This is why I pick on the so called “progressive” folk

A man in California set himself on fire to make a protest. But was it a protest to speak out against the war in Iraq? How about the suffering in the third world countries? Was is to rage against the establishment that brought us domestic wiretapping or so called suspension of habeas corpus? I wish it were only that serious.

But no, a grown man set himself ablaze to protest a California school districts decision to change the names of the winter and spring breaks back to Christmas and Easter. Why, why have we become so sensitive of a society that the littlest thing offends us? Why is “Christmas”, or “Santa”, or “Easter” so harsh a word to utter? Why do we think it is necessary to get so upset as to set ourselves on fire because a school district changed the name of a break? Seriously, I just do not get it. What am I missing? Are we that insecure with ourselves that we are upset by the littlest thing? And don’t try that whole “The government should not force religion on us” argument, because it is ridiculous, baseless, and over used. Simple saying Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy Easter, or calling something “Easter Break” is not forcing religion on anyone nor is it something to get upset about and if you do, you really have some serious personal issues to deal with. Lighten up (no pun intended) and get over it!


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238505,00.html

America there’s no need to fear, the Democrats are here

Move over Al Qaeda. Step aside Hamas. Forget about it Iran. There is a new bad boy in town and the Democrats are here to protect you. Massachusetts law makers are considering a bill that will ban the use of trans-fat in restaurants (http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/12202006/massnews-ph-ma-transfat.html). I for one am relieved. Once we rid ourselves of trans-fats, we are free to continue consuming mass amounts of food, washing each cheeseburger down with a gallon of soda, with no fear of expanding our waistline. Because it is really not how much we are eating that is killing us, it is really what is in our food. Sure, we can continue eating and eating and eating, with little to no exercise, but as long as we abolish trans-fats, we are OK.

And I am glad that the government is there to look out for us and tell us what we can and can’t eat. We do not need the right to make decisions for ourselves. As long as the government is there to make these decisions for us, there is no need to take any responsibility for our own actions.

Hey, why not use our wiretapping program to spy on the Keebler Elves? While we are at it, why not round up Aunt Jemima, Colonel Sanders, and the Pillsbury Doughboy? Really, could there be any more useless piece of legislation?

Here are some sites I have come across that deal with the issue of trans-fat and government intervention into our personal lives. If I am missing something, please let me know.

Boston Herald Article

The truth about trans-fats

Opps...

So it looks like nobody told Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel's nuclear program was supposed to be secret. Earth to Israel, duh, we kind of already knew about it. Earth to the rest of the middle east, now you know too. Maybe that was the point all along.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061212/ts_nm/israel_nuclear_reaction_dc

The real global warming culprits

Worried about global warming? Do you cry when you see a SUV? Do you swoon over Al Gore? Well, then this post isn’t for you. If you want to get down to the real story and identify the true criminals of global warming, then check out this post from foxnews:

Livestock Worse Than Humanity?

A report by the United Nations' Food and Agricultural Organization says cattle and other livestock cause more greenhouse gases than cars, planes, and all other forms of transportation put together. Britain's Independent News says the report blames cow flatulence and manure for one-third of all methane emissions — which warm the earth 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.
The world's 1.5 billion cows are also blamed for everything from acid rain to desertification and the destruction of coral reefs. And while cows are taking the heat in one U.N. report, another says humans are doing less harm to the environment than previously thought. The Sunday Telegraph says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reduced its estimate of human affect on global warming by 25 percent. And it has lowered its prediction of how much sea levels will rise by half. The Panel cites improved data for the revisions.

I have not checked out this report yet, and will comment more when I do, but I felt I still needed to say something.

What’s in a name?

There seems to be a lot of debate on what is the appropriate description of the violence in Iraq. Is it simply sectarian violence as the Bush administration is calling it, or is it a civil war as the press has now labeled it? In my opinion, both labels do not accurately describe the mess that is Iraq. The Bush administration seems keen on using the former label as it sounds less threatening. The media has been itching to use the term civil war for quite some time and my guess as to why they decided to start now is that they just could not wait any longer to use it. In American society, the term civil war conjures up painful reminders to our own brush with civil war and the mere thought of it only serves to further erode support of the war. I believe this is exactly what the media wants. They have been against the president since the contested election of 2000 and have not let up since. This hatred is detrimental to our efforts and undermines what we are trying to accomplish in fighting the war on terror. However, that is not to say that this administration does not deserve some media scrutiny, because it most certainly does, and it is important to understand what we have gotten ourselves into.

Let’s start with the term “sectarian violence”. Sectarian is defined as “religion relating to or involving relations between religious groups or denominations” (Encarta Dictionary). So sectarian violence is simply violence between various religions groups. If only it were that simple here. This definition does not take into account the strong influences of Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda. It is a fact that Iran is providing Shia militias with weapons (http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501). Al Qaeda, if I am not mistaken, is supporting the Sunni factions. So as we see this is not as simple a situation as warring factions by themselves. Here we have an already volatile situation made worse by the outside influences of Iran and Al Qaeda.

The term “civil war” also is misleading as it too does not take into account the external factors previously mentioned. Wikipedia defines civil war as “A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war). I admit, you would probably be able to find many definitions of “civil war”, the reason why I do not think Iraq qualifies is that in Iraq you do have a unified, albeit weak, government comprised of all sects. The Sunnis and Shia are not so much as fighting for control of this government as they are fighting to eradicate the other from existence. Essentially you have a potential genocide problem on our hands.
So what do we have in Iraq? I would describe it as “gang warfare”, where you have various factions fighting for control of territory and neighborhoods, much like two gangs fighting for control of Los Angles streets. Or even Mafia like fighting, with the various religious leaders acting like crime bosses. One of our biggest mistakes is that we underestimated the tribal bonds if Iraqis. I have read that Sunni police only want to go after Shias and that Shias only want to pursue Sunnis. How do we combat that?

Recently a veteran of the Iraq war came to speak at my place of employment on how life is in Iraq. I forget the rank of this gentleman; I think he was a Major. I do remember he is currently attending the Fletcher school of diplomacy, not exactly your local community college and not exactly your knuckle dragger type, as John Kerry would suggest. Two things he told us really struck a chord with me. The first is that it is considered an insult to make contact with another mans wife, daughter, or sister. More than a mere glance can start a “blood feud”. So as our troops patrol the streets, this is the type of detail they need to keep in mind, something that is a direct opposite to our extraverted nature. The second story has to do with our use of force in civilian populations. To us, the killing of civilians is strictly found upon. I do believe we take great care in trying to minimize civilian causalities. However, to the common Iraqi, this is seen as a weakness. This officer told us that Iraqis refer to the US military as “soft as cake” because we would NOT consider killing a group of civilians for the CHANCE of killing a terrorist.
Their value of human life is so much different than ours and for that reason alone, we are not succeeding. As long as the various sects, propped up by Iran and Al Qaeda continue to kill each other, there is really nothing we can do. So, do I think this is a civil war? I say, does it really matter? Until we address the real issues, it does not make an ounce of difference as to what we call it.