My United States of Whatevah...

Liberal Libertarian

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

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

Bigots?

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.

The Death of Liberty

~{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

This is why Christian Fundies shouldn't be allowed to vote...

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...

Practice what you preach?

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?

Republican tactics

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.

Observations of a sex scandal

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.

First off the Democrats are of course pouncing on this, trash talking Foley, asking why this wasn't prevented, who knew about his inappropriate conversations with 16-17 year old boys and why they didn't do more to investigate it. And I suppose they have a point. Afterall, most of the instant messages and emails in question here are from 2003, and several people in Congress were made aware of at least some of them. Nonetheless, the Democrats are definitely turning this into a political vendetta, 'let's see how many Republican's we can burn with this guy'. They seem to again be painting a picture of a 'culture of corruption' attached to the Republican party. I can't say that I blame them, afterall the November elections are just 5 weeks away, and the Democrats know they must win at all costs. Of course they've also been on the receiving end of this sort of witch hunt before haven't they? Monicagate... The Republicans went well out of their way to make a public spectacle of Clinton's unethical however not illegal affair with Monica Lewinsky. Republicans have on so many occasions made the grandest of issues out of social scandals.

Republicans for their part are living up to what I would expect. Foley has been strongly condemned, he's already resigned, and GOP leaders are making a point to let the public know they would have demanded it had he not. I must admit, the Republicans have been rather good about making sure those in their party that are implicated in illegal or unethical behavior resign their post. Of course lest we get the idea it's because they really are such honest and morally upstanding fellows we should remember that there have been quite a few Republicans who have had to resign posts over the past 6 years. It's not that their behavior is so much more ethical than Democrats, it's just that the party is shrewd enough to know that distancing themselves from the controversial person and seemingly punishing them encourages voters to think Republicans have so much integrity. Of course I would also argue they get caught less. Well, at least prior to Plamegate and the Abramoff scandal.

What surprised me about the Republican response at first was when several members of the GOP, most particularly social conservatives, were not only blasting Foley of course but also demanding to know {along with many Democrats} who knew what, for how long, and what did they do about it. Several have voiced concerns about how much Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert knew about some of Foley's behavior and whether or not he investigated it. Some are concerned he was aware that something very inappropriate may have been going on yet did nothing about it either because of incompetence or to cover it up hoping to avoid a huge scandal in an election year. Several Republicans, including House Majority Leader John Boehner {a major Bush apologist} are making it clear that the responsibility for dealing with such misconduct involving the page program would fall to the Speaker, they are not, however, asking for his resignation. A shame, I suppose as I'd love to see the party split over this. So far, the Republicans seem to be keeping at least enough of a unified front to not fall into the sort of circular firing squad that they and the Democratic party have fallen into so many times in the past.

While many in the top GOP including Bush are defending Hastert, many other social conservatives in the public forum as well as right-leaning newspapers are taking aim at him as well as Foley, asking that Hastert resign. They are concerned that he in fact was privy to some 'overly friendly' email conversations Foley had with a male page back in 2005, suggesting that these should have been a red flag to investigate further yet no one apparently did. Two Republican Representatives, one of which was chairman of the House Page Board, discussed these email exchanges with Hastert. Hastert has claimed he doesn't recall this. They have said of the emails that while they were questionable they were not sexually explicit. Supposedly Foley was asked about the emails and he swore that nothing inappropriate was intended. He was then warned not to have any more contact with the teen and to watch his contacts with other pages. Apparently as far as Hastert was concerned, or whoever is going to step up and take responsibility for being in charge, the case was closed.

While I don't care for Hastert, and I am suspicious of his claims of knowing nothing about the "overly friendly" emails that Rep. Reynolds claims to have brought to his attention, I think he may be telling the truth. I think he probably was aware of these emails but the content of them just didn't add up to much. Hindsight is always 20-20, and while many are trying to insinuate that red flags should automatically go up when an adult sends an 'overly friendly' message or takes a somewhat unusual interest in a minor, I think some of the things Foley had said to these kids are being blown way out of proportion. I haven't seen the entire exchange with the boy in 2005 of course, but what the media has been making available so far, which is seemingly the smoking gun that should have set off red flags, I didn't find it all that suspicious at all. Of course then I'm not paranoid of the motives of every adult/minor contact. I'm trying to keep this in perspective. Knowing what I know now about the guy I can see how it fits together, but some of the things he asked the boy didn't seem suggestive or inappropriate at all, for instance asking for a picture of him, how old he was, talking about hobbies and asking him what he wanted for Christmas or some such. If that is our society's idea of seducing or taking an unusual interest then we've gone way the hell off the deep end in our paranoia over adult/minor conversations.

