Good news, everyone!! It looks like a Republican may actually get what he deserves!
Anybody remember Carey Lee Cramer? Hired (through thus-untraceable funds) to create a 2000 TV spot that accused the Clinton-Gore administration of giving China nuclear technologies in return for campaign funds, his head is now on the chopping block. This political consultant's company created a rip-off of President Johnson's televised 1964 "Daisy" attack on candidate Barry Goldwater, implying that he would lead the country to nuclear war.
Cramer, 44, has been convicted on several counts of pedophilia. Specifically, one count of aggravated sexual ASSAULT of a child, two counts of indecency with a child by contact, and one count of indecency with a child by exposure. His accuser is the eight year old girl featured in the 2000 TV ad.
Accused by the little girl he hired to try to convince the world that Clinton had sold nuclear capabilities to China. It's a horrifying thing that children still suffer these abuses, no matter the adult involved; the irony, however, the absolute poetic justice of this instance, is as brutal as it is hideous.
Cramer faces up to 149 years in prison. I do not wish him to be raped in jail. However, I hope he can, through a medical miracle, serve all 149 years. And I hope every day is spent in the fear of imminent rape. Every single day.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Duh
I don't know why I didn't realize this sooner, but, yesterday, I was struck by the real reason Bush and Co. are so furious with the New York Times. If the Republican-led administration is riffling bank records, transactions, and studying money trails, of course they wouldn't want anyone to know about it. They're not trying to protect the secrecy of a plan designed to help defend America; no, their reason is much more personal and avaricious. If people get wind of exactly where they're looking, or what they're looking at, it's only a matter of time before the Republicans have to explain the enormous amounts of misbegotten funds, illicit bribes, and laundering schemes they've buried.
Here are some interesting facts that probably won't be investigated for signs of financial terrorism ties:
George H.W. Bush is a Senior Advisor for the Carlyle Group, a shadowy equity management firm. They have long done business with the Saudis. If I remember correctly, nearly all of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian. Carlyle, using the Bush's deep connections in Saudi Arabia, has done business with members of the bin Laden family before and after 9/11. Why aren't these funds being traced? Is it not curious that the country that produced most of our 9/11 attackers has strong business ties to our ruling class?
Also, Halliburton signed $73 million worth of contracts with Iraq while Dick Cheney was the CEO. It was done sneakily, through two subsidiary companies so it didn't break any UN regualtions, but it was done. Cheney himself has admitted that the company did business with Libya and Iran as well.
Now, I'm sure all the huge corporations (if there are any) that don't feature a prominent right-wing politician or one of his rich benefactors will have their bank records thoroughly pilfered if they've had any dealings such as the ones described above. But I'm equally sure that Cheney, Bush Sr., his idiot child and all his friends will remain above the fray.
Wake up and resist.
Here are some interesting facts that probably won't be investigated for signs of financial terrorism ties:
George H.W. Bush is a Senior Advisor for the Carlyle Group, a shadowy equity management firm. They have long done business with the Saudis. If I remember correctly, nearly all of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian. Carlyle, using the Bush's deep connections in Saudi Arabia, has done business with members of the bin Laden family before and after 9/11. Why aren't these funds being traced? Is it not curious that the country that produced most of our 9/11 attackers has strong business ties to our ruling class?
Also, Halliburton signed $73 million worth of contracts with Iraq while Dick Cheney was the CEO. It was done sneakily, through two subsidiary companies so it didn't break any UN regualtions, but it was done. Cheney himself has admitted that the company did business with Libya and Iran as well.
Now, I'm sure all the huge corporations (if there are any) that don't feature a prominent right-wing politician or one of his rich benefactors will have their bank records thoroughly pilfered if they've had any dealings such as the ones described above. But I'm equally sure that Cheney, Bush Sr., his idiot child and all his friends will remain above the fray.
Wake up and resist.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Sit! Lie Down! Stay!
Peter King (R-NY), who just happens to be the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, is squawking his head off. He is completely furious with the New York Times and wants Bush and his cronies to bring criminal charges against the paper.
The Times only offense, of course, is reporting the news. In this case, breaking a story about how the administration is secretly combing financial records in their never-ending, yet rarely-effective, endeavors to find terrorists.
King is rallying the troops to enforce one of Bush's greatest mandates; crush the press, cow the editors, hamstring the journalists, marginalize the tough reporters until the media presents what we TELL them to present. In the past six years it's worked great. So great, in fact, that the mainstream media eats from Bush's one hand while the other is cocked back in a fist.
This can be easily seen by the Times' carefully contrived explanaion of how they weighed the facts very deliberately before deciding to go ahead and DO THEIR JOB. Their meticulous near-apology to the administraion that hounds them at every turn is a scrap of evidence on the mountain that Bush has created.
Rebublican-controlled Congress is rallying behind the empty cry "Stay the course," while the vast majority of Americans reject this rhetoric, and the media refuses to print anything that will point out its worthlessness.
Wake up and resist.
The Times only offense, of course, is reporting the news. In this case, breaking a story about how the administration is secretly combing financial records in their never-ending, yet rarely-effective, endeavors to find terrorists.
King is rallying the troops to enforce one of Bush's greatest mandates; crush the press, cow the editors, hamstring the journalists, marginalize the tough reporters until the media presents what we TELL them to present. In the past six years it's worked great. So great, in fact, that the mainstream media eats from Bush's one hand while the other is cocked back in a fist.
This can be easily seen by the Times' carefully contrived explanaion of how they weighed the facts very deliberately before deciding to go ahead and DO THEIR JOB. Their meticulous near-apology to the administraion that hounds them at every turn is a scrap of evidence on the mountain that Bush has created.
Rebublican-controlled Congress is rallying behind the empty cry "Stay the course," while the vast majority of Americans reject this rhetoric, and the media refuses to print anything that will point out its worthlessness.
Wake up and resist.
