Posts
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_sept11_trial
http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef/index.html
For the past few days, debate has been raging on about whether or not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the “mastermind” of 9/11/01, should be tried in New York City in federal court. Some of the people who oppose it claim that it will make NYC “less safe”, more of a “target”, and that since he isn’t a US Citizens then he doesn’t deserve the right to be tried in a US court.
First off, NYC will be a target tomorrow, it was a target 15 years ago, it will be a target in 20 years, and whether or not a trial is performed there will not change that in the slightest. Also, where were all of these people 10 years ago? The first World Trade Center bomber was not a citizen and yet was tried in federal court in NEW YORK CITY. Was this a problem then? No. Did it make NYC “less safe” and more of a “target”? No. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to life without so much as a hiccup in the judicial system. So it can be done the same way for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Before Rudy and all these other people bitch moan about something that gets them into the limelight they might decide to do a little research before hand. We wouldn’t want them to make TOTAL asses out of themselves.
That all being said, I believe that he should not be tried in New York, Washington DC, or any other city in the United States. If we truly want to show the world that our justice system works, then we should acknowledge that there is NO WAY an unbiased jury of his peers can be found in any state of this country. If this country wants to set an example then we should say that we have a biased opinion in the matter and as such the world court should be the venue for these trials. The entire point of the World Court is to allow ANYONE of ANY COUNRTY a fair trial when the country in which the crime was committed cannot be unbiased. Now yes, there is a chance that no matter where they are tried, that the case could be dismissed and the perps set free. That is our own damn fault! The leaders of this country know our laws, and the laws of the world, that state precisely what you can and CANNOT do to a person in your custody. Also they know what is and is not admissible in a court of law. They know that if you say….TORTURE SOMEONE, any and all “evidence” obtained by that torture is inadmissible. If a cop kicks the shit out of a murderer to get a confession, he is kicking the shit out of his own case. When you know the rules and don’t obey them then you fully deserve to have the case turn to dust in your own hands. We have laws and if your actions break them then you have to deal with any and all possible consequences of those actions.
Lastly, the perps of 9/11 should NOT be sentenced to death under ANY circumstances! Whether I am for or against the death penalty has nothing to do with this view, but has everything to do with facts. There is a reason why Ramzi Yousef (the first World Trade Center bomber) was sentenced to life in prison and not death, and anyone with half a brain should realize why. If you sentence Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to death you are doing nothing more than giving him EXACTLY what he and his cause want. Martyrdom. If this government and this country cannot realize this simple fact then we truly do not understand our enemy, and that is a very dangerous position from which to wage war.
It is simple to stick to personal principles and the principles of this country when times are good. It is far harder to do that when times get tough.
“…you have to make the choice between what is right and what is easy.”
- J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Literal Visitor from the Heavans?
Once again my mind has been chewing on religion. This time spurred on by a friend’s recent blog.
History seems to be leaning towards the idea that a man existed in the Middle East 2,000 years ago named Jesus Christ. But what if he was in fact not a man? Not a child of man, nor a “child of god.” What if he was in fact a completely different being that had taken human form to ease communication and reduce fear of its appearance? You can laugh at this idea if you want but I have given the matter serious thought (and I know I’m not the first).
Given the age of humanity, Earth, and the universe itself, the idea of other beings on other worlds is plausible. When you look at how long humans took to evolve, a matter of minutes or seconds to the universe, it is easily possible for other life forms on other planets to have done the same sooner than we did. Thus making them an older and far more advanced species. Is it so hard to believe that, if this is true, an advanced species visited this planet? A species who is/was far beyond the comprehension of ancient civilization. When viewed from this point, the “miracles” performs by J.C. could have been nothing more than technology being used that was impossible for people to understand. What are now considered holy books could be simply stories that were told to try and explain things that could not be explained in any other way.
Take the Aztec Civilization for an example. When the Spanish Conquerors first went to Central America,, the Aztecs believed them to be gods. The Spanish wore strange shining clothes and possessed technology that the Aztecs couldn’t understand how or why it worked. Now as we know the Aztecs were very wrong in this belief and it cost them their civilization, but WHY they thought the way they did cannot be completely faulted. From what they knew of their world and technology, the ONLY way to explain what they were seeing was through their religion. Take any modern medical advance, use and show it to people of the Bronze Age, and I promise you that you would be viewed as a god, miracle worker, or some sort of magician. Just as we would view a being far more advanced than we are, especially if we couldn’t SEE it had a different appearance from us.
