Been Laden

The amount of nonsense I've read this week regarding the killing of bin Laden has been nothing short of ridiculous.

I often read message boards of all kinds, and the responses have been typically epic.

My favorite right now is the simple oSama/oBama post by my friend Justin McCully, on his Facebook page. McCully is attempting to make the case the two men are somehow linked. Reading the comments others have made in response are pretty hilarious as well, but again, expected.

Then there's Pittsburgh Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall, and his poorly timed twitter comments, etc. etc.

“What kind of person celebrates death? It’s amazing how people can HATE a man they have never even heard speak. We’ve only heard one side…” In another tweet in response to University of Illinois basketball player Dominique Keller, Mendenhall implied a 9/11 conspiracy, writing: “I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style.”

And of course we can't leave out California's own Rep. Duncan Hunter, who insists in seeing the photos of the dead bin Laden.

Arguing for making the pictures public, Rep. Duncan Hunter said "it's not about a conspiracy theory. It's about closure." Appearing with Weiner Thursday on a network morning show, Hunter said the U.S. "should not curb our First Amendment rights because of what some crazy people might do."

Someone should ask Hunter about how we never see US caskets coming home because of how it will affect our collective psyche. Idiot.

It's all just so ridiculous already, but what could I really expect?

Here are my points.

First off, it's fair to ask the question if "an eye for an eye" is a legitimate government stance. Do we have the right to kill this man, especially if he wasn't armed?

But it's only fair to ask that question if you assume he wasn't armed, and in my opinion, I assume he was armed, even if he wasn't. Huh? Yeah, what I mean is if you're a soldier breaking into this guys compound, and even one single bullet was fired during the process, it's fair to assume he, and anyone else in the compound is armed and dangerous. It's fair to assume someone could be wearing a bomb on their body. It's fair to assume the whole fucking house is rigged!

So shooting bin Laden, or anyone else, is fair game.

It's not an "eye for an eye" situation.

Furthermore, I don't think that was the policy handed down, that killing him makes up for what he has done, or caused. Simply, killing him is beneficial because in no way does capturing, interrogating, or trying him help us in any way. In fact, it causes many more problems, and would be quite costly.

Killing him is, and should have been the policy for countless reasons, all having to do with common sense.

This does not mean that people who ask these questions similar to "is it right?" are wrong for doing so. In fact, it's a question of morality. The Christian Right should be the first group asking that question, and yet in America, they're probably the last to even consider it.

It's called "irony", you fucking dolts. Actually, it's really called "hypocrisy."

I'm not religious. So I say "shoot the motherfucker", and do so with a clear conscience.

But if you are of the mind that "an eye for an eye" is fair public policy, or at least fair in regards to Usama bin Laden (UBL), stretch it out a bit. Look at the numbers.

UBL is deemed responsible for an estimated 3,000 deaths on 9/11. If you want to add to that number consider all of the Coalition Forces deceased in Afghanistan AND Iraq. The number comes to 1,571 US /2,445 Total - Afghanistan, and 4,452 US/4,770 Total - Iraq, bringing the totals to 6,023 US and 7,215 overall.

Blaming UBL, the number is the last: 7,215 US and Coalition forces killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's your "eye for an eye" fatalities total for the Good guys.

On the other side of things we have the number of people killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, both enemies and innocents.

There have been an estimated 8,813 Afghan CIVILIANS killed, and another 8,857 Afghan troops killed.

In Iraq there has been an estimated 30,000 Iraqi Troops killed, and then there's this one. The big one...get ready for it...

An estimated 864,531 CIVILIANS KILLED! Injured brings us close to 2,000,000.

Now the US government supposedly doesn't "tally" the number killed, etc. because as Former General Tommy Franks put it so eloquently, "We're not in the business of counting dead people..." Unless, of course, they're our dead people. Then you hear those numbers every fucking day of your life for the entirety of the Bush Administration.

"On 9/11, Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist organization, killed..." Yeah, heard that once, or twice.

Don't get me wrong because I know some of you morons out there certainly will, but if you're really big on the whole "eye for an eye" thing, I think enough eyes of have been gouged on both sides to satisfy anyone's particular craving.

And with the number of unfortunately deceased in the Arab world around 2,000,000 and the US and Coalition forces around 10,000, I think someone has clearly taken the lead.

I think it's fair for someone with a moral conscience to ask, "Should we be killing" ANYONE.

I have no problem killing bin Laden, and would frankly be more than happy to do it myself. But lets lay off the moral equivalence thing for a bit, and get back to just being idiots...in silence.

NFL Tonight Clueless?

I'm watching this show, and Trey Wingo is discussing with Marcellus Wiley and Mark Schlereth about how "effective are these voluntary workouts" being conducted by certain NFL players, namely Eli Manning, Drew Brees, and their teammates.

Schlereth joked about players doing poorly synchronized jumping jacks, and Wiley made mention of the players "not having insurance." Yet no one seems to mention why they are doing it, and only that it seems pointless to do so.

Wingo finished up with a comment about how Manning said, "we want these practices to be private...I'm not doing interviews until the Lockout is over..."

It's so obvious what's going on here it's almost absurd they don't mention it, or don't actually know.

Manning is pretending to workout, and acting as if they don't want the publicity. Why? Because there's a legal case going on, and the players want to put on the best face possible. The NFLPA lawyers are going to tell a judge, "listen, our guys are working out because they love the game, and they're doing it without insurance, or any protections at all. That's how committed they are to their profession..."

With players like Manning pretending to do it on their own, knowing full well it will be covered, yet not making a stink about the lockout itself, it plays perfectly in favor of the players.

Drew Brees spent his own money for voluntary practices? $50,000? Yeah, because he's so committed, and such a great guy.

No. Because it helps their case.

Which, btw, I'm fine with.

Playoffs?

Members of the US Senate, namely Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, are pushing for a college football playoff system. He's of the belief teams like the University of Utah are unfairly treated because they don't have the same opportunity as other "bigger" schools do to play for the National Championship.

Never mind the fact Utah has joined the Pac-10 (Pac-12), and if they were to go undefeated before bowl season they would certainly be able to play for the title. That's just a fact.

So it makes me wonder why in the world Orrin Hatch still gives a shit.

I've never been one to care about this issue, and even a playoff doesn't rectify the "fairness" issue which is being brought up members of the Justice Department. I mean, lets say 8 teams make a playoff, doesn't teams 9, 10, 11, whatever, still suffer the same injustice in not making the playoffs?

Congress should be paying much less attention to this issue, and if they feel the need to really focus on college sports I'd prefer they push NCAA Schools to start paying athletes on some level.

That's what I'm looking for.

I say this because if you truly care about educating athletes then you should start paying them to stay in school.

As for the playoff issue, there's something else going on here. Someone's campaign is getting a lot of money to talk about this pointless issue. That's my thought.