Careful What You Wish For
It appears that one of the Bush administration's top goals may yet be realized: unity in the Middle East. Unfortunately, it seems the Middle East may be solidifying internal relations in an attempt to present a unified front against the United States. This is rather contrary to Mr. Bush's unfounded vision of the American-led Democracy machine turning the region into a non-violent utopia. However, it probably doesn't come as much of a shock to the rest of the world, which has undertood from the start that Bush's actions in the Middle East are intrusive, divisive, disorganized, shortsighted displays of military brawn.
In light of US backed pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear program, many governments formerly hostile towards Tehran are beginning to extend hands of peace. Iran's national security chief, Ali Larijani met with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak recently in Cairo. Saudi Arabian foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal came to Tehran this month to proclaim the strong and friendly bond between the two countries. Iran, recognizing its blooming fortune, has conveyed messages of friendship to each and every state in the Persian Gulf.
The key to many of these newly peaceful endeavors seems to be Syria, which is playing a delicate dual role in the region. What it offers Iran is very enticing: the chance to establish a powerful unity that reaches from Syria to Palestine. Hamas, which provides Palestinian leadership, is allied with both Iran and Syria. This would lend unmistakable authority to an area that has been torn by disagreement and war since time immemorial.
Syria has much to offer the rest of the Middle East, as well. Considering its secular government, and its diverse blend of religious and ethnic groups, Syria is uniquely suited to align itself with other ideals around the region. Ideals that an Islamic government could only endorse at the risk of offending potential friends. For example, Syria is backing the Sunni effort to curtail the growing Shiite influence, a move that has won both dollars and support from many. This is also partly predicated by the US installation of Shiite leadership in Iraq's new "government."
The obvious problem with this is that, if Iran accepts the deal that Europe and America is offerring, Syria could be abandoned and left weaker than before. Its religious and ethnic diversity works against as well as for it, and Syria is stricken with internal conflicts that are soemwhat soothed by its beneficial relationship with Iran. Various military and economic agreements between the two range from telecommunications deals to education plans. In addition, Iran is selling missles to Syria and constructing cement and car plants there.
Syria is building better relations with other nations, too. The king of Bahrain visited this month, and President Assad (of Syria) hosted a telephone conference with the king of Jordan. Jordan and Syria's ties have been stressed due to the Jordanian accusation that Hamas terrorists were smuggling weapons there with Damascas' aid.
Iran has reassured its neighbor that there's nothing to worry about. Ambassador to Syria Muhammad Hassan Akhtari has said that Iran won't make any deal with the West that is "against the interest of Syria." He went on to say "Now that Iran is stronger, why would it sell out its friends, and sell out Syria?" Indeed.
In addition to these developments, things continue to get disturbing in Somalia. A terrorist wanted by the US has been appointed head of the Council of the Islamic Courts, which is basically Mogadishu's new parliament. Muslim cleric Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys will be a frightening counterpart to the moderate stance the new government is trying to show the world. He has accused America of backing the recently-overthrown warlords as revenge for the 1990's killing of US soldiers in Mogadishu. He is also a militant proponent of Sharia, or rule by Islamic law, which critics say is both helping and hurting the already ravaged country. Helping because it lends a much-needed strength to a shattered leadership; hurting because it's uncompromising and unforgiving. Somalia's new representatives seem bent on inviting journalists in to chronicle the two distinct faces of the land: one is the open willingness to consider the rest of the world's regard; the other is the masked fighter with an AK-47, refusing to shake his interviewer's hand because he isn't a Muslim. It seems apparent that the armed fighters are in control of everything, including the PR that tries to soften their image as moderates.
Whether Somalia extends friendship to Iran, Syria and others is impossible to predict right now. What is certain, however, is the influence Bush and his policies are having on the Middle East. Unity, indeed may prevail. If it does, the US (and its shocked leaders) may be looking at a region suddenly stabilized by its opposition to the Imperialism of the West.
Wake up and resist.
In light of US backed pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear program, many governments formerly hostile towards Tehran are beginning to extend hands of peace. Iran's national security chief, Ali Larijani met with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak recently in Cairo. Saudi Arabian foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal came to Tehran this month to proclaim the strong and friendly bond between the two countries. Iran, recognizing its blooming fortune, has conveyed messages of friendship to each and every state in the Persian Gulf.
The key to many of these newly peaceful endeavors seems to be Syria, which is playing a delicate dual role in the region. What it offers Iran is very enticing: the chance to establish a powerful unity that reaches from Syria to Palestine. Hamas, which provides Palestinian leadership, is allied with both Iran and Syria. This would lend unmistakable authority to an area that has been torn by disagreement and war since time immemorial.
Syria has much to offer the rest of the Middle East, as well. Considering its secular government, and its diverse blend of religious and ethnic groups, Syria is uniquely suited to align itself with other ideals around the region. Ideals that an Islamic government could only endorse at the risk of offending potential friends. For example, Syria is backing the Sunni effort to curtail the growing Shiite influence, a move that has won both dollars and support from many. This is also partly predicated by the US installation of Shiite leadership in Iraq's new "government."
The obvious problem with this is that, if Iran accepts the deal that Europe and America is offerring, Syria could be abandoned and left weaker than before. Its religious and ethnic diversity works against as well as for it, and Syria is stricken with internal conflicts that are soemwhat soothed by its beneficial relationship with Iran. Various military and economic agreements between the two range from telecommunications deals to education plans. In addition, Iran is selling missles to Syria and constructing cement and car plants there.
Syria is building better relations with other nations, too. The king of Bahrain visited this month, and President Assad (of Syria) hosted a telephone conference with the king of Jordan. Jordan and Syria's ties have been stressed due to the Jordanian accusation that Hamas terrorists were smuggling weapons there with Damascas' aid.
Iran has reassured its neighbor that there's nothing to worry about. Ambassador to Syria Muhammad Hassan Akhtari has said that Iran won't make any deal with the West that is "against the interest of Syria." He went on to say "Now that Iran is stronger, why would it sell out its friends, and sell out Syria?" Indeed.