So why could this not be an explanation of J.C.? Ancient civilization was brutal and ignorant but also full of beautiful art and advanced technology. What if an advanced species came here, saw what we were capable of (both good and bad), and decided to give us a nudge in a certain direction. Perhaps they had a similar period in their history and wanted to help us avoid the mistakes or tragedies that they themselves had made. Maybe they nearly destroyed their entire species due to war and violence and wanted us to avoid that fate.
Think about it. What people thousands of years ago referred to as the “heavens” was in fact the literal sky above their heads. The stars, planets, etc that they couldn’t touch, explain, or understand but could only simply see with their eyes. What if the “resurrection” was nothing more than that advanced being leaving this planet? The best explorers, scientists, etc know how to reduce or eliminate any sign of their presence. So would it not reason that an advanced species would know how to do the same? Maybe they plan on returning when we have advanced to a certain point. Or are still here observing our growth. Ever hear of the Vorlons that were part of the series Babylon 5?
Sure you can say its an outlandish idea, but reason doesn’t discount the possibility. If people can blindly follow supposedly magical books, then why not take a reasoned explanation seriously? Following a set of beliefs and a book doesn’t necessarily equal comprehension or understanding.
History seems to be leaning towards the idea that a man existed in the Middle East 2,000 years ago named Jesus Christ. But what if he was in fact not a man? Not a child of man, nor a “child of god.” What if he was in fact a completely different being that had taken human form to ease communication and reduce fear of its appearance? You can laugh at this idea if you want but I have given the matter serious thought (and I know I’m not the first).
Given the age of humanity, Earth, and the universe itself, the idea of other beings on other worlds is plausible. When you look at how long humans took to evolve, a matter of minutes or seconds to the universe, it is easily possible for other life forms on other planets to have done the same sooner than we did. Thus making them an older and far more advanced species. Is it so hard to believe that, if this is true, an advanced species visited this planet? A species who is/was far beyond the comprehension of ancient civilization. When viewed from this point, the “miracles” performs by J.C. could have been nothing more than technology being used that was impossible for people to understand. What are now considered holy books could be simply stories that were told to try and explain things that could not be explained in any other way.
Take the Aztec Civilization for an example. When the Spanish Conquerors first went to Central America,, the Aztecs believed them to be gods. The Spanish wore strange shining clothes and possessed technology that the Aztecs couldn’t understand how or why it worked. Now as we know the Aztecs were very wrong in this belief and it cost them their civilization, but WHY they thought the way they did cannot be completely faulted. From what they knew of their world and technology, the ONLY way to explain what they were seeing was through their religion. Take any modern medical advance, use and show it to people of the Bronze Age, and I promise you that you would be viewed as a god, miracle worker, or some sort of magician. Just as we would view a being far more advanced than we are, especially if we couldn’t SEE it had a different appearance from us.
So why could this not be an explanation of J.C.? Ancient civilization was brutal and ignorant but also full of beautiful art and advanced technology. What if an advanced species came here, saw what we were capable of (both good and bad), and decided to give us a nudge in a certain direction. Perhaps they had a similar period in their history and wanted to help us avoid the mistakes or tragedies that they themselves had made. Maybe they nearly destroyed their entire species due to war and violence and wanted us to avoid that fate.
Think about it. What people thousands of years ago referred to as the “heavens” was in fact the literal sky above their heads. The stars, planets, etc that they couldn’t touch, explain, or understand but could only simply see with their eyes. What if the “resurrection” was nothing more than that advanced being leaving this planet? The best explorers, scientists, etc know how to reduce or eliminate any sign of their presence. So would it not reason that an advanced species would know how to do the same? Maybe they plan on returning when we have advanced to a certain point. Or are still here observing our growth. Ever hear of the Vorlons that were part of the series Babylon 5?
