Otter Limits

Just in case there is any doubt, I am not one.

I do not support the use of military action against another country.

I do not think that war is compatible with Christianity. Let me rephrase, I do not think war is compatible with the teachings of Jesus.

I don’t think Jesus would condone the idea of war.

There are many out there that are “war mongers” and can somehow rationalize it. I say good for you. But leave me out of it. I can’t rationalize it.

On second thought, don’t leave me out of it. I would actually like to know how it can be rationalized.

But please don’t use the Crusades as an example. I don’t think Jesus approves of that one either. That was no “religious” war. That was a war for power and property and nothing more.

As most wars have been in the past few hundred years. They are either fought over power (so that one group of people can gain power over another group of people) or property (someone wants a piece of land to add to their piece of land so they fight over it) or money.

War is a business.

There are those in society that seem to think the current war that American is engaged in is being fought for something as noble as the liberation of a people. I disagree. Some say it is a war to protect democracy. I disagree. Some say it is a war to defend our country. I really disagree. It is a war for both power and money.

Sure, the power that was taken away was taken away from a dictator and that country is probably better off without him but it was fought for power nonetheless. Personally though, I think that the war for power in this case was but a means to an end to the real war. The war for money.

It is being fought over money. Or more specifically, a war over oil, which equals money. That part of the world controls quite a bit of oil and this war is being fought to protect our country’s oil investments. Money.

But I am getting off track here. The point I am trying to make is that I don’t think Jesus condones war of any kind. If you think differently, please respond to this post with your rationalizations.

Just for the record, I am just as outraged by the shooting death of the Army recruiters in Arkansas as I am at the shooting death of Dr George Tiller.

As I stated in my previous post, I do not approve of the abortions that Dr Tiller was involved in. But I also do not approve of the actions of a right wing wacko (I can only assume that he is a right winger, apologies if I am wrong) in killing him because they disagree with him and think the world would be better off without him.

But just the same, I do not approve of some left wing wacko (again, assuming they were left wingers) killing an Army recruiter because of their anti-war stance.

I too, do not approve of war. I don’t think it is as necessary as some think. However, I am not going to kill someone that is pro-war just to prove my point.

As Dave said in a recent post, two wrongs do not make a right.

Both murders were unnecessary and senseless.

Murder does not solve anything.

It should NEVER be used to justify a political means. You can not prove your point to the “other side” by killing one of them. It only makes you and your cause look bad and usually helps to further their cause instead of your own.

So you are a pro-life activist. You kill an abortion doctor. What does that prove? That you are not as pro-life as you think you are.

So you are an anti-war activist. You kill an army recruiter. What does that prove? I have nothing. What? To keep them from recruiting more people to join the military? That’s just stupid. It proves nothing.

Murder justifies nothing. It is ALWAYS wrong.

There, I have said my peace.

Over at Dave’s Blog I have been involved in a discussion regarding the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist and some other points about the religion.

Here are some highlights:

A Muslim is someone who believes in Islam.
An Islamist is someone who has a religious obligation to strive for Islamic supremacy.

Fundamentalist Muslims, i.e. Islamists, actually represent a majority of the followers of Islam. These Islamists are the extreme militant groups that you hear about blowing up buildings and killing innocents in the news.

According to Sharia, or Islamic Law, the killing of infidels (even women and children) and the killing of Muslims that violate Islamic law is not only permitted but encouraged.

Much to my disbelief, these Islamists have NOT taken the teachings of the Qur’an out of context. They are, in fact, doing exactly what it tells them to do. They follow the literal words of the Qur’an. They do however, ignore other passages that do not condone murder.

There are groups of “moderate” Muslims that not only despise what their Muslim brothers are doing “in the name of God” but are opposed to Sharia being instituted anywhere and that Sharia is absolutely based on the teachings of the Qur’an, not some twisted misinterpretation of it.