In addition to these developments, things continue to get disturbing in Somalia. A terrorist wanted by the US has been appointed head of the Council of the Islamic Courts, which is basically Mogadishu's new parliament. Muslim cleric Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys will be a frightening counterpart to the moderate stance the new government is trying to show the world. He has accused America of backing the recently-overthrown warlords as revenge for the 1990's killing of US soldiers in Mogadishu. He is also a militant proponent of Sharia, or rule by Islamic law, which critics say is both helping and hurting the already ravaged country. Helping because it lends a much-needed strength to a shattered leadership; hurting because it's uncompromising and unforgiving. Somalia's new representatives seem bent on inviting journalists in to chronicle the two distinct faces of the land: one is the open willingness to consider the rest of the world's regard; the other is the masked fighter with an AK-47, refusing to shake his interviewer's hand because he isn't a Muslim. It seems apparent that the armed fighters are in control of everything, including the PR that tries to soften their image as moderates.
Whether Somalia extends friendship to Iran, Syria and others is impossible to predict right now. What is certain, however, is the influence Bush and his policies are having on the Middle East. Unity, indeed may prevail. If it does, the US (and its shocked leaders) may be looking at a region suddenly stabilized by its opposition to the Imperialism of the West.
Wake up and resist.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Move the Power, or Lose It Again
I keep thinking I'm going to go to bed. Yet, when I lie down, I'm tortured by visions of a Republican majority continuing its iron-fisted rule of our Congress.
If you don't believe the things I say, if you're still uncertain about the facts that I present to you, do your own research. Don't trust the links I give you, to the right of this column. Don't trust salon.com or the Drudge Report or Media Matters. Dig deeper. Ignore the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and the full-color USA Today and find out for yourself.
If you come up with data, hard-core, real defensible facts that prove I'm wrong, I'll come to your town. And I will personally gerrymander your ass until you don't know up from Democrat or left from weapons of mass destruction. Give up your viewpoint and just look at what's been done. Look objectively and tell me that everything is still OK.
Wake up and resist.
If you don't believe the things I say, if you're still uncertain about the facts that I present to you, do your own research. Don't trust the links I give you, to the right of this column. Don't trust salon.com or the Drudge Report or Media Matters. Dig deeper. Ignore the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and the full-color USA Today and find out for yourself.
If you come up with data, hard-core, real defensible facts that prove I'm wrong, I'll come to your town. And I will personally gerrymander your ass until you don't know up from Democrat or left from weapons of mass destruction. Give up your viewpoint and just look at what's been done. Look objectively and tell me that everything is still OK.
Wake up and resist.
And Another Thing
Ann Coulter has written a quadrilogy of horror. Her books, How To Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter; High Crimes and Misdemeanors: the Case Against Bill Clinton; Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right; and Godless: The Church of Liberalism are basically one, venomous, repetitive essay. With more poison than I could ever imagine having, they chronicle The Left's adamant refusal to submit to the long, Christian, kiss goodnight, with a false eye for detail that would make a viper blush.
I urge all of you to read at least one of these books; it doesn't matter which, they're all the middle part of a magnificently misguided attempt to shepherd the faithful back into the houses they're already afraid to leave. From what I've seen of Coulter's prose, she's driving liberals away from neo-conservative ideals in much the same manner that Vincent Price repelled vampires from the throats of countless virgins. She wields the same cross, the same stilted dialogue and outdated morals that Price espoused as he ranted on the silver screen.
All that being said, I've never actually read any of her books. I've seen the talking points highlighted on news feeds and I've noticed her Skeletor-like visage on various broadcasts, but I've never managed to watch one of her political bottle rockets to its underwhelming conclusion.
But we should. We, as the resistance, should have more than her bizarre interview responses nestled in our brains. We need to know our enemy. We should devour at least one of her books so that we know not only the true face of cartoon hatred, but its words as well.
I'm working on it. I imagine that sometime within the next few months, I will have the necessary shots and fortitude to bear Ann Coulter's specific brand of stylized, middle class rage. I'm trying to abide by the advice I give you: Don't grant her too much power. Read her books the same way you'd read any under-educated, semi-retarded kid's efforts at a cogent argument. Crack off a Guinness and be prepared to laugh. Don't get too heavy with the red pen, though; if you do, you'll lose all sense of perspective as well as your sense of humor.
This is the stuff that Middle America reads before it goes to bed. This is what it wakes up with before it encourages Beltway snipers to begin picking us off. Pump your gas quickly, my friend, because your empty head could be next.
Wake up and resist.
I urge all of you to read at least one of these books; it doesn't matter which, they're all the middle part of a magnificently misguided attempt to shepherd the faithful back into the houses they're already afraid to leave. From what I've seen of Coulter's prose, she's driving liberals away from neo-conservative ideals in much the same manner that Vincent Price repelled vampires from the throats of countless virgins. She wields the same cross, the same stilted dialogue and outdated morals that Price espoused as he ranted on the silver screen.
All that being said, I've never actually read any of her books. I've seen the talking points highlighted on news feeds and I've noticed her Skeletor-like visage on various broadcasts, but I've never managed to watch one of her political bottle rockets to its underwhelming conclusion.
But we should. We, as the resistance, should have more than her bizarre interview responses nestled in our brains. We need to know our enemy. We should devour at least one of her books so that we know not only the true face of cartoon hatred, but its words as well.
I'm working on it. I imagine that sometime within the next few months, I will have the necessary shots and fortitude to bear Ann Coulter's specific brand of stylized, middle class rage. I'm trying to abide by the advice I give you: Don't grant her too much power. Read her books the same way you'd read any under-educated, semi-retarded kid's efforts at a cogent argument. Crack off a Guinness and be prepared to laugh. Don't get too heavy with the red pen, though; if you do, you'll lose all sense of perspective as well as your sense of humor.
This is the stuff that Middle America reads before it goes to bed. This is what it wakes up with before it encourages Beltway snipers to begin picking us off. Pump your gas quickly, my friend, because your empty head could be next.
Wake up and resist.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Get To Work!!
Ernie Fletcher's administration has made what many consider to be another blunder. His office has restricted state employees' access to many sites on the Net, something that has not made front page news until today. Up till now, state employees have been prohibited from visiting porn sites, shopping sites, gambling sites, and gaming sites.
