Does Torture Really Keep America Safe?

Does torture really keep America safe? Who actually believes that? Beyond the fact that torture of any human being is reprehensible and disgusting is the “belief” by Mr. Dick Cheney himself that the release of the “Torture Memo’s” will make our country less safe. It will piss off the terrorists and allow them to “train” for such events if they are ever captured. Is it any wonder the Bush administration lied about it for such a long time? Isn’t it easier to cast doubt and make it look like some sort of open conspiracy than to actually admit to something as sociopathic and psychotic as torture? Who are we? We have known that torture has been going on since around 2002, yet we have chosen to blindly believe what the past administration told us.

Mr. Bush is a born again Christian after all! He believes in the sanctity of life, preservation of marriage between a man and a woman, oh and lets not forget about the ban embryonic stem cell research. I guess people taken in for questioning against their will because someone somewhere had possible credible evidence that the person had some kind of knowledge about an incident involving some kind of group, and then tortured repeatedly and kept against their will and against our laws without proper representation or even being charged with something makes them less than human and therefore open to such treatment. Did you understand what I just said? Should people be taken into custody, held against their will, tortured for YEARS because they “might” know something? How does that keep us safe? I wonder how many men actually know NOTHING at all, and instead of admitting that they were taken in and kept against their will and releasing them, the government just keeps holding on to them. What could be worse than the prison releasing them and sending them back to their country? Well, what would be worse is if those innocent people went back and told their story and their government bringing charges against us. So lets just keep them imprisoned. There are a lot of people being held not only in this country, but around the world, and the thing most certainly forgotten is the fact that these men haven’t been convicted of anything. Everyone is afraid of closing down Gitmo because where will the detainees go? EXACTLY! Where do they go? We don’t even know if they are guilty of anything. We just keep holding on to them.

The thought of releasing them to possibly go back to their country and plan an attack on us strikes terror in so many and is a part of the conditioning that we have had about Muslims or Islam since 9/11 happened. Part of that conditioning has been the ability to fling the law behind the previous administrations back and keep people detained for years without representation and without being charge with a crime.

So how do Christians feel about all this? Do you believe that it is a means to an end? That a little evil is ok for the greater good? I have noticed that the Religious Right has been very quiet about it. Why? You’re vocal about abortion, which is the snuffing out of human life and in many cases actually torturous for unborn children to endure before they are killed…so is the torture of an innocent full grown man any different? And if he is guilty, does that make it more acceptable? I guess the much quoted bible verse “Love your enemies” means something else huh? Now don’t get high and mighty with me, I’m not saying that you would have to invite these people into your home for a spot of tea, but how about speaking up for those who have no voice right now? You do it for the unborn, so why not for the ethical and humane treatment of real live human beings? Even PETA has nothing to say about this. I guess the torture of animals is far worse than the torture of humans.

Torture does not make our country safe. What it does is erode the moral fiber of our country and turn us into sadistic people if we continue to support such things. Christians may say that abortion and gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research actually erodes the moral fiber, as does pornography or drugs, but I will leave you with a final thought-

What does it mean to be godly? Do we really know? To be like the most High God, what does it take? I was asked that once and I had to really sit and ponder it for a while before I answered. My answer to that question was simple. In order to be like the Most High God, you must first realize that others have free will. God does not prevent us from making mistakes or from living our lives. While some might say the answer is to hate sin, or not be a homosexual, to not have sex before marriage, to not lie or manipulate, I believe that it goes even deeper. Its hard to give others free will. We live in a land full of laws. But when do we allow free will to kick in? Another thing I have heard is “Love the sinner and hate the sin.” Such things are directed at us, not the other person. We are to love those who may sin AND not do that thing we call sin. It isn’t meant to prevent others from living their lives, it is meant to offer up our own free will to our Creator out of love for Him and at the same time, reflect that same love back to those we believe are “sinners.” Free will was given so that we may love our Creator freely…to make a choice to direct our hearts towards Him and abide with Him. If we do not offer the beautiful gift of free will to others, are we reflecting the Will of God or the will of ourselves yet standing behind the words of God concerning His thoughts on a matter?

