TexProdigy

Marriage: According to the Bible

Over the past several months, I have heard many, many arguments regarding the Judeo-Christian meaning of marriage. Hmmm. Let us look at some things the Bible says about marriage:

1. Apparently having more than one wife is alright with the Bible. (Ref: Genesis 29:17-28; II Samuel 3:2-5)
2. You can have concubines and even more wives! Men will like that. (Ref: II Samuel 5:10; I Kings 11:3; II Chronicles 11:21)
3. If the woman you marry is not a virgin, the marriage is not valid and she get to be stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
4. If a Christian marries someone who does not believe in God, the marriage is invalid. (Genesis 24:3; Numbers 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Nehemiah 10:30)
5. Once people get married, they cannot get divorced. (Deuteronomy 22:19; Mark 10:9)
6. If a woman's husband dies, his brother can marry her. If he decides he does not want to marry her, or does not produce children deliberately, he pays a fine of one sandal and get spat on by the elders of the city. (Genesis 38:6-10; Deuteronomy 25:5-10)

Americans do not follow those rules (as far as I know). Even the people who came over in the Mayflower did not follow those rules. King Henry VII changed the rules so he could get divorced from wives who did not bear sons. It was actually his fault he only shot "X" bullets instead of "Y" bullets. How many women are not virgins when they marry? How many people marry outside their faith? Last time I checked, polygamy was still illegal. How many women would want to marry the bothers of their husbands? How many men would want to marry their brother's wife?

The laws, rules, and regulations we follow today would not be recognised by people alive one hundred or even a thousand years ago. Those who use the Bible to proclaim marriage has not changed are either not reading the Bible, not reading the same Bible I am, or just making shit up. Marriage has changed significantly over the centuries. Marriage needs to change just as the world does. We do not live in the same world that was around when Genesis, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Mark, and all the other books of the Bible were written.

Goofus and Gallant

Dentist offices, clinics, and waiting areas all seem to have Highlights Magazines. I find them amusing to read. One of my favourite sections is "Goofus and Gallant." Goofus is disrespectful, lazy, etc. Gallant is respectful, hard working, etc. We have our own Goofus and Gallant in terms of service to the country during Vietnam.

Goofus checked a box that read, "Do not volunteer for overseas service."

Gallant wrote a letter that read, "1. I request duty in Vietnam. My billet preference is 'Swift' boats with a second choice of Patrol Officer in a PHR squadron. ...4. I consider the opportunity to serve in Vietnam an extremely important part of being in the armed forces and believe that my request is in the best interest in the Navy."

Goofus is George W. Bush. Gallant is John F. Kerry.

I do not think John Kerry is a boastful man. From what I've seen and heard in interviews in newspapers, radio, and on television, he is very humble. I think Kerry did not want to release his records unless he had to so it would not appear as if he boasting about his service. The Republicans wanted him to release his records because they thought something in them might discredit what Kerry has been saying. Kerry's record actually is much brighter than what Kerry has been saying. His citations and reports speak glowingly of him. Now, I know when citations are written, they are usually written in the best possible light. However, these citations and reports promptly shut down the Republican arguments. I think the Republicans should be more careful next time and make sure they really want what they are wishing for. Democrats, too, should carefully consider what they ask for, lest they get something they do not want.

A Picture Tells 1000 Words

One of the things that upsets me about the Iraq War is that Americans have only been told one side of the story. A fact of war is that people will die. Last time I had figures, 690 Americans died. However, I don't think people realise the human impact because the Bush Administration has restricted the release of any pictures or footage that shows American dead. I think because we don't see what is going on, the Iraq War feels like a video game. Americans are removed and detached from it.

One of the pictures banned form being taken by the Pentagon slipped by and was recently printed in the Seattle Times. The woman, Tami Silicio, who took that photo did it to show the care and respect about 20 American service members were given on their final flight to the US. Her company, Maytag Aircraft, fired her over the story.

I think Americans should see everything. They should not be kept from the fact that Americans are dying in Iraq. Things are not going swimmingly in Iraq, contrary to what Bush says. Would pictures of caskets damage the war effort? Maybe. At least the administration would be honest with the American people. The families and loved ones have been affected by the loss of the 690 Americans.

The other thing that upsets me about the Bush administration is that President Bush has not attended one single funeral of a service member. Not one! I understand he cannot attend all 690 funerals, but he could have attended at least one. Bush should be at Dover Air Force Base every time a plane comes in with bodies so he can see the impact of what his policies cause.

War impacts many people. To not acknowledge that death is a part of it is a great disservice to service men and women around the world. America's military should be used to back up our diplomacy should it fail. We should not go into a war based on false pretenses as we did in Iraq. I am not against using force, however, I think if force is used, it should be as a last result after all other options have been exhausted.

