Sunday, November 06, 2005

We Didn't Ask for This, But This is What We Do.

I have recently discussed a very interesting topic with a close friend of mine. I asked her this question: "Knowing that we had to engage militarily with one nation, which nation should it have been: China, North Korea, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, or Syria." All things considered, I concluded that such was definitely a good question.

I think that an invasion of China would be a waste of military resources. I'm not saying that we'd lose, but I am saying that it'd definitely be a fight. The problem with invading North Korea is that we've tried that before, and as we can see, it was not as effective as we would have liked. Venezueala is a joke for now. Iran is a beast. Iraq with Saddam was a wise choice, and Syria is a threat only because of its allies.

Now, we know that it's absurd to stand back and allow dictators to run the earth. We tried that approach in the 1920's and all of Europe was devastated by its consequences. So, now we have the unwanted but desparately needed role of being the global police. We're not perfect, but I think we're dang good at it.

Stupid War in Iraq!

Many people tend to hate the war in Iraq. In fact, the opinion polls regarding our success in the war effort shows that a growing majority of the US is against the war. I think that such animosity arises due to articles such as this one: Iraq battle stress worse that WWII . In this article, Michael Smith describes how many of the soldiers are petrified to even fire their weapons for fear of being court marshalled.

Now, I don't think that such articles should be silenced. But, it seems that the liberal media is mainstream; therefore, the balance of similar more conservative viewpoints are neither shown nor expressed. The truth is that many people - liberal and conservative - believe whatever they hear because people tend not to want to research things for themselves. That said, we have our liberal propaganda experts to thank for the lack of morale and support for the War in Iraq.

Do I think that our current administration should be more upfront with the successes? Absolutely. But the problem is that even when the successes are presented, we have the liberal voices drowning these successes with their alleged failures (i.e. 2000th US soldier death).

With the lack of support for the war, the most detrimental thing for our troops and citizens of Iraq is ahead: the pullout of our military. To me, it seems that political pressure will provoke the 2008 elected president - democrat or republican - to 'bring our troops home.' I really wish that our currect administration as well as the media would inform people just how inconceivable the results of such would be.

Friday, November 04, 2005

So What? They're Poor Anyway.

I have just read a disturbing article. Many extreme conservatives will disagree with my stance here. Nevertheless, these kinds of things frustrate me about the republican party. The article is entitled Senate Approves Cuts to Social Programs. This article describes how the Senate has recently voted 52-47 to cut funds allocated to the elderly for healthcare, to the poor, and to those who are disabled all in the name of wise spending.

I am not an advocate of programs that are solely designed at spoon feeding a particular branch of society. However, I do not deny that such treatment is necessary in order for the expected steps to take place. What I mean is this: I think that social programs should have the purpose of meeting the temporary need while empowering the individual to succeed in our society. I admit that I our social programs do not. Yet, when you take away funds from the temporary fix, the long-term solutions are taken away as well. I am outraged that there was even consideration to cut food stamps! There are many other areas to cut government spending (i.e. NASA).

For example, let's say there is a single mom who is going to school while providing for her two children. She works, pays for their daycare services, provides food and clothing for her children. Her goal is to get off of welfare, but she knows that it is welfare that is sustaining her at that time. To cut her fund allocation would be to set her back even more than she has already been, and that's absurd to me. I'm sorry. That's stupid to me.

Granted, there are others who are not so ambitious. But, I think that if social programs would give people a greater vision for opportunity and success, then the poverty rate would slowly decrease because people would be self-motivated to succeed. This decision by our elected officials just seems senseless to me. I am deeply hurt by the apparent lack of compassion. I really hope that the bill doesn't pass.

African American Black Negro

I found this comment: 'I have a problem with the term African American...The word negro is a perfectly good word. There is nothing wrong with that' -- Andy Rooney on Imus 11/4/05, MSNBC, 8:45am ET.

It seems to me that the attempt to classify Blacks in America is a difficult and 'touchy' subject. Depending on who you ask, a different term is in order. There are those who prefer African American, those who prefer Black, those who prefer Negro, and even some who prefer people of color.

When it comes to my personal preference, I refer to myself as a Black American. Ultimately, I'd like to be called a Nigerian-American, or an Ethipian-American, South African American - you get the picture. The problem is that so many American Black people have no genealogy that links them to a nation or a specific African culture. Therefore, such specific identification is imperative.

The term African American is inaccurate because according to modern thought, we all are of an African descent. So, such a term is all inclusvie as well. Black appears to be the most accurate, but even black is a far cry off from describing Black Americans.

Al Sharpton has no problem with the term people of color. I do. People of Color implies that white is the standard, but white is a color as well. I would even contend that the title for the NAACP (National Association for the the Advancement of Colored People) is a bit outdated in that colored is offensive to me.

Regarding the term negro, I just refuse to be labeled as such. That word is to close to n*gger of which I will not be called. Some people prefer negro, but I don't know anyone who does. I will say this. If Andy Rooney ever called me a Negro, I'd probably have to count backwards from 1o.