They Shoot Horses Don't They

They Shoot Horses, Don't They? is a 1969 American drama film directed by Sydney Pollack. In his youth, the main character saw a horse break its leg, after which it was shot and put out of its misery.

She was not a horse but 87-year-old Lorraine Bayless collapsed last Tuesday in the dining room of the Glenwood Gardens independent senior living apartments and the staff refused to initiate CPR because it was against policy, so the woman died awaiting EMS. I wonder if we will reach a point when shooting people like Lorraine Bayless to put them out of their misery will be acceptable practice. Apparently the family did not protest and the woman had a DNR order…so all the ingredients were there except the gun.

The major concern of the staffer in question was liability of course. Lawyers out there, this could have been your mother, unless of course you react like her family.

The Good Samaritan approach is not only rarely practiced anymore but it is strongly discouraged, especially if you are a nurse or a doctor, because you can be sure you are facing a malpractice suit if there is death or complication. It is the ZEROES (at the right of 1) that make everybody tick NOT the HEROES. The latter are good for a short news segment then bye bye.

Sadly this is cheapening the value of human life In America, at a time where respect for animal life is at an all time high…so is the actual cost of living (no relation but thought I put it there).

As I mentioned in previous blogs, many things have been contributing to cheapening human life: violent video games where lots of people are blown off like nothing, same in Hollywood movies, drone attacks that make war seem very remote and Starwars-like, mass murders by single nobodies (Fort Hood, Aurora, New Town, etc.) or rudimentary methods (manure, turning our own planes against our own WTC).

Of course there were also natural disasters that contributed to the cheapening and sense of frailty of human life: Thailand tsunami, Japan Tsunami, numerous earthquakes, Katrina, Sandy and others.

Nothing however is as cheapening, disheartening and disconcerting as the latest discovery about drones. In the last of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE, drones can actually target American citizens and execute them just based on the belief that they may be terrorists. Collateral damage is something we blame others for. We are back to the Far West where we shoot first and worry about it later, where we hang horse thieves on the spot. At least then the duals tried to preserve a modicum of fairness and the opponent had skin in the game.

I can picture members of the administration sitting in the  situation room watching it all on a TV monitor, like for the Bin Laden kill…except popcorn and refreshments will be served this time around. It would be Reality TV at its finest and most sinister. Wouldn’t that drone video feed closely mimic those very violent videos that we are all starting to blame for gun violence?

What do 00BAMA, H00LDER  and 007 have in common?

A License to Kill…from the Sky!

Could the Media Have Created Terrorism?

First let us set the record straight: Terrorism is not an Arabic or Islamic word. There was the Irish IRA, the Italian Red Brigades and the German Baader Meinhof to name just a few in Europe. We had our homegrown Tim McVeigh in Oklahoma City and the Unabomber Ted Kaczynskii in Montana. The former used manure to kill more than 160 people and not even one gun (that should give poise to the frenetics in DC gunning for guns as the source of all Evil). The latter may have inspired the Anthrax terrorist who mailed lethal powder instead of bombs.

If everyone of these national and international terrorists was assured of no media coverage whatsoever for their respective deeds, I am convinced they would not have done it or at least thought twice before. Most rush to claim responsibility after their act for the media to publicize it, which never fails.

Remember Al Jazira airing Bin Laden videos after 9/11, especially the first ones where you could see him smiling satisfied barely believing the unexpected luck he had downing the two buildings, great capitalist symbols, with such a low budget operation. He overtly attributed their success to God aiding them against the Infidel. I bet these videos featuring the smurf and content of the thin old man with the beard had a lot to do in inflaming George Bush and bolstering his resolve to kill Osama (and stop those videos). After bombing Torah Bora with a vengeance but unsuccessfully, Bush desperately needed a scape goat. Saddam was eager to oblige him...and the rest is history. Thanks to Al Gore, Al Jazira has now a better foothold in American life. Let's see how they will use it. Tails of two ALs!

