| Intro | Nov. 30th, 2006 @ 11:59 pm |
|---|
This isn't a forum for debate, nor a message board, nor a sounding board for bullshit propaganda. Rather, this is a blog where I record and share my personal philosophy on life, politics, and current events mostly for my own use and entertainment. If you came here to argue your idiotic talking points and bullshit then do so at your own risk.
Technorati Profile |
| Liberal Libertarian | Nov. 7th, 2006 @ 04:43 am |
|---|
According to a very simple quiz on the The Advocates for Self-Government I fall exactly on the border of two political philosophies... LIBERAL - LIBERTARIAN
LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.
LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.
|
| Vote NO on Republican power | Nov. 7th, 2006 @ 01:52 am |
|---|
Just a little something I wrote to post on the web forum of a local mainstream newspaper:
A very important day has come to us again. This time it may be more important than ever. So much hangs in the balance, and not just in relations to the war against terrorists. The protection of true American freedom, liberty, and justice from institutionalized corruption a the consolidation of power holds in the balance as well.
The Bush Administration, with the help of their Republican colleagues who control the Congress, have undermined some of the most basic civil liberties and human rights and they have done so under the misleading guises of safety, security, and morality. They don't talk in terms of honest debate, they talk in terms of absolutes. They leave no room for democratic processes to work, for representative government to be a reality. Instead they use disinformation, scare tactics, partisanship, gerrymandering, and even cheating to ensure they get reelected, and their agendas become mandates regardless what the majority of the public really thinks of the issue, regardless what civil liberties are trampled in the process, and regardless how un-Constitutional these mandates may be.
Under the Bush Administration we've been lead into an unjustified war based on false pretenses. The war has been waged with incompetent strategies, utilizing tactics that have often been at odds with what military analysts who know their stuff have called for, and even at odds with what our military leaders would themselves choose. Some strategies which have been repeatedly and stubbornly employed simply defy common sense.
The Bush administration has bristled at legitimate questions about the deteriorating situations in Iraq & Afghanistan, they have scoffed at any examinations of their failures in Iraq, and fumed over any suggestions of changing strategies. Not only the Administration but Bush apologists in general have attempted to squelch any dissent, using cheap rhetoric like 'cut & run' and imply the patriotism of those who advocate for a shift in policy should be questioned.
Bush & his Republican cronies talk of a sort of delusional idealism about Iraq which defies the reality of the situation at hand, endlessly repeating that victory is just over some elusive and arbitrary horizon. They call for a strategy of "stay the course", no matter how bad things get on the ground and dismiss anyone who suggests otherwise as cowards and traitors. This 'wait and see' policy has gone on for 3 years now. In that time more soldiers have died since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" than people who died in the destruction of the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center. The saddest, and most disgusting part about this is that it didn't have to be this way. But Bush just won't stop listening to the advice of incompetent officials like Rumsfeld & Cheney.
The truth is we can't just pull out of Iraq. It was obviously a mistake in going, but now that we are there we are invested, and there are grave consequences to how we deal with the debacle it has become. There desperately needs to be a new strategy employed in Iraq & Afghanistan. The one force keeping that from happening thus far can be summed up in one entity — the national Republican party. That's why in this election it is so important to send a message to them, and to remove their ability to hamper genuine progress further.
Regardless the fear-mongering that the Republican propaganda machine has been churning out, if the democrats win there will not be a pull-out of Iraq, but the President will certainly be kept in check from 'staying the course' as he has and intends to continue to do. With a rival party wielding some power & influence the Administration, including Rumsfeld who has the support of next to no one outside of the Administration, will finally be subject to a long absent pressure to make much needed corrections there. With the Republicans, one single party being in charge of every branch of the government, the President has had a blank check to do with as he sees fit. What has he bought with that unchecked power?
That is a very important question every voter needs to ask themselves when they go into that voting booth tomorrow. Like so many who voted for Bush the first or even the second time have come to regret, do you want to regret having bought into the scare tactics, the lies, and the empty promises of Rove's Republicans again?
Please vote tomorrow. No matter how disgusting all of this political campaigning has been, no matter how pitiful most of the choices are it is far too important not to. And when you do vote, don't vote Republican in the upcoming elections other than at the local level. The state & especially the national Republican juggernaut needs to be sent a very clear message of disapproval. And if you want to send the clearest message of all to the GOP itself, vote Democrat. Vote to put a check on the absolute power that one corrupt party currently holds over all of us, or live with the consequences of not having done so.
~ James Feeling like:  hopeful |
| Bigots? | Oct. 21st, 2006 @ 12:43 am |
|---|
I've had the question come up many times in my arguments on gay equality issues as to whether those opposed to something like gay-marriage are bigots. It's a good question. Really I think it depends, in some cases I'd definitely say yes, but in many cases I'd say probably not.
I think the ban on gay-marriage — marriage being defined only as heterosexual unions — is discriminatory, unreasonable, and bigoted. I think some of those who support such legislation truly are bigots, they are full of intolerance, they believe in and promote unfair stereotypes, they hold gays in contempt. Then there are some who are not bigoted, they are just misinformed. They have been frightened by anti-gay propaganda into believing there is this menacing gay agenda that seeks to force immorality on society, on children. Perhaps they haven't known gay people themselves so they don't really know what to expect. They know gays only through the caricatures that society has made of them, and those caricatures are scary, weird — definitely not 'normal'.
Again, these people are not necessarily bigots, just uninformed to certain truths about how gays live and what the majority of them hope to achieve in their lives. I think the disconnect comes in when people who believe marriage is under assault and needs to be protected don't realize that this sort of thinking would have to establish homosexuals as tainted, perverted, immoral, dangerous in some way. Those who believe such things are bigots but those who don't aren't so much. The problem is, even though they may not believe that homosexuals are all dysfunctional & perverse, the ideology they support — marriage must be heterosexually exclusive — does promote that very intolerant & hateful notion.
I don't think a person can support tolerance of gays, or notions of gay equality and also support a ban on gay-marriage. The two are completely incompatible. Those who claim to be supportive of gays but also support anti-gay marriage legislation are giving a hollow support to homosexuals and gay-equality in general.Feeling like:  okay |
| The Death of Liberty | Oct. 17th, 2006 @ 07:06 pm |
|---|
~{crickets}~
That is the sound of the death of Liberty in this country, and the collective lack of concern about it from those who may very well suffer because of it.
Today our Dictator In Chief signed into law the 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' which among other things allows, at the discretion of the President or the Secretary of Defense, for those deemed an "unlawful enemy combatant" to be detained on mere suspicion, held indefinitely without charge, to be tortured, and prosecuted by a military tribunal that can use hearsay evidence or confessions gained through coercion, evidence of which the defense for the accused may have limited or no access to whatsoever to refute such claims. The penalty for being found guilty — execution by firing squad.
Today marks the end of the writ of Habeas Corpus.
Oh, and that's not just my opinion, this is from the likes of the ACLU, Amnesty International, and Jonathan Turley, Professor of Constitutional Law at George Washington University: "People have no idea how significant this is. Really a time of shame this is for the American system. The strange thing is that we have become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. The Congress just gave the President despotic powers and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to Dancing With the Stars. It's otherworldly..People clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I'm not too sure we're gonna change back anytime soon."
Keith Olbermann asks Professor Turley of this Act, "Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity & honesty of the President of the United States?" The Professor replies "It does."
This is indeed such a dark day in this country. One that will be looked upon for generations. And hopefully there will be those who can and will generations from now ask why such a thing happened, and why the hell we let it happen; why we didn't do more to take a stand against it.