Hypocritic Oath

A news article linked by Atrios says a law passed by the Michigan House would let doctors or other healthcare workers refuse to treat patients with whom they objected to based on moral, ethical or religious grounds. Last time I checked, doctors took the Hippocratic oath. I have run across two versions, the Classic version and the Modern version. Both are similar.

How can someone who has sworn an oath to care for patients then turn around and refuse to take care of them? I think a second law should be passed. If a doctor refuses to treat a patient, he or she will lose their medical license and will not be allowed to practice medicine. This is just like the pharmacists in a couple of states (Texas being on state) who refused to fill a prescription for drugs ordered by a physician.

If the Michigan bill becomes law, can male Muslim doctors refuse to treat women because their religion disallows it? Can a Hindu doctor refuse to treat a Muslim? Can an atheist refuse to treat a Christian? This potential law will open up a can of worms that were never intended. I just wish people would stop trying to impose their religious view on others.

Shortfall

Apparently, things are not going swimmingly budget-wise in Iraq. An article from Yahoo! News has the details. The Pentagon's top general, General Richard Myers, said that because of all the fighting and the increasing violence, the war effort will have a four billion dollar shortfall by early summer.

Four billion dollars! That is a ton of money. I thought the war effort received an additional 87 billion dollars just a few short months back. It is almost like watching a dot com burn through its venture capital. According to Pentagon officials, the Iraq War is costing 4.7 billion dollars a month. Those numbers boggle my mind. I know operations cost quite a bit of money, but these numbers are huge.

I remember listening to White House briefings and having the speaker tell the American public that oil revenues would pay for the whole thing. They said Iraqis would welcome us with flowers. To me it all sounds like the hype and promises the dot com companies pledged to their investors. The American public needs to question the Bush administration more. The Bush administration needs to be more open, honest, and transparent in its dealings.

Marriage Sanctity

I have a Sirius satellite radio. It's awesome! I can listen to all kinds of different kinds of music - Rock, Pop, Rap, Country, Electronica, etc. On my drive to work, before most people wake up, I listen to electronica. I bee bop along to the music and stay awake. In the afternoons I listen to the Michelangelo Signorile show on Sirius.

Yesterday, on the Michelangelo Signorile Show a caller from Georgia had a suggestion that I thought would be brilliant. The caller suggested that a gay man and a lesbian sign a prenuptual agreement first. Then go down to the courthouse, get a license to get married, get married, then after a period of time (perhaps in homage to Britney Spears), say 55 hours, get a divorce. Then they turn around and do it again. And again. And again.

Eventually, if enough gays and lesbians did this, it would gum up the system. People, gay or straight, would have a hard time filing for a marriage. Those going through a divorce would have a hard time going through the courts because so many other people would be trying to do the same thing. Hey, if you can go and get married on television, get married by Elvis in a drive through wedding chapel in Las Vegas, and get married to and then get an annulment from your high school friend in 55 hours, marriage must be sacred, right?

I find it odd that people on the right now blame gays and lesbians for ruining their marriage. Let me cite some examples. Blowhard Rush (Mr. Oxycontin) Limbaugh is now on his third marriage. Newt Gingrich got a divorce from his wife who was dying of cancer so he could marry the woman he was having an affair with. Neil Bush, George W and Jeb's brother, who while married, had an affair with and allegedly impregnated an aide to his mother, Barbara Bush. He also went on trips to Thailand where women just sauntered into his room to have sex with him and give him an STD. I can cite many, many others on the right who are on their second or third marriage. You have to ask yourself, "Did a gay or lesbian make them divorce in the first place?" The answer is no. If marriage was so sacred to them, why did they not tough it out and stay married to their first wife? Sure, they would have been miserable, but the sanctity of their marriage would have been in tact.

Now, the gumming up of the courts and marriage process would show that marriage is not as sacred as everyone wants to think. If it takes hold, it may come back to bite the marriage movement in the ass. Conservatives in legislatures might enact laws making divorce harder. They may make getting married harder by placing time restrictions on how soon a person can get married. They will try their best to legislate morality.

I believe full acceptance of gay (and lesbian) marriage across the US will happen in my lifetime. It will just take some time before it all happens.

Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East

I am currently studying the Old Testament in a class. One of my fellow students and I were discussing Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East in general. He believes these are the "End Times." I'm not too convinced the "End Times" are upon us. He says Israel should rebuild the Temple on the Temple Mount. I brought up the fact that the Dome of the Rock, also know as the al-Aqsa Mosque, currently sits where the Temple was. al-Aqsa is believed by many Muslims to be the place where Mohammed ascended into Heaven. The only remaining part of the Temple is the Western Wall, considered to be one of the most holy places in the Jewish faith. He said new studies show the actual temple was not where the al-Aqsa Mosque is but just beside it. I have not seen these studies. He also said God will solve the problems there as laid out in Revelations.