Sure you can say its an outlandish idea, but reason doesn’t discount the possibility. If people can blindly follow supposedly magical books, then why not take a reasoned explanation seriously? Following a set of beliefs and a book doesn’t necessarily equal comprehension or understanding.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Gotta love politicians
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=8601136
Ok I love how all three Utah Reps voted against the bill and say how much they don’t like it but they don’t say the critical thing. WHAT DO THEY SUGGEST! The ONLY two ideas I have heard out of Republicans that I like are tort reform and allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, but both won’t solve the problem. Tort reform sounds good on the surface, sure, but what will prevent insurance companies from simply pocketing the money they “save”. Nothing! It’s no different than the asinine idea of a “gas tax holiday” during last year’s presidential race. If Representative Chaffetz is “so disappointed” then why didn’t he pull his head out of his ass and introduce a bill that has the same goals as the one the House passed yesterday. I also love how Rep. Bishop and Chaffetz talk about the government “taking control of people’s health care” and yet they claim they fight to protect Medicare. Are they really that dense? They are fighting the public OPTION because government health care is the death of everyone and YET they are fighting FOR GOVERNMENT RUN MEDICARE!? Please! Also, I’m sorry Rep. Chaffetz but if lawmakers don’t understand the bill it’s their own damn fault. What are you paying all of your staffers for? Sit around and suck air? If you don’t know what is in it by now (the ideas have been talked about for MONTHS) then you either dropped the ball or your staffers did. Either way, your lack of attention does not constitute an emergency on our part. Take some damn responsibility for the job you were elected into! As for Rep. Matheson, I say again. Why is spending this much on HELPING PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY, when we are spending far MORE in Afghanistan and Iraq. You can’t have it both ways my friend. Oppose both, accept both, or be willing to raise taxes to pay for both.
http://www.sacbee.com/politics/story/2295363.html
Now I sympathize with the people in Cali who will be affected by this rise in taxes but I would like them to think of the alternative. Most people don’t realize that states CAN NOT have an unbalanced budget. It is a law. It would be far worse for the state government to go bankrupt than it would be to deal with a rise in taxes. Take the current number of unemployed and then add to it people from EVERY state agency, contract, etc. It’s not a pretty picture is it.
Ok I love how all three Utah Reps voted against the bill and say how much they don’t like it but they don’t say the critical thing. WHAT DO THEY SUGGEST! The ONLY two ideas I have heard out of Republicans that I like are tort reform and allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, but both won’t solve the problem. Tort reform sounds good on the surface, sure, but what will prevent insurance companies from simply pocketing the money they “save”. Nothing! It’s no different than the asinine idea of a “gas tax holiday” during last year’s presidential race. If Representative Chaffetz is “so disappointed” then why didn’t he pull his head out of his ass and introduce a bill that has the same goals as the one the House passed yesterday. I also love how Rep. Bishop and Chaffetz talk about the government “taking control of people’s health care” and yet they claim they fight to protect Medicare. Are they really that dense? They are fighting the public OPTION because government health care is the death of everyone and YET they are fighting FOR GOVERNMENT RUN MEDICARE!? Please! Also, I’m sorry Rep. Chaffetz but if lawmakers don’t understand the bill it’s their own damn fault. What are you paying all of your staffers for? Sit around and suck air? If you don’t know what is in it by now (the ideas have been talked about for MONTHS) then you either dropped the ball or your staffers did. Either way, your lack of attention does not constitute an emergency on our part. Take some damn responsibility for the job you were elected into! As for Rep. Matheson, I say again. Why is spending this much on HELPING PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY, when we are spending far MORE in Afghanistan and Iraq. You can’t have it both ways my friend. Oppose both, accept both, or be willing to raise taxes to pay for both.
http://www.sacbee.com/politics/story/2295363.html
Now I sympathize with the people in Cali who will be affected by this rise in taxes but I would like them to think of the alternative. Most people don’t realize that states CAN NOT have an unbalanced budget. It is a law. It would be far worse for the state government to go bankrupt than it would be to deal with a rise in taxes. Take the current number of unemployed and then add to it people from EVERY state agency, contract, etc. It’s not a pretty picture is it.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Election night thoughts
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/27/health.care/index.html
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
Just wanted to share a few of my thoughts on this election night of 2009.
