Science versus Religion...again

As the elections are coming up in a week, we're being bombarded by all kinds of partisan advertisments. In Missouri there is a major battle over stem-cell research with two celebrities getting involved in the scuffle. On the side of pro-science is former Back to the Future and Spin City star, Michael J. Fox, who uses his celebrity status to gain research support for the disease he suffers from: Parkinson's. On the side of religion (or anti-science) is former Super Bowl MVP Kurt Warner who is famous for his rise to fame from obscurity and his love for everything Jesus. The problem with this debate is the fact that it's an argument between those who believe in progress and those who think that we're the pinnacle of progress. If you already believe that "god" made this world in his "perfect" image, then why would you ever support any kind of research? Obviously religion is, and always will be, at odds with rational thought and science. But the most frightening thing about the fight between science and religion is that so many of our "leaders", people who should be more rational and informed than all of the voting public, are on the side of religion. That is why the debate is being led by a man who suffers from a disease that has much potential to be cured with stem-cell research and has been studying the prospects for years versus a man who was working as a bag-boy before he became a born-again Christian NFL star. It's the fight of someone who is informed versus someone who has no idea what he is talking about.



Warner is obviously not an authority on anything other than football, but having him speak out against stem-cell research is simply the work of politicians who care not for truth and justice, but for victory at any cost. Using a local sports hero to speak out against progress has to be considered anti-American and bordering on treason (isn't mis-informing your own people for your political gain enough to be considered treason?), but Warner's argument is simply too stupid for people to take seriously, right? Probably not. On the Warner commercial, he speaks about why he is against stem-cell research, and it's not for the typical religious reasons that are usually stated, but for the TIME IT WOULD TAKE! He says that because the cures may not come for another 15 years, that it's a waste to try. Hmm, isn't Bush saying that only history will tell us how effective the Iraq war has been? Wouldn't someone who supports Warner's reasoning for voting against stem-cell research also be anti-Bush because of his idea that the war may take decades for the result to become visible?



So what if it does take 15 years for some research to show its results? Didn't it take that long for airplanes and cars to be developed? What about the cures to Polio, Rubella, Smallpox and all the others? If something doesn't take a long time to research, it's not really that major of a problem. If we could cure parkinsons and alzheimer's by 2021, wouldn't that help Warner (who would likely be facing some kind of effects from one of those due to his concussion history and career as a football player) have a more enjoyable twilight of life? Lets go back in time 15 years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991 ) and see how much that was going on back then is still facing us today. Now look at the various advances in medicine and technology since then and tell me that 15 years down the line isn't too much time to wait for an advance to be made. We've seen DVD, MP3 and DVR players become the standard of their various media, replacing VHS, CD and VCR. We've seen new advances in medicine that include the ability to get hard at age 75 (another thing Warner should be supportive of...), so how can anyone say that we shouldn't fund scientific research simply because we're only speculating about the possible advances that may come 15 years down the line?



If history has taught us nothing else (though it definitely has, history teaches us A LOT) it is that most medical advances come by accident. While researching cures for Parkinson's disease through stem-cell research, there is a possiblity that the scientists discover a cure for cancer or even aging. We wont know until we try. It's not like stem-cell research is the same as biological weapon research, there isn't a clear danger from the study of stem-cells. They can't be stolen and sold to terrorists, unless the terrorists want to help cure diseases...um, they wouldn't be terrorists if they did that. Viagra ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viagra#History ) was not being researched as a penis hardening pill, it was being developed for hypertension and angina. If that much of a divergence in usage can come from a very specific compound, how many unique (and previously not considered) uses will stem-cells uncover? The answer we do not know, but those cures will never come if we do not try.