The al-Aqsa compound is quite large. I think any attempt to rebuild the Temple, either by razing al-Aqsa or building in the al-Aqsa compound will inflame Muslims around the world and start a cycle of violence. I guess if it did happen, it would bring the "End Times." That would be like some Neo-Roman culture rising up and proclaiming the Vatican was the site of a temple to Jupiter, Venus, or some other Roman gods or goddesses and that it needed to be torn down in order to rebuild their temple. I know Catholics and many Christians around the world would do everything in their power to prevent one stone from being moved.

The problems in the region of Israel and Palestine go back many, many years. They go back to before the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948. They go back to before the Crusades. They go back to before the first Temple was destroyed. The troubles in that region go back millennia. I do not think either side knows the original reason why the conflict started to being with. People in the Middle East hold on to history and grudges for a long time. Many live in the past and wish for a future in which they are once again the dominant power. Instead of living in the present, the past and future are longed for.

I do believe that with good faith efforts put forth by Israelis and Palestinians this conflict can be resolved peacefully. Both sides must stop killing. They need to stop killing civilians. They need to stop killing members of groups or political parties. The biggest and hardest thing both sides must do, but so far cannot seem to do, is compromise. I hope to see peace in the Middle East in my life time, but I'm not sure I will. The conflict has been going on far too long.

Soldier of Fortune

I have mixed feelings about hiring contractors (aka mercenaries) to go fight wars for the US. An article in the New York Times talks about the "shadow soldiers."

Twenty five percent of the 18 billion dollar budget to help reconstruct Iraq will be spent on companies like Blackwater Security Consulting. These extra-military companies charge $500 to $1500 dollars a day for their most experienced hires. I remember when I served in the military, I made nowhere near $500 a day. In fact, pay ranges from a low of $1,104.00 per month for an E-1 with less than four months of service to a high of $12,500 (the actual pay is $13,303.80 per month, but it is limited by Congress) per month for an O-10 with over 26 years of service. Now the contractor (mercenary) company will make $15,000 to 45,000 per month (of course the employees will not make that much). Many enlisted Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines will earn less in a year than these companies will make in a month. Many members of the military will be enticed by the pay and benefits packages these companies have to offer. They may even siphon off the talent from the military.

On top of the pay issue, these contracting (mercenary) companies do not have to follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Geneva Conventions, Law of Armed Conflict, chain of command, etc. - unless it is written into the contract. That may be good in some cases, but for the most part, that does not bode well for the US Armed Forces over all. These companies will be seen as extensions of the military. If they commit atrocities, it will look to the world as if the US military committed the atrocities.

I think the US ought to pay its military more money. They perform a valuable service. They volunteer to do some of the most dangerous, least gratifying jobs the US has. Many even sacrifice their lives so that we may live in freedom. I think it is high time they get compensated for everything they do for the US.

The Numbers

Newsweek has some numbers from the War in Iraq. They are becoming depressing. 3,466 is the total number of Americans wounded in the Iraq War. 793 total coalition soldiers were killed. 690 of the 793 killed coalition soldiers were American. 501 of the 690 Americans killed were killed in action.

I do not know how much longer we are going to be in Iraq. I do know that even when the hand over date on 30 June, 2004, arrives, American Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen will still be in Iraq. I do not think Iraq will magically stabilise before the hand over date. I cannot see a viable government that we can hand the reigns over to. What I can see happening is we hand over the reigns on 30 June, 2004, then Bush will proclaim he kept his promise. Technically, he will be right. In reality, we will still have people on the ground. If the situation continues the way it is, the hand over will not be a good one. The new government will be seen as a puppet of the US and a new wave of violence will erupt. American personnel may become engulfed by the eruption of different factions vying for control.

If that happens (and I sincerely hope it does not), the numbers of wounded or killed Americans will rise. I just wish the Bush administration had as much time put aside for planning what happened after the war as they spent preparing for the war. More Americans would probably be alive and uninjured today if that had happened.

Woodward's Allegations

If what Bob Woodward wrote in his book, "Plan of Attack," is correct, then Bush and his administration have some 'splaining to do. If they spent 700 million dollars to prepare for Iraq when that 700 million dollars was earmarked for the war on terror in Afghanistan, then Congress would have every right to be upset and demand an explanation. From what the Constitution says, Section 9, Clause 7:

Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

If Woodward's other allegation that the Bush administration colluded with the Saudi to lower oil prices before election day is correct, as my post yesterday described, then Bush has prostituted his election campaign for the sake of oil. That may very well be illegal.

