right" and Western-style democracy is free from reproach, as if Israel does not have a part to play in the attacks from the Palestinians. For the record, I believe both sides act like petulant children, but we sometimes need to ask ourselves in the US: "How would I feel if my land were taken from me?" or "How would I feel if I were forced to live in a ghetto (i.e. the refugee camps), where few economic opportunities were extended to me simply because of my ethnicity?" Then we may begin, at least, to understand the birth of Palestinian terrorism - which may translate somewhat to the birth of Islamic terrorism, something we've really only largely experienced since the 1960's.

In conclusion, I hope our leaders (in both political parties) take a moment today to reflect on the dramatic changes in our reality that September 11th spawned. I hope that they understand that we cannot go this alone. Finally, I hope that we continue to make strides in removing ourselves from Iraq - a war in which we should never have been involved - and focusing our efforts on making permanent changes in Afghanistan (and perhaps Pakistan) that could help change the ideological landscape of those two breeding grounds of radical Islam.