Candidate Colbert?

This article was in the NY Times.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/candidate-colbert/

Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report" host is apparently running for president! How crazy is that? Some people are not taking his announcement to run for President seriously. I say let him run. What could it hurt? I mean look at what's going on in our government now. More war, more poverty, still no government healthcare for every citizen. What could one comic running for President ruin? On his show, Stephen Colbert uses satire to let the people know what's going on in politics. Generally, Colbert focuses on what people actually want to hear, and if while running he keeps that up, i believe he might come close to winning. His honest and un-biased opinions are refreshing especially after listening to all the crap that most of the media focuses on in today's world. He succeeds in making millions of Americans pay attention to whats going on in the news by making it entertaining, and if he can make that many people pay attention to Politics, what might he do if elected President.

Colbert is planning on campaigning in South Carolina, and is wanting to get on both Republican and Democrat ballots.

I see nothing wrong with a comedian that is also interested, and willing to take part in politics in running for President. If he can meet all the requirements to gain backing from the Republicans and/or the Democrats, i say ROCK ON COLBERT, BRING THE WITTY-NESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE!

Torture

This article was in the NY Times on October 3rd. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?ex=1349236800&en=7a5c398ea076132f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Torture. Everyone has opinions about torture. Unfortunately, not many people actually think about what would they do if someone had information they desperately wanted. I think there are two sides to the torture issue. This article focuses on the secret torture documents that the Bush administration drafted up. Thats not what i am going to focus on. What was done is done. I find the whole torture debate much more interesting.

Personally, i think the U.S. should be able to torture people who are suspected/known to have ties with terrorists, but The United States has an "official" stand on the treatment of Prisoners during wartime, called the Geneva Conventions. In the Geneva Conventions, it states “To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above mentioned persons: (A) Violence to life and person, In particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture…” Basically it states that even if the enemy tortures you and your people, the minute you catch them, there has to be humane and decent treatment.

What im wondering is where is the fairness in that? People that oppose torture used in the Middle East irritate me. In the year i spent in Iraq, I saw a lot of people die. Acquaintances, fellow soldiers, enemy soldiers and innocent civilians. I have felt that hatred that comes from seeing someone close to you hurt by someone. I have felt the hatred of seeing someone who i didnt even know hurt by someone. There were times where i wished that as a soldier i didnt have to follow that rule, because there are a lot of people who shouldnt have gone free, that shouldnt have been treated so fairly. I bet there were a lot of people who had information that could have been very valuable to the US let go. The people that oppose torture and say that it's inhumane to treat someone that way seem very strong to me. I wonder if it was their best friend, if it was there child, husband or wife, if they would be able to sit there and treat that person that just killed their loved one decently. I'm not sure i could.