News broke on a video released recently of a reported attack by the U.S. military on Iraqi citizens, including a couple of Reuters employees.No one seems to be able to confirm anything.The U.S. military (naturally) is mute on the validity of the claim, and Reuters also can’t confirm whether their photographer was among the people killed in the video.There are a couple of videos people can watch.The MSNBC article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36182383/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa) has a shortened version uploaded, with bits and pieces cut and spliced together into a brief segment.Or there’s a 17-minute long video on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0) preceded by their telling of events and this George Orwell quote, “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind.” (You have to be signed in to verify you are at least 18 in order to watch this video.)
One of my older brothers is in the U.S. Army, so I am certainly a biased source, but I think it’s safe to say those who put together the video on YouTube are biased as well.(And, though some may disagree, I have long disregarded MSNBC as an objective source as well.)I know my stance won’t be popular, but it’s just as valid as anyone else’s.So here we go.
The basic story is something like this:The video portrays a group of people being shot by members of the U.S. military from Apache helicopters.The video is from July 12, 2007, when a Reuters photographer and his driver were shot and killed (along with several others, and there were also two children injured).Those seem to be the end of the things anyone knows for sure.
The video was taken the same day and in the same area as that attack, so people think the video is of the Reuters photographer, though that hasn’t been confirmed.Reuters has said the photographer was on his way to the site where a military raid had taken place earlier in the day.The article on MSNBC quotes former National Security Council staff member Brett McGurk explaining that the area in the video was “the hottest of the hot zones.”
It has been suggested that though the Reuters photographer only carried his camera, others in the group were “likely” carrying weapons; however, the article is careful to point out that the group was acting very casually.
The MSNBC article criticizes the soldiers for making comments like, “Light ‘em up!” during the video, suggesting that this is just proof of the degeneration of the men and women in the military.
(On that note, this isn’t the movies.I don’t hear soldiers say things like, “Light ‘em up!” and think, “Dude!What a cool catch phrase!”But I’m not going to condemn them for it either.I wonder if the writers at MSNBC have ever spent time with paramedics or police officers or firemen.If so, have they ever noticed some of the callus jokes that are made at scenes of emergencies?It’s not because they’re terrible people who enjoy seeing death.It’s because they see horrible, atrocious things every day in their line of work, and they have to cope with it somehow.It helps keep them sane, and people like me who don’t have to deal with that sort of thing can’t understand it.It’s not a sign of how morally corrupt they are.It’s just how they deal.)
I’m certainly not going to sit here and make some casual remark saying that the Reuters employees “had it coming to them” or anything like that.Human compassion is a great thing to hold onto, and there’s no need to take joy in anyone’s death, especially innocent people.But I do think it’s important to at least try to see things, not from my eyes, but from the eyes of the men in that helicopter.Sitting safe in my home, thousands of miles away from all of this, having never seen any sort of combat, it’s easy to judge them as I watch a video that opens with a chilling quote all about people lying to cover up cold-blooded murder.Even easier when the video has little arrows pointing to people with text saying, “It’s a camera” every time you hear a soldier say, “He’s got an RPG!” or “It’s just a coincidence” when a soldier says, “A black van has pulled onto the scene and is recovering the bodies!”Hind sight is 20/20, as they say.The soldiers didn’t know there was a Reuters photographer running around a hot spot in Iraq with a group of guys, some of whom probably had weapons.They didn’t have convenient little arrows pointing to people saying, “This one just has a camera” or, “It's a total coincidence that this suspicious looking black van just stopped at the scene, so please disregard it.”
Keep in mind that this group is walking through one of the most dangerous parts of the country near where the U.S. military has performed a raid.From the hawk’s eye view of a helicopter, they’re carrying what appear to be AK 47s and RPGs.I’m not a trained eye with weapons, but I know what a camera looks like, and even I couldn’t tell if some of the things being carried were cameras or guns.A time or two I paused the video and stared closely and thought to myself, “Well, it could be a camera.But then again, it could be a weapon.I don’t know.”And then I think to myself, “If I were a soldier stationed in one of the most dangerous areas of a country, getting shot at every day, having watched my comrades die, would I look down at this group and say, ‘Ah.It’s probably just a journalist with some harmless citizens’?”And honestly, the answer is no.These soldiers have been through hell.They’re suspicious, and with good reason to be.What’s more, there were clips that sent shivers down my spine, because I know if I were in that helicopter, I would have assumed danger just as the soldiers did.All of these were edited out of the shortened video on the MSNBC article, but can be found in the longer video.