Today, however, the story broke that ol' Fletch has barred state workers from visiting many blog sites, most notably, political blogs. Granted, the timing is fishy. The ban went into effect one day after the New York Times ran a front page story on Fletcher which quoted Mark Nickolas. Nickolas is the publisher of a popular Kentucky blog called Bluegrassreport.org. The article dealt with the allegations that Fletcher faces and the quote from Nickolas, while hardly inflammatory, wasn't loving praise, either. He mentioned that the administration seems willing to disregard any rules but their own, even if those rules happen to fracture the law just a bit. (By the way, he's totally right.)
Now, understandably this has sent many folks off the deep end. After repeated attempts to reach Nickolas' site had failed, a reported "half-dozen" state workers contacted him with the news. Bluegrassreport.org immediately posted an entry about the ban, which attracted the attention of several national bloggers (not me).
Charlie Wells, the executive director of the Kentucky Association of State Employees was quoted to say "This is the ultimate in censorship. I think the priority for the administration should be blocking pornographic sites. I don't see a problem in state employees reading someone's political views."
Neither do I. Matter of fact, I don't see anything wrong with state employees accessing porno sites, either. Or gambling sites, entertainment sites, auction sites, classified ad sites, movie sites, or message sites, which are also off-limits. I've got no problem whatsoever with these folks visiting these sites: If they're anywhere but work.
In a rare, and, admittedly, confusing moment for me, I find myself siding with the governor's office. Two weeks ago they conducted a study to identify which web sites state workers were visiting that had nothing to do with state government work. According to Finance and Administration Cabinet spokeswoman Jill Midkiff, this is part of an effort to restrict employees' access to sites that could potentially contain viruses (markedly flimsy) or prove totally worthless in their day to day duties (pretty solid).
After compiling their list, the governor's office sent it to an Internet security firm which began blocking the sites Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning. Nickolas has stated that the administration believes they can "...censor political speech to keep people in line." Midkiff points out the obvious rebuttal, that employees are not being limited in their freedom of speech because they can visit whatever websites they like and post their thoughts and ideas therein when they aren't working for the taxpayers.
The state's Commonwealth Office of Technology will be blocking ALL BLOGS, not specific political blogs, as it learns of each one.
The Bluegrass Institute is a free-market advocacy group based in Bowling Green that has found itself banned from state office computers as well. Jim Waters, institute spokesman, maintains that state workers should be able to view any and all public debate forums. He says that's the beauty of the Net, that all policies and ideas can be discussed openly.
The National Coalition Against Censorship has flung a gauntlet down, as well. It released a statement that it "condemns these actions and requests that the sites be cleared for access by state employees."
For the life of me, I can't imagine why. Believe me, I've tried to find reasons. After I read the article in the Herald-Leader I spent a lot of time figuring out a way to oppose Fletcher's office. After all, he's a dyed-in-the-wool crook bent on appointing all his buddies to cushy jobs with the state. I oppose nearly every word out of his mouth. Try as I might, I can't come up with a reason to condemn what his administration has done with this.
Unless a state employee is gathering data or checking the political climate in regards to Boss Fletcher, I don't see why they should be allowed access to these blogs when they're at work. Stay off the Internet, you gape-jawed, Frankfort slackers! You're in the capitol working on the taxpayer's dime so try to get something done. I don't care what you do on the computer when you get home, but, when you're at work, please try to accomplish a few of the tasks we pay you to do.
Unless it's directly related to assigned duties, Internet access in the state office seems a frivolous waste of time. If it's a slow day, I don't expect you to be surfing at EntertainmentWeekly.com; somehow, I still expect you to be doing something worthwhile. My wife used to manage a busy retail store. I know for a fact there were times when nothing was going on and the employees were just standing around trying to figure out if George W. Bush was really gay or if he just hated women. If she had left them to run the floor and just chilled in the office ordering Aerosmith tickets and checking out the Ms. site online she'd have been fired. And she was selling CLOTHES to people. The state office in Frankfort is selling us GOVERNMENT. Come on, folks, make us believe it.
I am not allowed to use my cell phone at work. Nor am I permitted to use my laptop or iPod(TM). I don't see why government emplyees should be able to use the Internet for entertainment purposes when they're clocked in and I'm helping pay the tab. If public blogs and forums are integral to their job description, fine, carry on, soldier. If not, if they're just hanging at their desk and seeing what the rest of the world is up to, it seems like that could wait until they've gone home.
If anyone knows more about this than I do, please leave a comment. I would love to know that I'm barking up the wrong tree here. The last thing I thought I'd be doing when I woke up today was supporting a decision that came from Ernie Fletcher's Republican office.
Wake up and resist.
Today, however, the story broke that ol' Fletch has barred state workers from visiting many blog sites, most notably, political blogs. Granted, the timing is fishy. The ban went into effect one day after the New York Times ran a front page story on Fletcher which quoted Mark Nickolas. Nickolas is the publisher of a popular Kentucky blog called Bluegrassreport.org. The article dealt with the allegations that Fletcher faces and the quote from Nickolas, while hardly inflammatory, wasn't loving praise, either. He mentioned that the administration seems willing to disregard any rules but their own, even if those rules happen to fracture the law just a bit. (By the way, he's totally right.)
Now, understandably this has sent many folks off the deep end. After repeated attempts to reach Nickolas' site had failed, a reported "half-dozen" state workers contacted him with the news. Bluegrassreport.org immediately posted an entry about the ban, which attracted the attention of several national bloggers (not me).
Charlie Wells, the executive director of the Kentucky Association of State Employees was quoted to say "This is the ultimate in censorship. I think the priority for the administration should be blocking pornographic sites. I don't see a problem in state employees reading someone's political views."
Neither do I. Matter of fact, I don't see anything wrong with state employees accessing porno sites, either. Or gambling sites, entertainment sites, auction sites, classified ad sites, movie sites, or message sites, which are also off-limits. I've got no problem whatsoever with these folks visiting these sites: If they're anywhere but work.
In a rare, and, admittedly, confusing moment for me, I find myself siding with the governor's office. Two weeks ago they conducted a study to identify which web sites state workers were visiting that had nothing to do with state government work. According to Finance and Administration Cabinet spokeswoman Jill Midkiff, this is part of an effort to restrict employees' access to sites that could potentially contain viruses (markedly flimsy) or prove totally worthless in their day to day duties (pretty solid).