I have not yet read Bob Woodward's book, but it looks to be another in a line of books shining a light into the dark recesses of the Bush administration. What I am seeing, does not look good. Some of it is downright frightening. What other books will be written about this current administration?

No Foreign

The US Government classifies material to protect it. They have several different classification levels - Confidential, Secret, Top Secret,etc. Sometimes, especially if that information is sensitive, they add additional safety precautions such as "No Foreign."

If what Bob Woodward said in his 60 Minutes interview,

But, it turns out, two days before the president told Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld had already briefed Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador.

"Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, 'Top secret. No foreign.' No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this," says Woodward.


then Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and by allowing them to call Prince Bandar, President Bush, broke the law - if they did not declassify it properly. "No Foreign," as Bob Woodward said, means the item is not releasable to foreign nationals, even allies (unless allowed, i.e. NOFORN, except UK), are supposed to view the classified item. Even if the item was declassified, what was the reasoning behind the declassification? If it is what Bob Woodward says,

... that Bandar understood that economic conditions were key before a presidential election: "They're [oil prices] high. And they could go down very quickly. That's the Saudi pledge. Certainly over the summer, or as we get closer to the election, they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly."

What happend was simply wrong and illegal - if done improperly. People have gone to jail and/or lost their careers over less. If what Wodward is accurate, there should be an investigation. Giving items marked "No Foreign" endangers national security. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld should have known better. Bush, too, should have known better. I guess Bushco wanted to attack Saddam Hussein so badly that they were willing to ignore and violate laws designed to protect the country. And if Woodward is accurate, they were willing to compromise national security to secure an election by having low oil prices.

May 18th

May 18th. Mark your calendars. This is the day Massachusetts will start marrying gays and lesbians... unless Mitt Romney gets his way. Governor Romney (R), wants to have a special council appointed so he can circumvent the Attorney General, Tom Reilly, who is supposed to be Massachusetts' highest legal expert, and delay the marriages until 2006. AG Tom Reilly already rejected Governor Romney's request to delay the start of the marriages because he had no legal grounds to do so.

Oy! People like Mitt Romney piss me off. What is so wrong about two consenting, non-relative, human adults who want to commit themselves to one another and get all the legal protection their straight counterparts get? I have said it before in several posts, this is about equal rights. This struggle is similar to the struggles African-Americans experienced during the 60's. African-Americans were discriminated back then. Gays and Lesbians are discriminated today. For any governmental agency to enshrine discrimination into their laws is wrong. The struggle African-Americans faced was a long one. One of these days, Americans - regardless of their race, national origin, sex, orientation, religion, etc. - will be treated with respect and equality in their workplace, buying a home, and by the government.

On top of Mitt Romney's shenanigans, he wants to prevent gays and lesbians who are from states which do not endorse gay marriage from getting married in Massachusetts. He has planned issuing rules for gay and lesbian marriages. Gays and Lesbians would have to sign a documents saying their marriage would not violate anything on a list or requirements. This is based on a 1913(!) law that sought to prevent miscegenation. Do straight people in Massachusetts have to sign the same thing? I thought miscegenation laws were declared illegal. It's just another roadblock Mitt Romney wants to put in place to try to prevent treating all the people in his state with equality.

People like Mitt Romney and others who promote and endorse discrimination are a dying breed. It will just be a matter of time when people look back and say they were stupid.

And Now a Word From Mr. Oxycontin...

Mr. Oxycontin (aka Rush Limbaugh) said in his article (John F-ing Kerry Stack: Clinton Might Need to Save Party):

They know that they're pretty confident Kerry is going to lose and if Kerry wins there's always Fort Marcy Park. So they're rolling the dice on this.


As Atrios pointed out, Fort Marcy Park is where Vince Foster's body was found. Mr. Oxycontin is falling back to that old, already disproved, ultra-right wing conspiracy story that Bill Clinton had Vince Foster killed. Mr. Oxycontin is alleging because the Clintons are sure Kerry is going to lose, they're just going to have Kerry whacked like they did Foster. OMFG! Did Mr. Oxycontin start to take drugs again? Are the pressures of being investigated getting to him? Rush, drugs are bad. Get off them so you can rejoin the world and stop living in conspiracy theories.

The Enemy of My Enemy...

From the Washington Post: (registration required)

Maj. Kreg Schnell, Pittard's intelligence chief, agreed with Batiste's assessment. "There's been a marriage of convenience between Sadr's militia and Saddam loyalists," he said.

The US is the Sunni's (Saddam's religious affiliation) and Shiite's common enemy. An old saying goes, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Since both Sunni and Shiite factions oppose the US, I think they see it more of getting rid of a common enemy before they turn their weapons on each other. Who knows, they might forge a new country based on trying to get us out.