No one yet knows the ramifications of this law. We don't know how far reaching it will be, nor who of us will be prosecuted by it, or some extension of it should it be declared not to apply to citizens. Undoubtedly, for masses of U.S. citizens to be detained by this law would not come on a whim. Well, per se. It would likely come after some sort of terrorist event, or plot. After such an event the level of hysteria would be such that the President could decide that those who have been critics of his or his policies has in some way aided these 'enemies of the state' and therefore are guilty of treason. Any one of us could find ourselves disappearing in the middle of the night and perhaps never being seen in the eyes of the public again, to be tortured and detained for years, ultimately executed for our 'crimes' against the State. Since it is veritably inevitable that such an event will take place, just by the government's own statistics of fear, it seems only a matter of time before American citizens find themselves being held without the protections our Constitution has provided us for over 200 years.
I must admit that I have come to expect this sort of thing from our evil Dictator In Chief, it fits the same agenda he's had since he came to office, but what disappoints me is how our Congress passed this unAmerican legislation, and worse yet how little Americans seem bothered by it.
I knew when Bush took office, and then the Republicans won the Congress, and we had power in the Supreme Court shift to the Republicans that so many of the values of this country would be swept aside. I knew with absolute power the Republicans would abuse it in ways that America could be truly ashamed of, and they didn't prove me wrong. I wish they would have. This just confirms why in spite of the fact that I so strongly disapprove of the Democrats, they will be gaining my vote often in the upcoming elections, just so that I can vote against the Republicans. For this, among so many other reasons, I am unlikely to vote Republican ever again.
Some food for thought:
Why the Military Commissions Act Is "Flagrantly Unconstitutional"
Portion of Countdown with Keith Olbermann
>>added from October 18th program
Special Comment from Keith Olbermann
Feeling like:  disappointed |
| This is why Christian Fundies shouldn't be allowed to vote... | Oct. 12th, 2006 @ 06:21 am |
|---|
These are the sort of batshit crazy people that got Bush elected... twice!
My god, these poor children. Can you imagine, this crazy ass woman has the power to vote?
Hilarious portion of an episode of MomSwap
Just when you thought we only had brainwashed Islamic children to worry about in the next 10-20 years, now we have Christian jihadist children too!? This next generation is going to be a fun one...
Ho-ly shit! They think they are the key generation to Jesus coming back? In other words they're going to wage their own little 'holy war' so that Jesus can come and kick Muslim ass. That's reassuring... You just gotta love the kid that says, "at 5 I got saved, because I just wanted more of life"? He wanted more out of life at 5?! Either he's parroting the kind of mumbo jumbo these people have been rambling on about all his life, or they put some freaky shit in this kid's kool-aid.
"If the Evangelicals vote, they determine the election." — {scary Christian guy from Jesus Camp}
Islamofascists, Christofascists... Crazy ass religious people are going to kill us all!
News program about Jeezuz Camp
"We're kinda being trained to be warriors, only in a much funner way." — {little girl from Jesus Camp movie}
Because they're on the side of good, of course... And waging war on Muslims, pagans, liberals, and queers is FUN!
So basically, they're teaching these kids that 'you're either with us or you're against us...'? Now where have I heard that before? Hmmm... Well anyway, I couldn't agree more. It really is us vs. them because there really is no sitting down at the table and discussing our differences is there? Because they won't allow a world in which those of us who are not 'with them' to live our own goddamn lives. Fine. We will win, and they will lose and religion will be used to persecute, indoctrinate, and destroy no more... Well, at least not for a long time.
Now just in case you're wondering how "fun" all this will be and kinda what it will look like after these crazy fuckers take over...A video game whose premise is 'convert or die'
At least there is some common sense left somewhere...
Feeling like:  freaked out |
| Practice what you preach? | Oct. 8th, 2006 @ 05:19 pm |
|---|
In observing what has transpired over the last week — 5 Amish children murdered at a rural school by a nutcase with a gun, an enormous amount of love & compassion poured out to both community and the man who forever changed so many lives — I have a newfound respect for the Amish and thereby some Christians.
1. The Amish are incredibly devout. They are very conservative about their beliefs and their lifestyles. Much more so than Evangelican Christians. But unlike fundamentalist Christians they actually practice what they preach to an admirable degree.
2. In spite of their beliefs they keep to themselves. They don't expect others to conform, or even agree. They don't proselityze, they don't lobby to change laws, they don't even run for public office. They keep to themselves in their own communities and make no attempts to change the communities around them.
3. They have such a respect for life and mercy that they do not wish ill upon those who wrong them, even to such heinous degrees as what we recently saw in this school shooting which lead to the murder of 5 children. Not only do they not seek revenge upon those who transgress against them, in fact, they readily forgive them. What's more, they asked that those who wish to raise money for them because of this tragedy give to the killer's family, he has 3 children. Furthermore, several dozen of them attended the killer's funeral.
All this leads me to ask: Why are Republicans, moreover most Christians in general incapable of this level of compassion, mercy, and tolerance? Conservative Christians who preach so loudly and take such an active role in furthering their beliefs and agendas could really take a lesson from these people. These busy-bodies have lots of ideas as to how others should live their lives, and declaring for all of us what is right and wrong, sin and virtue. Maybe if they spent even half that time worrying about what they are doing in their own lives, including living tolerantly alongside others who disagree with their perspectives on life, our society would be a much happier and healthier place to live.
Another thing that I deeply respect about the Amish is something ALL of us could learn a serious lesson from. They don't just cut all technology out of their lives, they simply have no use for technologies which they feel will not benefit their community. They don't just whine about the evils of TV programs; they choose not to have TVs. They try hard to not let the world around them change them, no matter how confusing or scary it may be. They don't overreact to tragedies, they deal with them. Whereas the majority of citizens, especially in the U.S. would use this tragedy as a justification for harsher penalties, more prisons, more cops, more security guards in schools, metal detectors, school uniforms, and zero tolerance policies, the Amish claim that they are not going to let this change them. They are not going to convert their schools to fortresses. While here in paranoid America, some are already seriously debating whether we should allow teachers to carry guns at school.
The lesson to be learned here is that horrible things can and unfortunately do happen, and they always will. What are we going to do about it? Address the core issues, or just beef up security? It is important not to let tragedies change us and rob us of what made us happy & good. We don't need a contingency plan to deal with every possible tragedy. We lose quality of life when we do. It is better to live openly, as we did before rather than close ourselves off.
For being ultra-conservative religious folk, the Amish really do practice what they preach and they live & let live. Why do other Christians have such a hard time doing this? And why can't the rest of us do it as well?
Feeling like:  contemplative |
| Republican tactics | Oct. 6th, 2006 @ 10:41 am |
|---|
I found this mock quote written by some jackass on a newspaper forum: “Foley will have to run as a Democrat if he wants to continue in elected office. We Democrats not only tolerate but take "pride" in perverted sexual behaviour.
Sincerely,
Barney Frank”
And my response:
What a typically Republican tactic. You are trying to draw parallels that do not equate. Rather than own up to the fact it was a Republican who was implicated in this underage sex scandal you find it easier to lob personal attacks as well as to criticize the other party for somehow being worse. You infer that Democrats are somehow implicated with the immoral actions of this Republican when they’re not even remotely involved in this. It’s a rather pathetic attempt at misdirection.
Bush uses this sort of logical fallacy a lot. He will claim that if you support or don't support something then you must be an advocate or critic of something far more extreme. I guess he expects people to be too ignorant to notice, or too careless to care. Obviously quite a few people really are ignorant & careless enough to fall for it.
Case in point, Bush claims that those of us who oppose his warrantless eavesdropping program believe the government shouldn’t listen in on terrorist’s phone calls. It’s not only deceptive and misrepresentative, it’s actually a lie. The truth is most of us have no problems with the authorities listening in when they have a legitimate reason, we simply believe our government should have to follow due process and get legal authorization from an independent body {FISA court} when they seek to eavesdrop phone calls. This ensures that there is a legitimate justification for the spying, and that there is always some degree of independent oversight to prevent possible abuses of this law enforcement tool by officials. Bush & others that support his agendas completely and deliberately miss this point, and they constantly misrepresent it hoping that most people will fall for it. Far too many do.
