|
| If you notice the reporting of the Ft Hood massacre is very careful to downplay the Muslim faith of Major Husan. Even the official words of military leaders caution the public against jumping to conclusions about the motive for the attack. There seems to be more concern about the backlash against other Muslims than there is about reporting accurately and just saying it how it is. They go to ridiculous lengths too, like speculating post-traumatic stress disorder for a man that never was deployed into combat. We are suppose to ignore evidence that links this man to Muslim terrorists. Major Husan was a Muslim and it is likely his Muslim faith played a role in his decision to open fire on his fellow soldiers. It seems political correctness is at least partially to blame for this tragedy. The story coming out slowly seems to be that the military ignored the warning signs and gave him special treatment because he was a Muslim. Time does a wonderful job of exploring the topic of political correctness and the shooting in this linked the artcle. Like I said in my last post, I don't think Muslims should be denied rights or discriminated against because of their faith. Most Muslims aren't terrorists, thank God. But at the same time we should not ignore the fact that many terrorists are Muslim. Denying the truth about the Ft Hood shooter's faith or ignoring links to Muslim terrorist organizations is not necessary. Giving Major Husan's suspicious behavior a pass because of his faith is inexcusable, this kind of political correctness will cost lives. | | |
| When hearing about a murderous rampage, like that of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, it is easy for our basest "protect the herd" instincts to take over. But, almost immediately my thoughts went back to a recent conversation I had about the internment of Japanese families during WW2, the mistreatment of German speaking CO's, and how much harm was done to so many people for no good reason. US Citizens were imprisoned and put in camps, not because of something they did, but only because of their ethnicity. It was a good starting point for my thinking, because soon after a friend of mine shouted "WE SHOULD NOT HAVE ANYONE IN OUR MILITARY THAT IS A MUSLIM!!! AND I SURE AS HECK THINK THAT NO MUSLIM SHOULD HAVE GUNS!!" on their facebook status. I'm not going to repeat the vigorous religious debate that ensued afterwards, but I will cover an aspect that I didn't discuss in detail and that being the importance of not abandoning the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. In my further thinking, I recalled recent shootings that involved single and male gunmen who plotted and then acted out violently against a culture they despised, neither of them Muslims or of middle-eastern descent. Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter wasn't Muslim (if anything anti-religious) and was South Korean. The Colorado Springs shooter, Matthew Murray was white, possibly gay and anti-religious in his rants. George Sorini was single, white and a nominal Christian. The Columbine shooters were agnostics or anti-religous. Going back a few years, the Oklahoma City bomber, a military vetern, Timothy McVeigh, was agnostic. It would set a very dangerous precedent to deny a Muslim entry in the military and gun ownership because of his religious beliefs, because if we do why stop with Muslims? There is no freedom of religion if a person is disqualified from service to their country and excluded from the right to bear arms on the basis of their religion. If we deny rights to Muslims today, it is a matter of time before Christians or others will denied rights using similar rational. Christians should pay particular attention, because not too long ago I heard a critic of Sarah Palin make a ridiculous suggestion that Palin would try to bring the "end times" about since she was a Christian. It is true, Maj Husan is a Muslim, we are at war with Muslim terrorists in Muslim lands and thus it is very possible that Husan's faith played a role in his shooting rampage against his fellow soldiers. But despite that potential religious motive, Husan is a US citizen and entitled to the rights defined in the US Constitution. Muslims should be treated as individuals, just like everyone else. Those who value the rights granted to them as citizens in the US Constitution should fight any attempt to deny those rights to other citizens, because what goes around comes around. "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither" -Benjamin Franklin | | |
| Since Obama took power there has been a campaign against one industry after another, the claim is the "obscene" profits of this corporation or that justify direct government intervention in the market, even the extreme measure of a government "option" to compete with private industry. Never have I seen private enterprise demonized so severely. The drum beats of war are in the air, but is the government's justification for this unprecedented power grab a lie? The mainstream media has been extremely negligent in reporting on more than the rhetoric of those who are demanding a radical restructuring of the US economy. Not only is it impossible to find a comprehensive list of what states already do for the uninsured, but I haven't even seen an actual fact check of the claims of "obscene profits" by the neo-liberals (or neo-marxist statists) in power. It is unbelieveable that the same press that dutifully "fact checks" a comedy routine about President Obama on Saturday Night Live has not even bothered to check the claims of the most powerful man in the world and his neo-liberal cronies. Finally AP has done some real journalism and has not only debunked the myth of the "obsene profits" of insurance companies, but also proved false the claim that insurers did better under the prior administration. According to the AP fact check, insurers make a paltry 2.2% profit and did not prosper during the Bush era. If you know anything about business and accounting, you know that is a profit barely worth the effort and certainly not "obsene" when compared to other businesses. What motivates the left in this country to destroy business and demonize profits is a fundemental misunderstanding of economics. The premise is that the free market exploitative and if all you look at is corporate profits, you may actually believe that. But, the truth is that the profit motive is what encourages productive behavior and makes the economy efficient. Since a private business cannot force people to buy their product, to remain profitable they must compete on price or value. BMW can sell a car for three times the price of a Hyundai because it has value to a certain consumer. On the flipside, because of the price