I do know that with Sunnis and Shiites working together against their common enemy, it is not good for the US. The Sunni have the experience (government, army, etc) and the Shiites have the muscle (in numbers of people) to combat the US. If the US is to quell any more bloodshed, we need to act quickly. Even then, we may have already lost the hearts and minds of Iraqis. This is what happens when you go in without a plan and make stuff up as you go.

Gwen Araujo

Prosecutors are presenting their case in the Gwen Araujo case. In case you didn't know, Gwen Araujo was a 17 year old transgendered woman, born Eddie. She went a party attended by several people, including Michael Magidson, Jose Merel, and Jason Cazares. Another man, Jaron Nabors, has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter and will get an eleven year sentence for testifying against the other three.

I do not know every fact of the case. I do know she went to a party, drank, and was discovered by Paul Merel's girlfriend to not be a "real" girl after Merel and Magidson both had sex with Araujo. She was then brutally attacked. She was punched in the face, beaten - gashing her face, and then dragged her to a garage while she was semi-conscious and strangled her with rope until she was killed. The men then allegedly tied her wrists and ankles, wrapped her in a bed sheet, and dumped her body in a campground.

What those men did to Gwen was inhuman. They were so insecure with themselves they had to prove they were macho men by attacking and then killing Gwen. Beating and killing Gwen really made them men. Yeah, right! I do not know exactly what they were thinking and their reasoning for killing her. All I do know is that it was wrong. So what if the person they had sex with was, in fact, a guy. If they were thinking with their heads instead of their dicks and looking for a quick lay, then Gwen would still be alive today. If the world were perfect, Gwen would not have been at the party and/or would not have had sex with Jose and Michael. However, Gwen wanted to live her life just as every one else did. She wanted to go to that party and she wanted to have sex. She should not have been killed by doing what many teenagers do at parties.

I hope, if the evidence shows Michael Magidson, Jose Merel, and Jason Cazares are guilty they spend the rest of their lives in prison. I am against the death penalty. Those three should spend every day of their lives contemplating why they took Gwen's life. And "Evil TexProdigy" would not mind seeing all three become someone's bitch and get fucked hard and raw each and every day. That way they might get a tiny feeling how Gwen felt.

Admission

Admitting that you are wrong is tough. Many people have a hard time saying they messed up. Sometimes people look to place the blame on others and deflect the blame from them. They say it was every one else's fault but their own. I have not watched every moment of the September 11th hearings, but I have noticed a pattern. Clinton administration officials have said they would have liked to have done more and apologised for not doing so. Then they offered ways to fix the problem. Bush administration officials have blamed the Clinton administration, Congressional funding, miscommunication and noncommunication between governmental agencies, and so on, and so on.

If Bushco knew the Clinton administration had messed up so badly, why did they not try to fix things to fight terrorism from the second they took office? Because we can now see that before September 11th, they were not focused on Al Qaida, but on Iraq and threats from other countries of "the Axis of Evil" and their dangerous missiles. (Cue scary music.) The Bush administration had eight months prior to September 11th to do something. They were warned in April, May, and August Bin Laden was planned to stage some sort of terrorist action. They did not know the specifics of where or when it was going to happen. To me, that does not matter. If you know something might happen, you try to prepare for it the best you can. Instead, they really did nothing.

Oh, they had tee-ball games on the lawn of the White House. They had vacations (lots of vacations). They were focused on accusing and spreading rumours that the Clinton administration defaced White House office and equipment. Before September 11th, Bushco was adrift. They were meandering aimlessly working on passing tax cut after tax cut. After September 11th, Bushco flip flopped on the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, going back to the UN of a second resolution to attack Iraq, and many other examples that are listed on other web sites.

What Bush did not do (or could not do), for whatever reason, was that he was sorry and that more should have been done before September 11th to protect the country. His press conference was hard to follow. He evaded answers like mad. He repeated his talking points over and over. He hemmed and hawed over many of his answers. I know from living in Texas while he was governor that he was (and is) not the best when speaking on his own. You would think that he would at least be honest enough with himself and the American people to say that he should have done more.

Not Seeing the Forest for the Trees

In an article in the Washington Post (registration required), it seems like someone was trying to tell the administration something:

In April and May 2001, for example, the intelligence community headlined some of those reports "Bin Laden planning multiple operations," "Bin Laden network's plans advancing" and "Bin Laden threats are real."

Then the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) had the title, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US." Let me see... That is four warnings the Bush administration had, but could not discern a pattern? They had no warning? Sure those PDBs may not have had specifics, but someone thought they were important enough to include them in the PDBs and give them provocative titles. For the sake of assumption, maybe Bush received the PDBs in late April. He had four months between May first and September 11th to implement proactive changes. That is more than enough time to potentially save lives. As it was, he took vacation in August - almost a full three weeks!