I’m sure that I have opened up a theological can of worms, but I had to say it. I have been pretty silent when it comes to topic of religion, so there it is. Religion is such a deeply personal choice, but I’m really interested to know what Christians in particular feel about the subject of torture. Is it a sin to you? Do you condone it? Or maybe you will take the moral high ground and claim that it was the free will of Dick Cheney and George Bush to institute such tactics. To that, I say that while they have free will, they are not above the law, and as such, while they do have free will and used it, there are consequences according to the law. So should they face those consequences and be charged with war crimes? Part of morality is justice, so will justice be denied? I have far too many questions and of course my own ready opinion…what I want are your opinions. What are your thoughts?

Second Hand Smoke Causes Lung Cancer…Fact or Fiction?

In December of 1992 the EPA released it’s now famous report on second hand smoke. The report claimed that SHS causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it as a class A carcinogen.

Note: Although the official date of this report is December, 1992, it is commonly referred to as the EPA ‘93 study, probably because it became widely available in ‘93.

This was, and remains, a powerful weapon in the anti-smokers arsenal. If a smoker is only hurting himself, he can argue that it’s no one else’s business. But if he is hurting everyone around him, all kinds of restrictive legislation can be justified.

Did this study show SHS is deadly? Let’s examine the facts carefully.

Fact: In 1992 the EPA issued a report which claimed that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) caused 3,000 deaths per year.

Fact: ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms are interchangeable.

After reading each of the following facts, ask yourself “Does this fact make the study more credible, or less credible?

Fact: The EPA announced the results of the study before it was finished.

Fact: The study was a Meta Analysis, an analysis of existing studies.

Meta Analysis is very difficult to do accurately, and is the easiest kind of study to fake and manipulate. With a disease as rare as lung cancer, leaving out just a few important studies can skew the results considerably.

The term “Meta Study” is often used to describe this type of report, but the word “study” is inaccurate. The EPA has never conducted nor financed a single ETS study. They have only analyzed the studies of others. It is more accurate to refer to it as an analysis, and to its publication as a report.

Fact: The first step in a meta analysis is identifying all of the relevant studies. The EPA located 33 studies that compared ETS exposure to lung cancer rates.

Fact: The EPA selected 31 of the 33 studies. Later they rejected one of their chosen studies, bringing the total to 30.

Fact: On page 3-46 of the report the EPA estimates, based on nicotine measurements in non-smokers blood, “this would translate to the equivalent of about one-fifth of a cigarette per day.”

Fact: Studies that measured actual exposure by having non-smokers wear monitors indicate even this low estimate is exaggerated. Actual exposure (for people who live and/or work in smoky environments) is about six cigarettes per year. (See also the study by Oak Ridge National Laboratories.)

Fact: In 1995 The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a review of the EPA report.

The CRS was highly critical of both the EPA’s methods and conclusions.

Fact: According to the CRS “The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control members, or their surrogates, to determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies.”

Questionnaires can be notoriously inaccurate, as discussed in Statistics 102, but in this case some of them were not even filled out by the people being studied, but by “surrogates.” In other words, some of the information was unverified hearsay.

Fact: On page 23 of the study, paragraph 3, the CRS noted that out of 30 studies, only five found a statistically significant risk at the 95% confidence level, and one showed a statistically significant negative risk (a protective effect). The remaining 24 studies showed no statistically significant increase or decrease in risk.

Fact: Three other large US studies were in progress during the EPA’s study. The EPA used data from one uncompleted study, the Fontham study, and ignored the other two, Brownson and Kabat.

Fact: The Fontham study showed a small increase in risk. The CRS report referred to it as “a positive risk that was barely statistically significant.” (p. 25)

Fact: The CRS report said the Brownson study, which the EPA ignored, showed “no risk at all.” (p.25)

Fact: The “scientists” who conducted the Fontham study refused to release their raw data for years. They were finally forced to when Philip Morris won a lawsuit to gain access to it.

Most researchers routinely make their raw data available after studies have been published. Does Fontham’s refusal to make the data available make them more credible, or less credible?

Fact: The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies. The analysis showed no increase in risk at the 95% confidence level.

Fact: Even after excluding most of the studies, the EPA couldn’t come up with 3,000 deaths, but they had already announced the results. So they changed the CI to 90%, which, in effect, doubled their margin of error.

Fact Worth Repeating: Instead of using the 95% confidence interval, the statistical standard that has been used for decades, the EPA doubled their margin of error to achieve their pre-announced results.