After compiling their list, the governor's office sent it to an Internet security firm which began blocking the sites Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning. Nickolas has stated that the administration believes they can "...censor political speech to keep people in line." Midkiff points out the obvious rebuttal, that employees are not being limited in their freedom of speech because they can visit whatever websites they like and post their thoughts and ideas therein when they aren't working for the taxpayers.
The state's Commonwealth Office of Technology will be blocking ALL BLOGS, not specific political blogs, as it learns of each one.
The Bluegrass Institute is a free-market advocacy group based in Bowling Green that has found itself banned from state office computers as well. Jim Waters, institute spokesman, maintains that state workers should be able to view any and all public debate forums. He says that's the beauty of the Net, that all policies and ideas can be discussed openly.
The National Coalition Against Censorship has flung a gauntlet down, as well. It released a statement that it "condemns these actions and requests that the sites be cleared for access by state employees."
For the life of me, I can't imagine why. Believe me, I've tried to find reasons. After I read the article in the Herald-Leader I spent a lot of time figuring out a way to oppose Fletcher's office. After all, he's a dyed-in-the-wool crook bent on appointing all his buddies to cushy jobs with the state. I oppose nearly every word out of his mouth. Try as I might, I can't come up with a reason to condemn what his administration has done with this.
Unless a state employee is gathering data or checking the political climate in regards to Boss Fletcher, I don't see why they should be allowed access to these blogs when they're at work. Stay off the Internet, you gape-jawed, Frankfort slackers! You're in the capitol working on the taxpayer's dime so try to get something done. I don't care what you do on the computer when you get home, but, when you're at work, please try to accomplish a few of the tasks we pay you to do.
Unless it's directly related to assigned duties, Internet access in the state office seems a frivolous waste of time. If it's a slow day, I don't expect you to be surfing at EntertainmentWeekly.com; somehow, I still expect you to be doing something worthwhile. My wife used to manage a busy retail store. I know for a fact there were times when nothing was going on and the employees were just standing around trying to figure out if George W. Bush was really gay or if he just hated women. If she had left them to run the floor and just chilled in the office ordering Aerosmith tickets and checking out the Ms. site online she'd have been fired. And she was selling CLOTHES to people. The state office in Frankfort is selling us GOVERNMENT. Come on, folks, make us believe it.
I am not allowed to use my cell phone at work. Nor am I permitted to use my laptop or iPod(TM). I don't see why government emplyees should be able to use the Internet for entertainment purposes when they're clocked in and I'm helping pay the tab. If public blogs and forums are integral to their job description, fine, carry on, soldier. If not, if they're just hanging at their desk and seeing what the rest of the world is up to, it seems like that could wait until they've gone home.
If anyone knows more about this than I do, please leave a comment. I would love to know that I'm barking up the wrong tree here. The last thing I thought I'd be doing when I woke up today was supporting a decision that came from Ernie Fletcher's Republican office.
Wake up and resist.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Bring Me Zoloft
I've been too depressed to write. I'm in the middle of a book called With God On Their Side: George W. Bush and the Christian Right, and it's rough. Rough, I tell you. My political muscles are swinging from bunched with fury to slack with apathy. Everything that is good in me (meaning everything that opposes Bush) alternately screams for action RIGHT NOW and moans in helpless frustration.
How can we oppose this tactless thug? He has done everything in his power to show us just how unimportant our regard for him is. He has made certain that we are hyper-aware of his connections and commitments to the only people that matter to him: the ranks of the rich, white, Christian, conservative elite. He has boldy lied to our faces, time and time again, whether about his family's connection to the Taliban or Saddam Hussein's connection to 9/11. He has turned the world's only superpower into the world's only unilateral, psuedo-democratic strike force. He had Katherine Harris shoplift an entire election from a nation that voted for Al Gore. He holds weekly prayer meetings in the White House and has carefully salted fellow right-wing religious nut jobs across every committee, cabinet, and agency that he influences. His administration forced the National Park Service to keep a book on their shelves that details how the Grand Canyon was created in the 40 days of Biblical flooding that Noah survived. The 3,000 year old Grand Canyon, I might add, on the 6,000 year old earth. These purportions, at a facility funded by the government, constitute an ostentatious federal endorsement of an unsubstantiated religious viewpoint.
The list, it seems, is as endless as Bush's frightening agenda. National Institute of Health grant proposals must be carefully couched in terminology as vague as possible; any references to homosexuality as it relates to HIV studies will be pounced on by Christian watchdog groups and denied funding. Bush's "faith-based initiatives" have stripped all monies worldwide from any institute or clinic that has voiced public support for sex education, birth control, or abortion rights. No one is allowed any ideas other than his "abstinence only" party line. This includes Africa, which is suffering from an AIDS pandemic so fierce that it borders on apocalyptic. No condom distribution is allowed, no one is being taught human sexuality, funding for AIDS treatment has been drastically reduced; Bush seems to think that if he just keeps preaching "abstinence only" we'll all eventually catch on.
He and his cohorts whine that leftist judges and courts are taking away Christian rights in a Christian country. In reality, moderate court systems headed by often-Republican judges are defending the rights of everyone else as they are attacked,over and over, by rabid fundamentalists. We are told day-in and day-out, repetitiously and predictably, that America was founded on Christian ideals that are inseperable from the fabric of our government. This despite the fact that most of the Constitution's framers were Deists who abhorred big government. Deists who were fighting a war in opposition of big government to secure their rights, one of which was keeping religion out of the political sphere. It's amazing that, when it serves their purposes, the Christian right-wingers are certain the Constitution is engraved in stone, such as their stance on gun rights. However, when they get to something like church and state, everything becomes so amorphous. Suddenly, no one can be sure how to "interpret" the outright statements the charter of our country makes. Liberals are accused of twisting the founding fathers' indisputable words on maintaining a strong barrier between religion and the operations of the state.
