A Road Diverged

By now you have probably heard that Chavez (the president of Venezuela) called President Bush the devil yesterday at a UN meeting.  He also made several other disparaging remarks about the President and about the US.  How did the audience respond?  With laughter and applause.  Now, I don’t know which countries actually applauded and laughed - perhaps all, perhaps not, but I think the US should respond to this insult.

My belief is that the US should withdraw the funds that it sends to the UN (the highest of any country) for various efforts until an apology is made.  Since the organization disrespects and dislikes the US and our President so much why should we help fund it?  Granted, that route causes a lot harm to innocent people which is unfortunate and even tragic, but it is time for something to be done.  The world (in general) hates the US, but it gladly accepts our money and our help.  It’s time to stop.  Pull our funding and demand an apology, it is time the US stops taking such abuse and the world realize that the US does a lot good as well.

Today as I drove to work I was thinking about the movie, “The Patriot”, with Mel Gibson.  In particular I was thinking of the scene where he goes to free his men who have been captured.  He rides into Cornwallis’ camp under a white flag to offer a trade - his men, for the British men he has captured.  While the negotiating is occurring, the man who killed Mel’s son walks in and almost kills Mel himself.  He is stopped by Cornwallis because Mel rode in under a white flag to trade.  The rules of war dictate that he is protected.  The trade is made, and it is quickly discovered that the captured Bristish soldiers were really just scarecrows.  Outraged, Cornwallis orders Mel to be killed or captured.  Mel, of course, escapes.  So why am I sharing this?  It’s because I couldn’t help but think about the war in Iraq.  Except this time we are the Brits.  Here’s what I mean:  We are so tied to the rules of war, proper conduct and the Geneva Convention that we can no longer fight on the level of the terrorists.  The American Revolution began to change the rules of warfare - no longer were officers protected, no longer were they assured that they wouldn’t be ambushed or tricked.  In order to win aganist a larger army the colonists had to fight smarter.  The Viet Cong learned this in the Vietnam War - they participated in guerrilla warfare, we tried (and failed) to fight back within the normal rules of war.  The same thing is happening today.  We must fight smarter.

Now, I am in no way advocating that we start using suicide bombers or placing weaponry in the middle of civilian areas.  While there is some intelligence to those methods, there are certain things that are inhumane and just plain wrong.  I am saying, however, that we need to come up with a strategy where we level the playing field.  Deciding not to fire on a group of Taliban because they’re meeting in a cemetary (which is not against any rules of war) is ridiculous.  It’s not like there’s going to be any collateral damage to worry about, everyone else who is there is already dead.  Unfortunately, I am not a war strategist and do not have any great answers to this problem, but I believe that it is something that needs to be addressed and it doesn’t seem to be.

Oh, and about the whole torture thing, let’s not forget which side is cutting off people’s heads and willing and wanting to kill millions of innocent people (mainly Americans).  Oh, and they don’t care if you’re against the war - they want you dead too.  It’s worth a little a discomfort to protect our country.  And let’s not forget that the terrorist who gave up the information about the London plane bombings was not interrogated by the US (thank goodness or who knows what would have happened) and I can guarantee that they did a little more than putting them in a cold room with loud rock music playing).  Was it worth all of those lives?  You make the call.

Apparently the US plans to take over the world. Did you know this? I didn’t, although I am sure it is discussed in some conspiracy theory groups. I was reading a blurb on Foxnews today that tells how Hugo Chavez (President of Venezuela) said that the US is a monster who would never give up overthrowing him. I had no idea the US wanted to overthrow Chavez (although I know we’re probably not thrilled with him as a leader). Chavez then goes on to talk about the US invading Venezuela. Um, yeah…just like we’re going to invade North Korea. Of course, Venezuela makes more sense than North Korea seeing how they have oil, but seriously, invade them? Excuse me while I clean up the mess I just made by snorting Dr. Pepper out of my nose.

I suppose it’s the popular cry these days. The US invaded Iraq and now they’re going to invade us! I suppose the French will decide that we are actually going to invade them next. Or the countires can all draw straws and whoever gets the longest straw is who we will invade first. It amazes me what people actually think about the US. Do we care that Chavez is a dictator and no friend to us? Yes. Do we want to invade his country? No. But, I suppose a country that no one really cares about (except for the fact that the people are starving) can only look important if the US is about to invade them. Makes for good media.

As someone was so kind to point out (check the comments section) gas is NOT $1.79/gallon. Probably wishful thinking on my side. $2.79/gallon is, however, the cost of gas currently in my city. Sad, I never thought I’d think back to the days when gas being $1.79 was pleasant and cheap. When I first bought my car I could fill it up for $8.00. I spent less than $20.00/month on gas and now I’m over $40.00/month. For most, that’s really cheap and I agree, I’m lucky in that respect. But, when just comparing to my own costs over the years, it is rather sad. I find it interesting that no one is addressing this in the political world. After Katrina all we heard about was price gouging. But now…nothing…silence. Maybe they’re all getting paid off in Washington. Perhaps they don’t have to pay for their gas - perhaps it’s charged to us taxpayers. That wouldn’t surprise me in the least. I need to go fill up today, I’m not looking forward to it.