Asking a kid for a portrait or how old he is shouldn't send us into "oh my god he's a pedophile" mode. Seriously, in the overwhelming majority of adult/minor relations, especially in a mentor/protégé situation making such requests would be rather innocent. While obviously in this case there was more to it, far more often than not there is nothing sinister going on. There are plenty of logical reasons this guy could be curious as to what age the kid is — helps him to know what grade level he's at — in order to carry out more relevant conversation, try to pass along age-appropriate wisdom. It might also be nice in their online conversations to put a face with the name, as adult and minors alike do as a matter of course in internet relations these days. I can see why someone in his position might want to be able to recognize those pages he is in communication with should they ever meet among the halls of Congress. It could help one associate which page was more interested in environmental law and which one had a penchant for foreign affairs.

One reason I think some conservatives are going after Hastert is obvious, sacrifice him for the sake of the party. Less obvious perhaps is that these guys want to seem tough, as if they are really taking action to deal with this extremely controversial matter. More than anything perhaps they want to appeal to their base, social conservatives, and social conservatives are livid that a 'homosexual' man was engaging in such 'perverse' behavior with 'children'. To many social conservatives it doesn't matter that Foley is a Republican, this is sexual deviancy, and to them sexual deviancy should be cut out like a cancer. Social conservatives are clearly out for blood over this, they want the equivalent of public stonings and they want more than one to get it. I suppose this surprised me a bit as I figured they'd try to cover up, do damage control and try to get this behind them as quickly and painlessly as possible.

What doesn't surprise me is how much politics is playing into this. With the Democrats it's obvious, they're trying to take advantage of this to get more votes. But Republicans are working hard to spin this thing too. Lest we get the wrong idea that only Republican politicians are getting all freaky with the sex scandals, they are reminding the public that Congressman Barney Frank, who is open about his homosexuality, was once involved with a male prostitute. Bill Clinton had his intern, and two congressmen from way back in the early 80's were sexually involved with pages {one a heterosexual affair, the other homosexual}.

Republicans, like Ohio Representative John Boehner is questioning the timing of this. They think it is all too coincidental that this is coming up now, 5 weeks from the November elections. Yeah, I guess they should have waited ‘till after the elections, that would have been so much more convenient for them… As disgraceful as all this scandal is and these bums are upset about the timing! I guess that shows where their priorities really are.

It is ridiculously ironic to hear right-wing folks piously talk about how they hope this doesn't get used as a political issue. I'll bet they do hope for that, there is a very important election just a month away! But it's so disingenuous because these same people are foaming at the mouths over past Democratic indiscretions. Talk about turning this into a political issue trying to score some points... While they play themselves off to be above playing political games they are instead wallowing in the ugly mess just as one would expect partisans to do. With some irony comes some karma too, considering the huge issue holier-than-thou Republicans made of Bill & Monica.

I have to say in bringing up these past incidents they might have a point in the scandal involving Democratic Congressmen having sex with pages, especially considering they were not forced to resign and in fact served several more terms. That does seem quite outrageous. However, these events did take place over 20 years ago! How relevant is it really, and how far back will we go to blame those today for the sins of yesterday? Where they really have no argument is to make comparisons with Barney Frank's or Bill Clinton's scandals. It's a moot point considering that regardless how inappropriate or immoral they might have been, those incidents were not illegal, what's more neither involved minors. If they're going to get all self-righteous about how morally bankrupt some Democrats have been and how superior Republicans are then they're inviting a world of hurt to themselves because it is in fact Republicans and, considering the Church, conservatives overall that have been in the middle of the most indefensible — child sex scandals.

