The Role of Morals in the Military: Any Room?

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace recently criticized the role of gays in the military. In a radio address last week, Pace termed gay acts as immoral and that gays should not serve in the military. I find these remarks rather ironic, as the U.S. military is in severe need of bodies for service in our “war against terror” in Iraq. Even presidential hopeful Senator Sam Brownback agreed with Pace’s remarks by sending President Bush a letter of support (Bush has no coattails to ride, so God only knows why he is kissing up).

The current administration needs to understand that this “moral crusade” has boundaries, one of those boundaries being the military. Everyone has the God given right to believe what they want, but what does being gay have to do with someone’s ability to serve in the armed forces? I really do not see the logic in Pace’s comments when I put it into that context. I do not doubt his abilities as the top general in the military by any means, but when you are in the military your views on “moral issues” need to “stay in the closet,” Peter.

The last time I checked, the U.S. has been involved in a war of attrition for the past five years and it appears as if “the terrorists” are doing a knock up job of outlasting us. General Pace needs to worry about commanding the military, not commanding the views of the “Christian right.” For all I care he can pull a Wesley Clark by retiring and running for president, but he has yet to retire. As one can probably tell I am all for gay’s serving in the military. I am not concerned with someone’s sexual preference as a measure of someone’s ability to serve.

Another Line of BS?

Gambian President Yahya Jammeh claims that he has the answer to the world’s AIDS problem. The herbal treatment that he claims cures AIDS, came to him in a dream late last year. He has yet to release the ingredients of the concoction that has been given to AIDS patients since January, but users of the substance claim that it is working.

AIDS was first brought to the attention of the United States (The West) in 1981 when the viral disease surfaced throughout the gay community. Scientists have been aware of the disease since 1959 when the virus was an invisible entry in the medical books. No one is exactly positive where or how the virus originated, but anthropologists point to the jungles of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo) where HIV was somehow passed from monkeys (primates) to humans.

Today HIV/AIDS has been tamed in the West, partly because of massive educational campaigns and the relative easy access to anti-retroviral drugs. But Africa is a different story, as AIDS has run rampant since the late 1970’s. Today over 25 million people on the continent are infected with either HIV or AIDS and more are contracting the virus each day. The spread of the virus has been slowed due to the increase in donations from Western pharmaceutical corporations and the UN, but the problem still remains.

Because the virus has been tamed in the West, some people are oblivious to the consequences of HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS are not one disease, but in fact are separate diseases. HIV or human immunodeficiency virus is the virus that causes AIDS or acquired immune deficiency syndrome. HIV can be kept in check with anti-retroviral drugs, which in the West infected people can live normal life spans if they take the drugs religiously.

But when HIV turns into AIDS there is nothing that can be done. AIDS is defined by the medical community when an individual’s T-CELL (immune system cells) drops below a specific level. AIDS does not technically kill people; it is usually a common ailment such as pneumonia that causes the demise of an individual.

If President Jammeh’s herbal concoction is indeed inept as the UN claims it is, the results will be devastating for Africa. The UN fears that people afflicted will quit taking their anti-retroviral drugs, hence hastening their ultimate declines. I believe that the president had the best of intentions, but like the old saying goes: some of the worse things imaginable have been done with the best of intentions.

What's The Deal with "March Madness?"

As I sit fixated to ESPN’s coverage of “March Madness,” I couldn’t help but wonder why Americans are suddenly obsessed with college basketball when the brackets come out. Oddly enough, I find myself apart of the vogue and I am firmly aware of my prospects to come out with an untainted bracket (I am already screwed). “March Madness” reaffirms one of America’s grandest pastimes, the art of gambling.

Besides rioting in large mobs, Americans cannot resist gambling, as it is part of our moniker to bet collateral that we do not have on the off chance that we actually succeed (writing checks that our asses cannot cash). The brackets were spurred forth last Sunday and to no one's surprise, we have gobbled them up like a blue whale feeding on plankton.

ESPN has their own little bracket challenge (which I entered to no avail) and they claim over 3 million people entered the contest. People, that is around 1/300th of the population, a majority of which are probably men, but still that is a considerable portion of the population.
One cannot forget the countless office pools that boast grand petty grand prizes of $100 or so. Over 10% of Americans participate in these office pools. Surprisingly, the $5 entrance fee is well worth the off chance of winning that immaculate load of cash that will in all likeliness, be blown at the local pub moments after winning it.

What is the off chance of producing a perfect bracket? 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 to 1, which in Lehman’s terms means 9 quintillion to one. If you do not like those odds, you have no business participating in “March Madness.” The FBI estimates that over $2.5 billion in illegal funds will be wagered on “March Madness,” but on the bright side 4% of that sum is wagered legally in Nevada.

Besides risking arrest from the FBI and forgetting the massive odds of losing, which any Texas Hold Em’ player would drop dead upon hearing, the answer to my question is simple; gambling has systematically been built into our genes over the past two-hundred years (I am sure science would refute it, but who cares)!

It’s 2007, not 2004…duh!

What is the big deal about the recent firings of 8 U.S. Attorneys? We must first begin with exactly how a U.S. Attorney gets their job in the first place in order to understand the overall significance of the firings. Generally U.S. Attorney’s are nominated by the president based on the input of Senators from selected districts. Usually the individuals that are nominated are from the president’s political party; the GOP in this case. In a sense, becoming a U.S. Attorney is a patronage affair. And they all serve at the pleasure of the president.

