It seems as if the mankind is hurling towards the destruction at a faster rate each day. People remain willfully ignorant of the things in life that actually threaten our survival: CO2, nuclear proliferation, overpopulation and warfare. Objective analysis is met with derisive, incendiary, criticism and insults. Suddenly experts; scientists, researchers, doctors and the like are subject to insults and paranoia for expressing the profound but nevertheless accurate opinions that things as they are are not really benefiting our survival. Anything besides the merits of their argument becomes fodder for people who make a living off of trashing others.

Nothing offends my sense of fairness more than the fact that morons I’m sorry, I’m trying to be positive, foolish people, become experts on things for which they are either a: totally lacking in knowledge about or b: have a subjective pre-determined opinion on that upholds their livelihood. In other words, asking Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity to give a fair analysis of the mounds of legitimate evidence for global warming caused by CO2 is probably not a good idea if you’re looking for a way of getting towards the truth.

Some day will we look back on ourselves and wonder why we blindly followed foolish people into a ditch? If we have conscience enough to recognize that, I suppose we will really hate ourselves. As water pours into our houses from flooding we’ll say, “Fuck, I shouldn’t have listened to Ann Coulter as a rational scientific source. ”

Will we listen to our voices of reason after the next terrorist attack against us and say, “Shit, Laura Ingraham was only speaking out of her ass when she said we could end terror by having a war with Iraq.”

I kinda hope not, so that way we wont be aware that all the while we were fucking ourselves.

This last weekend, Pope Benedict XVI told Easter celebrants at St. Peter’s Square that the war in Iraq was a futile mess. This isn’t the Pope’s first statement as such. Being a big believer in collective security and global cooperation, Cardinal Ratzinger spoke out against the war two years before he was elevated to become the Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless, Benedict has a rational viewpoint on the war which he has expressed. He has a religious viewpoint on the war which he has expressed as well. But he’s not a Hollywood guy, not a musician or an athlete, so it’s unlikely anyone will turn on him. He represents very conservative interests too. We wont hear Michelle Malkin calling him a moonbat anytime soon, which is the right wing insult it seems to be hurled at anyone with a point lately.

Is Benedict at filthy hippie? I hardly think so. Just because he is Pope doesn’t make his opinion sacrosanct, but let’s face it, this is a very smart man who has spent so much of his life in academia. He has studied the European Union and has a knowledge of how things work in the world, certainly much more than Jonah Goldberg or any other chickenhawk out there. I haven’t heard the hue and cry about Benedict’s opposition to the war yet from Hannity or O’Reilly. They don’t have the guts to take him on. Not that Benedict would have to defend himself, but I’m sure many Catholics would take umbrage with these guys attacking him.

More than four years after the invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation of a formerly sovereign–albeit corrupt and dictatorial nation–the United States has lost more than 3,100 soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors in the conflict. Compared to the numbers of my father and grandfather’s conflicts, Vietnam and World War II respectively, the totals of American dead are much less. In comparison to the the combined combatant deaths of the American Civil War (1861-65), the amount of armed forces personnel is miniscule, less than 1 percent, in fact.

Taken into consideration that the total loss of American life in Iraq, which includes armed forces personnel, private contractors, public officials and journalists,  is relatively low, Americans who support the war tend to write off the sacrafice that is paid in life.

On their syndicated radio programs, both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have used the comparatively low armed forces deaths as a rebuke towards the anti-war movement.

Limbaugh cites scurilous statistics to conclude that an Army soldier is safer in Baghdad than he or she is in the streets of crime-plauged American cities such as Los Angeles and Philadelphia.

Not only does this reasoning cheat Americans of a fair analysis of the War in Iraq, it is also wholly irrelevant. Our is a nation based upon the Enlightenment principles of reason and intellect, not simply emotion. Our joy and tears should take a back seat to the objective measurement of cost and benefit.

Wars are not fought with the consideration of the soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines fighting them, but of the compelling national interest that would motivate Congress to pay to send people into harm’s way–the Constitution in particular.

As long as a war in Iraq is fought the troops will and must be a consideration. The problem is however, that both sides treat armed forces personnel like children and until they stop doing that an objective analysis of the war and its costs will scarcely be considered.