Of course all this aside it truly is pathetic to hear people whine about how they shouldn't get in trouble because so & so did it too... Fucking grow up. I think the public is going to lynch them for any attempts at this. People expect the guilty to repent, not whine & snitch.

Now for the really disgusting politics about all of this. It comes from none other than, social conservatives. They are trying to further their fanatical agendas, like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council who is suggesting that our culture of permissiveness and sexual tolerance has lead to this sort of thing. And homophobia is coming into play with claims that there is “clear research” proving that homosexual men are more prone to pedophilia than heterosexual men. I'd love to see all this “clear research” he's talking about but since he didn't cite it I'll assume it's a bunch of bullshit, most likely from frequently cited Paul Cameron who was discredited by the APA for using faulty methods in his studies and misrepresenting other people’s work.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the acceptance of homosexuality is already getting the blame. Socially conservative extremists have been claiming for years that homosexuals are secretly pedophiles seeking to indoctrinate children into unnatural sexual relations. Of course maybe they are missing a point here. Permissive homosexual liberals are mostly getting caught up in sex affairs with adults, while repressed homosexual conservatives are having sex with kids. Mark Foley, a Republican; Catholic priests, who are religious and socially conservative are the high profile cases of child sex scandals. What does this say about repression? It is telling that Mark Foley is now claiming that he was molested by a priest when he was 13-15. It sounds like a cop-out but maybe not. Again, religious repression seems to have lead to freaky adult-kid sex, which later lead to more adult kid sex. For those who preach so much about morals, decency, family values, acceptable lifestyles and social norms it's strangely ironic that they seem to be struggling with these issues the most. Go figure...

I'm already anticipating how this will effect the debate over gay marriage. I have no doubt this scandal will be cited as proof of their rationalization that gays are morally debase, perverted, dangerous and therefore we must ban gay-marriage because if we recognize it we'll have to let pedophilia become a 'lifestyle choice' and allow men to marry children and have sex with them too.

Another interesting piece of blame put on homosexuality is that tolerance of it may have lead some to ignore warning signs out of a fear of being publicly chastised for seeming homophobic for questioning an allegedly gay congressmen’s involvement with male teens. What a crock of bullshit! First of all, such concern for being labeled ‘homophobe’ would be major switch for these folks considering there is no lack of regular gay bashing from them. Truth be told, apparently this incident wasn't ignored as Foley was in fact confronted and warned. They didn't skirt around this issue because the guy was gay, and as for why they didn’t run to the press… Gee, isn’t that obvious? According to Hastert and others that were aware of the first email that got attention in 2005, after talking with Foley it seemed like a non-issue, they didn't feel they needed to press it any farther. Of course one could very reasonably conclude that they were also concerned about the public overreacting if the media were ever to get a hold of this. And in an election year no one in their right mind would invite such speculation. What all this bullshit comes down to is more of the kind of nonsense we usually get from these socially conservative pricks. They're always working to promote their warped perspectives about the evils that homosexual tolerance brings.

In spite of all this political garbage that is being played out over this event, I have to admit I have been somewhat pleased that some in the media and the political arena are making a point to say this has nothing to do with Foley's homosexuality or the fact that he was a man trying to seduce young males. It's nice that they make a point to say this, because it really shouldn't matter if it was a man or woman going after boys or girls. Taking a closer look though it really is coming off as politically correct lip service to me. I say this because I notice how frequently they are running with the sensationalism of it all, putting an emphasis on the fact he was a 50+ year old man and these were boys.

Actually, one thing that bothers me about the coverage of this is how there is way too damn much of it. I mean as much as I want to see Republicans take political damage, and while I certainly want to see a hypocrite get nailed {Foley was a big-time advocate of laws to protect children from sex abuse}, I also think it is pathetic when we direct so much public attention to social crimes when far more pressing matters like war, poverty, liberty, torture, deficits, health care, and voting accuracy get swept aside.