The fact that uninformed people are speaking out against scientists should be enough of a sign that those people are irrational and shouldn't be listened to at any cost. But Americans are gullible and basically a large flock of sheep who will listen to anything an authority tells them. Case in point: the anti-marijuana ads the US Government has produced over the past 7 decades. First marijuana made people crazy, then it made them communists, then it made them lazy, then it made them terrorists, now it's just going to keep people from doing things...basically, it's one lie after another that the majority of people still believe because they believe anything they're told. Just like the denial of global warming, the anti-stem-cell movement is fighting against progress and doing it at the cost of our children and our future health. Do we really need to listen to Kurt Warner or Michael J Fox? As long as there are no possible weapons or highly addictive drugs being developed, research can't ever be the wrong option because that is where progress comes from. So the people have a choice, they can side with Kurt Warner and vote against progress, or they can side with Michael J Fox and help contribute to this nation continuing to maintain its place on top of the world.

Video games and violence, a connection?

With another surge in school violence recently, there has been more of that talk about how playing games like Grand Theft Auto ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_(series) ) can lead to violent behavior. Because this is simply a way to assign blame, it ends up being a way to erase guilt in causing these tragic shootings. First and foremost, blame has to rest on the parents of the shooters, but it doesn't stop there. Blame also lies with the victims of the shootings because their actions had helped to cause the brain malfunction that would lead someone to go on a shooting spree. Sure, chemical imbalance may be a part of it; but many people have chemical imbalances and only a small percentage of them open fire on their peers. The root cause cannot be singled out because there are many root causes. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_Klebold ) were social outcasts who spent most of their free time playing violent video games together and being generally outside the main society of Columbine High School.


There will always be social outcasts; even in Brave New World where everyone is genetically engineered to fit into their role in society ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_new_world ), the main character is an outcast because he desires monogamy in a polygynistic society. Because of his unique views he is mocked and eventually leaves society altogether to live with the "savages". He does not act out violently against his antagonists, but many people would. Hell, I've done it a number of times. I got in trouble in elementary, middle and high school numerous times for fighting or getting back at people that had upset me, and I was definitely not a social outcast. Now imagine what it would be like for someone who feels out of place in society, who is never accepted and who faces daily trauma to their self-esteem. If you faced daily torment would you crawl into a hole and withdraw from society, or would you fight back?


The simple fact that anyone would actually open fire on innocent people (many of the victims of school shootings are not the people the shooter originally intended to kill) is a sign that they are not fit for society. Violence is the only real crime in my mind, the others are just crimes of law...violence is a crime of man. Rape, murder, assault, they are all the same in my book, just at different levels of atrocity. I even feel that robbery has roots in the inequality of man and can generally be justified (except in cases where the rich is robbing the poor, but that is not as common as some people would believe). But violence against others is something that should be prevented through good parenting and proper attention paid to chemical imbalances. None of the school shooting cases had a popular jock as the shooter, it is always someone who is somewhat outcast from the mainstream.


Now conformity is not anything I would ever advocate, everyone should be their own individual self (why else would someone want to live unless they were themselves? What's the point of life if you're living as someone else?"), but the parents should be able to sense something wrong with their child when he's withdrawn and obsessed with violent video games. Obviously there is a sign that the kid is suffering from some social problems if he's always alone (or with the same single person all the time) and spends his spare time listening to angry music and designing levels for Doom and other violent games as Harris and Klebold did. I'd never let my own child go down a path like that, even if it meant that I had to be more involved in his life. The problem lies in the lack of responsibility that most parents take for their children's actions. Everything starts at childhood, and if the child is a loner as a teenager, mistakes were made whilst he was growing up.