Would any legitimate epidemiologist keep their job if they were caught doubling their margin of error to support a pre-announced conclusion?

Fact: After juggling the numbers, The EPA came up with an RR (Relative Risk) of ETS causing lung cancer 1.19. In layman’s terms that means:

• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 19%.
• Where you’d usually see 100 cases of cancer you’d see 119.

Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as an unimportant result. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable. (See Statistics 101 for more details.)

This rule is routinely ignored when the subject is second hand smoke.

Facts: In review: The EPA ignored nearly two-thirds of the data. The EPA then doubled their margin of error to come up with their desired results.

Fact: Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of 1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to justify a Group A classification.

Fact: In 1998 Judge William Osteen vacated the study - declaring it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long.

Fact: Osteen used the term “cherry-picking” to describe he way the EPA selected their data. “First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA “cherry picked” its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA’s a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA’s excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA’s purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA’s Risk Assessment Guidelines.”

Fact: Osteen found other deep flaws in the the EPA’s methodology. In his judgment he stated: “The record and EPA’s explanations to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies. Analysis conducted with a .05 significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1. Accordingly, these results did not confirm EPA’s controversial a priori hypothesis. In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90%. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. EPA’s conduct raises several concerns besides whether a relative risk of 1.19 is credible evidence supporting a Group A classification. First, with such a weak showing, if even a fraction of Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding study selection or methodology is true, EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer.”

Fact: The following is another direct quote from Judge Osteen’s decision: “In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act’s procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs, products and to influence public opinion. In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA’s conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency’s research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. Gathering all relevant information, researching, and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA’s demonstrating ETS a Group A carcinogen.”

Most of the media ignored the judge’s decision.

When confronted with this decision, many anti-tobacco activists and organizations harp on the fact that Judge Osteen lives in South Carolina. The obvious implication is that he’s influenced by the tobacco industry in his state. It may also be an appeal to the “stupid southerner” stereotype.

Fact: Judge Osteen has a history of siding with the government on tobacco cases.

Fact: In 1997 Judge Osteen ruled the FDA had the authority to regulate tobacco.

So much for his alleged bias.

Fact: Although this study has been thoroughly debunked by science and legally vacated by a federal judge, it is still regularly quoted by government agencies, charity organizations and the anti-smoking movement as if it were legitimate.

Fact: Anyone referring to EPA classifying ETS as a Class A carcinogen is referring to this study.

Opinion: You should seriously question the credibility of anyone who refers to this study, or any of the conclusions that it reached, as if they were facts. That includes everyone who refers to the EPA’s ruling that ETS is a Class A Carcinogen. Once they do, every subsequent statement they make should be considered highly suspicious until it is thoroughly verified.

Fact: Most of the information on this page was gleaned from Judge Osteen’s 92 page decision, the CRS report, and the EPA’s study.

Fact: The EPA fought to have Osteen’s decision overturned on technical grounds. They succeeded in 2002 on the narrowest of technicalities. The fourth circuit court of appeals ruled that because the report was not an official policy document Osteen’s court did not have jurisdiction.

Fact: In their appeal the EPA did not answer a single criticism on the 92 page report, nor challenge a single fact put forth by Judge Osteen. Not one.

You are strongly encouraged to read these documents yourself. You can find the judge’s entire decision here. The CRS report is available here. The EPA report over six hundred pages long, and we recommend you order a hard copy. It is available to US citizens at no charge. Call (800) 438-4318 and ask for document EPA/600/6-90/006F. The title of the report is “Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders.” It is also available as on line as a pdf file. Note: this is a four megabyte file.

Fact: Carol Browner, the former head of the EPA, still insists that this study is valid!

More Information

The Smokers Club Inc. has complied a wealth of articles about this study and other shenanigans by the EPA.

Enough facts, already. Now for some opinions:

Sidney Zion, in the New York Daily News

The LA Times on the EPA’s agenda

Kudos go to Dave Hitt for putting together a very comprehensive and informative site!  My intention for actually copying all of Dave’s work (with his permission) of the EPA is for an upcoming article I’m writing about Smoker’s being taxed for the new Children’s Health Care Program (SCHIP).

Bald Beauty of the Day

South China Sea Intrigue

A few days ago I heard an interesting story on CNN about how the USNS Impeccable was poking around the South China sea, when all the sudden some Chinese ships started to pursue them telling them to leave the area.

The Pentagon claims that the Chinese ships were harassing the Impeccable and even said that they have “increasingly aggressive conduct.”

So what did the Chinese do exactly? Well, according to the Pentagon, two Chinese vessels were in close proximity to the Impeccable, waving their flag and telling the Impeccable to leave the area. (That sounds so aggressive huh?)

What happened next is what caught my attention. It seems that as five Chinese vessels came closer, they also started to throw pieces of wood into the water. OOO!!!!!!! Wood was thrown in the water! AND because the Impeccable didn’t quite know what the intentions of the Chinese vessels were and contending that it was an aggressive move on their part, the Impeccable decided to take some fire hoses and spray the Chinese vessels with water. I started cracking up when I heard this next part…get this…the Chinese crew members decided to strip down to their underwear while being sprayed with the fire hoses! Oh-My-God! This is aggressive? This is dangerous? To whom? You know what…if the Chinese were in international water somewhere near a protected area of the United States, you better bet your ass that we would have our military out there trying to get them away from our protected interests. Why do we feel that it is ok to take surveillance ships near the coasts of other countries and collect data, and if that country finds it threatening and decides to warn us to leave, we find that aggressive?

I am amused, I guess, by the thought of Chinese men stripping down to their skivvies and dancing around in the water being sprayed at them. Maybe there is more to this story than we are being told, but on the surface it looks like China made it pretty clear that they wanted our people to leave the area and we got pissed off. It also makes me wonder if we are too arrogant as a military power. Is it essential that we be over there sticking our equipment where it doesn’t belong? Yet, if another country were to do that to us we would have our panties all up in a bunch? Do we need to lighten up a little? Or is the U.S. correct in it’s assumptions that China is increasingly aggressive towards us over there?

I would LOVE to see a video of all that transpired! You know they must have a copy of it over at the Navy!

Bald Beauty of the Day

Take Me to Your Leader

Who is the leader of the Republican party? Is it fat cat Rush Limbaugh, king of the conservative talk show radio waves, or is it Michael Steel?

I don’t really have an opinion about Rush Limbaugh because personally all he is to me is an entertainer like Howard Stern. Yes, I said Howard Stern because he is the other shock jock for which so many are loyal fans and listeners. Can you imagine if Democrats started calling Howard Stern the leader of the Democratic party? It is absurd to me that some would say that he is the leader of the Republican party…he is just another entertainer tickling the ears of those who think he is “oh so powerful.” Is he powerful? Does he energize the base? Well, what do we mean when we say “energize the base?” Is it the “base of the Republican party” or is it just “the base?.” Here is the ‘other’ definition of “base” in the online dictionary:

base ² (bs)

Bald Beauty of the Day

Am I the Only One Confused About Politics?

Am I the only one that is confused about politics? Just when I thought I had seen it all, out comes Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor from Louisiana speaking to the American people as though we were all four years old. Granted, it was late…but come on! Could that little bedtime story be anymore condescending? As I sat there trying to comprehend what he was saying and put some sort sense to his “tall tale,” I couldn’t help but wonder if he was hypnotized by one of his fellow Republicans. He looked like a zombie, yet that wouldn’t be too far from the truth would it? It seems to me like Republicans are the walking dead these days. Oh, and there was something that struck me about his bedtime story speech that I just can’t get out of my head. He said something that I have heard before from other Republicans- “We haven’t even had a chance to read the bill.” OK, maybe I’m a little bit slow, but that bill has been available for them to read! It’s available for EVERYONE to read! As a matter of fact, I quite enjoyed reading one little tiny section of the 680 page bill (which I’m sure has gotten bigger since the last time I read it)…here is what tickled me:

“Page 12 Sec. 1109. Prohibited Uses

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool.”

Wow! Those are the prohibited uses for funds appropriated. What will we do now? Those aren’t the only things prohibited in the bill, but I had no idea that casinos, aquariums, the zoo, or swimming pools were such a big temptation for misuse of our tax dollars. I could see golf courses being a bone of contention to our represented officials and maybe this is the real reason that Republicans have become the party of “no.”

