Saturday, September 25, 2004

Bush Defenders Believe He's Doing God's Will

When you think about it, what could George W. Bush have possibly done worse? Everything he has touched has turned out badly. In every case, he's done the worst possible thing.

So why do some people still defend George W. Bush? Because they believe George Bush is doing god's will since he's working to bring christianity into our schools and our government. They sincerely believe Bush's team is god's team.

This is a very good example why government should not be infected by religion. Even in the face of disastrous consequences as a result of wrong judgement and wrong choices, the religious fanatic still believes he's on the right path because he believes god sent him on that path. Furthermore, it's impossible to reason with the religious politician (or the religious voter) because reason and religion are incompatible.

Of course, it's an enduring mystery why an all-powerful being who reads everyone's thoughts and controls every molecule of the universe would need simple humans to defend him. But then again, it's also a mystery why such a being needs to be worshipped by humans yet refuses to prove he exists.

Take away the religion factor and nobody in their right mind could possibly defend Bush.

Thursday, September 23, 2004

How to Fix the Mess in Iraq and Move Forward

America cannot have credible moral leadership in the world unless we are moral and ethical. Our actions in the past have NOT been ethical and we will have no credibility until we face up to what we have done.

We have interfered in the internal affairs of many governments around the world. We trained Osama Bin-Laden because we wanted Afghanistan to resist the Soviets. We supported Saddam Hussein when he attacked Iran because at the time we liked Iraq more than Iran. We helped the Shah of Iran oppress the Iranian people because we liked his pro-western attitude. In 1963 John F. Kennedy approved the assassination of the South Vietnamese leader in order to install our own puppet regime with the purpose of keeping communism out of South Vietnam. We give billions of dollars every year to Israel to help them enslave the Palestinians because christians in America believe Israel is a manifestation of bible prophecy. We attacked Iraq simply because George W. Bush wanted to. None of these actions are legitimate or ethical.

Here's what we should do to correct our mistakes in Iraq and the world, now and in the future:
  1. Apologize for interfering in foreign governments. Apologize for training Osama Bin-Laden to fight Russia. Apologize for Supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran. Apologize for supporting the Shah of Iran. And most of all we must apologize for allowing the mother of all jackasses, George "Wrong Way" Bush to run wild in the world. After apologizing, we must promise that henceforth we will be an ethical nation ruled by reason rather than religion.

  2. Apologise to our own American soldiers for using them in unethical, careless and downright silly war campaigns that were not in America's vital interests. We must promise our current and future soldiers that we will never again send them in harm's way unless it is truly vital to America's interests. We must do this before recuritment falls so low that our military is decimated and we're forced to return to a draft.

  3. Renounce interference in foreign governments. It is legitimate to come to the aid of a country attacked by another such as when Kuwait was attacked by Iraq in the first gulf war. It is ligitimate to overthrow a dictator who brutally abuses his subjects to such a degree that much of the civilized world agrees with overthrowing the dictator. It is legitimate to counter-attack if we were attacked first, hence, our war in Afghanistan is legitimate. It is even legitimate to pre-emptively attack another country but only if we have verifiable, objective evidence that they pose an eminent threat to America.

  4. Stop the hemorrhage of our foreign-aid tax dollars flowing endlessly to Israel and Egypt every year. If we want to give money to other countries, it should be for a limited time and a specific purpose, not a permanent annual charity handout forced upon the America taxpayer.

  5. Never train armies in other countries for their own internal civil wars unless absolutely necessary.

  6. We must set a deadline for when we will leave Iraq because any project takes 10 times longer than necessary in the absence of a deadline. Say, in a year or two. But, if the Iraqi government should ask us to leave ahead of schedule, we would leave immediately. We reserve the right to stay beyond the deadline and issue a new deadline if the Iraqi government requests it and we believe it will be fruitful. There's no other reasonable way around this deadline - there's just no value in fighting a never-ending war for a lost cause. What did we gain from 5 more years in Vietnam after 1968 when we finally learned we needed to get out? Absolutely nothing! All the secret negotiations and back-room politics by Kissinger and Nixon didn't change a damn thing in the final outcome.

  7. For long term stability, Iraq must be partitioned into three separate countries: Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni, otherwise, it's a certainty that at least one minority group will be brutally oppressed by muslim fanatics.

  8. There must be complete separation of church and state in any new government constitutions created under our purview.

After facing up to our own guilt and committing ourselves to an ethical future, we will be in a position make it clear there are certain issues upon which we will not yield and upon which we will use force if necessary to maintain our security.

Here are the principles we should announce and stick to faithfully:
  1. Under absolutely no circumstances will wacko regimes be allowed to have nuclear technology. This means all muslim theocracies as well as wacko dictators like the bad-hair clown in North Korea, Kim Jong-Il. If we know they are building nuclear technology, we will first try diplomacy but if necessary we will destroy it just like Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. This same principle will apply to chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

  2. If we can prove a country is harboring terrorists, we have the right to destroy the terrorists where they hide.

  3. For the remainder of the American occupation of Iraq, if an American vehicle is disabled by attack, any Iraqi within 50 meters of the vehicle will be shot on sight. An American vehicle disabled by attack should be a no-go zone for Iraqis and if a crowd gathers closely, they have been warned so they have no right to whine and complain if they get shot.

  4. Moqtada Al-Sadr must be executed. The 1,000 American soldiers who have died deserve to see Moqtada Al-Sadr pay for what he has done to them and to Iraq and the Iraqi people deserve a fair chance at democracy. If we leave Al-Sadr alive, the probability of democracy in Iraq is much smaller. Killing that muslim fanatic is the single most valuable thing we can do to give Iraq a fair chance at democracy.