These groups of moderate Muslims consider Sharia an abomination and even believe that the Qur’an did not come from God because it contains too many contradictions and God is infallible.

Toward the end of the current conversation, I asked how a group of people that follows Islam not follow the teachings of the Qur’an. The response was a link to their manifesto.

When I get some more time I will go to that site and read it for myself. At which point I will put up another post based on what I have read.

I got the inspiration for this post from a Descendents song titled ‘Merican.

America is a great place. But it sucks too.

There are many great things that have come out of the United States. To name a few, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the airplane, jazz, baseball, I can go on.

On the flip side, there are some really horrible things that have come out of America too. The KKK, McCarthyism, the nuclear bomb, and the perpetuation of war. Again, I could go on but you get the picture.

The point, which is made quite clear from the song, is that there are many things to be proud of as an American. But there are also many things to be ashamed of as an American.

Every time I see a bumper sticker that says “American, Love It or Leave It!” I think, what a big pile of dog crap. I don’t have leave. Why should I? If there is something about this country I want to gripe about, I have every right to gripe about it. Why should I leave because there is something about our nation I don’t like? Just to make those full blown flag waving nothing is wrong with our country people feel comfortable? Heck no! If you don’t like what I have to say, don’t talk to me. Don’t read my stuff. Stick it! But don’t tell ME to leave.

Just because I (or any other person) hates certain aspects of this country or something that our nation does, whatever that might be, does not mean I just out right hate the country.

I am proud to be an American. I am proud to claim citizenship of this great country. I’m not leaving. I love it. But it sucks sometimes too.

America. I can love it AND hate it. So get over it.

Has anyone ever read this? I am currently reading a book that talked about it a bit. I found it interesting and thought I would share some of it.

It is basically a reminder that war requires serious consideration and it not necessarily a completely political matter but also a moral one.

Anyway, here are some criteria that were listed to determine if a war is just or not.

1. The cause must be just. For instance, to protect people from unjust attack.
2. It must be declared by competent authorities.
3. It must be a LAST resort AFTER all possible peaceful solutions have been exhausted.
4. Its ends must be proportionate to its means. The evils of it cannot outweigh the good.
5. Its intentions must be right. It cannot be motivated by revenge or hate.
6. Success must be probable. If there is no possibility of winning or if too many will be killed as a result of it, it is not just.

Any thoughts?

Here are some significant “achievements” of that war:

4236 American Deaths
30984 Americans Wounded*
1307319 Iraqi Deaths
Over $600 billion of spent

* 30984 is the “official” count. It is estimated that this # is closer to 100,000.

If victory means needless death and suffering and one of the causes of the fall of our economy, we definitely achieved victory!

Has anyone read about this?

Is anyone in the United States government asking Israel WTH?

Seems to me if this country wants our continued support I would tell them to knock this crap off. There is NO reason they should be bombing hospitals or shooting at ambulance crews. According to this article Israel is denying that they have shot at any medical personnel but the article also talks about an actual medic that was shot at by soldiers 4 times this week!

I find it hard to support Israel’s actions when I read stuff like this.

Any thoughts?

This measures allows for the opening of HOV lanes to all traffic during rush, increases funding for roadside assistance and dedicates certain taxes, fines and tolls to traffic-flow purposes.

So I really have not made a decision on which way I am voting on this one so I decided to go out and read some arguments for and against and this is what I found:

Argument For:
Reduces traffic congestion 6-7%
Same measures in other states have proven reduction in congestion.
Traffic congestion is a priority of 80% of Washington’s citizens, their money should strongly support their priorities.
It does not raise taxes. It dedicates a small portion of vehicle sales taxes for transportation-related projects to reduce congestion. It guarantees that tolls will not be used for non-transportation spending.