The fundamental problem with these shootings is not just about the shooters. The people who exclude others from their group are directly responsible for causing animosity towards the "popular crowd" and can take some of the blame for the shootings. At the Santana High School shooting ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Andrew_Williams ), the shooter was tormented by jockish bullies...I actually know a guy who admits to having bullied this kid...and retaliated against his tormentors. Not only should the school take responsiblity for the abuse this kid suffered while on campus, but the parents of the bullies too. Until people learn that exclusion only leads to trouble, there will be at least one major shooting each year somewhere in the US (well, at a white school, we don't hear about the ones that happen in the Ghettos of NYC, LA, Chicago, New Orleans, etc.). Unfortunately it isn't a quick fix, and arming teachers (an actual proposal in the state of Wisconsin) certainly isn't the way to go. Starting at young ages and moving through puberty, all kids should be given psychological evaluations and be properly taught how to accept people for who they are and never to exclude others. But that is a wishy-washy dream that is likely to remain out of the reality of this disjointed world.

On Voter Qualification

With the upcoming election we are facing the important questions about our future as a nation. But beyond those questions lies a deeper one, should voting be a privilege or a right? As much as we proclaim the wonders of democracy, what is democracy really? Is it the freedom to vote? Or is it something more than that? To me, the fundamental characteristic of democracy is not the ability to vote as a majority, but the freedom to oppose popular opinion. Democracy really doesn't protect people from each other, it only protects them from tyranny, and even that is a fine line. After all, one of the most tyrannical regimes in the history of mankind was elected democratically by the people of Germany in the early 1930s. So is the right to vote the key to freedom? No! Because as Kent Brockman says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Brockman) "Democracy doesn't work!"


Would I eliminate the right to vote? Hell no! Democracy simply needs retooling to be effective. The people elect candidates for very dumb reasons, from their name or race to their leisure activities. Many people vote Republican simply because the party is (generally) supportive of hunting, gay-bashing and religious zealotry as well as war and proctectionist laws. People vote Democrat because of their support for liberal causes (abortion, gay rights, healthcare) and general preference towards diplomacy and peace. People generally vote for a third party when they disagree with the majority opinion (well, the two majority opinions) or when they are a college political-science professor (they overwhelmingly vote libertarian). Maybe it's just me, but it seems as though the people who should be making our decisions are not the uneducated laborer, but the person who dedicates their life to studying and teaching the intricacies of government.


So my proposal to strengthen democracy would be to limit it. Why should everyone be allowed to vote on issues they know nothing about? Many very good laws have died with the voters simply because they were just not aware of anything but the propaganda forced upon them. After all, why would 2/3 of Nevada be against legalized marijuana when they have legal prostitution, gambling and the 2 of the most alcoholic cities in the world? Voters simply do not know the candidates or the facts behind measures enough to make a rational decision, yet we allow them to run the nation. But it isn't just about what people vote for, but for whom. Why would a rural area in Alabama vote Republican when they are basically voting to cut their own social services, increase their chances to be sent off to war and helping to spread the gap between them and the wealthy? If we only allowed those who showed some servicable knowledge of government and the issues facing us, we'd be much better off as a nation. It's not like Americans really cherish their right to vote, only about half of registered voters actually vote.


In order to create a nation that really does reflect what the people need out of society, people should not only be required to display knowledge of our government and constitution, but of the issues at hand as well. How can somebody who has never met a gay man vote against gay marriage? Ditto for criminalizing a drug that one has not studied or experienced. Even those who are illiterate are allowed to vote...which leads to a question: how can someone vote when they cannot even read? The way our democracy is set up, our votes mean very little, even in a large state like California because the average voter is unimformed and only votes in self-interest. Poor people vote against tax raises for more social services thinking that it'll hurt them financially, when in reality it is designed to help the poor and will have little impact on their finances. The more poor and middle class people vote to cut taxes, the more they are hurt. Their tax burden is minimal compared to the upper classes, and yet poor people will vote to cut taxes on the rich, further contributing to their poverty. Basically, most voters vote against their own best interests despite their own selfishness simply because they just don't fully understand how our government works.


