The problem with Goldstone’s logic in this case is that he puts Hamas and the Israeli military on equal footing and assumes that they are following the rules of combat. Israel is an established democracy with a uniformed, trained, standing army; Hamas is a paramilitary power, considered to be a terrorist organization by six nations, with no legitimate claim to power except for the ammunition in their rifles. The same rules do not apply.

Goldstone seems to think that Hamas has agreed to the rules of conduct. They have not. In fact, the rules of conduct mean nothing to an organization that openly terrorizes neighboring nations by firing rockets into their territory for years and uses its own citizens as human shields.

Many of the claims in this case involve the deaths and injuries of civilians, both Israeli and Palestinian. The problem, however, is that Hamas’ “soldiers” are civilians. They are not uniformed or distinguishable from civilians, for the most part. This makes the lines of battle difficult to discern, if not nonexistent. What also makes things difficult for the Israeli military is that Hamas’ combatants use civilian areas and buildings, as well as civilians themselves, for cover.

Israel’s actions fall under the category of defense in this situation. Hamas is a bully that sucker punches their opponent then runs away, but whenever the bigger, stronger punching bag decides to hit back, everyone cries foul. This is not to say that Israel is entirely innocent or not prone to making mistakes. I am sure that many Israeli soldiers hold prejudices towards Palestinians which may affect their actions, but this does not mean that all of their actions are based upon those prejudices or that they are acting in the wrong.

When your opponent refuses to play by the rules, what do the rules really mean and when is it okay, if ever, to break them yourself? Israel acted in the name of defense to protect its citizens from terrorism. Mistakes were undoubtedly made, but putting a paramilitary organization that fights dirty and encourages its combatants to commit open acts of terrorism on the same level as a legitimately established standing army backed by a democratic government is just plain wrong and an insult to the Israeli people.

The New York Times has been developing a habit of presenting opinion articles as news columns and this fluff piece about the individual faces behind the corporate insurance giants definitely belongs in that category. Perhaps they need to expand their Op-Ed section to include such things instead of sticking them in the News section where they do not belong.

Our intrepid hero, Max Shireman, is depicted as your average American man who enjoys a good beer and watches television with his wife. How could one possibly dislike such a man when he is so like the rest of us? Well, that’s the problem; I don’t dislike Max Shireman. That doesn’t mean, however, that I have to like who he works for or what they do. The article slyly asserts that because I don’t dislike Max, I should therefore not dislike his employer? Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way and I am surprised that the New York Times would insult our collective intelligence by assuming that it does.

The fact remains that what insurance companies have done is made a business, and a thriving business at that, from something that, by all accounts, should be considered a right but has been made into a privilege. This article would have us think that all employees of Humana are out only to help people, rather than trying to turn a profit.

Director of commercial sales training at Humana, Cheryl Tidwell, suggests that she and her kind are getting a bad rap because they are standing up for what they believe in. Apparently those beliefs include “control[ing] costs by controlling utilization and getting people involved in their health care.” Are we really supposed to believe that a company, which posted $28 billion in revenue last year and whose president rakes in an annual salary of $4.8 million, is majorly concerned about anything besides said revenues?

I hate to play the insurance giant villains card that has been done to death but I cannot help playing said card when the numbers are right there to be seen by all. These all American, microbrew-drinking, “Top Chef” watching “angels” have turned health and survival into cash in their pocket. The health insurer’s bad reputation has not come out of nowhere.

Shame on you, New York Times for spoon feeding us this puff piece and insulting our intelligence. Of course Humana’s employees are human beings just like us; anyone who believes otherwise is a radical loon. But when is the last time that we all agreed that humans are inherently good and out to help society and the less fortunate?

Obama continues to assure the folks out there that the public option, which would be an insurance plan backed and funded by the U.S. government, is not the only aspect of his reform. Now while I am sure that is true, since many problems such as lowering costs and rationing care go unsolved still, it is undeniably a very important aspect if his goal is to bring the currently millions of uninsured citizens under his umbrella.

Instead of lowering the apparent importance of the public health option by constantly waffling on the idea, the Obama administration should fully embrace and stand behind their ideas. This not only hurts his position as a whole, but makes he and his constituents look weak in the face of the Republicans opposition.

The Republicans opposition are determined to undermine the Obama administration at every turn. The fact that Obama attempts to conduct his affairs with the cooperation of said opponents only makes it that much easier for them to influence his agenda. The participation and approval of the Republicans is no longer necessary now that they are in the minority. So instead the conservatives on the capital have decided to take advantage of Obama’s cooperative nature.

This is not to say that the Democratic Party should just forgo the opinions of the Republicans and pass the bills they see fit. Rather they should be able to see when the other side is flexing their muscles merely because they can (or maybe because certain politicians are themselves benefactors of the vast profits posted by the insurance giants); merely because they know that the other side would prefer to proceed with their cooperation and not because they have the interest of the American people foremost in their minds. The public option is showing itself to be one of these very situations.

So please, President Obama, I implore you; stick to your convictions and your ideas, grow some nerve and deal with those that oppose you for no other reason that they can, or have nothing else better to do.

Is it better to take a hit in your ratings as a result of enacting a plan that some are afraid of or don’t understand? Or is it better to become less popular by constantly changing ones mind and waffling when it comes to the important issues? This is a question that the President must answer for himself. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if he changed his mind somewhere down the road.

“Tryin’ to have a conversation with you would be like tryin’ to argue with a dining room table.”

Thank you. At long last, thank you.

The woman to whom Barney was speaking, and those like her, do not wish to participate in the debate; they wish only to disrupt it. The woman in question came to the town hall with a poster depicting President Obama with a Charlie Chaplin Hitler mustache penciled in above his lip and asked the Jewish Rep. Frank why he was supporting a “Nazi” health care system. Gee, clearly a constructive and important question that truly deserved answering.

Where this socialist fear still comes from after decades of education and maturation on the subject is beyond the ability of this writer’s sane mind to grasp. But I suppose yelling “Heil Hitler” at representatives trying to educate you and civilly defend their position is a lot easier than reading a damn book or even (and I know this is unbearably difficult) listening.

I almost feel bad writing about this, though I am far from the first to do so, since all this does is give a louder voice to these already decibel shattering yelpers. This debate has clearly shown that whoever yells the loudest is the one who gets heard, the one who gets on television, and the one who gets headlines.

It’s about damn time that someone in a position of power decided to yell back.

To sum up, Texas passed a law that will go into effect this year that requires public schools to offer a course on the Bible, supposedly as literature. Assuming this flimsy pretext to introduce even more religion into our supposed separation of church and state system is even true, the fact that it was made law by the house is the most disturbing of all.

This should not even be an issue at all. Period. The United States government has no place at all in mandating the education of a religious text, regardless of the impact it may have had, and does have, on the country. People go to college or use their own free time to learn about the Bible, whether it be purely as literature or as a religious and moral guide. It does not belong, especially as required by the U.S. government, in public school.

These classes, especially in Texas which boasts a population of over five million Evangelical Protestants, will do nothing more than further present the Bible as a book full of facts and morals, upon which one’s own morals and ethics should be based. That is not to say that the Bible does not have it’s merit to some, but that sort of practice belongs in the private sector.

Religion and churches already get too many breaks and too much leeway from our government. Now the already flimsy and artificial line between church and state is being deliberately crossed under the guise of objective education.

I call shenanigans on that.