Just before the four-minute mark, the group of people starts to disappear behind a building, but as they do, one of the men shifts slightly (the one with the cross hairs centered on him) and you can see him carrying something in his right hand.Whatever it is, it appears to long, black, and about the length of his leg.Again, I’m no weapons expert so I can’t tell you what it is, but I can say this:That thing is not a camera.
Just seconds later, the men disappear behind the building and the helicopter changes position.As it does, you see one of the men peer around the corner of the building, holding a long black, cylindrical device.This could very well be a long-lens camera.I honestly can’t tell.However, if I were a soldier, my first thought would be, “I’m about to have something really scary launched at me.”And I must have been right, because as soon as they see him, a soldier said, “He has an RPG!”
Then, as the helicopter moves behind the building, the man continues to peek around the corner with the device, and just before the top of the building obscures the view between the helicopter and the man below, you see the man point the device directly at the helicopter.
Can anyone honestly say they wouldn’t have been scared stiff if they’d seen that?Because I can’t.
Everyone is awfully fast to condemn the men in that helicopter, but I can honestly say if I’d seen the video without the background information, without the arrows, and without the helpful messages of “Here’s a camera” – in other words, if I’d seen it the way the soldiers saw it – I would have thought it was EXACTLY what the military claimed it was.And as it is, it doesn’t appear to me to be some evil instance of murder by corrupt members of the military, but a very tragic accident.
So the passing of the health care bill has sort of sunk my entire week. True, I don't like the bill. But, had the majority of people stood behind it, I might have just rolled my eyes, grumbled, and moved on with my life. The thing is, the majority of people aren't behind it. I've seen polls on news websites (liberal leaning news websites at that, not even Fox). I've seen official, scientific polls. Every last one I've seen shows the majority of Americans are against this bill. Since then, there has been a huge response against it. I know Facebook isn't exactly scientific, but there are two groups on there started about the same time. One is trying to gather supporters of the bill and one is trying to gather opponents. Both are going for 1 million fans. The opponents have about 680,000 fans. The supporters have about 5,000. There are liberals and conservatives against it, for many different reasons. Why do the politicians in Washington think it's acceptable to pass a bill against the will of the American people?
Recently, I found a note from someone in another country congratulating America on their new health care system and saying, basically, "You may not like it now, but in a year you'll love it!" How condescending. How would they feel if they passed laws making guns available in their country, even though 60% of their population was against it, and I said, "Now you're just like us, so you're better! You may not like it now, but it will be good for you." It's as if you're talking to an errant child who is throwing a tantrum because you took a broken toy away from them. Do they care that most Americans don't want this bill? Do they know that it isn't the same as the system they have anyway? Do they know that it won't go into effect until 2014 (so how could we be happy about it a year from now?)? Do they know that it still isn't ironed out yet because Obama would rather pass a flawed bill than try to put together a well-thought bill and take the chance that it will fail? Do they ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, the reason we're angry over here is not because we're childish racists who oppose anything Obama supports, but because we have valid arguments against the bill?
Anyway, here are some of my thoughts on the passage of the bill.