Bush has commented, in public, that God told him to run for the Presidency. He has admitted that his decisions are based on his faith. He has made it more than obvious that he favors Christianity to the exclusion of all else and will do everything in his power to topple the wall between the government and Jesus. Unless we do something about this, Christ will soon be mandatory in all homes and schools.
I am asking all of you, right now, to help me seize our country back from this dictator. Only the House of Representatives has the power to impeach a president, so that's where our appeals must start. Find out who your Representative is and fill his or her inbox with e-mails and letters demanding Bush be put on trial. Don't settle for just a few letters or e-mails, either: bombard these folks. Tell everyone you know, ask them all to help us with this. There's so little support for that fascist right now, if we get the word out and mount a truly massive letter-writing campaign, we have a chance of convincing the House to impeach him. These people are here to serve us so let's make them serve us for once. Find out who represents your area in the House; cram mail into their boxes; spread the word to family and friends; raise your voice until enough people join us that we can't be ignored: IMPEACH BUSH!!!
Wake up and resist.
How can we oppose this tactless thug? He has done everything in his power to show us just how unimportant our regard for him is. He has made certain that we are hyper-aware of his connections and commitments to the only people that matter to him: the ranks of the rich, white, Christian, conservative elite. He has boldy lied to our faces, time and time again, whether about his family's connection to the Taliban or Saddam Hussein's connection to 9/11. He has turned the world's only superpower into the world's only unilateral, psuedo-democratic strike force. He had Katherine Harris shoplift an entire election from a nation that voted for Al Gore. He holds weekly prayer meetings in the White House and has carefully salted fellow right-wing religious nut jobs across every committee, cabinet, and agency that he influences. His administration forced the National Park Service to keep a book on their shelves that details how the Grand Canyon was created in the 40 days of Biblical flooding that Noah survived. The 3,000 year old Grand Canyon, I might add, on the 6,000 year old earth. These purportions, at a facility funded by the government, constitute an ostentatious federal endorsement of an unsubstantiated religious viewpoint.
The list, it seems, is as endless as Bush's frightening agenda. National Institute of Health grant proposals must be carefully couched in terminology as vague as possible; any references to homosexuality as it relates to HIV studies will be pounced on by Christian watchdog groups and denied funding. Bush's "faith-based initiatives" have stripped all monies worldwide from any institute or clinic that has voiced public support for sex education, birth control, or abortion rights. No one is allowed any ideas other than his "abstinence only" party line. This includes Africa, which is suffering from an AIDS pandemic so fierce that it borders on apocalyptic. No condom distribution is allowed, no one is being taught human sexuality, funding for AIDS treatment has been drastically reduced; Bush seems to think that if he just keeps preaching "abstinence only" we'll all eventually catch on.
He and his cohorts whine that leftist judges and courts are taking away Christian rights in a Christian country. In reality, moderate court systems headed by often-Republican judges are defending the rights of everyone else as they are attacked,over and over, by rabid fundamentalists. We are told day-in and day-out, repetitiously and predictably, that America was founded on Christian ideals that are inseperable from the fabric of our government. This despite the fact that most of the Constitution's framers were Deists who abhorred big government. Deists who were fighting a war in opposition of big government to secure their rights, one of which was keeping religion out of the political sphere. It's amazing that, when it serves their purposes, the Christian right-wingers are certain the Constitution is engraved in stone, such as their stance on gun rights. However, when they get to something like church and state, everything becomes so amorphous. Suddenly, no one can be sure how to "interpret" the outright statements the charter of our country makes. Liberals are accused of twisting the founding fathers' indisputable words on maintaining a strong barrier between religion and the operations of the state.
Bush has commented, in public, that God told him to run for the Presidency. He has admitted that his decisions are based on his faith. He has made it more than obvious that he favors Christianity to the exclusion of all else and will do everything in his power to topple the wall between the government and Jesus. Unless we do something about this, Christ will soon be mandatory in all homes and schools.
I am asking all of you, right now, to help me seize our country back from this dictator. Only the House of Representatives has the power to impeach a president, so that's where our appeals must start. Find out who your Representative is and fill his or her inbox with e-mails and letters demanding Bush be put on trial. Don't settle for just a few letters or e-mails, either: bombard these folks. Tell everyone you know, ask them all to help us with this. There's so little support for that fascist right now, if we get the word out and mount a truly massive letter-writing campaign, we have a chance of convincing the House to impeach him. These people are here to serve us so let's make them serve us for once. Find out who represents your area in the House; cram mail into their boxes; spread the word to family and friends; raise your voice until enough people join us that we can't be ignored: IMPEACH BUSH!!!
Wake up and resist.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Ben Dover, America
Dover, Delaware is apparently a real place. My entire life I've lived with the comfortable assumption that the entire state of Delaware was made up. I don't know who could possibly gain something from making up a whole state but, think about it for a sec; has anyone ever been to Delaware? Does anyone even know anyone from Delaware? Has anything ever come out of Delaware that merits notice? Is Delaware on the way to somewhere else?
Turns out, not only is Delaware real, but it has a city very important to the US military. Dover, Delaware is the site of the military air base where most of the casualites from the Iraq war arrive back in the States. Day after day, plane after plane brings home what's left of the warm bodies the Bush administration has sent on their muderously deceitful errand. The media is not allowed to see these arrivals. Therefore, YOU are not allowed to see them.
Since the year 2000, the US military has had a fairly lax policy that prohibits any media coverage when our soldiers come home deceased. For the most part, this ban was a "spirit of the law" rather than a "letter of the law" sort of arrangement. Largely unenforced, it was primarily a nod towards protocol. This protocol involved the belief of national leaders that, since Vietnam, the televised images of coffins touching down on American soil was the biggest factor in turning the public's opinion of a war around.
This is an idea that is very much correct. Vietnam was the world's first televised war, and it did not agree with the public. The military learned its lesson, to some extent, and, during the Gulf War, it mainly televised images that appeared to be taken straight from video games. Laser-guided bombs tracking right down to the building they destroyed; pitch black gun fights seen in spooky green night vision so the tracer rounds looked like laser bolts; Baghdad and oil fields set ablaze with holy fire. There were still newscasts of soldier's caskets returning, but these images were less reported than the other angles of the war.