I also find it absolutely appalling how sex scandals specifically are so sensationalized. All this aside, though also somewhat related, I'm bothered by how these 16-18 year old boys are being portrayed as "children" — innocent little kids. While they are certainly underage, and his behavior with them was most likely illegal or at least certainly inappropriate, to depict these teens as if they were naive little 12-13 year old children is absurd. While it isn't an excuse for his behavior, apparently some of these boys injected their own suggestive input as well. Some of these kids were probably sexually active themselves. I think all of this needs to be taken into account rather than insinuate poor hapless little children were horribly victimized by the big bad wolf. It's insulting to intelligence and rationality.

And speaking of pedophilia, I haven't heard anyone else bring this up yet but someone needs to make the point that these weren't preteens they were in fact 16 and older. In some states these boys are at the age of consent. So while certainly inappropriate, not only because there were 2 generational gaps between he and the pages and because he violated a major mentor/protégé boundary {as unethical as teachers, ministers, or counselors having intimate relationships with those in their charge}, nonetheless these contacts may not have been illegal, and it most certainly was not a case of child molestation. Not only did he apparently not have physical sexual contact with these boys but they also were not children. For that matter, whatever sexual contact he may have had personally, or via the phone or internet it was seemingly consensual. In the race to 'burn the pedophile', the reality is being glossed over that an adult with an attraction or involvement with teenage adolescents is not a pedophile. The more accurate term would be pederast or ephebophile. There is a very significant difference.

Santorum's war on privacy, among other things

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.

"AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?
SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.
AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?
SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.
AP: What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it."

Yeah, a lot of people do believe it is perfectly fine for consenting homosexual adults to have the same right to choose their partner as heterosexuals do. It's just bigoted puritanical authoritarians like you who find it unacceptable and make some warped leap of logic that it somehow destroys the fabric of society. And yes, it is fair to assume you would 'see more of it', not because it encourages it, you'd have to be a really dumb fucking moron if you believe an acceptance of homosexuality in society causes people to be homosexual. Rather, you would see more of it because people would feel more comfortable being open about their orientation and their relationship. It's akin to why people once tried {and some still do — Rick Allen} to hide their Jewish heritage. When the Nazi's no longer run the show, Jews aren't so afraid to admit who they are and where they have come from. Of course people like Santorum would like for us to continue to live in the shadows, closted so our 'deviancy' doesn't disrupt their archaic and 'wholesome' world-view.

I suppose Santorum probably does believe that an acceptance in society of homosexuality will cause people to become gay. Obviously he's not alone in this hilariously idiotic perspective. I suppose it makes sense then why these people are so afraid of homosexuality being permitted and even tolerated. They're afraid it might just turn them. We just can't have good ole god fearin' moral folks catching 'the gay'?

"AP: Well, what would you do?
SANTORUM: What would I do with what?
AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe —
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions."

Well there you have it. Santorum doesn't have a problem with gay people, just gay couples. We're allowed to exist, we're allowed to have alternate desires, we just can't ever act on them. So he gets to wallow around with his wife like sloppy pigs in a pen, and breed bigoted children like himself, but gay people are supposed to become abstinent for his benefit. I can't think of anything much more polite to say than kiss my fucking ass, Ricky, it's my life, I'll do what I want with it. If your 'morality' is put in jeopardy because of me living my life then I guess that's just too fucking bad isn't it? Obviously your morality doesn't deserve preservation because it's far too weak to stand up against 'godless' behavior.

"AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

Oh, there it goes. The slippery slope. We can't give homosexuals equality with heterosexuals because then you have to allow bigamy, polygamy, and incest. In other words if you give an inch... So really the blame falls to allowing things like civil rights. I see what he's saying, afterall, ever since we allowed women to vote and gave blacks equality the whole country has gone to the dogs... Now the 'sexual deviants' want their rights too! It seems we never should have accepted such liberal notions as civil rights. Maybe no one should have civil rights and basic liberties at all, because if you let anyone have it then everyone else wants it too and a god-fearin' society just can't afford to risk that for all the iniquities it could lead to. If we allowed such liberal permissiveness as liberty we'd have to ensure that criminals and prisoners had it too... Nice leap of logic there, dumbass. Too bad it's completely bogus. The repeal of sodomy laws have in no way legalized incest, bigamy, polygamy, bestiality, nor pedophilia. It's apples and oranges. Your slippery slope is illogical and irrational in justifying the denial of homosexual equality. While it may be hard for some people to get that, when used in relation to many other minorities that becomes clear. Well at least to most of us, to Ricky it probably sounds good applied to all, except for truly righteous Christians.