difference, Hyundai can sell three times as many cars as BMW. If the economy goes downhill and people can no longer afford to buy a BMW, then that corporation has big choices to make if they want to remain profitable. They could lower production and layoff employees or cut product quality and compete directly with Hyundai. But either way, profitability is a must or they will eventually go bankrupt and potentially put everyone who worked for them out of a job. The insurance survives on caluculations of risk. An automobile insurance company would go bankrupt in short order if it decided to charge everyone (regardless of driving record) a flat rate and decided to cover pre-existing conditions. What would happen is that people who never paid in the poll, were uninsured and had pre-existing dents in their cars or a poor driving record would quickly sign up. That would dry up money available forcing a severe rate hike. Then, as a result of the higher premiums, the drivers with good driving records would flee in droves to insurers who more fairly pro-rated them according to the actual risk. The free market is a two way street, you pay for the goods and services of others keeping them employed, while they buy the goods and services you provide giving you the money you need. The worth of your labor or service is determined by the willingness of others to pay for it. If you charge too much, a competitor will enter the market and take advantage of your greed. If you charge too little, you will not be profitable and eventually go bankrupt. It is a system that benefits everyone involved according to the worth of their contribution. When the government enters the market, it disrupts the balance and rewards people not according to their contribution to the market, but their connection to those who hold power in government. The neo-liberal health care "reform" does nothing to improve quality of health care. No, it is nothing more than a way to erase the already slim profit margins of health insurance and eventually put them out of business. Waiting in the wings for the many Americans left uninsured will be the one remaining option that doesn't need to have a sustainable business model to survive, the public option. Once the public option monopolizes the insurance market, it will put the government in a position to dictate pay for services and by extension wages of health care workers. Obama ran for office promising "single payer" health care and judging by his rants against anything or anyone that competes with his power, I have no reason to believe he has changed. Only the rhetoric has changed, the current spin is "choice and competition" is nothing but a Trojan horse disguise to hide the underlying goal of a government monopoly of the health care industry. His goal is the same now as it was when he campaigned: Eliminate private insurers and replace it with one option, the government option. It is time for the media to stop acting as a shill for the Obama administration, start researching the claims and start asking tough questions. If journalists wait too long and let Americans remain in the dark, they may find that the same government that took the power from their fellow Americans (while they cheered or just stood idly by) will not be content to let them do as they please. When the government takes freedom from any group of citizens, it is a threat to your freedom as well. Learn this lesson while you have freedom, not after you lost it. | | |
| I really like the message of the "everything is amazing but nobody is happy" video. Unfortunately you tube dropped it and I can't find a good link to embed it, so you will have to click here and follow a link. So, true too, we live in an amazing time yet we probably complain more than any other generation. Another link to follow, a website on the topic about increasing congressional representation: clicky click | | |
| Those three words uttered by former President Bush in reference to the insurgency were the subject of a great amount of media scruitiny and criticism. But, say what you want about the pre-war intelligence or the wisdom of enforcing the Gulf War armistice and resuming active hostility, with Bush we had a leader who was resolute and decisive even if it cost him politically. In contrast, President Obama's handling of Afganistan is questionable. After weeks of deliberation in a war where the situation on the ground is steadily detoriating and time is of the essence, we are still waiting for direction. Worse, instead of relying on his military leadership who are experts on fighting wars, Obama sent of all people, John Kerry, a war protester, a man who's testimony against his fellow soldiers led to a pre-mature withdrawl of troops from South Vietnam and set up the fall of that country to a repressive communist regime a few years later. It is no wonder that today Kerry comes back saying more troops aren't necessary yet. Are you kidding me?!? It isn't that Obama is incapable of bravado and cowboy-ish swagger. In fact, Obama has been trash-talking those who oppose the Democrat option for health care reforms, taunting his critics "I'm just getting started" and promising to railroad his unpopular health care agenda. A man who doesn't call insurgents terrorists and can't make a choice whether or not to commit more troops to Afganistan, is the same who quickly dismisses protestors who oppose his radical domestic agenda and declares war with the one media outlet that dares to ask tough questions about his plans. By targeting his critics, he is really at war with the First Amendment and it will probably just be a matter of time before he will attempt to silence his critics using the force of government, you wait and see. Like I said two posts back, neo-liberals need to be in control of you. In addition to the two quotes I mentioned a few posts back of Obama and Reich acknowledging that the elderly may need to be denied care, there is chilling words from an Obama health policy advisor Ezekiel Emmanuel, in this article that suggesting strongly your doctor shouldn't decide your treatment based on what is good for you and the Hippocratic Oath, but by determining what it will cost the collective. That is what they aren't telling you about the public option and what the mainstream media ignores, health care reform will come at a greater cost to someone, either by denial of care or higher taxation. Elected leaders are suppose to listen to those they serve, this administation lectures us on what they think we need, then attacks and tries to marginalize anyone who disagrees. At least with Bush the guns were pointed outwardly, unfortunately with Obama they are facing back at you, he threatens your liberty and possibly your life. Obama is at war with you. | | |
|