The Bush Boys seemed content with these loose arrangements until March, 2003, when they issued the same directive, but to be rigidly enforced this time. The Pentagon stated that "There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein airbase or Dover base, to include interim stops." Ramstein is our German air base, and is usually the first stop for a dead soldier's homeward journey.
This was an obvious step for the administration to take. With full realization that the global community as well as the American citezenry were not on board for this war, Bush and his cronies barred the most visceral portrayal of its cost. By issuing this mandate, the US government assured that the public could continue to pretend that we weren't in an awful situation.
The military refers to this as the "Dover Test." The implications are fairly obvious. The public must be so convinced that war is the only answer, so nearly unanimous in their vote of confidence, that their support remains steadfast despite the visual evidence of sons and daughters of democracy returning home very much perished.
Even in the Gulf War, dominated by coverage of impersonal, remote destruction and Iraqi militia surrendering to CNN cameramen, the public was allowed to see what its tax dollars were buying. At one point in 1990, Bush Sr. was shown delivering a press briefing while the other side of the screen televised the dead returning to Dover. This was unfortunate for the President, but valuable to a constituency obsessed with yellow ribbons, oak trees, and "Bring Em Home Safe" banners. They were not all coming home safe, and those coffins, those flag-draped coffins, helped sober a populace intoxicated by a war that seemed to have almost no casualties.
Tami Silicio worked for Maytag Aircraft until April 22, 2004. The company is a Defense Department contractor and Silicio worked at the Kuwait International Airport. She took a photo of twenty flag-covered caskets that had been loaded into a plane for transport. She had no intentions other than to document the events going on around her. Moved by the sight of soldiers assiduously arranging flags over their fallen comrades, she took two pictures, e-mailing one back home to Seattle. The Seattle Times expressed their desire to publish the photo, and, wishing to show families how lovingly their dead children were treated, Silicio agreed.
She was fired a blazing quick four days after the picture appeared in the paper. Her husband, also an employee of Maytag, was canned as well.
Having never seen the image in the Seattle Times, the picture I'm left with is still crystal clear. The current war in Iraq has miserably failed the Dover Test. Because public opinion will plummet even further than it is now if we have more information, we are no longer allowed to see America's warriors come home on their shields. Because the Bush Fraternity is terrified that physical evidence of their drastic, arrogant mistake will be dragged into the light, they clamp down ever tighter on the media. A media that is increasingly cowed by the notion that this administration has won the war against them. The Truth has never been free, but now it is no longer even printable. Reporters pay for it every day in their blood, only to discover that the communication conglomerates who own their souls will not let them tell it. The Goliath of government has finally crushed the David of journalism.
The Patriot Act and its attendant policies ensure that the only people who can be identified as patriots are those who blindly adhere to the government's definitions of such. Bush himself has stated that we are either with him, or we are with the terrorists. But, as Americans, we are guaranteed the right to criticize our leaders and their actions. Access to information and the option to oppose what we know to be wrong is our birthright, and a redoubtable force that Bush would take away from us.
The rest of the world sees us as uneducated, armed louts ready to drop our planetary police corps into whatever fray we wish. It's time we showed them what we really are, what we have been since our inception: a belligerent nation of intelligent iconoclasts determined to raise hell and hold our putative leaders accountable for each and every step they take. Until our freedoms are reaffirmed, freedoms our fathers paid dearly for, we are just a castrated dog snarling behind a master that would just as soon kick us as show us affection.
If you are reading this blog, or if you know someone who would like to see it, your government does not care about you. It is working at its full capacity to make certain that your opinions and ideas will never see the light of day. I am proud to be an American, and I refuse to be shamed by "elected" officials who speak for a shrinking wedge of the populace. I DO NOT support the current government and I believe it has shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is the true axis of evil. We are honor-bound by the tears of our bewildered nation to stand up and reclaim the Truth. It belongs to everyone. Don't let the bastards cut your balls off and tell you it's for your own good.
Wake up and resist.
(Most of the hard facts in this post were taken from a book called Attack the Messenger: How Politicians Turn You Against the Media, by Craig Crawford. I strongly recommend it if you have any desire to learn how to be an informed citizen, rather than just a pissed-off voter.)
Turns out, not only is Delaware real, but it has a city very important to the US military. Dover, Delaware is the site of the military air base where most of the casualites from the Iraq war arrive back in the States. Day after day, plane after plane brings home what's left of the warm bodies the Bush administration has sent on their muderously deceitful errand. The media is not allowed to see these arrivals. Therefore, YOU are not allowed to see them.
Since the year 2000, the US military has had a fairly lax policy that prohibits any media coverage when our soldiers come home deceased. For the most part, this ban was a "spirit of the law" rather than a "letter of the law" sort of arrangement. Largely unenforced, it was primarily a nod towards protocol. This protocol involved the belief of national leaders that, since Vietnam, the televised images of coffins touching down on American soil was the biggest factor in turning the public's opinion of a war around.
This is an idea that is very much correct. Vietnam was the world's first televised war, and it did not agree with the public. The military learned its lesson, to some extent, and, during the Gulf War, it mainly televised images that appeared to be taken straight from video games. Laser-guided bombs tracking right down to the building they destroyed; pitch black gun fights seen in spooky green night vision so the tracer rounds looked like laser bolts; Baghdad and oil fields set ablaze with holy fire. There were still newscasts of soldier's caskets returning, but these images were less reported than the other angles of the war.
The Bush Boys seemed content with these loose arrangements until March, 2003, when they issued the same directive, but to be rigidly enforced this time. The Pentagon stated that "There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein airbase or Dover base, to include interim stops." Ramstein is our German air base, and is usually the first stop for a dead soldier's homeward journey.
This was an obvious step for the administration to take. With full realization that the global community as well as the American citezenry were not on board for this war, Bush and his cronies barred the most visceral portrayal of its cost. By issuing this mandate, the US government assured that the public could continue to pretend that we weren't in an awful situation.
The military refers to this as the "Dover Test." The implications are fairly obvious. The public must be so convinced that war is the only answer, so nearly unanimous in their vote of confidence, that their support remains steadfast despite the visual evidence of sons and daughters of democracy returning home very much perished.