But the thing is, after becoming a U.S. Attorney, your politics suddenly goes out the door, as it is the job of an attorney to be fair and unbiased in all legal matters. Democrats allege that the 8 U.S. Attorneys that were unceremoniously dismissed were fired for their politics. This is a serious accusation because most U.S. Attorneys eventually resign at the end of a president’s term and are either retained or let go. It is no secret that U.S. Attorney’s are fired, but during the middle of a president’s term is something else.

It was originally the idea of Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel, that all 93 U.S. Attorneys be fired at the beginning of President Bush’s second term. Oddly enough, the Bush Administration declined to fire anyone. Even though these attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the president, they should only be fired in circumstances in which they are not performing their job in a satisfactory manner. Three of the individuals fired did receive poor ratings, but it still does not explain the sudden urge to fire the individuals.

The attorney in question in this case is David Iglesias, who had received a superb rating and was not on the original list of candidates to be fired. He was fired because New Mexican Republicans were irritated that he was not prosecuting enough voter fraud cases. Yes, there is a voting fraud issue in New Mexico, but it does not explain why Iglesias and 7 other U.S. Attorney’s were removed from their offices during the middle of the president’s term. If this is a blatant abuse of power that the Democrats are claiming it is, Alberto Gonzales should be fired to.

Pardon Me, Scooter

Former Dick Cheney top aid, Lewis “Scooter” Libby was convicted on four counts of perjury, false testimony, and obstruction of justice last Tuesday. Libby, who was essentially part of the top brass in the White House and chief confidant to the vice-president, will face up to 25 years in prison when his sentencing hearing begins in June. But our endless judicial appeal systems will more than likely spare “Scooter” a trip to repair shop.

His conviction stems from accusations that he revealed Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative, which in turn could have potentially put her life in grave danger. Libby was not convicted of leaking the name, but his convictions stem from interfering in the investigation of the leak. Democrats greeted news of the conviction with bliss.

"It's about time someone in the Bush administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi added, “This trial provided a troubling picture of the inner workings of the Bush administration. The testimony unmistakably revealed -- at the highest levels of the Bush administration--a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq."

Democrats are concerned that President Bush may pardon Libby if the appeals process goes on long enough. The key words in that sentence are “long enough.” Bush is hurriedly approaching the “lame duck” stage of his presidency and if he has nothing to lose by late 2008 (depending on what the GOP does in the presidential elections), he very well may pardon Libby before he leaves office. This is nowhere near the magnitude of the Nixon pardon, but the principle behind a potential pardon is the question at hand.

It is no secret that Dick Cheney operates White House intelligence; in essence he is a sort of dictator of intelligence. With Cheney running the intelligence show, it was Libby who had access to almost the same information as Cheney. But like most of the debacles that have taken place within the Bush Administration, there is more to the story.

Many have claimed that Bush or Cheney may have ordered the release of Plame’s name because her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson openly questioned Bush’s basis for invading Iraq in a New York Times op-ed piece in July 2003. It would outwardly appear that Scooter is a scapegoat for the administration, as his role in the “scandal” seems minimal.

Many commentators have placed the blame on Dick Cheney for sticking Libby out on the end of the stick to be sacrificed. What is the significance of this conviction, regardless of whether Libby gets a new trial or not? As Speaker Pelosi stated above, it may act as a basis for Congress to investigate the authenticity of the Bush Administration’s intelligence on a wide range of issues, including Iraq (and a little thing called credibility, which Bush and gang are slowly running out of).

FOX News: Fair and Un-Biased My Ass

The Nevada Democratic Party is pulling out of a schedules debate that was to be co-hosted by Fox News in Reno on August 14th. The sudden pull out from the debate stems from a comment that Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes (he appears to be a larger version of Albert Hitchcock) made earlier this week. Ailes believed that it would be apposite to crack a joke comparing Barrack Obama to Osama Bin Laden by stating:

"And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?' "

Ailes’ comment capped off a tension that had been brewing for weeks, as John Edwards stated that he would not be participating in the debate due to Fox’s conservative ties. Fox News blames the cancellation on MoveOn, a “radical” left wing organization that has been calling for the debate to be cancelled with a staggering 265,000 signatories to a petition sent to the state Democratic Party.

Democrats believe that they should not have to defend themselves against such bigotry and I concur. I am not so ignorant to the world not to believe that every single American news outlet does not have a bias. But when it comes to moderating a debate, it is not the job of the so called “moderator” to throw a curveball; the politicians will throw each other enough curveballs.

Whether we like it or not, our news media will continue to put their own spin on politics. But when a news network decides to get directly involved in politics, they have stepped over the already stretched line. Plus the so called “joke” was rather insensitive. So begs the idea of whether you like Obama or not, he is a U.S. Senator, not the leader of a major terrorist organization that has claimed the lives of thousands.

The commentary by Ailes was absolutely uncalled for and his network is going to suffer the consequences in August with a lack of ratings and suffer even more as the general election approaches. If you thought that Fox News was not exactly reputable before the joke, it is fair to assume that the organization’s reputation is now debunked in the eyes of many more than before (it rhymes!).