From what I have read and seen there is a growing concern over the government deficit, the economy, and jobless numbers. Often the complaints about the growing deficit AND bad jobless numbers are coming from the same group. Well I would like to know which is more important to them: jobs or deficit. Jobs are created by the government and by private industry, but as lay-offs and the unemployment rate attest the private sector isn’t producing enough, if any, new jobs. As a result the government is left to fill in the gap because if it doesn’t then the government AND the economy suffer. In order to create jobs, money MUST be spent. Ergo, the deficit will undoubtedly rise. So would these people rather the government spend nothing and try to reduce the deficit, but as a result unemployment skyrockets, or not? We all know that no jobs means no money to be spent which means a terrible economy. Talking about raising taxes (even on the people who can afford it) is political suicide normally and even more toxic in a recession. We put the government between a rock and a hard place because no matter what it does it pisses someone off, even if those same people benefit from government action.
As for the current state of the health care debate, I have a little to add. First off, I say if Sen. Lieberman (I Rhode Island) wants to try and filibuster the health care bill then Sen. Reid should let him, however, Reid should use his power to limit only one person to filibuster (aka Lieberman) and not the larger group. The leader of the Senate is allowed to make such a requirement when it comes to filibusters. I would love to see Sen. Lieberman speak for hours and hours without a break. Somehow I think the filibuster wouldn’t last very long (the longest was just over 24 hours). Also, I love how people are so anal about the cost of this bill, which saves lives, and yet at the same time they have no problem spending MORE within a matter of months on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I understand that the idea is to reduce the threats to this country (which may or may not actually be happening) but you are also killing others. Is it really that much easier to spend money on war than it is on something that could drastically improve life in this country?
I don’t think this country, and the world for that matter, can make the next leap forward until we realize that we are ALL human and we are ALL responsible to one another. Until we realize that this person has the EXACT same rights (including the right to medical care without being forced to choose between health and bankruptcy) as a person on the other side of the globe. As an agnostic I think it’s rather sad that I understand this more fully than a lot of people who claim they are devotedly religious. It is self destructing to fight and kill over which book is true or not, what color a person’s skin is, what gender they prefer to bond with, etc. Until we all truly grow up, this world will not change for the better.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
Just wanted to share a few of my thoughts on this election night of 2009.
From what I have read and seen there is a growing concern over the government deficit, the economy, and jobless numbers. Often the complaints about the growing deficit AND bad jobless numbers are coming from the same group. Well I would like to know which is more important to them: jobs or deficit. Jobs are created by the government and by private industry, but as lay-offs and the unemployment rate attest the private sector isn’t producing enough, if any, new jobs. As a result the government is left to fill in the gap because if it doesn’t then the government AND the economy suffer. In order to create jobs, money MUST be spent. Ergo, the deficit will undoubtedly rise. So would these people rather the government spend nothing and try to reduce the deficit, but as a result unemployment skyrockets, or not? We all know that no jobs means no money to be spent which means a terrible economy. Talking about raising taxes (even on the people who can afford it) is political suicide normally and even more toxic in a recession. We put the government between a rock and a hard place because no matter what it does it pisses someone off, even if those same people benefit from government action.
As for the current state of the health care debate, I have a little to add. First off, I say if Sen. Lieberman (I Rhode Island) wants to try and filibuster the health care bill then Sen. Reid should let him, however, Reid should use his power to limit only one person to filibuster (aka Lieberman) and not the larger group. The leader of the Senate is allowed to make such a requirement when it comes to filibusters. I would love to see Sen. Lieberman speak for hours and hours without a break. Somehow I think the filibuster wouldn’t last very long (the longest was just over 24 hours). Also, I love how people are so anal about the cost of this bill, which saves lives, and yet at the same time they have no problem spending MORE within a matter of months on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I understand that the idea is to reduce the threats to this country (which may or may not actually be happening) but you are also killing others. Is it really that much easier to spend money on war than it is on something that could drastically improve life in this country?
I don’t think this country, and the world for that matter, can make the next leap forward until we realize that we are ALL human and we are ALL responsible to one another. Until we realize that this person has the EXACT same rights (including the right to medical care without being forced to choose between health and bankruptcy) as a person on the other side of the globe. As an agnostic I think it’s rather sad that I understand this more fully than a lot of people who claim they are devotedly religious. It is self destructing to fight and kill over which book is true or not, what color a person’s skin is, what gender they prefer to bond with, etc. Until we all truly grow up, this world will not change for the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