Would my idea of a "National Voter's Qualification Exam" ever fly? Definitely not. First of all, it would be considered unconstitutional, as people would be denied the right to vote for their lack of education. But would it help strengthen our democracy? Certainly! People might actually vote for the better candidate if they were informed about them all. Not only that, but it might help pull us away from the highly polarizing bipartisanship that this nation has become embroiled in. The more educated and intellectual the voting public, the more likely they will be able to come to a consensus. Just look at it this way, you're a college graduate with a degree in Political Science, would you really want your decisions to be made by people who flunked civics in high school and have spent the past 10 years drinking beer and watching football? Well, that's how it is in this country, and that's why we're facing all kinds of new challenges to our freedom...the public simply doesn't know any better. After all, most people think that the USA PATRIOT ACT is an act in patriotism...it's an ACRONYM!!! (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) If the PATRIOT ACT can be passed with such consensus (357-66), imagine how many more acts will be passed to erode our civil rights. It's only a matter of time, so why not fight back and make our democracy actually fair and functional?

Will Nevada be the American Netherlands?

In Nevada this election year there is a very important measure (Question 7) about the legalization of marijuana for possession, use and sale. Even the Nevada churches are backing Question 7, which asks state voters to allow adults age 21 or older to possess, use and transfer up to one ounce of marijuana; the measure also calls for the state to set up a system for regulating growth and sales of the drug and raises penalties for driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. Maybe the Nevadan voters will finally realize the futility and utter stupidity of marijuana prohibition and pass this measure, but I don't really see it happening. The last legalization measure in Nevada failed with a 37 percent (to legalize) to 63 percent (to NOT legalize) vote and the electorate hasn't changed much since then. So if religious leaders are supporting it, and the liberal left is supporting it, how can it fail?


First of all, the law enforcement agencies are still so misinformed that they will come out against it no matter what. Never mind the fact that legalizing marijuana will free up a lot of time, resources and money for the police to combat actual crime. They just care about maintaining the status quo of marijuana laws...which of course was set up by the US government in the 1930s to keep Mexicans from crossing the border in Texas. From the people who are against the measure ( http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20061015/OPINION/110150109 ), they claim that marijuana use would increase if legalized, but if they looked at facts they would understand that it is not true. The Netherlands has only seen minimal increases in the use of marijuana, and the flip side would be a decrease in the use of Alcohol. I know a whole lot of people who stopped drinking alcohol once they discovered the much safer and less damaging effects of marijuana. They also claim that pot is addictive...judging from the 3 former dealers I know from San Diego who were studying for the Bar exam, quitting marijuana is easier than quitting a job. Any user can stop for days, weeks or months and not suffer any withdrawal or physical cravings. The only addiction one can have to marijuana is psychological, which is about the same as my addiction to sugar, and they ain't making that illegal anytime soon.


What makes these people so blindly against legalization? Are they just too dumb to understand that legalizing something that is already easier to get than many legal treats (try to find me some authentic Belgian chocolate or a decent Falafel place, or even a Tamale cart in downtown San Diego) would only serve to get it off of the streets? If they made cigarettes illegal, they'd be easier for kids to buy because they'd be on the black market, sold by people who are thumbing their nose at the law. Well, the same goes for pot, if they made it legal it would end up behind the counter at 7-11 where only legal adults could buy it. Even with age restrictions, it's very easy to get alcohol as a teenager, but at least they have to work for it. Wouldn't putting pot in the hands of large corporations be beneficial to everyone? They'd pay taxes, they'd obey US law and would (likely) be required to have public service announcements to disclose the harms of marijuana.


Think about it from a fiscal point of view. Say that in Vegas they legalize the sale and use of weed, and say that it is taxed at a rate of 10% of the sale price (way lower than I'd put it, I'd have it more near 25%), meaning that for every $350 ounce the state would take in $35. Now imagine that of the 40,000,000 people who are likely to visit Vegas next year 5% of them purchase an ounce. That means that the state would take in $70,000,000, a VERY conservative number. That's not to include the 50,000 residents (again, very conservative estimate) who would purchase an ounce a month for about $1,750,000 of monthly tax revenue. Now I cannot imagine that the costs outweigh the benefits of legalization. But then again, rationality obviously does not rule, or else we wouldn't have legalized alcohol and illegal pot.


