The Straw Officer Of Movie Night

Last week, I heard 2 different questions that I thought would be interesting enough to address in detail here (I do plan to cross-post this to a FaceBook note tho).

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

The first question was something to the effect of, "Did you see the news conference with the President-elect?"

To which I responded, "No, it's a straw office and completely irrelevant, why would I waste my time watching?"

After attempting to explain "straw office" (combine a straw man argument with a political office) to the person (he could not understand), he said, "What do you mean it's irrelevant? How can Obama be irrelevant? It says right on the front of the podium, 'The Office of the President-elect' -- how could that possibly be irrelevant? He's the President elect!"

I gave him a simple answer (which he still didn't understand, thank you crummy public education system), but decided to write out a more detailed response here. Knowing that people who read blogs would at the very least understand me, even if they (you) don't agree with my position.

I personally believe Obama must be insecure (or the world's biggest grandstander) to allow that to be placed on his podium. Yes, of course, he IS the President elect, and everyone knows it, but what you see on the podium is a made-up title for a non-existent "office."

There is no "office" of President-elect. By adding "The office of" and placing it around the seal of the President of the United States, Obama has created a placeholder title with absolutely no standing, political or otherwise. Until the day he's sworn in he is a nobody, with no official status (Just like every other President before him). After the ceremony is when he holds The Office. Until that time, he's technically only the (winning) "Democratic Candidate for President."

Just why he has done it is open to supposition, but it's my opinion that rather than make normal press releases, he felt it was imperative to keep his face before the American people AMAP (as-much-as-possible). He's too proud to make all of his speeches (as President elect) without overt recognition of himself, so they're most likely just working on image-building.

Furthermore, I cannot recall any other President-elect in history that felt the need to hold "official" press conferences prior to assuming office and used "The office of President-elect" displayed on a podium as a title. It's an immature, unprofessional placebo -- a back-handed attempt to pressure the out-going President.

[EDIT: Come to think of it, I could probably expand this post using chronological campaign references, historical comparisons of previous Presidential candidates, and write a best-selling book: The Audacity of Hype. Anyone want to set me up with an advance?]

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

For question #2, someone else asked me if I was going to record the inauguration. Without thinking about the possibility of offending him, I laughed and answered, "No, I'm not even going to watch it."

He said, "Why not? This is history being made! The nation's very first black President will be sworn into office!"

So I proceeded to explain that:
1. No, Mr. Obama is not our first "black" President, his race is actually quite well mixed, but I do hope, whenever we finally get one, that the first black President does a good job.

2. I don't care if someone is black, brown, yellow, red, purple, or green-with-pink-and-blue-polka-dots -- the color any man or woman's skin is irrelevant to their performance. If any person "of color," "without color," or anywhere in between is elected to any office in our government, I only care that when holding their office (President, Governor, Senator, Congressperson, or anything else), that they govern responsibly -- in a manner that seeks to promote our country above their own ideology.

3. This is only a "passing the baton" ceremony for the office of President, eventually, there will be another President. I don't recall ever going to a basketball game for the primary purpose of watching the cheerleaders; I'd rather watch the game -- so I'm going to pass, just as I did for Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan (I was too young to remember the ceremonies before Reagan). I'm sure the highlights of the Obama-bash and all of its "beautitudinous glory" will be all over the news, anyway. (Come to think of it, I was always kinda leery of the guys that didn't like basketball, but still went to every game and only watched the cheerleaders -- creepy-ness.)

And finally,
4. I'd rather stay home, ignore the fluff and circumstance, and instead spend time with my family -- maybe we'll watch a movie.


I've since decided I like that third point (of #4) quite a bit. In fact, we might even rent The Manchurian Candidate -- for obvious reasons.

Legitimate Lockup -- Understanding Gitmo

I've been continuously appalled at the lack of intelligence on the part of those that wish to close Gitmo and bring those detainees here -- to US soil. Obviously, the media has been remiss in reporting the reasoning behind holding them there, and has instead focused on the lack of a warm-fuzzy feeling of good-will when contemplating the plight of these poor, underprivileged, misguided, freedom-bashing terrorists. I was glad to see Obama state that he wouldn't rush into dismantling the detention center (even tho he does want it closed). I hope he sees the wisdom of having this detention center before he does serious harm to our nation. Here are the main points for my opinion:

I. The US has never in the past, does not currently, and should never in the future agree or disagree to any so-called "human rights for all" merely to promote warm-fuzzy feelings all around; that would be immature, unprofessional, and completely irresponsible. We grant rights to our citizens. Period. Full stop. End of sentence.

