Politics: God bless America
I often wonder whether I’ll say, “…and God bless America,” after a political speech. For one, I don’t believe in the capitalized version and for now, not the lower-case type either. Would I be lying if I said “God bless America?” I am not a believer per-say, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t want America to be blessed if there is a god. And there very might well be one, so why wouldn’t I at least take the chance. It can’t hurt, right?
Regardless, the point is that America is blessed. Minus a few mishaps here or there (Hurricane Katrina and Bush being our President) we usually have it pretty well. For example, September 11th was the worst attack on our soil in well, ever. And with an attempt to not sound completely insensitive, 3,000 deaths aren’t all that bad.
More importantly, the Pentagon came out with a report saying that in the past year there have been 26,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. Obviously, we have been in Iraq for more than a year and deaths from coalition attacks weren’t included either. So the actual number is probably considerably more egregious.
And before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, let me say, I know, "that is war." And I also know that most of those deaths are from insurgents killing their own people in baseless bombings.
But here I still ask, are American lives worth more than those of Iraqis’? Can we justify indirectly and directly causing ten to twenty times the number of civilian deaths from September 11th with saying, “well someone attacked us first?” And to clarify, this is not a critique of this specific war, but the justifications used to legitimize war in general.
Maybe, “God bless America,” is working in creating favoritism towards America. But I always thought God was impartial? Maybe the Iraqi’s should start saying it.
I know I will.
posted by Creo @ 10.11.05
6 comments
6 Comments:
Enjoyed this blog but wanted to take a moment to pose a new question. As of Dec. 8th the state of Washington will no longer permit smoking in public places or even within 20 feet of the entrances to public spaces! This is to go into effect due to Tuesday's voting where the measure to ban smoking was, from a "political" standpoint, overwhelmingly (~70%) passed. In recent conversations there has been a debate as to whether this ban is infringing upon the rights of smokers. If you take away this right, then what is next? For clarification puposes, my point of view is that smoking is a public health issue. By all means, feel free to smoke in your own home but, I prefer not to have smoke blown in my face while I am eating at a restaurant, for example. It is the same reason we have drunk driving laws and emissions testing for motor vehicles...it is a public health concern. Now that I have rambled, I am just curious how other people may view this situation...agree or disagree either way! And do you think that Washington, being a predominatly liberal state, had anything to do with the measure passing, or is it a relatively bipartisan issue? Only reason for the latter question is that someone I have talked to seemed to think it was a more liberal idea...just curious!
For my entire life it has been repeatedly drilled into my head that smoking is stupid and has no benefit whatsoever to anyone. So my immediate response would be yes, this new law seems like a great way to reduce the number of smokers as well as the intake of second hand smoke. In fact, why hasnt this kind of thing happened sooner?
You posed the question of whether or not the idea is an infringement on the rights of smokers. At first I thought yes, most definately. Despite my predisposition towards any anti-smoking law, it does seem to be an infringment on smokers' rights. But then why is it that things like pot and other heavier drugs can be illegal? By suggesting that regulation of the area where smoking is permitted takes away from the American citizens' rights, doesn't that also suggest that regulating what someone puts into their own body shouldnt be allowed either? The reasoning behind these laws as far as I understand it is to prevent others from being hurt by the actions of those under the influence. By theses standards I say yes, smoking should be regulated if not eliminated. So I guess what I'm saying is good for Washington.
As to your question on the partisan slant of the issue, I think it's probably an issue with a liberal slant but that crosses over party lines. Bill Frist for instance is a doctor so you can pretty much guarantee that he's all for smoking regulation (although I don't actually know that, its just my own assumption stemming from living with a doctor for 19 years). Maybe if enough of the liberal states start passing laws such as this one from Washington, the more conservative red states will follow in their footsteps.
You're really smart. Almost as smart as me!
Only kidding.
Anyways, this is Cindy's boyfriend John. Just thought I'd say "hey" and let you know that your thoughts are very intuitive and well-formed. I enjoyed reading your posts.
Ciao for now!
Maybe people should be start thinking (and verbalizing for that matter) "God bless Iraq."
But then again, what do I know...
Someone said that we ought to use the phrase "Bless God" because God has already blessed us so much. I also like the idea that there is nothing wrong with love of country, as long as the love doesn't stop at the border.
Well, even if you do miss the point of things regularly, you do it in a consistently self-assured way. That's entertainment.
Post a Comment
<< Home