Well, it’s just a thought anyway. Now that’s not to say that Democrats don’t play golf or go to zoo or anything, but I think something has to be getting under all these Republican skins, and maybe Bobby Jindal was their test pilot for how powerful hypnosis can be in persuading the American tax payer to come over to their side. Other attempts had failed so maybe this is their last resort.

Beyond the speech Bobby gave, it seems to me that he and many others like him haven’t read the bill. Is this an admission of guilt? We all know how important doing something about the economy is, so what are we paying them for? Does this sound right to you? How can they argue about something they haven’t read through? And why would they inject false claims of spending that isn’t even in the bill that they haven’t even read?

I never understood how each party could toot their own horn about how they have the answers. Both are equally guilty of making sure our country is run straight into the ground. They both want to spend, spend, spend, and yet there is justification on both sides about why their spending ideas are better. Dems want spending on programs that can create jobs, give health care, and improve the safety of our roads…Reps want lots of tax cuts and decreased spending. But it’s not decreased spending…it’s the same damn thing. OK, so we get the tax cuts…for what? So that the tax payer can go out and SPEND IT. What’s the difference? To me, neither party has the magic solution. I certainly don’t have a magic solution, but if I did this is what I would do:

• Find 50 statewide banks that are fiscally responsible, treat their employees well, do not practice predatory lending and have a grasp on risk management when it comes to lending money. After finding this kind of establishment, I would cut flood those banks with money and cut off all the big banks and allow them to go into bankruptcy. Let them figure it out.
• Then I would restructure the tax code and bring it back to a flat tax. Everybody wins with this one.
• Then I would get rid of the IRS and the Federal Reserve. When was the last time this private corporation was investigated?
• Last but not least, I would put a new water filtration device in the Pentagon, White House, Capital and any other watering hole where paranoid public officials gamble with the lives of our troops and others abroad. There must be something in the water that makes them all paranoid, thinking that we are always in “grave danger”…or maybe they just believe everything that is on the TV. I’d stop the war and leave other governments to fight their own battles.

Well that’s what I would do. It’s a simple list, coming from a simple person. You know, the kind that needs to be spoken to like I am in the 1st grade.

Bald Beauty of the Day

A Picture’s Worth a Thousand Words

What is Delonas saying by conjuring up this cartoon? On one hand it looks like he is calling the President a monkey and the police- Republicans, but is that all? Or is he looking at this whole process and viewing the behavior of the Republicans as KKK lynch men? Is he saying something beyond our first assumption and appalled reaction? Maybe he is very clever here…or just an idiot trying to ramp up readership over at the New York Post.

Beyond the obvious racial implications, do you see anything else that he could be saying? If so, please enlighten me. I see something completely different than in this picture and I am wondering if others see the same thing. Think about it and tell me your thoughts.

Bald Beauty of the Day

Sarah Palin Maddness

I’m not quite sure of what to make of Gov. Sarah Palin. I have tried very hard to stay away from this topic, but I guess I am just one of those bored bloggers that has nothing better to do with my life than to write about her. So here I am writing about the ever so “popular” Sarah Palin. People either love her or they hate her. It’s funny because I don’t love her or hate her. I’m indifferent. I would never in a million years vote for her though, I can tell you that much.