He goes on to say:

"Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family."

Well of course if you're going to outlaw homosexual acts, if you believe sodomy laws are perfectly reasonable, if you believe that what individuals do in their private lives and their own homes affects society at large and therefore what people do in their homes isn't just their business but everyone elses as well, then one would have to completely dismiss the notion of a right to privacy. Does this not raise a legion of red flags? This man doesn't believe that people have any right to privacy. He thinks what people do in their homes is everyone's business. And he and his ilk should decide what sort of intimacy is appropriate.

There is a glaring question that gets raised in all of this: Why the fuck have people voted for this jackass? What Santorum is talking about here is quite simply an authoritative government. Whether it be theocracy or a moralocracy, he's talking about certain people, presumably a majority of Christian patriots, deciding what sort of lifestyles and beliefs are acceptable and the rest of us therefore are allowed to have.

I'm not finding ANYTHING American in what Santorum is talking about here.

He states further:

"Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —"

Society is based on one thing — children? And this is why we not only can't allow gay marriage but shouldn't allow gay couples either? Nevermind the fact that gay couples can indeed have children, if anything someone needs to take in the kids heterosexual couples didn't want.

Another hole in his argument is this notion that we can't allow relationships and define marriage as being between two consenting adults because historically it has supposedly always been between a male and a female. As far as tradition goes most societies, especially those from Santorum's precious Bible, largely practiced and encouraged, even demanded polygamy. Odd then that I hear him attacking polygamy as well and not defending it. He needs to make up his mind which 'tradition' and which part of the bible he believes all the rest of us are supposed to adhere to. I find this all ironic too that I myself, a monogamous homosexual, am opposed to polygamy , I believe strongly in monogamy & I'm not even religious.

"AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society."

Ah, well, hmmm... I guess I spoke to soon, apparently Santorum doesn't believe we are allowed to have desire, or to have passion for each other. He believes the state has an interest and control over our 'passions'.

I'd have to say emphatically, the state does not — should not have rights to limit individuals wants and passions, so long as those wants and passions do not infringe on the inalienable rights of others. Our passions for love & intimacy with each other should not infringe whatsoever on people's individual rights nor society at large. If we were to hinder people from exercising their own beliefs and living their lifestyles as they see fit then we should also outlaw people who lead religious lifestyles that are 'outside the norm'. We've seen what radical Islam, and radical Christianity leads to. Terrorism, whether it's bombing a synagogue, or an abortion clinic.

"AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in."

So Santorum wants to do away without our right to privacy, and dictate how we live our personal lives. To prescribe what sort of 'passions' we should have. As if we didn't have enough reasons to despise Santorum and never give him an ounce of support, I woule hope this interview and a look into Santorum's crazy ass viewpoint would suffice. This country and it's most cherished American values, freedom, liberty, and protection from an overreaching government, including a right to some degree of privacy and personal choice. Above all life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Mr. Santorum, that includes for adult persons to have whatever relations they choose with the partner of their choosing.

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.

A little conspiracy & a lot of irony...

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...

Savegry in St. Louis

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...

Torture & Redefining Justice

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.

The claim being made by Bush & Co. is that they believe there should be clear definitions as to what constitutes torture so that our operatives that question so-called terrorists will not be prosecuted by the whims of foreign courts for violating vague notions of torture. Oh because this has been such a big problem so far... Funny but there hasn't been one case of it in this war on terror, well of course excluding the instances where over a dozen people were apparently butchered by some of our troops, or the case in which a 14 year old girl was raped and burned and her family killed again allegedly by some of our soldiers. In those cases the suspected troops are facing U.S. military inquiries and will be prosecuted in our courts.

I've tried to imagine why we would need to alter international agreements on the treatment of prisoners of war and human rights that have been in place for decades. I'm trying to figure out why they would have a problem with something like this. We seem to expect other countries follow it. I guess it stems from the same reason the Administration finds fault in the 1st and 4th Amendments — they interfere with our ability to win the war on terror. Every time I hear of this tired ploy being used again I see quite clearly the fundamental dynamics at work here: we must destroy civilization in order to save it.