In a nutshell, there are two main reasons much of the world hates America: our interference in foreign governments and our yearly 3 Billion dollar plus gift to Israel. Simply stopping these two activities will go a long way towards reestablishing our ethics and regaining our credibility.

Apologizing and facing up to what we've done and declaring rational, ethical principles upon which we stand will instantly reduce the threat we face from terrorism.

See also: Simple Solution for the Iraq Constitution

Saturday, September 18, 2004

Vietnam, Iraq, Bush, Nixon

What did America gain by fighting in Vietnam? Nothing. Vietnam was a stupid war regardless of whether or not the "cause" was noble. John Kerry deserves credit for having the courage to both fight in Vietnam and fight against the stupidity of the war itself.

We should have learned from Vietnam that it's not a good idea to fight for a people's freedom when those people are not motivated to fight for their own freedom.

Iraq is a stupid war just like Vietnam was a stupid war and Americans are dying for nothing but at least in Vietnam, presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon didn't tell lies about our motivation for fighting.

Bush is like Nixon because he cares not for the ethics of how he achieves his goals but simply believes that ends justify means. The Bush regime is willing to lie about WMD because it believes the end result will justify the lies. The Bush regime is willing to undermine the Constitution and sacrifice individual liberties because it believes turning America into a christian nation will justify destroying American values.

Bush is Nixon with religion instead of brains.

Iraq is Vietnam with religion instead of communism.

Thursday, September 09, 2004

George W. Bush Abuses Presidential Power

The Bush regime abused its power this week in a significant way that was horribly underreported in the news.
  1. The Bush regime declared that it was unconstitutional for Congress to compel the disclosure of data over objections from the executive branch.
  2. The Bush regime asked NBC to refrain from showing interviews with Kitty Kelley who wrote an unflattering book about the Bush family due to be released soon.
The first item was in regard to a medicare law passed recently under false cost information because the chief medicare actuary was ordered to withhold the true cost from members of congress. Since around 1912, it has been illegal for the executive branch to issue gag orders forbidding federal employees from providing information to members of congress. These laws have never been found unconstitutional.

The sinister thing here is not even the fact the Bush regime was cheating or issued a gag order against the chief medicare actuary. It's the audacity of the Bush regime to claim it has the right to issue gag orders and that the law against self-serving presidential gag orders is wrong and unconstitutional! The information gagged by the Bush regime was not classified or privileged. It was simply cost information that congress needed in order to vote on the medicare law.

Should the president be able, by executive order, to gag all communication to Congress? If so, the president could get away with almost anything. Already the president has, for all practical purposes, issued a government-wide gag order to suppress information relating to Bush's failure to serve his term in the National Guard during the Vietnam war (he dodged the draft using his father's political influence and then couldn't even complete his cushy National Guard duty yet this slimeball was FOR the Vietnam war and wants to be our commander-in-chief?).

Should the president be asking news media to withhold information from the public?

This president is showing his true colors. He does not care for democracy or freedom. He simply thirsts for unbridled power.


Wednesday, September 08, 2004

Is it Wrong to be Selfish?

Some people think it is wrong to be selfish because if everyone was only out for himself without regard for others, there would be anarchy. Religion and communism both preach that "selfish" is a dirty word. I've heard George "Wrong" Bush refer to the 9/11 firefighters as "selfless heros". I hear that word, selfless, all the time on the news referring to some kind of hero. But what does "selfless" mean? It means the opposite of selfish - it means unselfish.

Here's one official definition of selfless:
Having, exhibiting, or motivated by no concern for oneself.
see: dictionary.reference.com/search?q=selfless
Is it a good thing to have absolutely no self interest? If a woman had no self interest, she would give herself to any man that wanted her at any time because she would consider her own interests unimportant; only the interests of others counts. If a christian had no self interest, he would not be a christian because he would not care about his own salvation.

Clearly, being completely selfless or unselfish is not good.

Selfish means achieving one's own values. I value human life so I would take some degree of risk to my own life in order to save another's life but the amount of risk would depend on who's life was at stake and how valuable they were to me. I would risk certain death to save my wife because she is very valuable to me. I would take a smaller amount of risk to save a stranger. I would NOT risk even a broken fingernail or a minute of my time to save Osama Bin Laden or George W. Bush because their lives have absolutely no value to me.

Any man who would risk certain death to save a stranger is truly unselfish/selfless and is also truly stupid with messed up values. What about his wife and kids? Is saving a stranger worth depriving his wife and kids of their husband/father? Where are his values placed? Is a stranger more important to him than his own wife and kids? Of course, taking a risk involves probability. The firefighters of 9/11 were heros because they took a risk to save human life. The fact the towers collapsed and killed them is an unfortunate result of rolling the dice. Would they have gone into the twin towers if they knew the buildings were going to fall down and kill them? Obviously not. Anybody who knowingly allows himself to die for a stranger is inhuman and deserves no accolades (unless they've got a terminal disease and don't have much time left in which case they clearly place a high value on human life and that would be selfish, not unselfish).

A man who values human life enough to take a limited risk to save another is a hero. A man who would jump into alligator infested waters to save his wife is an even bigger hero because his sincere love for his wife is noble.

We should be considerate and compassionate of other people but only because we selfishly value human life. That is achieving our values and is therefore selfish rather than unselfish.

Ayn Rand calls this "rational selfishness". She wrote a book on this topic called, "The Virtue of Selfishness".