Bush and his administration were very reactionary after September 11th. However, they should have done much more before September 11th if they honestly thought the country was in danger. I will not say they stood idly by and watched the planes smash into buildings (I am not a conspiracy nut.). However, I think what happened is Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, and the rest of Bushco were so focused on how to attack Iraq, they missed the 19 terrorists right under their noses. They ignored warnings issued in the PDBs. They ignored the warnings of Richard Clarke. They put on their blinders and when September 11th happened, they were as shocked and awed by what happened as the rest of America.

Bush has a habit of not listening to those who wish to see the best for the organisations they work for. We should have gone into Iraq with far more troops, like General Shinseki advised. We did not and now were are in the situation we are now. We should have bolstered security for the country as Richard Clarke suggested, but we did not. What will the next sacrificial lamb of the Bush administration suggest we should do to protect the country or our forces and be ignored then slaughtered on the Sunday talking head shows by a Bushco official?

Death and Taxes

Tomorrow is Tax Day! Many Americans will be dropping their taxes off at 11:59 pm tonight or filing for an extension. I did my taxes a few weeks back, so I do not have that monkey on my back to worry about. Like most people I do not have a great love for taxes. However, I am an adult about things. I realise We as Americans expect certain things for ourselves, our children, and our society. We expect to drive on well-maintained roads, we expect out children to go to good schools, we expect to go to parks on holidays, we expect our country to be safe and secure. The way that has been used for centuries has been (and I think will continue to be) taxes. Americans seem to want more and more services. They want prescription drug coverage, because they cost way too damn much money (especially if you have to take many of them like many older Americans). Many Americans want to have medical coverage because that, too, is becoming increasingly expensive. We want better protection from all the boogie men of the world - terrorists, foreign invaders, WMDs, etc.

America has a few options to pay for the things it wants. First, we can cut pork barrel and frivolous spending. However, that will only go so far; you can only cut so much meat off the budget before you get to the bare bones. Second, we can do what the current administration is doing. We can run a deficit. I am not a fan of running deficits. It places the burden of repaying debts on our children and grandchildren. Since no one prognosticates with any accuracy, I would rather take care of debts now then to hope that our children and grandchildren can foot the bill. The final way to pay for thing is the most unpopular of all - taxes.

I think the best way to pay for the things America needs and wants is to first cut back on frivolous spending. Then, if we absolutely must, ask Americans to either pay for the things they want (through taxes) or go without. In my opinion, the last resort should be to run a deficit. I may not be an economist, but when I want something - a new television, vacation, or whatever, I save for it (cutting back on frivolous spending) until I can buy what I want. If I have cut back all I can, and still cannot afford what I want, I have two choices. Supplement my income by getting a part time job or using credit cards. Supplementing my income with a second job is akin to raising taxes. Using my credit card is akin to running a deficit. I would not want to do either for any length of time. I like my free time and I hate owing credit card companies money.

I think if the US raises taxes, it should do so for a limited time to pay for what we need - medical coverage, prescription drug coverage, etc. If we can, once things are paid off, we should then lower the taxes. I also think we should reduce the debt or eliminate it. We should leave the US better for our children and grandchildren.

Two Men Enter - One Man Leave

It's like Mad Max Beyond the Thunderdome! No, I'm not taking about The Passion, but an article in Yahoo. It details how a research group from the University of Illinois is working to convert pig manure into a form of crude oil that could be used to heat homes or generate history.

I'm pretty certain this could be help alleviate dependence on foreign oil, especially during the winter. Many countries around the world from China, to the US, to European countries would benefit greatly. Now we just need to find someone to be Aunty Entity...

40 Percent Vacation - 60 Percent Work

From the Washington Post (Registration Required):

This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency.

I wish I could spend 40 percent of my time on vacation. As it is, I only get two weeks. Maybe I should run for President. I would get a $400,000 salary, 500 days of vacation in three-plus years, guys who wear dark shades, and go to all the cool parties.

I know being the President is hard work, but come on! Five hundred days of vacation!? Most Americans only get 14 days a year, or 42 days over three years. I think it's high time the average US worker gets 167 days (five and a half months!) of vacation per year just like the President. It would only be fair, right?

Think about it. With more people on vacation, more workers would have to be hired to fill the void left by all those vacationing workers. Tourism would go up because people would have time to go to Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, or all of the other tourist hot spots America has to offer. People would spend more time with their families, thus strengthening family bonds and marital fidelity. Divorce lawyers would go out of business. Workers would be less stressed, so healthcare costs would go down. The economy would boom! But.. that is never going to happen.