What is the great appeal with her? Is it her looks? She is a beauty to be sure. Great legs, great hair, awesome smile and that “winning” personality. Boy, she should have won me over with her first “you bet’cha.” But in an age where substance is just as important as style, I’m afraid she lost me even before the press catapulted her to the “celebrity status” she now loves to bask in. Do you really believe that she reached that celebrity status on the merit of her work? Uh, no way. It was the clothes purchased for her, her stylist and lots of media coverage that made her what she is. Did anyone really know who she was before John McCain announced her? It was that awful liberal media that went and made her so darn adorable.  Oh…it’s a love-hate relationship she has with the “liberal media” and one that has me scratching my head most of the time saying, “HUH?” Which is it Sarah? Do you love the liberal media or do you hate it? I guess she loves it when they portray her in a positive light, but as soon as she opens her mouth to speak, all the sudden it seems like she is crying that something was taken out of context. Blaming anybody but herself shows incredibly poor judgment when it comes to how all of the media coverage played out. She is not a victim, she is a barracuda remember? I wasn’t aware that barracudas cry on a daily basis that the liberal media just isn’t being fair! Give me a break. How sheepish does she think the American people are? Well, there are actually a lot of sheepish people out there and if you go to the TeamSarah.org and sign up, you can get your fill of people just-like-her! I was in my glory the first day I signed up. I can’t tell you what an eye opening experience it was to read the comments, blogs and discussions. Of course since I joined they made it private so you will have to sign up to view anything. It seems that Team Sarah was getting a lot of negative press coverage from that awful liberal media…particularly The Huffington Post. This social network dedicated to Sarah Palin started crying “foul” the moment the Huffington Post wrote a scathing article about some of the less than savory characters that are members of Team Sarah. They have followed Sarah Palin’s example by claiming that things were taken out of context. It’s quite laughable actually. I am amused at how ostrich like they are, gobbling up every bit of misinformation, half truths and downright lies and then burying their heads in the sand of their network. I don’t know if there is a single fact checker on that network! Some of the crap they have said about President Obama is ridiculous, and they are really walking a fine line with a lot of other stuff they espouse. Of course there is freedom of speech to consider, but that freedom isn’t free folks. There is a cost to be paid every time we open our mouths. Sarah Palin should know that. I find it laughable that Team Sarah needed to beef up their security on their network. They are convinced that people have signed up and decided to be racist or plant inflammatory remarks just so the liberal media could pounce on this social network that borderlines on “Sarah Worship.” One woman even felt that if someone made a movie about Sarah’s life that she would definitely get elected as president. I won’t say that all of the people on Team Sarah are fruit cakes and half wits, because I have witnessed true caring people on there too. It’s a real mixed bag. Some still think the President is a Muslim or that he isn’t a real citizen and they just keep circulating the same old stuff around and around. They have called for silencing negative bloggers and people that spread “nastiness” about Sarah, but why not just keep Team Sarah open for all to see? I guess they don’t want anyone raining on their little parade. They want to stay in their own little comfort zone and then come out for the attack when someone rails against their goddess. They are under the impression that the reason liberals pounce on Sarah so much is because she is a threat to them. I nearly peed my pants laughing so hard when I read that. Delusions of grandeur…that’s all I can say! They want to boycott CNN and advertisers too and the only real news source for most of them is FOX. The whole thing is kind of creepy. I wonder what I will find when I sign up for a social network dedicated to President Obama? I’ll have to start a search and get back to you on that one!

Now for some total randomness:

Is it me or is there a resemblance between Todd Palin and Joe the Plumber?

A Song for Gaza

Our Nation is Obamafied!

On Tuesday January 20, 2009 at 12:00pm I tuned in to watch a most amazing day in American history. Even before I turned on the TV, my eyes were watering and I could feel this deep reservoir of feeling rise from within me. What was it that made me so emotional? Where did this come from and why was I so deeply affected by this event unfolding before my very eyes? It’s true that Barack Obama is the first African American to reach the highest office in the land…but that wasn’t it. Yes, he is bright, articulate, charismatic, attractive and smart as hell…but that wasn’t it either.

His children are gorgeous with a captivating purity, innocence and charm all their own and his wife Michelle…wow…extraordinary! But those things didn’t make me faklempt. It was the people! The well of emotion I felt even before turning on the TV was quickened to me as I recalled to memory election day. It was remembering the joy and pride in the faces of so many that had championed Barack Obama’s cause. The sheer numbers of people coming out to support and raise their voices together showing their solidarity and determination to help bring change to this great nation of ours. President Obama could never have done it without the people. No matter how charismatic, smart, good looking or charming, it is the Voice and Will of the People that makes it happen.

My emotions ran high as I watched 2,000,000 people crowd in to show their support and be a witness to history in the making. I was inspired by his speech and felt pride in our country for the first time. As I listened to President Obama address our Nation, I cringed a little to hear the rebuff and biting words thrown at the Bush Administration as Mr. Bush sat there listening to his new President speak. What a profound shift that must be for George Bush…knowing that Barack Obama is now his President.