What will happen if it does actually pass? Will this finally bring about that change to US drug laws to separate marijuana from the much more dangerous Heroin, Cocaine, Crack and Meth? Or will the US government continue to fight the people and deny them the right to choose their own laws? We've already seen the choice of California voters attacked by overly-conservative legislators, even shutting down all medical marijuana clinics in San Diego and suing the state to repeal the law that the voters overwhelmingly passed. Considering all of the debauchery that already goes on in Nevada, wouldn't allowing a drug that calms people down be a good thing? Honestly walk around the Temple Bar district of Dublin or Bourbon Street in New Orleans if you want to see the effects of alcohol and all the fighting, sexual assault and disgusting acts (bodily functions mostly) that take place. Then take a trip to Amsterdam and see how many fights you come across...surprise surprise, none will happen outside of a coffeeshop. Potheads are too mellow to fight. So if this law passes, I can assure you that Vegas will remain the same party destination...except for the fact that it may replace Amsterdam as a pot tourist destination, and that can only help the economy. And in the end, isn't that what most voters care about?

The connection between athleticism and insanity

First of all I want to wish my deepest sympathies for Cory Lidle's friends, family and fans. I always liked that little lefty firecracker and was sad to hear the news of his tragic end. But something about his end seems fitting for a guy who never took the conventional route. Cory Lidle, we'll miss you. However, my point about the Cable news stations is further enhanced by this coverage of the accident. Since the crash happened nearly 4 hours ago, I've seen nothing on Fox News or CNN about anything other than that crash. I can understand the news flash because of the fact that it was a plane hitting a NY building, but 4 hours straight on the death of one or two people doing a dangerous activity without much experience (Lidle had only about 100 flight experience) isn't really quality news. Maybe it's just me, but in a nation of 300,000,000 people, the death of one man doing something dangerous simply isn't news enough to monopolize 3+ news stations for half a day. Oh yeah, and the wonderful fact checkers at Fox News (the same ones responsible for putting D-FL under Foley's name as he was disgraced for his sexual desires for young boys despite the fact that it should have been R-FL) put the letters UVT to represent the University of Vermont...anyone with half a brain should know that UVM is the University of Vermont...UVT is the abbreviation used for the University of Tunis in AFRICA!


In recent years there has been a major problem with professional and collegiate athletes and their run-ins with the law. We've seen Maurice Clarett, Lawrence Phillips, Nate Newton, Terrence Kiel, the Indiana Pacers, Steve Foley and many others face problems with the law due to drugs and violence. The most amazing aspect of this is not the actions of the athletes, but the fact that they are millionaires (or close to it) who risk everything through their actions. Maybe it's because these athletes are used to always having everything go their way and being invincible, but that doesn't go far enough to explain the actions of these men. Maybe it's the pressure of being the center of attention for millions of fans, or maybe it's just something ingrained in the personalities of the athletes. Regardless of what it is, most athletes should not be seen as role models, only those who really merit it should be given that kind of respect.


When a kid is raised in the ghetto he sees lots of drugs. They're everywhere and impossible to avoid. When that kid becomes a star athlete one of two things can happen: He can swear off drugs completely to focus on his development as a person and athlete, or he can indulge in them due to his celebrity status making them so readily available. Unfortunately, it also extends to the sale of drugs because of the money involved and the connections a star athlete is likely to have. That is why we see so many top level athletes who deal drugs, they have the connection to the source as well as the customer base. Plus, the pros have a lot of money to burn and there are a lot of people who are willing to manipulate them for their celebrity status. It's also about the big score. Nate Newton is a perfect example of this: he was arrested on the highway for speeding and swerving and because there was a distinct smell coming out the back of his truck...180 LBS of weed. So he's released on bail and within a month he is ARRESTED AGAIN for possession of ANOTHER 220 LBS of WEED! Why anyone would personally transport 220 pounds of weed while out on bail for an arrest for 180 pounds of weed is beyond me...especially when that person had made 4.5 million in salary.