Hindsight Is 20/20

In yesterday's post, I wrote how many of the event currently happening in Iraq and Afghanistan were started many, many years ago by previous administration's actions. Hindsight is 20/20. It is simple to trace events back in history to find out what seed was planted 20, 30, or even 50 years ago to germinate and grow into the current threats they are today.

One thing American's are very good at is having very short attention spans. We rarely remember what happened a week ago, let alone 50 years ago. As the expression goes, "Those who fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it." I think many of the decisions administrations make are for short-term gain. I can imagine the following being said, "We will stop the Soviets here by sending money and weapons to this rag tag group of freedom fighters." "We will send arms to this country so we can get money so we can aid these freedom fighters in Central America." And so on and so on. All were for getting something now and not really thinking about the consequences of our actions.

Sometimes swift action must be taken to prevent catastrophic events - genocide, war, etc. I'm not talking about that, though. I'm talking about wanting everything now! If administrations just would slow down a bit and try to forecast what their actions might do, we might prevent future conflicts. Instead of instant gratification, we should try to think how this would benefit our children or our children's children. We need to ask questions like, "If we assassinate this democratically-elected leader because he wants his country to control its resources instead of foreign companies, what will that do?" "Will someone more to our liking rise up, but turn out to be worse by becoming a dictator?"

Maybe that democratically-elected leader would be better for the US in the long run. We will never know. Predicting the future is tough. Weather forecasters cannot predict whether it will rain or shine a week from now with 100% accuracy. However, if we try to think through the consequences of our actions and try to do the best for all involved we could save ourselves time, money, and American lives.

Testify! Can I Get an Amen!?

Woohoo! Condoleezza Rice testified today before the September 11th Commission. I am certain her testimony will be scrutinised over the next several days to several weeks. I listened to the broadcast of the testimony and someone walked by and asked (he sounded a bit dismayed), "Why are they being so harsh?" My response (to his surprise) was, "They should be." The September 11th Commission should be unflinching in trying to find out what was or was not done in the Clinton and Bush II administrations prior to September 11th. I also think they should go back as further, because the entire Middle East situation started a long time ago when the Ottoman Empire collapsed. However, that may be going back too far in history.

I think the current (Bush II) administration and the Clinton administration did not do enough to protect the country. I think if the Bush II administration knew a problem existed and knew the Clinton administration did not do enough to protect the country, they should have stepped up to the plate and done something about it. I do know that Bush II spent an awful lot of time at his ranch up in Crawford, Texas. I knew he scheduled many photo ops (like most presidents do) fixing fences, cutting brush, etc. I do not know what happened behind the scenes. I do know it appeared to me that he was vacationing rather than taking charge of the country. It appeared to me that Clinton just fired Tomahawk missiles, rather then send in troops to go after Osama bin Laden.

The FBI, CIA, State Department, and several other organisations also failed to do their job - in both administrations. They did not communicate with one another. I honestly think if precautions were taken prior to September 11th by either the Clinton of Bush II administrations, September 11th may not have happened. We can also go further back to the Reagan and Bush administrations. If the Reagan administration had more control over the mujahadin in Afghanistan instead of just supplying them with weapons and money, they may not have devolved into the Taliban. The Bush I administration continued the trend by ignoring Afghanistan and letting it slip into chaos making it ripe for the Taliban to take it over and invite al Qaida to set up training camps. The Clinton administration further ignored Afghanistan and the Taliban. Until September 11th, the Bush II administration ignored Afghanistan.

More than enough blame can be passed around to Republican and Democratic administrations on the origins of September 11th. However, the Bush II administration took over the watch from the Clinton administration. If they saw something truly wrong with the way things were going, they had ample time to push for reforms. If they did push for reforms, they did not push hard enough. For that, the buck needs to stop with George W. Bush.

Oh! It Just Gets Worse and Worse!

As Homer Simpson would say, "Oh! It just gets worse and worse." The mission in Iraq is far from being accomplished. From the news reports I saw, several (last count 12) US troops died in fighting with the al-Mahdi, Shiites loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr.

From Yahoo!: US troops are attacking a mosque in Fallujah. Now, as much as I think the US troops ought to stop the attackers, attacking a mosque is not a good idea. It would be like attacking a church or synagogue here in the US. Yes, people are in the mosque and using it for protection, but surrounding the mosque and laying siege to it - not allowing anything to enter or leave without prior approval and diffusing the situation - would be much better than shooting it up to get the people inside. Attacking a mosque will just incite more violence because the Iraqis will see that the US does not believe their places or worship are sacred. I think in this case the ends - going after armed gunmen - do not justify the means - attacking a mosque.

If Bush honestly thinks the June 30th deadline to hand over control to the Iraqi provisional leadership is still viable, he is either delusional or is going to pull a rabbit out of a hat. And I do not see a top hat in sight. If things continue like they are now, more Americans will die, more Iraqis will die, and the provisional government might limp along until they get assassinated one by one for aiding Americans.