As I pondered what George must have been feeling, I couldn’t help but wonder if he just wanted to cry as well. Not because he was leaving office, nor because he lost the respect of many Americans as well as people around the world…no, I wondered if as an American and as a man he felt pride to see democracy in action! Real democracy, not his version of it. In candid videos and photos I have seen George W. Bush’s sense of humor, caring spirit, sensitivity and loving nature. Obviously he didn’t allow his personality shine through when it came to foreign or domestic policy, but I am interested in what Mr. Bush will do in the coming years. I read a strange article in the Huffington Post about Bush pardoning Osama Bin Laden, and I am not sure whether it is the truth or some sort of snark, but what a strange and alarming turn of events if it’s true. It made me wonder if Mr. Bush was bitter that he had such a low approval rating and decided to be spiteful and pardon Osama Bin Laden…almost as though he was spitting in the faces of Americans as well as the Armed Forces not only here but also abroad. If he did pardon Osama Bin Laden does that mean that those who have died, died in vain? How about the people who died on 9/11 or the incredible loss to their family members? Were millions of Iraqi’s and Afghani’s killed or displaced and homeless for nothing? How about our Armed Forces giving the best of themselves and at times their very lives because their Commander and Chief said Osama Bin Laden was “Wanted Dead or Alive.” What does this all mean?

May our new President keep his promises to the people and be the agent of change we need. He is just one man, but we are a great Nation. “We the People” are the ones that can make it all happen. Our Nation may be “Obamafied” but it is the choices that we make each day that make our country what it is. At one point in President Obama’s speech he was addressing the Muslim world and said that they wouldn’t be remembered for what they destroy, but for what they build…the same holds true for us. Whether you are a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green Party or Libertarian it will be what we build together that shall be remembered, not what we destroy because of ideologies. I hope that we all find common ground and that we remember that it is the unity of our Nation that makes us a strong and enduring people.

Israel Makes My Heart Break

My heart is breaking for the people of Palestine. Hold on to your courage, your resolve and your strength dear people of Gaza. I know that you are bleeding right now, and that your children are dying…but hold on just a little longer! Palestine, you have been robbed for 60 years, your land taken over and your dignity crushed and still you exist! You are a people of amazing strength. People from all over the world are appalled at how you have been treated and many have risked their reputations and even their very lives to champion your cause. If I speak on your behalf would I be considered a bad Jew and a traitor to my people? If I cry out for justice, will justice be denied me because I opened my mouth? Israel makes my heart break because they have forgotten how to be generous, hospitable, forgiving and loving to those they share the land with. My heart breaks because Israel is supposed to be the “Apple of Gods eye!” How rotten this apple has become and how irritating to the Eye of the Almighty.

We are family, you and I. You are my sisters and my brothers and we have the same blood pumping through our hearts…the blood of our Father Abraham! I know that you love our father Abraham and it is evidenced by how you hold Hebron as a treasure! Religiously we are different, but I couldn’t hold that against you. If my brother or sister in my immediate family had a different religious view than I, I would still love them.

You are a beautiful people, hospitable, lovely and strong. I understand why the rockets fly over to the other side, and it seems that there has been a lot of revisions to the historical record in the last 70 years. The revision seems to be that you are some how terrorists because you want your land back…land that was taken from you when Israel became a state. Why does that make you a terrorist? How can you be a terrorist if you are being occupied? It doesn’t make sense to me. And now you are being crushed once more. Why is it that Israel can defend itself from bombs, but Palestine can not? If I say such things will I now be thought of as a terrorist too? If I decide to apply for dual citizenship in Israel, will I be denied because of what I am saying today? Would I be spit upon and rejected by my people because I refuse to stand in solidarity with them regardless of your treatment? Will I be snubbed by the Jewish community and Christian community because I refuse to turn a blind eye to those who are being mistreated, abused, starved, killed and maimed? How can I do such a thing? How can they do such a thing? That makes my heart even more sick.

I know that there will be those who will be very offended and become extremely defensive to this blog entry, but, to you I say don’t be like a spoiled child with an ever increasing thirst for more and more! You have the best of the land, the backing of very powerful nations and great military strength. Don’t come crying to me about how you are treated…I think you have made out quite well for yourselves. This has not been a fair fight from the beginning, and while bloodshed on both sides is quite deplorable, nothing in my eyes seems to be able to compare to the evidence of war crimes, unethical and inhumane treatment of the Palestinian people.

The following two tables were taken from “If Americans Knew“:

The Impact of the Conflict

on Children

123 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 1,050 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000.