Another piece of deception is a line I recently heard in a campaign ad, ‘Senator so & so voted against the wiretapping program. He believes that if the authorities discovered a terrorist attack was imminent they should have to wait for the paper-work to come back before they can listen in and stop the attack.’
This is total BS. In actuality, the FISA program has always allowed the authorities to spy on anyone they choose and they have up to 3 days to make their case, in private, to the board which can retroactively issue a warrant making it legal. I believe that has now been extended to a week or perhaps more. By the way, the board almost never turns them down. So the authorities have always had the capability to spy, gather information, and prevent attacks. That has never been in question. They do not need any more convenience than that to do their job, any claims otherwise by Bush & Co. is completely bogus. They are motivated by other endeavors just as are those who now seek to criticize Democrats.
Feeling like: amused |
| Observations of a sex scandal | Oct. 3rd, 2006 @ 03:20 pm |
|---|
In the scandal involving Florida Representative Mark Foley and his sending seductive and sexually explicit instant messages to underage congressional pages, things are lining up mostly as I would expect. Well, with a few exceptions.
( Read more... )Feeling like:  disgusted |
| Santorum's war on privacy, among other things | Sep. 28th, 2006 @ 10:54 pm |
|---|
I found some excerpts from an interview back in '03 with Pennsylvnia Senator Rick Santorum and a reporter from the Associated Press. It was the sort of outlandish intolerance and support of un-American ethics that many of us have come to expect from Ricky Santorum. I have added my own feelings on what the opportunistic hateful bigot had to say. While this is old news, nonetheless, with the upcoming election I think it's important to remember what the mindset is of those who are running for office today.
( the interview )
As of September 22, the Rasmussen Reports survey indicates that Santorum is at 39% to Bob Casey Jr.'s 49%. I don't know much about Casey, all I know is that Santorum is a miserable choice. In fact, he's not worthy of being a choice. He never should have got beyond thinking about running. I don't know how such a bigoted man who holds such basic American principles in such contempt could ever, ever be nominated, let alone elected of such a high position as Senator.
I can't believe the people of Pennsylvania have elected this bigoted bafoon before. I can only hope they are not stupid enough to do it again.Feeling like:  disgusted |
| A little conspiracy & a lot of irony... | Sep. 25th, 2006 @ 11:39 pm |
|---|
A little conspiracy
The Department of Homeland Security has decided to relax their rules a bit. Well, sorta. They recently cracked down on what items passengers could bring as carry-on baggage after British authorities thwarted an alleged plot to blow up some 10 jet airliners traveling to America using explosives hidden in carry-on luggage as innocuous items. DHS decided no more liquids would be allowed, no soda or water, no hair products, no toothpaste or mouthwash, not even lip balm. Doesn't matter if its sealed — never been opened. This was yet another example of knee-jerk reaction to attempts at terrorizing the masses. Just like that failed attempt of Richard Reid to blow up his shoe on a flight, and now passengers are required to remove their shoes while being screened by security, now we are expected to do without even basic hygiene aids because we might have an explosive liquid stashed in our deodorant. Now they say you can bring such items on board, well no more than 3oz., and only as many items that will fit into a 1 quart plastic bag. For beverages you can purchase them at the airport in secured areas after you've been screened. By the way, I KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN! I only regret now that I didn't write about that just so I could now say, 'I TOLD YOU SO!'.
To me, that is where the conspiracy of this comes in. Seriously, how convenient is that? Most people want to take certain things with them, especially on long flights. So much so that if they can bring them on they most certainly will. And naturally, since we can't bring these things with us we have no recourse but to buy them at the friendly airport store, that or we could always do without... Conspiracy? Maybe. Maybe it's just coincidental. But it is most definitely a very fucking convenient one.
I will go ahead and make a prediction that many of these items sold in the airport store will be double what they would cost in a regular store. Furthermore, I wonder who gets the money? Maybe this is an attempt to offset the losses from having to price their tickets dirt-cheap after a terrorist scare...
Of course this really doesn't effect me much as I've never flown, mostly because I've never really needed to in the past. With all this security BULLSHIT, scheming, and soon to come price gouging, I can safely say that I will never have to in the future either...
A lot of irony
Viet Dinh is a high-powered lawyer representing multi-millionaire Tom Perkins {former director of Hewlett Packard} in his case to force the company to disclose his reason for resigning. That reason was that he was really pissed off when he found out HP Chairman Patricia Dunn hired private investigators which data mined the Board of Directors personal phone records using a tactic called 'pre-texting'. According to Attorney General Bill Lockyer this tactic is illegal. It damn sure should be and I hope they nail the private spies who used this big brother tactic to the wall. They're nothing more than a bunch of goons.
Now for the irony of all this. Perkin's lawyer, Viet Dinh, is none other than the lawyer which helped the Bush administration draft the Patriot Act. That's right. The guy who once used his legal knowledge to design laws which gave the government authority to spy on Americans in Orwellian fashion now represents a man who was unethically and illegally spied upon by his own company. I think that effectively makes this former Bushite a fucking hypocrite!
I also find it funny the hissy fit the rich & powerful get into when their own corporations spy on them, yet they go to such lengths to support efforts in making it legal for those same corporations to spy on its lesser employees, and worse still for our government to spy on all of us. Shameful...Feeling like: amused |
| Savegry in St. Louis | Sep. 24th, 2006 @ 06:05 pm |
|---|
In East St. Louis the police found the dead bodies of three young children that had been missing since Thursday. It appears that a savage animal, by the name of Tiffany Hall, murdered them, as well as their mother and her fetus. The children were found in their mother's apartment —which had been previously searched by the police— in a washing machine and dryer. According to the coroner they had been drowned.
Among the things I'm most curious about, outside the obvious question of why, I wonder how long it will take before some snake of a lawyer is claiming the murderer is in some ridiculous way a 'victim of the system'. Blaming such things as a troubled or violent past, growing up in the pervasive poverty of the area, not having a mommy or a daddy. If it's anything like the many other heinous cases of grotesque violence in this country, soon lawyers, shrinks, and bleeding hearts will be laying the groundwork for a 'not guilty by reason of insanity' plea, citing depression, bad medication, or some bullshit syndrome that an overpaid quack has diagnosed her with. I give it 3 days, tops.
What I also really want to know is why the cops didn't look around a little closer when they went to the house the previous time? If you're looking for missing kids, especially after their mother had been carved up and her fetus ripped out of her, why wouldn't you do a thorough search for them? Especially in their own fucking house?
Deputy St. Clair Co. coroner Ace Hart claimed to understand how the investigators might have missed the children on their previous search of the Hall apartment, saying, "Who would be looking in the washer and dryer?" How about the cops, you incompetent moron! Does common sense not enter into this at all? Do they not have professional procedures they follow? For instance, if you're searching for missing children that could very likely be dead you look every where you can... If this is the kind of law enforcement we have in this great country of ours, god help us!
It is bungles like this that help one better understand why some murder investigations remain unsolved, like the JonBenet Ramsey case...Feeling like: disgusted |
| Torture & Redefining Justice | Sep. 16th, 2006 @ 01:13 pm |
|---|
So the President doesn't want military and CIA operatives to be open to prosecution for war crimes & human rights violations... Is this not an even more clear warning sign as to the authoritarian direction Bush & Co. have been trying to lead this country since 9/11? We've had the Patriot Act, warrantless domestic eavesdropping, randomly data mining phone call information of innocent Americans, tracking financial records at home and abroad on little if any suspicions, accusations of treason when the press exposes non-classified information about government programs whose constitutionality are highly questionable, or at least debatable, secret prisons and detention centers in other countries, and dissent is demonized as traitorous, anti-war folks are called appeasers, concerns of torture is akin to terrorist sympathy, and so forth. And now on top of everything else the Administration wants to change Article III of the Geneva Conventions.