In regards to this debate Bush has recently said, "It is very important for the American people to understand that in order to protect this country, we must be able to interrogate people who have information about future attacks,"

I don't know of any one who is proposing we don't interrogate people... But I suppose by interrogate he means 'wring information out of them at all costs' and not only do many of us believe this is grossly unethical, but it has also been proven time and gain to be very unreliable. Deprivation, coercion, and torture can certainly get people to say all kinds of things, most often they tell you whatever they think you want them to say. Of course another great concern is the precedent it sets. If we get to redefine what constitutes torture and what level of humane treatment detainees should receive why shouldn't everyone else? Do we really want countries with extremely low standards on human rights to be coming up with their own interpretation of the treatment when they've captured some of our soldiers?

We've never needed such clear definitions before, why do we need it now? Obviously they intend to use tactics that would at least loosely be considered 'torture'. They are going to have to really split hairs in determining what degree of torture is legal for them to commit. Therefore they have a need for the law to be very specific about what constitutes torture so that they can use whatever tactics do not fit those specifics. Bush admits that to "clarify" {redefine} the wording will arm operatives with the "tools" necessary to do their job of interrogation without fear of prosecution.

It's so obvious the reasoning behind all this, but we get nothing but spin, rhetoric, scare tactics, propaganda. According to Bush, "Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al Qaida and it's allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland,"

Bush has also said he, "will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity. If there's not clarity, if there's ambiguity, if there's any doubt in our professionals' mind if they can conduct their operation in a legal way, with support of the Congress, the program won't go forward and the American people will be in danger..."

Legal clarity? It should be clear enough. I don't see why it needs to be made any clearer. The Geneva Conventions among other treaties and conventions establishes that governments may not torture those who have come into their custody, nor subject them to violence, humiliation, deprivation... I would rather it be a more vague or general than specific. The reason is because specificity in what cannot be done can allow governments or even lone interrogators to excuse acts of torture on the grounds they are not clearly prohibited. What any country, soldier or government official should be thinking about when deciding what Article III of the Geneva Conventions means is, 'if you have to ask yourself 'is this torture?', then it probably is'.

At a press conference in the Rose garden at the White House Bush said, "We can debate this issue all we want, the bottom line is ... this program won't go forward if there's vague standards applied." In another press conferences he threatened, "If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules ... the program is not going forward."

So basically, if you don't get to redefine torture to fit your needs then you'll shut the program down? Fine, fucker, shut it down. Problem solved. Maybe you should put your people to work on finding a way to interrogate people that doesn't include torture. How about also finding a way to prosecute terrorists that doesn't require the use of kangaroo court tactics. Supposedly this is the greatest country in the world with the highest reverence of justice and fairness, right? So how about we act like it! And how about Bush stop acting like a spoiled brat throwing a titty tantrum when he doesn't get his way...

I can think of several governments that would have been particularly loathe to adhere to such notions as treating prisoners & detainees with dignity and respect, valuing human rights, and not using torture as a way to extract information from people, like Communist China, the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan. But I'm thinking of one government in particular that has an infamous reputation for a lack of reverence for humanity and the treatment of detainees — Nazi Germany. It's fitting to compare the attempts by Bush to change the legal definition of torture and the judicial proceedings of detainees since he likes to compare his enemies and/or political opponents to Nazis all the time. The more time goes on and the more we find out about Bush's tactics the more it becomes clear that they parallel that of totalitarian regimes we have vehemently opposed in the past.

I'm amazed there isn't more outrage at what's taken place over the past 5 years. It doesn't seem nearly as obvious to most people it seems. By listening to others, reading blogs and letters to the editor I notice that a lot of people in this country are so naive, so scared, so brainwashed {braindead!} that they see nothing wrong with Bush & Co.'s race toward a police state. They don't see the signs; the parallels between tactics used by the Nazis and those being implemented in modern times. They seem so obvious but then perhaps these people just don't want to see them. They don't see it and the excuses keep coming as to why we need more war, more limits to liberty, more unchecked power for the White House, the use of torture, indefinite detainment in foreign prisons, and strict military tribunals for 'enemies of the state' held in secrecy.