Argument Against:
This measure takes away money from things Washington badly needs. Washington doesn’t need help with traffic congestion?
This measure takes millions in sales taxes from taxpayers all across the state to pay for Seattle-area traffic problems.
Okay, I can understand this argument. If I were living in, say, Kennewick Washington, why would I want my taxes to go toward traffic problems in Seattle.
The state is already facing a budget deficit, paying for this will require new taxes. I understand their process of thought here but from what I understand about it, it is only using money from existing taxes and not give the power to enact new taxes.
There has not been sufficient thought put in to what could happen with bus service once cars take over the bus routes.Good point. Hmmm…
The initiative does not tell us exactly where the congestion funds will be spent and should not be so vague.This is the one thing that really bothered me about the initiative. It is a little vague as to where that money is going to do. It just states transportation problems related to congestion. That could mean just about anything. It could mean that whoever handles the transportation problems in our state might decide they need a raise and just go ahead and approve it for themselves, using money out of this fund.

I’m still not sure which way to vote on this one. I am all for relieving traffic congestion in Seattle but in the first place I don’t really think people in Spokane should have to pay for it so in that respect I think I should vote against it. However, my gut tells me to vote for it because traffic is ridiculous here and I am interested in knowing if this initiative could help it. I wish there was more time before the election because if there were, I would suggest some sort of trial period, or test run. They could try this out for a month or so and see if it does relieve congestion at all and if it does, then go ahead and let the people vote on it. If it doesn’t work, toss the idea. I know that is some kind of wishful thinking. However, whatever tests they have run have proven that it has working in other parts of the country. I wonder what other cities have done this and which of these cities had traffic problems beforehand even worse than our own.

I dunno. What do you guys think?

First and foremost, I am not 100% anti-U.S. military. I do NOT think that we should cut the military down to nothing. That would be senseless.

What I DO think, however, is that some drastic cuts CAN and SHOULD be made in our military budget.

The best ways I can think of to reduce the enormous military budget are two ways:

First, quit invading people!! Very simple. Quit invading every country that breathes at us the wrong way! We have foreign diplomats. Why can’t we use them instead of using our young men as cannon fodder, in addition to ballooning the military budget with war after war? Can’t we all just get along?

Also, big cuts could be made by reducing the redundancy in technology and weaponry in the armed forces. For instance, each service has its own fighter jets, most of which do the same job. We could really cut the spending on things like fighter jets if we decided to go with one type of jet that would work for all services. I know this has been tried in the past but apparently it hasn’t worked yet.

But fighter jets aren’t the only thing redundant in the system. There is plenty of technology that is set aside for one specific service that another service could use just as easily but doesn’t because they use something else that does exactly the same thing.

And I could go further with this. Why not cut the different services? Why can’t we just have one? I can understand there being a difference between the Navy and the Army. No problem with that. But why not incorporate the Air Force into the Navy (they have planes too, why?) and incorporate the Marine Corps into the Army (both are ground troops, aren’t they?). That could save a lot of money in the various advertising campaigns run by these services alone, not to mention a lot of others ways we can save money in our defense budget by doing this.

So the next question you might ask is what do we do with this money that we save?

Well, there are a few things that come to mind.

Let us first say that with all these cuts in the military budget, we cut it by, hypothetically, 10%.

First, we could take that 10% of the budget and use it to pay off the enormous foreign debt we have incurred. Paying off your debts always helps economically and the economy is definitely something that could use some help.

Second, we could use that 10% to further fund research into alternative fuels, thus, coming to a point where we can end our dependence on foreign oil. Again, eventually this would also help our economy? And help clean up the environment in the process.

Third, we could use that 10% to fund some other poorly funded projects. Health care, social security, unemployment insurance, education, or other social programs that could work if they worked in theory but don’t because they are not properly funded.

Lastly, if none of these ideas satisfy you, we could simple cut taxes across the board by 10%. Not sure if that would really help everyone equally in the long run but it’s an idea.

Any thoughts?

What a jerk!!

Okay, I would like to have our troops home as much as the next guy but the guy trying to sue this serviceman is a complete jerk!

This article came from the Seattle Times: