Supreme Court Nominee Picked: Political Grandstanding Engaged!

Ladies and gentlemen it's that time again for a new Supreme court justice! We now get to hear the douchebagery from both political parties. We get to hear from the Democrats how diverse and respectful they are to other races and genders. We get to hear from Republicans how awesome Jesus is and how babies rule! As if either party really cared that the most qualified person was nominated for the job.

Democrats made real headway this past election with Hispanic voters. I'm curious if this had anything to do with their decision. When George W. Bush and Republicans nominated their nominee, I wonder if their religious background had anything to do with it. Considering Republicans made big headway with Evangelicals that election. The two parties can care a less about qualifications for the highest court in the land. All the parties care about is their voting constituents and staying in power. The sooner Americans realize that the sooner we can elect new people and new ideas. That requires faith in the American people's intellect which I have no faith in.

Now it's customary for the opposing party to bash the nominee the President has chosen. All stupid Americans care about in this country is Abortion. No one cares about other more important issues that come across the Supreme Court's desk, just abortion. So we will hear from the right that this nominee is a baby killer and then we will hear from the left that they are being sexist/racist. Standard operating procedure here. It's called political grandstanding. Anything that elevates you to be broadcast on the media and keeping your name out there, is a good day. This essentially is what politics is, a popularity contest.

The Supreme Court justices went downhill once abortion became an issue because this is the only issue they were being qualified for. No one cares if they are an expert on constitutional law or if they are fair and not motivated by political gain. I want a supreme court justice who doesn't make up their mind about a decision before they even hear the case. Who would want a justice who prejudges something before even hearing a argument? The American people that's who. This is exactly what the American people want and this is what our politicians offer us. If anyone has seen the movie, "Idiocracy" I believe this is where we are headed. haha

What happened to this belief?

Nowadays the blindfold is taken off and a rock is put on either side of the balance.

The Fine Line of Torture

This is an issue I'm having much conflict about. The reason is because I can partially agree with both sides of the argument. Torture is a very hard issue to balance for me personally because it is a long look at the fine line of what is ethical and what is not. One conclusion I can come up with is that torture is morally wrong but the costs sometimes outweighs the means. The question you have to ask yourself is; Are you willing to sacrifice your morals to protect the innocent? How far is too far?

I am an American citizen and I love my country. I also like to think that my country should always be a moral beacon of light. Always trying to maintain our moral high-ground to the rest of the world. The question is how do you combat an enemy that is pure evil. They are willing to kill innocent people for their cause and give their own life for their cause. Can moral methods really prevail over such hatred and evil? Do we have to fight fire with fire? In the history of the United States we have yet to face an enemy such as this.

When we torture we sacrifice everything we stand for. We also become hypocritical. The Japanese water boarded U.S. troops during World War II. Those who committed those acts were charged for war crimes and executed. So why is the U.S. immune to the same laws that it executes? How does torture make us look to the rest of the world when we are supposed to be the great society of freedom and liberty? When we torture we give up our moral standing, our image, and our laws. There must be other methods of getting information from people without breaking the law. I think we are more than enough technologically advanced to do so. We are sinking to the level of our enemies to defeat them which is exactly what they want. We have to keep our heads and anger intact to prevent terrorist attacks not let our emotions and passions blind us.

Now for those who think torture should be done. Take this issue down to a personal level. I like to use this example; If you knew a loved one would die and someone had information of when and how. Would you use any method possible to save that loved one even if it resorted to something morally wrong. I would suggest to watch the movie "Taken." In the movie the father has a very small window of opportunity to save his daughter from her kidnappers. He killed, tortured, and put morals in the backseat to do so. Saving his daughters life was more important to him than his sense of good. I would have to say that I would do the same thing in that situation. Now if a terrorist had information about bombing a certain location that would kill thousands of innocent people. Are those lives worth sacrificing everything we stand against?

My final conclusion on the subject is a compromise. We research and discover other methods of interrogation. Methods that are far superior to torture without breaking the law. Without rule of law there is chaos. Torture is a doomsday scenario if all other methods fail and there is no other choices that present themselves. Saving innocent lives is more important to me. The only way we prevail in this fight is that we remain morally sound. When we remain the morally sound country our enemies morale will falter. Others will follow our example to help destroy these evil bastards.


On a side note, I know I've taken a very long break but I'm back in action now. More to come.