As many of you are surely aware of, prices of oil have once again gone up - $75.00/barrel.   I haven’t seen the effect at the pumps yet (this morning it was $1.79/gallon).   While I was reading an article about the price of oil� two things stood out to me.   First, was that there was no problem in supply.   Second, someone mentioned that “they” were waiting to see how high the prices could go before there was a decline in demand - which is rather dispicable.   My husband commutes to work, and at this rate we’ll be paying $300-$400/month on gas alone.   And we own a fuel efficient car.   I cannot even imagine what people who own SUVs are paying.   The real question though, is when will demand decline?�  Or will it?�  Are we all so dependent on gas that we’ll tighten our belts, eat out a bit less and save the money to put towards gas?�  Are we willing to make sure that demand goes down?�  Is there anything, that we as a consumer do?�  It’s probably not reasonable for most of us to go out and buy a new car that is more fuel efficient.   For many people, riding a bike to work is also not an option (much less walking).   There is always the bus - but depending on where you live that may not be a very desireable choice either.   And if your job is erratic on when you’ll be there - well, that goes out the window as well.   Perhaps we should just spend more time at home.   That could save us some money.   But, one must remember that prices at the grocery store will be going up as well to cover their fuel costs, so that probably covers the savings made from staying at home.   What’s really sad is that the people this hurts most are the average American who makes a decent income, but not enough to adjust for this change in gas price.   I also have a feeling that a lot of people will start charging their gas to their credit cars and go into more debt.   What a horrible feeling, to go in debt because of gas!�  I don’t know the right solution to this - but there has to be one.   Government interference has crossed my mind (the oil companies are not 100% private), but I don’t know whether I’m comfortable with that idea.   I suppose that I shall wait for a mass email to hit my inbox telling me what I can do to help make gas prices go down.   Someone must have an idea…one that doesn’t include blowing up Iran…

The US Supreme Court has decided to hear a case regarding a 2003 law passed by Congress that would ban partial-birth abortion.  Two courts have said the law is unconstitutional because it does not give a clause allowing the procedure if the woman’s health is danger.  The proponents of the law argue that there is no need for a women’s health clause because if her health is in danger then you can induce labor and deliver the baby alive, there is no need to kill it.  I happen to agree with them on this matter.

For those of you who do not know what partial-birth abortion is, or what it entails, I will give you a brief description.  First, partial-birth abortion is formed in the late months of pregnancy, usually in the eighth or ninth month.  Labor is induced and the Doctor begins to deliver the baby feet first.  When the back of the child’s head is visible the Dr. stops the delivery and punctures the child’s skull.  At that point the baby’s brains are basically sucked out by a vacuum and the skull is crushed.  Why this is legal, or why people would even perform this abortion is beyond my comprehension.  If the child came all of the way out of the birth canal it would be considered a baby and to kill it would be illegal.  However, since an inch or so of the baby is still in the birth canal, it is perfectly legal to harm the child.  Let me remind you that this child is eight or nine months along, it is perfectly capable of living outside of the mother’s womb on it’s own.  Why kill it?

The last time partial-birth abortion came before the Supreme Court is was about a specific state law from Nebraska (the current one is a federal law).  The Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it did not have the woman’s health clause.  It was a 5-4 decision with Sandra Day O’Conner being the deciding vote for� the majority.  It will be interesting to see what happens with the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the bench.  He appears to be more of a moderate than Justice Roberts and it is difficult to predict which way his vote will go.  Of course, it also depends on the government making a compelling argument that a woman’s health is not an issue in this particular form of abortion.  We should see a ruling from the Supreme Court in a few months.  It will be interesting to see which way the court goes and whether that will be indicative of what will happen to Roe v. Wade.  On a side note, South Dakota is in the process of (or already has) passed several laws that will make abortion illegal unless that woman’s health is in danger.  It will no doubt make its way through the court system.  Whether the Supreme Court will hear it, I don’t know.  I imagine lower courts will rule it unconstitutional based on Roe and possibly on Casey, which established undue burden.  But that’s a topic for a different day.

The United Nations is calling for the closure of Guantanamo Bay due to torture allegations.  They would also like for the detainees to be tried on US soil.  Interestingly enough, although the envoys who are calling for the closure have interviewed past detainees, they have never visited the site.

Whether torture has taken place at Guantanamo Bay will probably never be known by the public, but it does raise the interesting question of whether torture is ever acceptable.  For some the issue is black and white, but for me it seems to fall in more of a grey area.  If a detainee/prisoner/what-have-you has information that would stop the deaths of thousands, or even hundreds of people and you’ve exhausted all of your options, does that make torture acceptable.  Is the “discomfort” of one person worth the lives of hundreds, or even one?  What if that one is your mother or father or child?  Where does one draw the line?  Does the safety of a country’s citizens rise above the rights of another person.  Does that person even have rights or have they been forfeited by their actions?  Ironically, one of the crimes the US is being charged with is force feeding detainees who are on a hunger strike.  Why do I have the feeling that if the US let them starve that it would also be called torture?

This situation does raise another interesting question of whether the detainees at Guantanamo Bay (or similar places) have the rights afforded to American citizens - the basic rights of trial by jury, not to be held indefinitely, etc.  My answer to that would be no, they do not.  First, they are not American citizens, second, they have conspired to harm a large number of American citizens (or even a few), and third, they are not soldiers that fall under the Geneva Convention.  These detainees made the choice to go against the rules of warfare and against our country, they should not expect to be treated equally.

The last thing I want to mention is that the UN should look at itself before pointing fingers.  All one needs to do is look up the list of countries that are on the Human Rights committee to learn that they have little room to say anything at all.