Click chart to enlarge. Source: Remember These Children.

“The majority of these [Palestinian] children were killed and injured while going about normal daily activities, such as going to school, playing, shopping, or simply being in their homes. Sixty-four percent of children killed during the first six months of 2003 died as a result of Israeli air and ground attacks, or from indiscriminate fire from Israeli soldiers.” - Catherine Cook

Source: These numbers are from Remember These Children, a coalition of groups calling for an end to the killing of children and a fair resolution of the conflict. (View the complete list of the victims, which was last updated on July 17, 2008.)

December 2008 - January 2009 Attack on Gaza

WATCH Related Videos

FLYER: Gaza Massacres

This section contains articles on the December 2008 - January 2009 attack on the people of Gaza.

Palestinians & Israelis Killed in Gaza 12/27/08 - 1/5/09	Palestinians & Israelis Injured in Gaza 12/27/08 - 1/5/09
Source: The Guardian

Obama’s Gateway Drug

What’s the deal and all the hype about Barack Obama smoking? Why is this such a big problem to anyone? I can understand the risks smoking can cause to some people, but does that mean we should dictate to our new president what he can and can not do in his own home? Is this “Operation Nanny State?” I never got the memo that smoking cigarettes was against the law! When did that happen? How long have I been asleep?

If smoking is President Elect Obama’s only vice, I’d say he’s doing pretty damn good! Especially since “W” had to quit drinking! There is a big difference between drinking and smoking, don’t you think? Do you think that “W” slipped up and knocked back a few strong ones while he had to make decisions about foreign and domestic policy? Maybe that’s what happened! Maybe President Bush fell off the wagon for a while, and in a drunken stupor wrote the “Bush Doctrine,” and when he woke up from his blackout, said “I did what?”

So what is everyone afraid of? Are cigarettes the new presidential “gateway drug?” If he starts smoking again, is he just a short step or two from purchasing a bong, hanging out in the Oval Office with Rahm Emanuel while watching “Harold and Kumar; Escape from Guantanamo Bay” to get ideas on how to shut that place shut down? Will he tell Michelle to get him and Rahm some Doritos and pizza and make a late night beer run? And since cigarettes can be a gateway drug, does the next logical step mean Obama would set up a meth lab in his new house and start dealing to the secret service, children and pregnant women? I think people need to get a life! Smoking is not illegal, so why treat him as though it were? Maybe people need something to pick on…especially people who don’t smoke. I was on a few other sites and I read the story about how Obama quit smoking but had a few slip ups, and I was amazed at the people who left comments. One person said, “yeah, he should quit smoking because it’s disgusting to kiss someone that has just smoked a cigarette.” Huh? Was this man planning on kicking up some kind of midnight rendezvous with the new president and his desire was for Obama’s mouth to be “minty fresh?” Others had more heartfelt concerns, such as “I hope he stays healthy and doesn’t start smoking again, for the sake of his family.” That makes sense to me, but it doesn’t mean people should dictate what he does within the dynamics of his family life.

I wonder if people are afraid of the kind of message it sends to the youth of this country. Maybe the fear is that if young people see President Obama is smoking, then that means it’s ok for them to smoke too. Do you think that could be it? Could it be smoking cigarettes would tempt young boys and girls to “light up” and be like their president? Do you think they would feel it was “so cool” they run out and ask an 18 year old to buy them some? Or perhaps go into their parent’s room and steal a couple? (Remember, research suggests that cigarettes are a gateway drug!) And of course that leads children down the dark road of smoking pot, doing crack, tapping the vein for some heroin, and starting their very own meth enterprise from their parent’s basement. If that’s the case, then what shall we say about President Bush? What kind of influence has he had over our children? I can name a few…how about jumping to conclusions about people we don’t know a lot about because they may look and act differently than us. How about rushing to judgement before knowing all the facts, and causing heart ache to those families both here and abroad. What about torturing our enemies, and bending the rules to serve his own purpose? How about not listening to wise council? And does not learning to get along with others have any influence over our children? How about turning a blind eye to the poor and speaking on behalf of the ultra rich? Humm? I’d say this president has influenced our children in a lot of ways, and not for the good. Maybe Obama can do it better…even if he decides to light up again.