( Read more... )
Feeling like:  accomplished |
| Insensitivity or hypersensitivity? | Sep. 15th, 2006 @ 03:44 pm |
|---|
Remarks by Pope Prompt Muslim Outrage, Protests
So the Pope made some so-called anti-Islamic statements at a mass in Germany. I don't know exactly what he said, but what I have seen of it didn't seem particularly offensive. I'd have to agree with him if he condemned the notions of 'holy war' and 'jihad', saying, "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul," and apparently agreeing with some of the sentiments of 14th century Emperor Manuel II Paleologos whom he quoted several times saying "the Emperor goes to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable." Damn right it's unreasonable!
Now just why a Pope needs to condemn the actions of certain Muslims to a crowd of Christians I don't understand. It seems a very unwise thing to do. It's bound to stir up controversy, especially with many in the Muslim community who are quite thin-skinned when it comes to their beliefs. This was made so abundantly clear with the outrage, riots, and calls for violence and curtailing freedom of speech and press in the wake of the Danish cartoons portraying the Prophet Mohammed.
The thing that really stands out about all this is the reaction his remarks are getting from several high level authorities in the Muslim world. They are making such claims that the whole Muslim world is offended by this. Nice of them to speak for everyone. And suggesting that Pope Benedict rid himself of feelings of hate. It sounds like they're actually trying to stir up public outrage.
While I definitely don't like or trust the guy for many reasons, like the fact that he's very anti-homosexual and I think he was more pro-Nazi than he admits. I never have bought the argument that he was a hapless victim who was forced to join the Nazi Youth Core since I am aware that during the early years of the Nazi regime — when Ratzinger around age 14 became one of Hitler's youth — German boys were intimidated into joining the Nazi Youth corps but it was not required that they join. Perhaps he was brainwashed like most Germans at the time and has later seen the error of their hateful worldview. Maybe he doesn't hold Jews in contempt anymore but has shifted to Muslims. Who knows? Who fucking cares? But I think the {over}reaction he is getting is such an obvious example of the typical demagoguery of these times. If you say something that could be construed as insensitive toward a group of people then you are considered to be 'filled with hate'. Oh the rhetoric!
I know Ratzinger is intolerant of homosexuality and has a lot of negative perceptions about us and our 'lifestyle' in general, but I also seriously doubt that he hates us explicitly.
Seriously, the only way I can sum all of this up is to say: freaking get over it people...
Feeling like:  exhausted |
| Libelous | Sep. 15th, 2006 @ 11:33 am |
|---|
The Missouri Supreme Court is taking up the issue of the constitutionality of the sex offender registry. The case was brought to the court by two people who had been put on the registry as suspected abusers. They have not been found guilty of any sex crimes.
Judge Ronnie White asked, "Shouldn't they have the right to have witnesses subpoenaed, take evidence?" He goes on to say, "What good does it do to get it after your name is on the list?" Not only that, but I'm wondering just what the fuck is the hurry? Why can't people be added to a registry after they have in fact been proven guilty?
Chief Justice Michael Wolff said, "I'm not going to hire this person if she's on the registry. This certainly affects these people's employability." It most certainly does!
Assistant attorney general Joel Anderson argues, "This issue is, does the law itself impose that burden?" He further argues, "It's not their right to earn a living."
So if the state acts in ways that leads to people being denied work they have no recourse? The state puts you on what amounts to a blacklist without any due process and you're just fucked? Not a goddamn thing you can do except have your name removed later... Nice argument, fascist.
Just because the law doesn't directly deny these people employment doesn't make it fair or legal to put them on a list of persons with past dangerous criminal behavior. The fact that the law itself doesn't deny them employment is not a valid argument. Try using that in a slander case. If you falsely accuse someone of committing a crime you can in fact be held libel financially for any damages they incur.
As far as I'm concerned this is nothing less than libel. The State should not be in the business of blacklisting people who have not been proven guilty. Newspapers can report on pending court cases and allegations, but they have to be very careful how they describe the accused. It's one thing to have an article mentioning a person's name as a possible connection to a crime, it's another thing entirely to presume their guilt if it has not been legally established. People can face public humiliation for having their name in the paper in connection with a scandal, but at least it is an allegation. Furthermore, if the authorities have charged someone or claim they fall under suspicion and the alleged is found to be innocent they might be able to file suit for false arrest or prosecution. If no charges have been formally made but the paper characterizes them as guilty then the paper could be sued for libel.
When your name is on a registry of sex offenders it is implicated that you are guilty of a sex crime. In this case the state is characterizing these people as guilty of a heinous crime and dangerous to children even though they have not been found guilty or accountable. The state has a responsibility as well as anyone else not to make false accusations about people or willfully contribute to their public humiliation on false information. I hope the state gets burned on this and the law which allows a board of inquiry to put whomever it deems fit on a public list as a 'sex offender' is overturned.
|
| A little integrity in politics for a change | Sep. 14th, 2006 @ 12:18 pm |
|---|
I really don't have a problem with Senator Lincoln Chafee winning the Republican primary in Rhode Island this week. Yes, yes, I know that Bush & the Republican party wanted him to win as he is the only that stood a chance against former State Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse. In spite of this and the fact that now the Democrats may not win that particular seat in the Senate, the way I see it if a Republican is going to win a seat then I want that Senator to be as far from Bush and the right-wing agenda as possible. Senator Chafee's voting record clearly shows that he is.
I have a lot of respect for what Senator Chaffey said during his victory celebration, "Polarization, partisanship and strict party discipline must not prevail over the spirit of compromise that is so essential to our American democracy." We need a lot more of that in American politics these days. That's what it's supposed to be about, working together, compromising, and representing the will of the people not party agendas and political ideologies. We have strayed so far off course and clearly the GOP aims to keep it that way.
Bush and his supporters don't like the guy, of course, because he hasn't held up their {neo}conservative agendas, but I happen to think the senator may actually have some integrity. Not only do I agree with his stand on many issues — voting against the unilateral Iraq war, against appointing conservative Supreme Court Justice Alito, against Bush's tax cuts for the rich, against the discriminatory constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and not voting for Bush Jr. in the 2004 Presidential election — but I think he should be applauded for having convictions and doing his job. Apparently it hasn't occurred to the goose-stepping Republicans who expect compliance from their party members, but it seems quite obvious that Chafee voted as he did not only because he's a moderate Republican, but because he, as a duly elected representative, was upholding the values of his constituents who happen to be mostly moderate or even left-leaning. Voting their will and disregarding the wants of the national party is precisely what he is supposed to do!
Ah, but then what do national Republicans know about integrity anyway?
|
| Well deserved blame isn't a game | Sep. 14th, 2006 @ 11:50 am |
|---|
Read Cal Thomas' amusing article 'Blame game won't win war'.
Cal suggests there is enough red meat to support conclusions that Presidents Bush and Clinton not only perpetrated massive disservices to this country but their behavior was criminally negligent. We are prompted by Cal to make a selection, Clinton or Bush, which one screwed the country. I realize that they both may have failed their most principle roles as Presidents, but as for which argument I find the most credible I think I'll have to pick the report by the U.S. Senate Committee on Intelligence {which was more damning to Bush} over the conspiracy depicted in an ABC docu-drama {which was more damning to Clinton}. I don't know about Cal, but I tend to put a little more confidence in official government reports than docu-dramas on primetime television. Of course I also don't believe in the Biblical creation story as fact, nor that an embryonic stem-cell is a human being so...