One thing I'm going to do to take a stand on this issue is to withhold my vote for anyone I become aware of that votes in favor of Bush's plan on this issue.

Redefining Justice

As if the torture aspect of this debate wasn't enough Bush also wants the law changed to allow the use of evidence against terrorist suspects that has been kept in secret from them. They would not be allowed to hear, see, know of certain evidence used to convict them. Normally evidence used against a person must be available for examination by the defense so as to refute it's validity. Bush & Cheney are pushing hard to do away with other due process in these military tribunals for supposed terrorist cases. Like the right of the accused to face their accuser in court. They feel this could compromise national security be revealing sources. Bush also wants the courts to be able to use hearsay and coerced statements against people. So after they've tortured a person, for instance by nearly drowning them in a process called 'Waterboarding', they can get them to admit to any number of false statements and then convict people on such bogus information. Essentially, Bush's argument is that we can't have our ability to prosecute terrorists impeded by such things as the bill of rights, human rights, due process of law, etc. Since this is a battle for civilization we just can't take any risks.

Of course some people think we really shouldn't care, afterall these are terrorists we are talking about here. Well, setting aside the unethical nature of all this and its serious departure from an ancient and formerly sacred legal jurisprudence that our Founding Fathers wisely put into place, it requires the supposition that the accused in these instances are all indeed guilty of terrorism. I find absolutely no reason to make such an assumption merely because the government says so. Terrorist or not, I find no reason to suspend the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty. These people haven't been proven anything, merely alleged, accused. There is always some grey area when it comes to law enforcement. The accused is not always guilty, the circumstances not always so obvious. Not only will the accused not always be guilty, but sometimes the proof of innocence is deliberately suppressed. So all of these despicable "tools for winning the war on terror" will not merely be brought to bear on the guilty, nor only on foreign terrorists. They will be used against the innocent as well, and American citizens.

I say it will be used against Americans meaning not only supposed American terrorists, but also American citizens who have committed or are suspected to have committed crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism. The logic will go, as it already has, that if these 'law enforcement tools' are useful in one capacity they can be useful in others. Take for instance the increased police powers put into the Patriot Act. It was sold to us on the premise that it would help us fight terrorism. However, those same increased police powers have been used in a variety of domestic cases which had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism involving American citizens. You will find few who support using such methods against terrorists who will not also argue that we should use it to fight organized crime, drugs, child pornography. And what's next?

There are some who ignorantly conclude the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. They would be correct, I suppose, if water didn't flow downhill. The fact is, often one thing does lead to another. One can but need not look any farther than what we've seen so clearly since 9/11. Since that time in particular we have taken one previously unimaginable step after another closer toward a dreaded police state that simply becomes 'the new normal in a post 9/11 world'. With each new threat we take another step. The direction this administration has been taking us has indeed been a slippery slope leading to a very dark and draconian place.

Of all the grim news about this issue though there is at least one glimmer of hope. Some of us do see a larger picture here and strongly oppose what is going on. And while many of us are fooled, a great many others are not. Even some very influential persons are deeply concerned about what is going on and are trying to do something about it. While it may do little more than slow our march toward totalitarianism, I'm glad that our Dictator in Chief is meeting so much resistance right now. I'm especially pleased that he's getting much of that resistance from people in his own party, and moreover from respected veterans who really should know what the fuck they're talking about, war heroes like John McCain and Colin Powell.

Bush & Co. is painting many of us in opposition to his neoconservative agenda as either traitors, appeasers, or perhaps just confused. It's amazing how many of us would have to be dead wrong in order for him to be right. Hopefully some of us are wrong in fearing that things have already gone too far and much of what we've lost cannot be reclaimed.

Well deserved blame isn't a game

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.

Insensitivity or hypersensitivity?

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...

Libelous

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.

'Beyond Marriage' - to nowhere

A comment I left at the Independent Gay Forum, main article at top of page.

A little integrity in politics for a change

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?

Oy vey, the hypocrisy!

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!

The Value of Freedom; Meritocracy

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.

Red herrings...

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.