1. After it passed, one of the first comments I heard in favor of it was, "Have you noticed that only the people who have always had insurance oppose it?" I'm proof that's not true. Granted, at the moment I have a full time job. When I accepted that job, I became eligible for insurance that is wonderfully, thankfully very affordable. However, one year ago I was working part-time in retail. My salary for the year was barely above the poverty level. There was cheap insurance available through the company I worked for, but I couldn't afford it. I was living as frugally as I could, and there were still months I couldn't pay my rent. Without my parents (whom I owe money now . . . ), I would have been in a really tough situation. I wasn't really worried about insurance. Partly because I'm a healthy person and don't ever need to make trips to the doctor. Partly because I knew if I ever really needed care, there are free clinics to go to, or I could go to the emergency room and be admitted. Yes, I would have had debts to pay off, but I live in America. We're used to those. Student loans, car payments, whatever. I knew then, and I know now, what the health care bill would have done to me in that situation. Here's a hint: It wouldn't have been good. People seem to think that this will just make health care free, and that isn't the case. The Washington Post has a site where you can put in your information (salary, etc.) and find out what the health care bill will mean for your situation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/?hpid=topnews It doesn't do much to me now. However, when I put in my salary and information from when I was uninsured, it isn't a pretty story. Yes, I get tax credits to make my insurance cheaper, but, as they say, you can't get blood out of a turnip. On the other hand, under the new system, it's either get insurance or pay $700-$2,000 in fines. So I would either have to choose between a roof over my head or paying fines? Or perhaps I could give up my meager diet of grilled cheese sandwiches? They say this bill is to help people who can't afford insurance. It looks more like a weight on their shoulders to me.
2. Aside from the fact that most people don't support the bill, I have major problems with the way Obama gathered votes. Wavering politicians were offered special deals for their states and suddenly decided reform was the way to go. He wasn't even shy about it. Maybe that's why the people in support of the bill don't seem to care. Maybe they figure, "Hey, if he didn't do it under the table, it must be an acceptable practice." Come on. If Bush had done that, people would have screamed bloody murder.
3. People keep saying, "You don't even know what's in it! You just don't like it because you're ignorant!" Um, do you think you're any smarter than the opponents, just because you support it? I may not know everything about it, but I try to stay informed and to check out claims to see if they're bogus. The thing is, no one really knows what's in it. It's massive. It's not even really finished. Plus Obama has been known to be less than truthful about the content of the bill. I know it's vastly unpopular to cast doubt on the commander in chief, but I'm not going to close my eyes either. While addressing Congress once, he stood in front of all of those men and women and said, "No federal dollars will be used to fund abortion." However, at that time, even the fact check website said that, yes, some abortions would be funded with federal dollars. Perhaps Obama was confused about the definition of the word "no." Oh, wait. Judging by his passage of a bill that the majority of American's said "No!" to, and taking into account his "I have heard your voices and this is a victory for you!" sort of speech, this may well be the case.
4. I get really sick of seeing people say things like, "Do you want to tell that 5 year old boy who is dying of cancer because he can't get insurance that you would rather see him die than have this bill passed?!" Look, meaningless emotional arguments are great and all, but can we just knock it off? Surprising as it may seem, just because I'm a conservative doesn't mean I take joy in seeing children die needlessly. People seem to forget a few things. The people who are against this bill are not against health care reform in general. Everyone agrees that something needs to be done. (And I can't think of anyone who is in favor of people being denied because of pre-existing conditions.) For various reasons, most of us agree that this isn't the something we want. It seems to me that there are two sides. The Democrats seem to be in favor of giving people tax credits to make it easier for them to get insurance, and fining the hell out of them to make sure they do what they're supposed to. The Republicans (yes, they DO have ideas on reform and they have tried to present their ideas . . . and been denied) want to try things like tort reform and making insurance available across state lines. Maybe I'm just biased, but it seems to me the Democrats are trying to fix the symptoms and the Republicans are trying to cure the disease. I lean toward the Republican point of view, personally. But I also think if they would work together and compromise, some great things could happen. However, when those in favor of the bill refuse to even hear alternatives, and when they refuse to start over when the American people say, "No, we don't like what you're doing," that makes it a little difficult. In any case, this is a big issue. You can't just throw a bill together, discover that it has flaws and that no one is happy with it, and say, "It's now or never. We'll fix it later. Vote for my bill and I'll give your state money. Who cares what the citizens think? They'll get used to it." I would much rather see them carefully come up with a plan that will work. I would rather see them inform the American people and earn their support, rather than forcing it down our throats and saying, "You'll get used to it." The founding fathers waged a war for their freedom from a government that treated them badly. They had a huge distrust of government, and tried their best to design a country that would be protected from its own government. I think they would have a coronary today if they could see the wanton way the president and congress ignore the will of the American people.