A. Each nation on earth grants & restricts the rights of its citizens according to the individual charter or constitution of each state. Our nation DOES NOT grant rights to citizens of other nations, but if citizens of other nations attack our troops, our citizens, our land, or our interests, we have reserved the right to take steps to protect all of the above. (As have all other nations.)

B. By our nation's "right" of self defense (as recognized by the UN as well as numerous international treaties) we have choices of how we prefer to stop the commission of any of the acts of aggression. It is fully legal to "shoot until dead" any aggressors that choose to act against us; however, our nation takes the "high moral ground" of exercising the "right of restraint" as often as possible. Attempting to capture and incarcerate these terrorists is much more expensive, but our current government (all 2 days of it that's left anyway) would rather spend the money than leave piles of bodies. What most bleeding heart liberals propose to grant these detainees goes well past what is legal (and moral) and even further -- far beyond the edge of lunacy, right into the heart of it.

II. There is no "political loophole" for Guantanamo.

A. It is FULLY legal (by ALL international treaties) to hold enemy combatants for the duration of whatever conflict they were involved in at the time of their apprehension. Has been for many years. "The Great" FDR did the same thing, yet no one had a problem with it back then.

B. The right of incarceration of combatants has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Cuba has, or has not, ratified conventions binding the US. Instead, they are detained in Cuba because no other country in the world wants them held on their soil. (Since our lease of Gitmo from the Cubans is not subject to a lease extension anytime in the near future, we can pretty much do as we please.)

C. Some would like to classify these detainees as "civilians" rather than "unlawful combatants;" this would mean they are covered by the 4th Geneva Convention. The 3rd Geneva Convention (1949) outlines incarceration of combatants, here is my opinion on these detainees:


1. These are not people that have racked up excessive library fines, stolen a handful of rice to feed their families, or jacked a bubble gum machine for kicks. They are actively engaged in warfare against our nation, citizens, and soldiers. They want us dead or our nation destroyed -- and have gone to war to attempt to bring it about by any means necessary. That is what excludes them from civilian status. Since they operate well outside the bounds of the convention (engaging in some type of combat while not in the direct employ of a nation) they are obviously (to me) enemy combatants, not civilians, and as such, fully subject to the 3rd, and not the 4th.

2. Even tho the people in Gitmo are UNlawful combatants, they have still received the same humane treatment as lawful combatants, less the representation. The detainees receive three (Muslim) squares a day, medical, clothing, showers, hygenics articles, freedom to worship, mail privileges (screened), and regular visits from the Red Cross. Our govt has gone well beyond the bare minimum in their care.

D. As I see it, the "problem" today is actually a pseudo-problem: (primarily) socialists are using this as a platform to push their ideology on the American public. Much of the media is either in lock-step with these political ideals, or ignorant of the implications of pushing this. Don't be in a rush to jump on this bandwagon until you've explored the endgame:


1. My definition of Socialism is pretty straightforward. Most people understand the redistribution of wealth and supposed "equal opportunity" of Socialism. It is more than that. Socialism also advocates collective ownership AND central administration of not only all types of production and all of the distribution of all of the goods, but also, every aspect of the entire system of exchange. Old-school hardliners propose total state control, while most of those found here in the US think everything could be structured into a pseudo-free-market economy.

2. The danger of collectivism for OUR society is in the details of administration. Most of the liberal media (due to their influence from countless socialistic professors across our nation) think that the current opinion of "the people" should dictate all US policy. However, "the people" is an abstract, barely-definable concept (in terms of quantification). Who is to say which portion of "the people" make the easy decisions? let alone the controversial, hard ones? As soon as we digress from our only framework of "fairness, justice, and equity" (our Constitution and codified laws), we begin a downward spiral toward a complete dictatorship; in which one person (the dictator) is the voice of "the people" and is highly unlikely to keep their interests at heart.

3. The media is being used. It appears their dislike of Bush has become a flagpole on which they hoist their own standard: a socialistic worldview. By couching their abhorrence in terms that appear to put "we the people" into positions that are opposed, disliked, or hated by any segment of the "victimized global citizenry" they instigate class- and racial-tension in our country. Possibly even escalating to a general "struggle" during a transformation from capitalism to communism. While this is not a true "proletarian revolution" in any sense, it would be fatal for our economy.

4. I doubt there is a physical "playbook" for this, but it's obvious to me that the media operates in concert to promote their agenda.