As for this FDR conspiracy theory. If what Robert Stinnett alleges and Cal seemingly endorses is actually true then that would make FDR responsible for the most treacherous act in American Presidential history. Second only perhaps to, if another conspiracy theory is correct, Bush having foreknowledge of 9/11 and deliberately not preventing it. I don't like how matter-of-fact this notion is being presented here but if it as so apparent as alleged, then it needs to be given major media coverage, we need to make this knowledge available to the general public, it needs to be taught in schools, and FDR should be officially labeled the worst traitor in American history.
The fact that none of this has happened, in fact I've never heard anyone debate or suggest this theory of treachery says to me that the evidence Mr. Stinnett has gathered and Cal has passed on as if it is just one of those inconvenient little truths about government, is not only weak but most accurately little more than a pile of anti-Democrat conspiracy theory bullshit.
Regardless how fictional this claim is, the important point here is that we shouldn't keep silent when our leaders are criminally negligent. War or no war. That holds true whether we're talking about a Democrat like FDR or Clinton, or a Republican like Bush.
In closing Cal tries, in vain, to get us to take the heat off his pal Bush suggesting that, "We can't afford to play the blame game now that we are in these wars."
I beg to differ. We most certainly can. See we didn't just stumble into these wars or have them thrust upon us. One of those wars, Iraq, was the brainchild of Bush & Co. There are many of us who vehemently opposed going into that war, and there is no doubt who is responsible for sending us into it so we can most certainly "play the blame game". And not only for going to war unjustly in Iraq, but for the disastrous way it has been waged since then.
I think Cal hurt the case for Bush far more than he helped it. Though he tends to hurt the Neoconservative/Christian Fundamentalist agenda every time he opens his mouth.
Feeling like: good |
| Oy vey, the hypocrisy! | Sep. 13th, 2006 @ 12:48 pm |
|---|
Palestinian Economy on Verge of Collapse
I find it so ironic that as the Israelis have been whinning about their Islamic neighbors refusing to recognize the Jewish state, Israel continues to prevent the Palestianians from having a state of their own. I find it even more ironic that as the Israelis have for years decried Muslims around the region who claim to want to 'wipe Israel off the map' that in fact it is Israel, with the most advanced military and intelligence aperatus in the region, who are starving the economy of the Palestinian people and repeatedly destroying their infrastructure militarily and otherwise. Oy vey, the hypocrisy!
Feeling like:  almost amused |
| The Value of Freedom; Meritocracy | Sep. 4th, 2006 @ 11:23 am |
|---|
While reading the August 21st issue of TIME magazine I found this little nugget of truism: "The secondary concern of all terror plots has always been the secondary impact of attacks — getting democracies and free societies so frenzied to prevent new attacks that we start eroding and violating the very freedoms and liberties that the authors of terrorism themselves want to destroy." — Roland Jacquard (French terrorist expert)
That's just the type of sentiment that even those who readily sacrifice liberty for security have been claiming as part of our mantra to defeat 'the evil doers'. We are not supposed to let the actions of terrorists change us yet they have in obvious and dramatic ways haven't they? Of course I know, this is all just a bunch of liberal balderdash according to Bush-loving Republicans, afterall the guy quoted above is French. {Give me freedom fries or give me death}
Actually, the article in TIME made a lot of good points, definitely worth the read. Even Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security made sense for once saying, "We can't just radically shift our strategy every time there's an event ... the key is balance and constantly looking at the entire landscape." Of course I'm left wanting to say, 'Well shit, Mike, where was your common-sense approach to preparedness back in August of 2005?' Unlike terrorist attacks that come quickly where you may least expect them in the most unexpected ways, Katrina was not only an eventuality but it was anticipated, the damn thing gave us several days notice it was on it's way...
Back to the main issue though, I'm becoming increasingly disgusted by how readily we will limit the freedoms which supposedly make us so different and unique from other countries. We talk a good bit about the triumph of freedom and goodness over evil and oppression yet we constantly place more and more restrictions and conditions on the very liberties that has made us the great nation we are, and which millions have died to cultivate & protect.
As mad as I am about our leaders using scare tactics, political tricks, and the power of their offices to curtail our liberties {among other things} I am far more disgusted at the masses of idiots in this country who applaud it, casting their votes for it, and shouting down those who oppose it. Furthermore, considering the level of apathy that remains even from seemingly intelligent people who realize things are going terribly wrong, I guess we really don't deserve a whole lot of freedom. Its value is lost to us.
~ ~ ~
In the same issue of TIME magazine {August 21}, there was an article about the kids of VIP's getting special preference to Ivy League universities. One example given by Daniel Golden, author of The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges—and Who Gets Left Outside The Gates, was of Senate majority leader Bill Frist's sons. The Frist family contributed $25 million to Princeton. Conveniently the Frist boys both got into Princeton in spite of not making it to the top 20% of their prep schools. How do you get into an Ivy League school with mediocre grades? It makes one wonder. The eldest Frist son even graduated Princeton without academic honors. Tsk, Tsk.
While I agree with the premise they are suggesting here, that Bill Frist — who is opposed to affirmative action — is a hypocrite since he is taking advantage of a sort of affirmative action for rich folks. But I think it also establishes those making the argument in the article as hypocrites as well since both of them are criticizing Frist because his kids didn't get in on merit, yet they seem to be endorsing affirmative action for minorities themselves.
I think the author of the book had it right when he said, "universities are nonprofits whose mission should be to identify the best and brightest students." That is precisely why I oppose affirmative action, because whether poor kids or minorities need a hand up or not, merit should be the paramount requirement here. I'm not quite sure just how much the author really believes in meritocracy, but unlike Bill Frist and affirmative action advocates I believe in it completely not selectively.Feeling like: accomplished |
| 'Beyond Marriage' - to nowhere | Aug. 8th, 2006 @ 10:53 am |
|---|
A comment I left at the Independent Gay Forum, main article at top of page.
Feeling like: accomplished |
| A Strategic Veto | Jul. 20th, 2006 @ 01:38 pm |
|---|
Bush has vetoed a bill that would expand federal funding for stem-cell research. This is the first time he's pulled out the veto option in his 6 years as Commander & Theif. The only other time he almost used it was when Congress was upset about his endorsing the Dubai World takeover of many key U.S. ports. Why then since he's never found much reason to use the veto power in the past should he use it now?
Bush says of his decision {since he is 'the decider'}, "I took a position. I believe in it. So that's what I'm going to do." He sounds so quaintly simple doesn't he? Simple-minded I should say. Tony Snow, White House press secretary said of Bush's decision, "People like leadership much better than a finger in the wind..." It almost sounds noble doesn't it? But, not quite.
It's one thing to be the lone voice of opposition in a group of people deliberating about an important issue. That takes integrity, leadership perhaps if you're trying to motivate others to join your cause. But for a President, or any elected official who is supposed to represent the will of the people, to vote against what the overwhelming majority of the people he is supposed to represent wants is not to be a "leader", the more accurate term would be dictator. He decides by what he "wants" and all of the rest of us are sort of held hostage to his decision... Yeah, let's make that Dictator & Thief.
I can imagine the cries of foul over my take on this from Bush lovers, afterall they believe him to be a stand-up guy, stand-up comedian perhaps... I say the 'voting his conscience' defense is bogus and that leaders who go against the will of the people {except if it violates current laws} are dictating, not leading because elected leaders in the U.S. government are supposed to be representatives of the will of the people, not dictatating what our will should be. As such where do we draw the line on majority? When does a leader become a dictator because he ignores the will of the majority? If 2/3 say they want more funding for stem-cell research then isn't it ignoring a great deal of the will of the people for the President to deny this, even after legislators {the most direct representatives of the people} have signed on to it? What if 90% of voters approved of it. What if 99.9% of the people in this country wanted but .1%, which includes the President doesn't like it. Does that make him a leader, or a dictator? It sure as hell doesn't make him any sort of representative of the people. So then if 99% say 'yes' & the Prez says 'no' would be to cross the line, then what about less? Yes it gets slippery, but it's a fair question.