From what I have seen, we went into Iraq without a plan for what would happen after we won. We should have gone in with a large, overwhelming occupational force, prevented the looting of government, industrial, and cultural areas and then worked to build up the country. I think we should have worked closely with Iraqis and had buy-in from them from the start. When people have an investment - personal, financial, etc. - in the rebuilding of their country, they will be less likely to attack those who are helping them to rebuild their county. I hope no more Americans or Iraqis die, but that is just wishful thinking.

One of the Dumbest Things I've Read So Far...

Via TBogg... Jonah Goldberg repeated something one of his readers sent in. It is one of the dumbest things I've read in a while:

THUGGEES [Jonah Goldberg]

From a reader:

Weren't thuggees the bad guys in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom"? If so, then what's needed is either for us to airlift Harrison Ford into the area, or for Bush to get on TV with a giant sword and bellow a paraphrase of what is undoubtedly the greatest line in cinema history: "Moqtada al-Sadr, prepare to meet Kali... IN HELL!!!" Man, used to be we knew how to deal with bad guys, you know? Frickin' Mola Ram and his child slavery.


First of all, Thuggees are from India, not the Middle East. Amazingly enough, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom takes place in India, too! Thuggees were worhippers of the Hindu goddess Kali, the goddess of death and destruction. Moqtada al Sadr, since he is a Muslim, worships God (also known in Arabic as Allah). The two religions, Hinduism and Islam are quite different. Moqtada al-Sadr would never meet Kali or any other Hindu god or goddess anywhere. But, I guess to Jonah's readers, Indians and Arabs both have brown skin and they all look alike anyway. And I guess to his readers since they all look alike, Kali - Allah, what's the difference?

Kos

This is my relatively late two cents worth on Kos' statement:

Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly. That said, I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

First, I do not agree with Kos' statement. I think it was insensitive to those who were killed. No one deserves to die. That being said, Kos grew up in El Salvador during a time in that country's history where people were massacred in brutal ways. I have read reports and have seen documentaries on what happened in El Salvador and it was not pretty or fun.

Now, about the mercenaries -- I am not going play semantics with words, that is what they are. Here is what Merriam-Webster online has for the definition of mercenary: one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service. Some have called the four men who died in Fallujah contractors. Technically, that is correct. However, they were handsomely paid soldiers. What happened to the four men was wrong. First of all, they should have never been killed. Second, their bodies should not have been burned, dragged out, and desecrated. I have seen pictures (on Slate.com). No one deserves to be treated like that.

I think our response to their killing and desecration will only inflame matters worse. Instead of precise, surgical strikes against those who committed the crimes, we have decided to surround the city and punish every one in it. That is not the way to handle a crime and win the hearts and minds of those in Iraq. I think we cannot cut and run from Iraq. Bush got us into Iraq. Iraq is not going well for us (despite what the administration says). We need to work to restore law and order and try to bring in other countries to share the burden.

It Does Not Add Up

Accounting runs in my family. My grandfather was an accountant and one of my uncles is one. I did not get blessed by the gods of accounting, so I went into techie stuff. The one thing I do know is that numbers have to be accurate. If the numbers are not accurate, people lose money and live can get caught in the turmoil (just look at what happened to Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, etc.).

The Bush administration has done a poor job of accounting. It severely lowballs cost estimates it gives to Congress. Now, I'm a believer of the "Scotty Principle." Tell the higher-ups it will cost more then save them money or tell them it'll take ten days, but get it done in six. Everyone will believe that just like Montgomery Scott, you'll be a miracle worker. I think the Bush administration is trying the antithesis of the "Scotty Principle" to get what they want.

Gulf War II was supposed to be funded by oil revenues, and if anything, would cost the American public just a few tens of billions of dollars. Nothing much. It was the cost of finding those WMDs, er... liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein. It now turns out that Iraq costs closer to 150 billion dollar - much more than most in the Bush administration told us.

But wait! There is more! A while back Bush sought for and got the Medicare Bill passed. He said it would cost 395 billion dollars. It turns out that was 40% lower than what it really cost the American tax payer - 534 billion dollars. I can understand a couple billion dollars, but 139 billion dollars? That is quite a bit of money. Salon magazine (get a subscription or use the daily pass) has the story on how this happened. People were threatened with loss of a job, bribery was allegedly attempted, and Senators and Representatives were lied to about the cost. If I went in to have my car fixed and the repair shop said it would cost me 395 dollars to get fixed, but then he handed me a bill for 534 I would get upset. I would pay the bill, but think twice about going back. I think the American public needs to think twice before going back to Bush's Repair Shop.