When a suicid bomber musters the temerity of going through their deed they must think of the universal attention and recognition they will get at least for a day, thanks to the media, and feel validated by it. This kind of media-driven notoriety undoubtedly motivates at least in part mass murderers like in Fort Hood, Aurora and Sandy Hook.

So what is the media to do? Not cover such an event and risk to be out scooped by ruthless competitors and loose viewership / readership; or cover it thus de facto contributing to spread high and wide the terror effect of this event? The latter may entice and enable terrorists-in-the-making while the former may discourage and dissuade them. Why blow yourself up (or shoot yourself) if nobody will know?

The 24/7 News cycle is an ogre that needs to be fed and unfortunately terrorists have learned to count on that fact. To add insult to injury, violence and bad news are actually good news for the media (and Hollywood) because they sell.

We cherish and defend the Freedom of the Press because it is supposed to protect our freedom but...

Who will protect us from the Press?

DeChristianization of America will Backfire and Bite its Liberal Advocates

The German philosopher Karl Marx in not so many words said that "Religion is the Opium of the People" in the early 1820s. Part of his motivation was that his family was jewish and had to convert to protestantism to seek better acceptance in German society at the time. The other motivation is he believed that what is fundamentally real about the world is not ideas and concepts but material forces; that economic realities are the determining factor for all human behavior; that all of human history is that of class struggle between the Have's and the Have not's. In a word he believed that religion poisoned the masses and distracted them from the real issues which are all materialistic.

I do not believe that the Founding Fathers meant by the "Separation of Church and State" to actually vilify and abolish religion, like Marx did, on the contrary they meant to protect religious beliefs; but nowadays you would think they meant the opposite by watching all that is being done under the pretext of this separation: Renaming Christmas and the Christmas tree; removing God from the pledge of allegiance and other core documents and national slogans, abolishing prayer in schools etc. 

Marx blamed religion for distracting people form materialistic reality and class struggle between those who have and those who don't. Do we really want to do the same and have people staunchly refocus on everything material and on what they do not have or do not have enough of? Marx's approach led to communism. Is that what we want in America?

The truth is that humans need to believe in something bigger than themselves because they need hope in their lives. Even Marx gave them the Red Paradise to believe in. One of the byproducts of this Dechristianization could very well be the all too numerous incomprehensible massacres we have been witnessing (Aurora, Newtown, Virginia, Columbine, Fort Hood and others). There maybe mental illness but there also maybe loss of hope and the kind of moral compass that one can only get from one spiritual self. NOBODY is commenting about the latter. Everybody is busy blaming the guns which is the most superficial part of this epidemic that we are experiencing.

The growing effort to laicize society is said to come from the concern about making sure that all religions have equal opportunity expression. How is that achieved, in a Democracy where majority supposedly rules, by squashing the largest one of them at the benefit of the others? 

As Liberals are endeavoring slowly but surely to remove all signs and visible activities of Christianity in public life à la marxism (which they probably believe in to start with), what will happen if less prevalent religions will thrive in America especially the more aggressive and ever expanding ones like Islam? As it is, a going number of citizens feeling disenfranchised seem to flock to this religion, seeking structure and reason in their lives. So let us analyze for a second how compatible is Islam with Liberal beliefs in this country: Muslims do not believe in separation of church and state, in women's equal rights, or in contraception or abortion; they do not believe in gay rights or gay marriage; they believe in Sharia Law; and it goes on an on. By wittingly or not helping Islam be more visible in American society, at the detriment of Christianity, aren't the Liberals shooting themselves in the foot? Do they realize what they are doing? The Holy Koran rejects the separation of church and state as Islam is the only Law; so as it inevitably becomes more prominent in American society, what will happen? A Muslim United States of America?

Can the Liberals look around the world and tell us which of the Muslim States they would like our country to be molded after: Syria? Egypt? Iran? Saudi Arabia? There is a plethora of very dubious choices! Turkey maybe the only  plausible choice but it is starting to lean the other way. I come from a partly Muslim country Lebanon and the main reason it has maintained and protected western civil liberties is because of the Christian part. 

As the wise man (or woman) said: Be Careful What You Wish For!