Obviously this is yet another attempt to appeal to the fanatical beliefs of Christian fundamentalists which just happens to have become the Republican base in recent history. It's not like we haven't seen that play go down umpteen times already. Most recently in the anti-gay marriage & anti-flag burning amendments which all failed, just as everyone and their brother knew it would, but it 'sent a message' and that message was 'Republican's care about socially conservative issues, they're working to protect family values.' Right, and 'those pesky Democrats mucked the whole thing up'. The Republicans already have control over three out of three branches of the government, do they need more to get their agendas passed?
Many Republicans in Congress pushed this bill through, mostly because 2 thirds of voters and thereby their constituents wanted it, in spite of the fact that Bush has talked as if he was going to veto any such bill when he signed the last one. So why pass this through if they knew their fellow Republican President was going to kill it? Maybe they were hoping for a 2/3 majority vote which would sidestep his decision {he may not be 'the decider' after all}. Then again maybe they never really cared to pass it at all. We could just put this into the window dressing category. Republican congressmen vote for it, since most voters expect it that's points for them, President Bush votes it down since he can't run for office again so he's got nothing to lose... but, plenty to gain. By voting it down those fundamentalist right-wingers get what they want and they have at least one Republican to thank for it.
So all this turns out to be a rather crafty little maneuver, also known as "politics as usual", especially since the 'Reds' came to power. It has all the hallmarks of another Karl Rove trick. That fat bastard has used his evil genius to fuck this country every which way.
Of course all this could backfire and voters may turn out against Republicans in general come November, I'm all but positive the balance of power will shift significantly. But then knowing Rove there is probably another ace card to be played between now and then, a foiled terrorist attack, high-level al-Qaida members captured, maybe even some superficial Middle East peace deal. Question is, are the masses ignorant enough to fall for it again. Only time will tell, but obviously the Republicans are going to use every play they can think of to squeeze out every last vote.Feeling like: irritated |
| Red herrings... | Jul. 17th, 2006 @ 01:34 pm |
|---|
Israel is attacking Lebanon again for a 6th day. The level of destruction is really starting to take it's toll on the entire infrastructure of a sovereign nation and all this supposedly started over the abduction of two Israeli soldiers... Can you say overkill much? I might find it more believable if it weren't for the fact that Israel admits it's had a plan for destroying Hezzbollah {the radical Shiite terrorist organization that accepted responsibility for the soldier's abduction and the recent retalitory fire of rockets into Israel} for 5 years.
Obviously Israel has had a hard-on for attacking Hezzbollah {among others} for a long time now. I can't say that I blame them considering the admitted terrorist acts Hezzbollah has committed for decades, but I must admit this does seem to be a bit of a pattern for the Israeli government. I've noticed that so many times the violence will quiet down a bit, sometimes even a cease-fire in place, then a terrorist does something drastic in Israel and this is used as a justification for Israel to react by dropping bombs, firing rockets, shelling settlements, bulldozing villages with tanks, and assassinating people. All this on the claim that the Palestinian leadership isn't doing enough to control terrorist organizations like Hamas, therefore they've got to start blowing shit up. Sometimes it seems all too convenient.
I don't know just how much control the Palestinian Authority has had over Hamas in the past, many officials and impartial experts of the conflict have said it's been rather limited — it may not be realistic to blame the Palestinian Authority for what Hamas does. This seems to have been especially true a few years back when Arafat was running the show and much of the Palestinian government infrastructure was destroyed by Israel and Arafat was a captive in his own headquarters. What's more, just what sort of message does it send to violent militants that hate you and want to kill you already when you're blowing up their country? If someone was hitting your mother and so you were hitting them back and they said they were going to keep beating your mother until she makes you stop. Would you stop, or would you kill the fucker? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Currently the political wing of Hamas runs the government so it seems fair to assume if Hamas' military wing resorts to terrorist acts or fires rockets at Israel that Hamas' political wing is somewhat responsible. However, one has to wonder if Palestinian government officials are at fault every time some low-life terrorist straps on a bomb so he can become a martyr and get his harem of 72 virgins in Heaven by blowing up a bunch of innocent people. But just this sort of blame has been lodged against the Palestinian Authority, not just today but long before Hamas was in office. I'm not sure how fair it's been to punish the Palestinian people every time some terrorist scumbag blows up innocent people. A government is not always accountable for what it's people do, now are they? Supposedly our government wasn't at fault when Tim McVeigh used terrorism to get his point across in Oklahoma. Should we assume that these suicide-bombers never act on their own? Is it possible that though they might have been loosely armed by Hamas, some of them may be a loose cannon?
Much has lead me to believe that Israel doesn't really want peace with it's neighbors anymore than it's neighbors want peace with it. It wants to be by far the most powerful, most feared, and most dominant country in the region and will do whatever it can to undermine any peace process which includes an autonomous Palestinian state and an independent Muslim region. I think the soldier's abduction was just a red herring for this overzealous attack against Lebanon. I think Israel was waiting for something drastic enough, symbolic enough to unleash their wrath in order to not only intimidate their enemies and destroy terrorist organizations, but to weaken their neighbors overall. The Prime Minister in Lebanon has said these attacks have set his country back 50 years.
For those that would seek to justify Israel's actions and say this is all necessary I'd have to ask just what do they think all this will achieve? Is more bombs, more killing, more accusations, more declarations of war whether officially or by one's actions going to bring peace? Bombs and invasions rarely bring servitude from a people, but even less does it bring tolerance.
Israel may stop it's attacks in the next few days or weeks but it must be taken into consideration that the animosity hatred doesn't go away when the bombing stops and Israel puts it's pit bull back in it's cage. Violence begets violence, it's a simple concept really and not just a bunch of hokey bleeding-heart liberal mumbo-jumbo either. You don't need a degree in world politics or sociology to understand the harsh reality of the 'cycle of violence'. So it would seem when Israel throws it's tantrums it infuriates the enemy even more, kind of like how the US bombing and occupation of Iraq encourages disgruntled Muslims to become enraged militants ready to give their own life as part of their 'war on Imperialism'. What's with all the 'isms' anyway?
Just some food for thought. The real question is now just as it has been in the past: 'How justified is Israel in it's reactions to terrorist attacks?' and 'Will Israel's aggressive tactics bring less violence & more peace?'
The current attacks in Gaza and Lebanon may be inflicting great harm on the terrorist organizations there, but they are also adding fuel to the raging fires of hate among the common folk that burns for Israel and the West. The cycle of violence continues as more and more innocent people are caught in the middle between terrorist organizations & a war-mongering state. What's more, these terrorist organizations aren't just going to go away. Even Israel admits these organizations are funded by other countries, namely Syria & Iran, and as such the money & materiál isn't going to stop. Outside of destroying every nation that is opposed to Israel and it's occupation of Palestine, and this goes for the U.S. as well, the only way to create a genuine lasting peace is to build bridges, not destroy them. Get to the root cause, which isn't the overused and patently ignorant "Muslims hate freedom", but rather the far more reasonable 'common folk hate imperialism'. Israel and the West must address the reasons why there is so much mistrust & animosity against us among Islamic countries. There might be some differences or misunderstandings about freedoms, as evidenced by the backlash against those Danish cartoons and our belief in 'freedom of the press', but the issues that are bothering the common people in Muslim countries have far less to do with religion and the concepts of liberties in other countries and far more to do with their place in this world which has long since been dominated by us.