5. We (the people) cannot swallow their line, to insist on melding these detainees (citizens of the world) into the collective melting pot of US citizenry because it is "humane." It is not humane, it is a criminal surrender of our rights, as citizens of the USA, to proffer the same rights we have under our Constitution to those who are our sworn enemies and wish for nothing less than the complete destruction of our nation.

6. The phrase "citizens of the world" is a feel-good, fallacious attempt to desensitize the patriotism of citizens -- every nation's citizens. Accepting it as a valid argument would be an extremely dangerous step by any sovereign govt. The result of wholeheartedly subscribing to this ideology is a socialistic, one world govt in which all rights are subservient to the good of the whole.

7. It is also a straw man argument. There are no "citizens of the world" -- just as no aspect of "humane" and "ethical" should be afforded those that have actively participated in any attempt to destroy of our way of life, our soldiers (many of whom are my friends), or my country. Any attempt to eradicate any of the above must be stopped.

III. These Gitmo inmates DO NOT DESERVE a trial.

They are NOT criminals, but enemy combatants. The US has detained enemy combatants in EVERY major conflict in our nation's history. Just like soldiers, enemy combatants may be detained or face military tribunals, but they NEVER get a trial. (The "Nuremburg Trials" weren't trials, they were international tribunals, convened after the cessation of all conflict.)

IV. For any that still do not understand the importance of the semantics, I'll make it very simple: there are only 2 kinds of enemy combatants. (Both types participate in armed aggression against our nation.)

A. "UnLawful" enemy combatants (Gitmo detainees) participate as private citizens while NOT employed by any state (i.e. not soldiers in a military), or while affiliated with a terrorist organization. Thus, the Gitmo detainees fully conform to every definition of unlawful enemy combatant recognized by every member of the UN (every definition I've ever read anyway... going back to the Hague Convention). Unlawful enemy combatants are not POWs, because they bear arms, operating as soldiers and or terrorists outside the guidelines of the 3rd Geneva Convention.

B. While it is legal to detain both types of enemy combatants, only LAWFUL enemy combatants ARE ELIGIBLE for all of the protections afforded POWs -- under ALL the treaties and conventions that have been signed to date.

V. There is one final aspect of trying these detainees on US soil that most people overlook. If they are afforded US rights, they must also be tried by US laws, and face US punishments. Ergo -- they have committed treason.

The laws currently on the books in the US (for treason) call for death, so in that sense, I would not be opposed to allowing any unlawful enemy combatants currently being (legally) detained at Gitmo a military trial on US soil. As long as all guilty verdicts result in immediately carrying out the execution of the convicted. (Of course, since they've not broken any civil statues, they wouldn't be eligible for civil trial with juries and appeals processes, only military trials.)

In conclusion, I'll offer my advice to the ignorant (that so frequently proffer opinions garnered from the liberal media as fact):

If you are going to look to some source (such as the media) for general information, check the info they are disseminating. If they feed you false information, even if only intermittently, then make sure you are consistent in checking sources and seeking the truth on any matters of importance to you (or your nation).

Every media personality with any semblance of intelligence or integrity knows full well that Gitmo detainees are there lawfully, detained legally, and completely ineligible for ANY trial of ANY type on US soil. Anyone in the media that does not inform others of this is (whether knowingly or in ignorance) participating in an effort to undermine our nation, our government, our military, the rights of our citizens, and our way of life.

More Fautography?

My friends know I'm constantly looking for reliable "newsy" sites. Well, today after a hearty early morning breakfast (at Cracker Barrel) I found another great one: www.bizzyblog.com. I'll be adding it into my blogroll shortly.

Anyway, here is the article that caught my attention, CNN Doubles Down; Reposts Withdrawn Video of Apparently Faked CPR Attempt on ‘Dead’ Palestinian Child. I watched the video at CNN (and grabbed it, just in case it's taken down -- again), I read his article, and I must say I agree with him. Here is my take:

Simply put, it appears to me that there is more fauxtography in the works. Perhaps I'm wrong, but my initial impression of this video by CNN appears to me to be another fake. (You can click the link to see it on CNN, or watch my version embedded below. If you read my comments first, the discrepancies are glaring.)

There are two parts of this video that make me think this video is not what it's been reported to be: the roof scenes, and the hospital scenes (which is actually most of the video).