So what about the violence? How many players are arrested for assault throughout the course of the season? What about domestic violence? And it's not all ghetto superstars either...the good ol' boys do it too. There are different levels of this violence, there's the Bobby Chounard/Brett Myers level, the Lawrence Phillips/Maurice Clarett level and the Rae Carruth level. Rae Carruth was a pretty good wide receiver who hired someone to murder his pregnant wife and then fled the state. He's now serving time for murder. Clarett and Phillips are different but the same too. Clarett was the #1 prospect in the country, national champion and the next great NFL back, but he was STUPID. He pledged his life over to some Jewish gangsters and is now going to spend the next few years behind bars because of his own stupidity and greediness (he couldn't wait 2 more years to live the life, he had to take a loan from gangsters so he could jump start his "Cribs" lifestyle). Phillips was just sent to jail because he drove his car into a group of teenagers who humiliated him in a pickup football game, injuring 7 of them and putting himself behind bars for 20 years. These athletes simply do not have the ability to deal with their problems because their whole lives are spent being idolized and complimented. Coaches look the other way when an athlete of Phillips' caliber has a few "problems in his past", and they help contribute to the growing problem of violence off the playing fields.


You can take the boy out of the ghetto, but you'll never take the ghetto out of the boy. Ron Artest is the PRIME example of this statement. Here's a man who makes 10's of millions and yet he still hangs out at his Queensbridge projects and has said that his dream is to buy the top floor of his old building and live in the projects for the rest of his life. When you grow up in a place where violence, drugs, entertainment or sports are the only ways out, it's hard to adjust to life outside of that world. Steven Jackson has enough money to hire 10 strippers to come over and break all the rules, yet he risks his career by going to some ghetto club and gets into a brawl in the parking lot, firing shots from his handgun in the air. Obviously a kid from the projects isn't going to have a classical education, and if he's good enough to be an NBA or NFL athlete, he probably spent most of his time playing sports and not studying. It is a fact that the more educated a person is, the less likely they are to become drug addicts or violent criminals. Unfortunately, "student-athletes" are simply not students at all. The only things they study in college are booze, broads and bullshit and once they get that first fat paycheck it's over. Why is it that so many professional athletes end up bankrupt when they make more than most people? Simple, it's because they live a fast life and have no concept of the long term effects of their actions.


So what can we do about this ever-growing problem? Well, not too much at the professional level, it's gotta start at the youth level. Think Reggie Bush got treated the same as Ira Goldstein at Pop Warner practice? It's hard for a coach to treat his star the same as his scrub, but this is where the TO (Terrell Owens) personalities begin. Athletes probably shouldn't be role models, but they are and will always be. Kids think that anyone is cool if they've got skills and confidence...actually, all that matters is that they're on TV and the internet. Case-in-point: Paris Hilton...she has no reason to be ANYONE's role model (spoiled, ignorant, slutty brat born into money and has done nothing to deserve it), yet her album sells tons of copies, she can sell clothing lines with just her name and a whole generation of slutty girls have her to thank for their development into stupid spoiled whores. The same goes for players like Terrell Owens, how many star receivers will think that they're above the team thanks to him? The point of sports is to compete, strive for improvement and to work as a team. As sports have become big business, it has become more important for the stars to be healthy role models, so why has it gone the opposite way? I just hope that pro teams start to realize that the athletes should be grateful for the opportunity, regardless if they're Reggie Bush or Ira Goldstein, getting a chance to be paid to play a game for a living should be enough.

Wow, what a surprise! Bush ignored NK and they had a nuke!