The Bush Doctrine hasn't been going very well for us, Iraq is on the edge of civil war, the Taliban is making a comeback in Afghanistan while the government there is holed up in a few cities, Iran is defiant to build a nuclear program, and North Korea not only has nukes but defiantly tests missiles which could bring those nukes to US shores. But now just as one could expect, the Bush doctrine has obviously been embraced by a bully and ally. It has given Israel all the rationale it needs to wage this conflict. We had our 'axis of evil', the Israeli's have their 'axis of terror'. We waged war on Iraq, a fairly easy target, as part of our 'war on terror', and Israel is now waging it's war on Lebanon, also an easy target. Where it goes from here who knows, but obviously the whole region is a tinderbox and it's not just waiting for a spark, there are plenty of red hot embers there now, it's just a matter of time now for the fire to catch and engulf the entire region. How we will put out this fire remains to be seen. Bush is entirely incapable of defusing situations, he and his Neocon puppetmasters are much more adept at aggravating problems. It almost seems as if there is no hope other than if cooler heads in the region can prevail, which considering the past is about as good as a snowball's chance in hell when the air-conditioner is on the blink. The sad truth in all of this is that often once such fires take off all you can do is try to contain them and wait for them to burn themselves out after all the fuel has been consumed. With all the fuel in that region, the toll it will take in life alone will be enormous.
Even if the worst doesn't happen, things are settled, a truce is called and the dust has settled a hard reality which has been overlooked in all of this is that when you blow a couple of people up, no matter how justified the cause, you end up with tens, maybe hundreds who will seek to avenge them. That's common sense and human nature. So as we've killed tens of thousands in Iraq, and as Israel kills hundreds or more in this attack on Lebanon & Gaza how many thousands, hundreds of thousands of new enemies are being created? We will have to face them someday. Terrorist cells can be wiped out, others will replace them, terrorist leaders can be taken out, others will replace them, one terrorist organization can be destroyed but another will take it's place. If this generation doesn't do it the next one will. The animosity of those who have been brutalized doesn't just go away because the brutalizer is ready to start anew. So many will not forget, and as the weapons which can kill millions become more numerous and more difficult to track & control, those who learned to hate their oppressor at a young age will have to be reckoned with. Unless the plan is to kill 'em all, then we better take heed how we can try to reconcile things because superpower or no, there will be no victory in a war against millions of Muslims.Feeling like: worried |
| Truth hurts; Reality bites | Jul. 17th, 2006 @ 09:49 am |
|---|
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had a video at their web site {though it seems to have disappeared} which among criticizing Bush and his policies, Republican congressmen embroiled in corruption scandals, and the overall direction the country is headed in. In criticizing the Iraq war they show an image of flag-draped coffins coming home from the warfront. Of course Republicans and even some Democrats are pissed off about this saying they've crossed the line. I think what they mean is it's an image they'd rather the public not see because it tends to make moderates wince and gives voters impetus to change the status quo.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. If they were made up or exaggerated that would be different but this depicts a reality.
The war is obviously a big campaign issue and rightly so, therefore it is extremely relevant how many have died because of this war, and as such anything that conveys that message including images like this are fair game. Insensitive? Perhaps. But I notice the President had no problems using symbols like this for his election, he even used pictures from 9/11 as a sort of 'rallying cry' to battle. So I figure if the Republicans can use shocking propaganda images to further their agenda I don't see why the Democrats can't do the same thing.
As for these complaints, my feeling is that outside of political bullshit I think it makes people feel uncomfortable, maybe even a little guilty, especially those who supported the war and who no doubt now have second thoughts, even regrets.
When it comes down to it I think people need to look at these images. It's important to see what they/we signed on for. To those who are bitchin' about the pictures I say: 'you people wanted a war, you got a war, now look at it!'Feeling like: accomplished Listening to: Nine Inch Nails ~ The Hand That Feeds |
| » Smell that? It's burnt terrorist... |
|---|
Yee-haw! Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is one dead & bloated bastard now. It's really good to see the evil fuck finally dead and no longer able to commit his atrocities on innocent people. The US Military dropped a couple of 500lb bombs on his safe house a few days ago, killing many of his subordinates and so-called spiritual advisers. Apparently he lived for a little while, just long enough to realize it was US soldiers who had attacked him and was carrying him off on a gurney. He tried to flee and died from his wounds which is kind of amusing, fucking pussy. I hope he was consumed by shear terror wondering what in the hell we were going to do to him.
Some have said he's burning in hell now. Well I don't believe in hell, nor any heaven with a multitude of virgins waiting to eternally service the martyred Muslim man, I mean give me a fucking break! ~{LOL}~ Nonetheless, if he is in either place right now it sure as hell isn't with the virgins. No doubt life, death, and love make a lot more sense to his wretched soul now than it did when it resided in that body with the twisted mind. Killing and torturing innocent people probably seems much more heinous to him now and he understands the failed ideology that lead him to such commit such horrific acts of inhumanity. A lot of fucking good that does him now.
I don't really believe in an eye for an eye but this evil fuck certainly got off easy. It would have seemed much more fitting for him to have slowly bled to death from a slit in his throat via shrapnel from the bombing. Worse still if he had been deliberately beheaded by a young Jewish homosexual U.S. soldier, now that would have been deliciously Just. Chew on that you crazy-ass fundamentalist fucks!
I for one I'm certainly satisfied to know this sick puke is dead, but it's a rather hollow victory knowing that Al-Qaeda will carry on without him, the insurgency will continue to ravage Iraq, the conflict & our occupation is no closer to ending, and that those who rationalize and carry out such unconscionable acts of violence will continue to do so. Further more his death will not bring back all those innocents who were slain, tortured, beheaded by him and his cohorts.
Of course the Bush administration and it's supports are already making a big thing out of this event. It's going to be used to bolster Bush's image and his approval ratings, and it will also be cited as a major success in Iraq, an argument against anti-war protests. Yet another political ploy to keep us from taking a real look at what's going on and holding those who are responsible for much of this chaos in Iraq accountable.
President man-chimp and others are talking about how this such a major blow to Al-Qaeda. Bullshit! These people have already proven that they are highly organized, the organization is not dependant on any one person at any one time, they generally have chosen successors to take their place, and if anything it boosts their morale giving them new vigor to seek revenge.
What an absurd notion, that somehow they're going to become disorganized, helpless, and give up their fight because we take out one of their most revered leaders... Would we do that if they took our one of our leaders, or generals, or buildings? Nope, it would serve to motivate us all the more to go kick their ass. Logically we should assume it does the same for them.
Out of his death I also know that Zarqawi ultimately gets what he would want from it. He's a martyr now in the eyes of his followers. This will likely anger more people to retaliate as revenge. Regardless of this he was a criminal who committed egregious acts of violence against innocent people and he needed to be held accountable, but it seems we can't accomplish this without also giving our enemy more of a reason to hate & stand against us.
I must say that while I sympathize with Iraqis who live in an occupied country, who must share power with people & ethnic groups they despise, and deal with the day-to-day violence & economic turmoil I also cannot possibly condone the insurgency; an attack against law & order. I realize that things will never get better in Iraq until they can put their differences aside and work to rebuild their country instead of tearing it apart. I also know, though I didn't support the war and it's bogus justifications, that if the U.S. were to pull out of Iraq it would spiral out of control. The only chance the country has in forming a non-authoritarian government which can stabilize, rebuild & maintain the infrastructure there is to have that insurgency kept in check, which only a strong military/security force can accomplish. If anything we need more forces in that country not less.
Killing Zarqawi wasn't a victory for ending the violence, but it was justice and certainly a significant setback to Al-Qaeda & the Iraq insurgency. That's definitely a good thing not just for Bush's image, which I could give a flying fuck less about, but for the people of Iraq.