Starting with the roof:

1. The extent of visible damage shown in the entire clip was no more than fragments of one cinder block? Unbelievable. I know the destruction caused by an American missile (even one fired from an unmanned drone) would have been much greater than one partially-shattered cinder-block on the roof of a house. Any of our missiles would've at least blown a large gaping hole in the roof, but (more likely) leveled the home. Since the Israelis get many of their weapons from the US, I know their missiles would cause the same extensive damage as ours.

2. The pattern of destruction matches those received in Israel to a "T" -- Hamas fires missiles with yields this low (and accuracy this poor) all the time. In my opinion, this was Hamas' missile and they're trying to shove the blame off on the IDF.

3. The video says that guy doing the filming, "got a call. The family home had been hit by a rocket." Maybe I'm hung on semantics, but rockets are fired from the ground -- by Hamas.

4. The light gauge metal sheeting around the perimeter has blood spatter on it, but no holes thru it? I have a pellet gun that will shoot thru that stuff. How small was this blast? Surely a piece of cinder block propelled by an exploding missile or rocket would have enough force to puncture light-gauge galvanized sheeting.

5. The furniture on the roof (what looks like a bookcase and a plastic chair) has no holes in it either, but is covered in blood spatter. All this is supposedly from the blast of a military-grade IDF missile?? If the chair was close enough to the blast zone to be bloody, but wasn't even knocked over, I'd say it's highly unlikely a military missile was the cause. The concussion of even a hand grenade would knock the chair over. (My three and a half year old son takes great pleasure in throwing similar chairs around the yard.)

Moving on to the hospital. The "doctors" in the hospital are either bad actors, or completely staging this. (My first-born son has had extensive medical problems, I've lived in the hospitals for months on end.) Here are some of the questions this video raises in my mind:

1. Why is the "lead doctor" looking at the monitor? I've watched emergency surgery performed on my son several times. I've never seen a lead doctor watch a monitor! During surgery, he (or she) work on the patient -- while looking at the patient. If the lead surgeon needs supplies or equipment, they ask; if they want a status report, they ask for it. Yet, all I see of this doctor is him pointing at a screen, moving supplies around, and wiping the boy off with an alcohol pad!?!?!? If he's not staging this, he should be fired for incompetence; he wasn't even moving quickly.

2. According to CNN's video, the boy was "hit by a rocket" that left the rooftop "... now pockmarked by shrapnel and spattered with blood." If so, then why is there NO blood on the lead doctor's gloves?!? Didn't he do anything beside point at the monitor, move stuff around, and gesture for the camera?

3. Why does the person that was doing CPR have only a small amount of blood on his gloves?? I've seen more blood on a doctor's hands from inserting a simple chest tube. The amount of damage caused by an explosion should have shredded skin and blood vessels, making anyone who touched the child a bloody mess.

4. Continuing on with the same reasoning: Why aren't the lab coats bloody? at all? (I wonder if perhaps they forgot to change into dirty ones for the video?)

5. How did the sheet that was under the victim (the one they wrapped him in after their "failed attempt" to save him) have so little blood on it? (Especially since the bed below the sheet was severely blood-stained?)

6. I'd have failed my CPR certification if I'd done it like this -- even on an infant. It's laughable how little effort was taken to make sure the man was doing it properly.

7. A genuine effort to save the child would include getting oxygen inside his lungs. If the blood were really being pumped thru his heart (by the fake CPR), then forcing air into his lungs at the same time (with a ventilator, if they have it) would keep him alive (when you don't have a vent and you do it by hand -- it's called "bagging"). They don't have a ventilator here -- why is no one bagging?

The lack of blood is telling. When you quit bleeding it's because [A.] you're out of blood -- you're dead -- or [B.] the flow has been stopped, and you're alive. This unfortunate child had quit bleeding by the time the video was taken, maybe even before he reached the hospital.

The lack of effort and genuine medical practices is telling. In this video, these doctors did not do anything -- except pose -- and that poorly.

Finally, the lack of serious structural damage is telling. Even the smallest hand grenade carried by any IDF soldiers would have caused more destruction than was on that rooftop. The rocket was probably homemade (by Hamas) and their accuracy was nonexistent. I do think this boy was killed, but I highly doubt that anyone but Hamas could have fired the rocket that killed him.

While I do feel badly for the family, I'm appalled that they would allow their dead child to be prostituted in this manner:

Fauxtography

I've seen very little fauxtography during this conflict. Obviously, the Palestinians have noticed their typical propaganda tactics backfired. The one (sickening) instance I've seen involves what appears to be a badly burned child. I've saved each picture from the original sources (in case they're moved or taken down), but if you want to see them in their original locations, click either photo caption and they will open a new window with the corresponding photo.



