Real Heroes

So many times I read the news and see public figures or large organizations get rewarded for acts that many times are not even as noble as those of many ordinary people. The only reason they get acknowledged is because they are already in the public eye. This nation, and the world as a whole, is full of people who are worthy of praise for their efforts to help humanity. In light of the recent Nobel Peace Prize incident, I am even more excited to see that CNN has found a handful of ordinary people who are doing truly extraordinary things and impacting lives. These are the real heroes...cast YOUR vote today, so we can see an honor go to someone who actually deserves it.

Nobel Peace Prize?

On Friday, October 9, 2009 it was announced that President Obama would receive the Nobel Peace Prize. "For what?" you may ask. I am still trying to figure that one out. The official website of the Nobel Foundation states that Obama was chosen "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

There are numerous things wrong with this pick, and if I chose to go into them all, this would be the never ending blog...I don't think you'd like that very much. However, there is something inherently wrong with the explanation given by the Nobel Foundation. THAT, I will explore. Here we see the word "efforts." No, it's not just "efforts" it is "extraordinary efforts." Let's run with that...

President Obama is considered worthy of receiving such an honor because he has made an extraordinary effort to pursue a desired outcome. Fantastic! So, where are the results? I have yet to see them. Anyone can try to do something with all their might. Does that necessarily make them worthy of an honor? Or better yet, such a prestigious honor as the Nobel Peace Prize? I can make an earnest attempt daily for the rest of my life to shove my foot into a baby shoe, and I will never succeed. Does the mere fact that I tried so relentlessly make me worthy of honor? Actually, it may make me worthy of a mental institution, but that is beside the point.

I know the Peace Prize is a little more debatable that the awards for Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine and Literature...the Peace Prize brings with it much more subjectivity than the others. So, let's just say it is okay to give the honor on account of efforts with no regard to results. I understand that there may be instances in which even I would agree with giving the honor based on efforts alone. So let's put that aside for now.

What's wrong with it now? I'm glad you asked.

I must go back to the beginning, where the Nobel Prize was born. Upon his death in 1896, Alfred Nobel stated in his will that 94% of his assets be liquidated (today's US dollar equivalent of $186 Million) and placed into safe securities. The interest accrued yearly would be "annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." He went on to say the interest is to be divided into five equal parts and awarded as prizes in each of the five areas we see it awarded today.

The key phrase here is "during the preceding year." Although it has been almost a year since President Obama was inaugurated, there are some issues here. We all know that a Presidential Candidate's sole purpose in life for approximately two years prior to Election Day is to campaign; from Election Day to Inauguration Day is time to prepare oneself to step into position as President; and Inauguration Day is January 20th. What we don't all know is that the deadline for Nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize is February 1st. With that being said, President Obama was in fact left to make an extraordinary effort for a whopping 13 days (that includes Inauguration Day and Nomination deadline) before he was nominated. Last time I checked, 13 days was a far cry from a year. Evidently, the Nobel Committee (responsible for evaluating nominees) doesn't have any regard for the rules. I can't say for certain what they have done in the past, but they are definitely going rogue with this one.

Even our own President and recipient of this prestigious prize knows he does not deserve it. In his acceptance speech he stated that he views the decision less as a recognition of his own accomplishments and more as "a call to action."

That leads me to my final thoughts...What's the agenda here? Who is behind this? What do they hope to accomplish?

Michael Jackson's final resting place?

In the days since Michael Jackson's passing, there has been quite a stir about a number of topics. During the post funeral days, I have heard things like, "Where is his body now?" "Where will his final resting place be?"

So this is my two cents...

In November of 2007, the Neverland Ranch was foreclosed on for $23 Million. It has been sitting on the bank's books ever since as they have been unable to sell it. Michael Jackson's body should by buried onsite, and the ranch opened up as a museum. The did it for Elvis...they call it Graceland. Why can't they do it for Michael? That would be a great way for the investors to start making some of their money back. Otherwise, they will not see a dime of it, the building will fall into ruins and they will lose any chance they have to recoup their losses. This will also help stimulate the suffering local economy as it will provide jobs and add to the flow of money.

People will travel from all over the world to see it! I don't know why anyone else hasn't suggested this already...

Prop 8 Retraction

Some time back, I wrote a blog entitled, "Separation of Church and State?" in which I discussed Prop 8. I voted YES on that proposition, which meant that I wanted the constitution of the State of California to be altered to ban same-sex marriages. I went on to describe how it was wrong for me to vote that way, but if I had the opportunity to re-vote, I'd vote the same way.

Within weeks of posting that blog, I truly had a heart change. If I got the chance to re-vote, I would vote NO, for all the reasons I explained in my previous blog.

I wasn't going to post this at first because...well, what is said is said, and I didn't want to seem like a flip-flopper. But as I got to thinking about it more and more, I want my writings to truly reflect who I am and what I believe. I welcome criticism from all angles, but if I am going to be criticized for something I write, it sure as heck better be what I actually believe.

Tomorrow the California Supreme Court will announce its ruling on whether to uphold or invalidate the Proposition. I'm eager to see what happens!

The Final Journey Home of a Fallen Soldier

Take a look at this picture:

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/interactive.aspx?type=ss&launch=30139780,3842331&pg=17

When I saw this picture, my heart sunk and I couldn't believe my eyes. I sat at my desk, fighting tears from rolling down my cheeks. I couldn't remember having ever seen anything like it. The war and the death of our soldiers is a very sensitive subject for me; it has been since March 19, 2003. I had to immediately start searching to figure out why my poor little eyes were seeing this!

It turns out that on February 26, 2009, President Obama lifted the ban on media coverage of fallen soldiers returning home. In 1991 during the Persian Gulf War, President George H. W. Bush placed a ban on media coverage that remained in place until now. Then I remembered seeing airplanes full of flag-covered coffins when I was a little girl. It seemed like the Red, White and Blue of the flags was never ending, there were so many. That must have been right before the ban.

My first reaction to the lifting of the ban was outrage. I don't want to see this every time I open a web page. That is really depressing! What about the families? What are they going to be going through? How can this happen? Why now? Aren't things hard enough right now without all this added to it? And what is the hidden agenda? Then as I thought about it more and more, my thoughts turned to: Have we, as a nation, become desensitized to the death of those out there fighting because it hasn't been in our face? Shouldn't these men and woman have a name and a face and not just a tally mark on our death toll? They are real, but is their death truly real to us? Maybe this is a good thing. By being shielded, have we lost the gripping reality of war? A war we shouldn't be fighting, might I add.

As I started to become more and more okay with the idea of our fallen soldiers being photographed and videotaped as they make their final journey home, one question stilled nagged at me...What about the families? How are they going to make it through the day when every time they open a web page or turn on the TV, there is their son or daughter or husband or cousin or grandchild right there...dead. I can't even take it, and I'm not related to any of them!

As part of the lifting of the ban, President Obama included that soldiers will only be photographed or videotaped with the family's permission, and there is no pressure to allow the coverage. They are the ones who have really suffered the loss, and if they are okay with it, I should be, too, no matter how it makes me feel. And now that I think about it, why shouldn't our soldiers be honored one last time? They deserve it.

The link below is to an article that reviews the ban and the lifting of it. Within it is expressed the views of a few who both support and oppose this decision.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/pentagon.media.war.dead/index.html