Jun. 9th, 2006 @ 03:53 pm
|
| » More shameful political opportunism from the Right |
|---|
Yet again Bush & the Republicans bring out social issues to try to win over their socially conservative base. As it worked to pander to Fundamentalist Christians, or Christianists in both of Bush's prior elections, Republicans are hoping it'll work yet again in the November elections.
There are several issues which are important to these socially conservative pricks who carry the nationalistic 'traditional values' banner. Flag burning is one issue that is supposed to be taken up soon, but abortion and even obscenity are especially important to the fanatical right.
Currently gay marriage is the big issue the President and Congress are focusing on. This as gas prices continue to climb, the hurricane season is upon us and much of the Gulf especially New Orleans is unprepared, FEMA is still the same unprepared, bloated joke it was before, and of course the Iraq war continues on now riddled with scandals involving atrocities by US soldiers, and civil war still seems likely. The House of Representatives is trying to pass an Amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage across the board. It hasn't had much of a chance in passing and everyone knows that. Nonetheless, they tried anyway. It didn't pass, in fact it was no where close. A 2/3 majority was needed and they didn't even hit 60%.
The political ploy here is so obvious, most people can't help but see it even Republican political pundits admit to it. I find it interesting that none of them express any sort of shame for using such a tactic. It seems to be excused as fair game in the arena of politics, and in fairness the Democrats do it as well. I think this is a fine example as to just how disingenuous much of the political process is. so much is done for show, simply to win people's approval but not to actually get anything done.
While it's bad enough that they put far more important issues aside simply to try to win support in upcoming elections, what makes this truly despicable is that they'd exploit a class of law-abiding American citizens to accomplish this. They're seeking to oppress, to write discrimination into the Constitution all for future votes. The abuse of power doesn't get much more sick than that. Unfortunately little has been said about this. Those on the left are bitching of course, but not as if this is perhaps a criminal violation of their offices. I don't think there has been nearly enough outrage about this, it's sort of written off as if it's just politics as usual. That says a lot for how broken and unethical our system of government is.
All this aside, I cannot believe it is not more obvious to people how bigoted all of this is. To deny marriage to people... I can't begin to understand their rationale. I've heard dozens of reasons why members of the same sex should not marry each other but none of them are legitimate, moreover none of them are significant enough to force an otherwise 'normal' class of people into a second class status. This is nothing more than a blanket generalization of an entire group of people who certainly do not think or act with one mind or lifestyle.
I could more readily accept an argument for placing restrictions on marriage if they wanted to forbid marrying multiple times, to add more social requirements be met prior to marriage for instance that one must be in a committed relationship for a certain period of time, or be at a certain economic level, but that's not what they are advocating here. What they are advocating here is no different than banning mixed racial marriages. They are forbidding homosexual couples from marrying because the partners are the same sex. That's it. They can't point to anything inherently detrimental about this other than their religious beliefs that it is unnatural or sinful. This should not be a valid concern for the state given our separation of Church and State. This or they make some generalized assumption about the couple's commitment & overall morality when clearly this would have to be done on a case by case basis, which I might add they DO NOT do in regards to heterosexual couples.
So, yeah, banning gay marriage is entirely based on bigotry, stereotyping, unwarranted & unjust discrimination, and it all comes down to prejudices based on religious dogma & ideologies of 'traditional'. There is no legitimate argument here that holds any sort of weight in a society that promotes equality; a society which has a Bill of Rights such as our own. That is perhaps made most obvious by the fact that they want to Amend the Constitution to make their discrimination law stick because they know any State or Federal law would not hold up to Constitutional scrutiny, most likely even if challenged under a largely conservative court as we have now.
I don't know how this could turn any more shameful and disgusting than it already is, but knowing how the Republicans are, it most certainly will.
~ James
Jun. 7th, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
|
| » Gay proms & bigots |
|---|
A local Gay & Lesbian organization held a gay prom a while back and a journalist who covers human interest stories wrote about it in the local paper. Some Christianist bigot wrote a letter to the editor about it, protesting the concept of a gay prom and criticizing those who promoted it. This letter got published and is as follows:
"Gay prom promotes sin"
Re: "Ozarks area students boogie at gay and lesbian prom," May 24 Sarah Overstreet column.
Gay and lesbian prom? You must be kidding?
Please understand this is not a shot at the confused young people who were at this prom, this is the truth straight at the adults that allowed and put this thing together. When are we going to wake up and see that this lifestyle is a choice and that God forbids any such act.
A "gay gene" has never been found. Homosexuality is a choice! God created each of us in his own image and he has never created a homosexual, alcoholic or wife abuser. I believe God has a reason for creating us male and female. And when we get away from God's created purpose for the sexuality of his creation and pervert his intention, it becomes a sin. God says the wages of sin is death.
Every adult and business that supported this event is encouraging these young people to sin. I am not judging anyone, God has already done that.
Sure, times have changed, but God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Please, let's stop encouraging our young people to sin.
Mark Kiser, Springfield
Of course I couldn't just let this kind of idiotic rationalization of bigotry stand so I decided to make a rebutal in a letter to the editor:
Bigotry is what it is
In response to June 2, "Gay prom promotes sin" by Mark Kiser.
It's very convenient to say 'I'm not judging anyone, God has judged', as if that somehow excuses someone who is unapologetically judging others. These judgments are mere highly debated interpretations of supposed divinely inspired literature.
In addition to homosexuals, some people believe hating Hindus, Blacks, or liberals is god sanctioned and they quote scripture 'proving' it, yet most of us would agree they're not only wrong but most definitely bigots.
Mr. Kiser talks as if he's not a bigot. I have yet to meet anyone who admitted they were. Even the most blatantly bigoted people deny being merely intolerant.
Those who have prejudices & narrow views see themselves as speaking an unquestionable truth but that doesn't change the nature of what they advocate.
People have every right to feel, believe, & say what they want. People also have a right to couple together, straight, gay, mixed religions or races. It's no one else's business or responsibility. Social conservatives really need to remember this when they seek to foist or legislate their 'god sanctioned' views on others.
If you really believe that homosexuals or anyone else is going to hell for what they do, "God says so", then let's let God tend to it, shall we? And in the meantime, tend to your own business — live & let live.
And on that note: "Live and let live, that's what I say. Anyone who can't understand that should be killed." — George Carlin
Jun. 4th, 2006 @ 05:55 pm
|
| » Shouldn't all soldiers be heroes? |
|---|
In respect to Memorial day I got to thinking about the many U.S. soldiers that have been lost in this war fought for all the wrong reasons. It’s certainly been a heavy toll. The Department of Defense has confirmed 2464 so far {2325 since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq}.
There is a lot of flag waving going on right now, everyone wants to support the troops and rightly so. Some misguided souls even believe that in order to do this one must support the President and the War itself including the reasons it was supposedly fought. They claim you can’t support the troops without that. Of course that’s absolutely ridiculous, or at least highly debatable. Either way, pretty much everyone is in agreement, except Fred Phelps and his bunch of lunatic fucks, that these people are heroes for risking their lives and ultimately losing them in what is thought & hoped to be the defense of their country. People can’t say enough nice things about these soldiers and the sacrifices they are making, even if we don’t all agree on why they are there and when they should come home.
All of this praise seems very nice, deserved, but also rather ironic. I’ve been thinking about how grossly unfair it is that homosexuals are kept out of the military. It is such an unbelievable insult not only to homosexuals in general and law abiding citizens overall who certainly shouldn’t be considered second class, but more directly it is a tremendous insult to gay people who truly want to serve their country in the military. Currently the ‘Don’t ask, Don’t tell’ policy which was instated under Bill Clinton is still in place. While it’s not a total ban, it’s about as close as you can get to it. One can’t be openly gay at all and not be discharged from the military. The same ignorant bigots that once said the whole military would go to shit if you let Blacks in, or women, are now telling us that homosexuals would demoralize & weaken the armed forces. I fear for our defense if our | |
|