The first photo is an AP photo bearing the caption:

A Palestinian carries a child into the Shifa hospital in Gaza City, wounded during the Israeli army operation in Gaza, Sunday Jan. 4, 2009. Israeli ground troops and tanks cut swaths through the Gaza Strip Sunday, bisecting the coastal territory and surrounding its biggest city as the new phase of a devastating offensive against the Hamas group gained momentum.

I cropped the second (Getty) photo to the same size as the other (before combining them in one image). The second caption is:

A Palestinian father carries his wounded baby daughter into a hospital in Gaza City on January 4, 2009 as Israeli troops continue its ground assault in Gaza. The half dozen hospitals in Gaza cannot cope with more patients and casualties are overflowing out of regular wards into corridors as Israeli troops push deep into Gaza. At least 40 people have been killed since Israel launched the night-time offensive yesterday after eight days of air strikes in which at least 485 Palestinians died and more than 2,400 were wounded, Gaza medics said.

Obviously, it is the same baby; the burn mark on the forehead is the same. Even if the face wasn't visible, the orange and green clothing would be suspect. Perhaps the second photo wasn't staged, but I'm not sure why a different man would be carrying the same (undressed) baby into another hospital. It sickens me that such a badly injured child is no more than propaganda to these people.

Satire

While I generally don't mention whatever Israeli/Palestinian conflict is occurring, I have been watching this one with some interest. I do have Palestinian friends -- all of whom feel deeply wronged by the invasion of their country and the destruction of the homes of their countrymen. However, that doesn't change the fact that it appears to me that this time around the Palestinians are dead wrong.

I found an interesting (satirical) analogy to this conflict online the other day. I don't normally read the Huffington Post, but in a recent article entitled: Stop This Vicious Slaughter! England Must Stop Waging War On The Nazis! I found myself agreeing with the author.

I'll briefly relate the gist of the article: During WW2, while the British were responding to Germany's V1 & V2 rocket attacks by carpet bombing, they were inflicting entirely too much damage on the Germans, and consequently, they should instigate an immediate ceasefire. The similarity in the stories seemed to highlight the lunacy of today's world leaders that are calling for a cease-fire.

If I were to put myself and my nation in a similar situation, say for example, some rogue Cubans started lobbing missiles up here to Florida, I would demand my government go after them. I'd hope they would do it a whole lot sooner then the Israelis have done with the Palestinians, too. And I sure wouldn't care if a few homes of innocent bystanders got destroyed while those responsible for attacking my country were punished.

The fact that the Palestinians haven't killed "very many" Israelis doesn't seem to make much difference to me. If they can't live peacefully where they are, or at least give up all of the rocket-firing culprits themselves, my first choice is to let some other Arab country take them all in. Of course, we know that will never happen -- no other Arab countries want the Palestinians in their countries. Beside that, they'd much rather see the Palestinians "martyred" in place -- other wise they couldn't express their outrage at the senseless deaths of their brothers and sisters at the hands of the Israelis.

Barring a mass exodus, my second choice would be to see their leadership, weapons, munitions, and militant radical followers wiped out. Not very "peaceable" but it would be effective.

A Moral Dilemma

I found this USA Today article: "Remains of the Day : Nineteen hijackers died on 9/11. What should be done with what's left of them?" It seems that the NYC medical examiners have been having a difficult time identifying all of the hijackers, but in a six cases have been successful. The other medical examiners have discovered all the hijackers' remains from their crash sites. The article states

What's left of the terrorists—which, all told, likely amounts to less than 24 pounds of flesh and bone fragments—are sequestered at undisclosed locations in New York and Virginia. They are "stored as evidence in a refrigerated locker in sealed containers and test tubes," says Richard Kolko, a spokesman for the FBI.

Furthermore, only one person has directly contacted any of the medical examiners requesting the remains of their terrorist relatives, yet didn't "push" for their return when he discovered they're still being held by the federal government.

There were primarily two things of interest to me in the article. First, none of the victims' surviving relatives wanted any fragments (no matter how small) mixed with the remains of their loved ones. Second, many of those same relatives would like to see the remains burnt (because most Muslims believe they need a "Muslim burial" to get to Allah).

I tend to agree with the surviving family members about not letting them have a Muslim burial. Maybe we could mix their remains with a little pig's blood, encase them all in concrete, and drop that chunk of stone in the Mariana Trench. Yes, it's grisly, but if it became US policy it would be a major deterrent of any future attacks.