I'll stop there. I've ranted enough for one night.
I came home from a great day with friends to find the health care bill had passed and the president is going to sign it on Tuesday. Despite poll after poll after poll showing the majority of the American people do not want this bill. (Is there even one poll out there that shows they do? Because if there is, I haven't seen it.) I feel like I did when I was in school, and all of the students would whine about a homework assignment and the teacher would say, "Yeah, well this is not a democracy." Or like Meg in Hercules when she says, "They think 'no' means 'yes' and 'get lost' means 'take me, I'm yours.'" That has been the sort of stuff we've been getting from Washington for a while. What? So you guys don't want this bill passed? Ha! What gave you the idea your opinion meant anything to us? We know what's best for you, even if you don't.
What's more, apparently, Obama lured some of the democrats over to his side by promising to sign an order stating there would be no federal funding for elective abortions in the bill. Considering this is the same president who stood up in front of Congress and stated there was no federal funding of abortions in the bill when there WAS federal funding of abortions in the bill even according to the fact check website (I'm not calling him a liar, per se, since that is not permitted even if it is true), I'll believe that when I see it.
I'm sort of outraged at the moment. I feel the need to grab a stick and poster board and go picket on a corner somewhere, and I've never picketed anything in my life.
Until today, I had never heard of wearing anything but green on St. Patrick's Day. But I was doing some research (on the Orange Order? or William of Orange?) and I ran across the blog of this protestant talking about all of the reasons they wear orange on St. Patrick's Day. Basically, it boiled down to an argument something like this, "Well, I'm protestant and green is the color that signifies Catholics in the Irish tri-color flag. So I'll wear orange instead of green since I'm not Catholic."
This sort of blew me away. First of all, it's a tradition started by the Orange Order (a group of protestants in Northern Ireland, sort of like the Masons) to protest against Catholics. Personally, they're not a group I would take after. On the whole, they seem to be religiously and culturally insensitive. Their entire purpose and "cultural heritage" revolves around hating Catholics (since we all know hate is what Jesus was all about, right?). Members can be kicked out just for attending Catholic services, meaning weddings and funerals as well.
Second, St. Patrick's Day is a Catholic holiday celebrating a Catholic saint. (On a side note, several of the people in the "We're wearing orange!" camp stated that St. Patrick belongs to everyone because he lived before the Reformation when "Christians were just Christians." Which is completely nonsensical. Before the protestants split away from the Catholic church, everyone was Catholic. Including St. Patrick. Being Christian meant being Catholic. St. Patrick was NOT a protestant.) If a person is so against Catholics that they don't even want to wear green on St. Patrick's Day because it is symbolic of Catholicism . . . then why on earth are they celebrating a Catholic holiday to begin with? (And if protestants don't understand the insult here, I think there's an analogy that will get the point across. Christians get pretty darn annoyed when non-Christians celebrate Christmas but change things to fit to their beliefs, like calling a Christmas tree a "holiday tree." It's the same darn thing. For crying out loud, either celebrate the holiday as is, or go find your own holiday!) If they're so keen on the idea of wearing orange and celebrating their status as a protestant, they can always celebrate July 12 with the Orange Order in Northern Ireland. Though, honestly, I prefer St. Patrick's Day myself. I mean, it's a holiday celebrating a man who brought the teachings of Christ to an entire country. July 12, however, commemorates a battle, and a group of men celebrates by burning the Irish flag on bonfires the night before, marching through opposing neighborhoods, and singing songs about kicking the Pope and killing Catholics. I'd have to say the first holiday sounds a bit more appealing, and also more in line with the teachings of Christ.
I'm not saying only Catholics should celebrate St. Patrick's Day. I'm not Catholic and I celebrate it. And, hey, maybe people in Ireland and Northern Ireland don't really care whether someone wears orange or green. But it gets under my skin to read things like that.