First I want to express more annoyance with the cable news stations. MSNBC has been showing this one 1 second clip of the Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt bodyguard grabbing a paparazzi photographer by the neck. First off, who cares? Paparazzi are some of the lowest forms of life on this earth, so I'm glad to see it when they're hurt for invading people's privacy. Secondly, how is this news? Bodyguards always overreact because they're generally testosterone-laden men with a superiority complex. Finally, why do we need to see the 1 second clip 25 times? I got the picture the first time, thought it wasn't news and thought they should move past it to a real news story. Instead, we get the clip on repeat with analysis of the incident...this is why I wouldn't ever choose to watch MSNBC, Fox News or any of those other (for-profit) ones.


Today we were greeted with the news that Kim Jong Il had finally blown up that nuke that we all knew he had. The frightening part of this story is not the fact that North Korea has nukes, any idiot could figure that out years ago, but that we're led by a person who ignored this clear threat and went after one that was merely suspect. The problem with Kim Jong Il is that he's the spoiled child of a ruthless dictator, and therefore is even more dangerous. Frankly, I'm surprised that he doesn't strap chest plate and sword and fight gladiator matches in the center of PyongYang. Unfortunately, we aren't facing some fictionalized Roman Emporer on the silver screen, we're facing a lunatic who now has experience in blowing up nuclear devices. Never mind that the bomb would have been less powerful than the ones Truman ordered to kill 40,000+ people each in Hiroshima and Nagasaki over 60 years ago, those were still horrific devices containing the power and ferocity to vaporize an entire city.


To me this is a sign of a greater problem. We're still stuck on alienating those with different views than the international community. There is a reason why the "rogue" nations feel the need to develop nuclear arms, they are threatened. Saddam Hussein was a harsh ruler who ignored the conformity of rule that the UN is trying to promote and was overthrown because of it. He wasn't the first anti-American ruler to be disposed either and that is one major reason why anyone who holds beliefs contrary to our own is in the "axis-of-evil" according to Bush. It just makes it easier for us to accept this attempt at global domination by Western forces because the UN and its allies are "Good" and everyone else is "evil". Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there, we do not just blame the leadership for their actions but the people as well. Americans would be hard pressed to name the various sects of Islam doing battle, but would definitely be able to tell you that Osama Bin Laden is Muslim and hates America. How many people know which branch of Islam he supports?


So why did we attack Iraq when Venezuela, Iran, North Korea and Syria were bigger threats? Since we went in to Iraq, we have seen Syria launch attacks on Israel, Iran threaten to destabilize the region with nuclear development, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez making all kinds of attempts to embarrass the US and UN, and obviously North Korea's Taepodong II and Nuclear missile tests. Oh yeah, and our intrusion into Iraq's internal policies has led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and 150,000+ Iraqis. Someone has to be held responsible for these mistakes and errors in judgement and it's not just Bush and the Republican party...it's Americans in general. If the American people were smart enough and had enough moxie, we'd be demanding this regime really step back and take a look at the pending disaster that is our foreign policy.


Without a great leader that unites the people, war is always a losing proposition. If you look at every victorious side in the history of war, there is a mythical figure who stands out as a key to victory. Who do we have in our leadership? I would love to see the Iraq wat function as a catalyst towards harmony and freedom in the Middle East so I can go and visit some Harems, but that's just not what is happening. The main reason is that social change can only come from within. You cannot force a majority to accept decisions that placate to the minority, it simply wont work. Animosity will explode in violence and corruption, essentially making things worse than before. This will always happen in any "regime change" and that will never change. So instead of using the sword to force nations to adopt more pro-west idealogies, why not make the people demand it from within? We could just as easily spread our propaganda with satellite, computer and internet technology and not risk any American lives in the process. Since the Middle East is about as stable as a 300 pound lineman in stilettos, we obviously have gone about it all wrong. NOw the only question is whether we can stabilize this region without destroying it.