Even in the Gulf War, dominated by coverage of impersonal, remote destruction and Iraqi militia surrendering to CNN cameramen, the public was allowed to see what its tax dollars were buying. At one point in 1990, Bush Sr. was shown delivering a press briefing while the other side of the screen televised the dead returning to Dover. This was unfortunate for the President, but valuable to a constituency obsessed with yellow ribbons, oak trees, and "Bring Em Home Safe" banners. They were not all coming home safe, and those coffins, those flag-draped coffins, helped sober a populace intoxicated by a war that seemed to have almost no casualties.
Tami Silicio worked for Maytag Aircraft until April 22, 2004. The company is a Defense Department contractor and Silicio worked at the Kuwait International Airport. She took a photo of twenty flag-covered caskets that had been loaded into a plane for transport. She had no intentions other than to document the events going on around her. Moved by the sight of soldiers assiduously arranging flags over their fallen comrades, she took two pictures, e-mailing one back home to Seattle. The Seattle Times expressed their desire to publish the photo, and, wishing to show families how lovingly their dead children were treated, Silicio agreed.
She was fired a blazing quick four days after the picture appeared in the paper. Her husband, also an employee of Maytag, was canned as well.
Having never seen the image in the Seattle Times, the picture I'm left with is still crystal clear. The current war in Iraq has miserably failed the Dover Test. Because public opinion will plummet even further than it is now if we have more information, we are no longer allowed to see America's warriors come home on their shields. Because the Bush Fraternity is terrified that physical evidence of their drastic, arrogant mistake will be dragged into the light, they clamp down ever tighter on the media. A media that is increasingly cowed by the notion that this administration has won the war against them. The Truth has never been free, but now it is no longer even printable. Reporters pay for it every day in their blood, only to discover that the communication conglomerates who own their souls will not let them tell it. The Goliath of government has finally crushed the David of journalism.
The Patriot Act and its attendant policies ensure that the only people who can be identified as patriots are those who blindly adhere to the government's definitions of such. Bush himself has stated that we are either with him, or we are with the terrorists. But, as Americans, we are guaranteed the right to criticize our leaders and their actions. Access to information and the option to oppose what we know to be wrong is our birthright, and a redoubtable force that Bush would take away from us.
The rest of the world sees us as uneducated, armed louts ready to drop our planetary police corps into whatever fray we wish. It's time we showed them what we really are, what we have been since our inception: a belligerent nation of intelligent iconoclasts determined to raise hell and hold our putative leaders accountable for each and every step they take. Until our freedoms are reaffirmed, freedoms our fathers paid dearly for, we are just a castrated dog snarling behind a master that would just as soon kick us as show us affection.
If you are reading this blog, or if you know someone who would like to see it, your government does not care about you. It is working at its full capacity to make certain that your opinions and ideas will never see the light of day. I am proud to be an American, and I refuse to be shamed by "elected" officials who speak for a shrinking wedge of the populace. I DO NOT support the current government and I believe it has shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is the true axis of evil. We are honor-bound by the tears of our bewildered nation to stand up and reclaim the Truth. It belongs to everyone. Don't let the bastards cut your balls off and tell you it's for your own good.
Wake up and resist.
(Most of the hard facts in this post were taken from a book called Attack the Messenger: How Politicians Turn You Against the Media, by Craig Crawford. I strongly recommend it if you have any desire to learn how to be an informed citizen, rather than just a pissed-off voter.)
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Shift The Paradigm
Something occurred to me tonight. Now, many things occur to me on any given night. If most of my friends could see the majority of these things, they'd call the police and ask them to shoot me. If my wife could see half these things, she'd probably wish she'd been born a lesbian Muslim in Indonesia and would never have to worry about meeting white devils such as myself. I'm certain that the inside of most people's heads strongly resemble mine; I'm just a bit more prone to talk about it.
All that being said, what occurred to me tonight isn't that strange, unless you're a Republican. And, let's be honest here, if you're a Republican, you're probably not on my blog site. But, as long as someone's here, I might as well spit it out.
Republicans have been saying something for years, something that makes less and less sense the more I hear it. How often have you heard some Republican steaming about how the "liberal press" is out to get them? One can hardly open a newspaper these days without reading an article by a right-winger stating that the media, undivided, as a whole, is out to get them. (With the glaring exception of their home base, Fox News.)
I've done some thinking on this and I've come to the only conclusion that seems to fit. The "liberal media" is not out to get Republicans. Republicans, due to their beliefs and actions, are out to be gotten.
With such demonic pundits as Ann Coulter on their side, how do they expect not to be attacked? With Rush Limbaugh spewing vitriol into his microphone until he sheepishly admits he's addicted to painkillers, how can Republicans imagine they're viewed as anything but the idealogically bankrupt cons that they are?
The morality that they preach is not a unifying concept. It is not a step towards a peaceful society where all people get along in the pluralistic system of tolerance and mutual respect. It is a call for one, rigid set of ethics and beliefs where everyone is uniform in their acceptance of the status quo. It is a uniquely Caucasian viewpont that would deny criticism and demand blind obeisance as proof of membership. If the niggers and spics and dykes and faggots and slopes want to get along with them, then they need to abandon all their congenital, inherited, cultural, spiritual notions and accept the whitewashed version of the truth that is the only mechanism they will ever recognize.
Folks like Bill Frist and Samuel Alito will never accept counterviewpoints as valid. They will continue to push, like the thoughtless oxen that they are, until America has been hammered into the shape that they desire. And that shape precludes anything other than the strict, honky, Christian ideals that they champion with all the fervor of religious idiots.
So, yeah, liberal or not, the media needs to attack these crackers with every ounce of vigor they possess. We all need to attack, with all the means at our disposal until Republicans can prove they no longer deserve it.
Wake up and resist.
All that being said, what occurred to me tonight isn't that strange, unless you're a Republican. And, let's be honest here, if you're a Republican, you're probably not on my blog site. But, as long as someone's here, I might as well spit it out.
Republicans have been saying something for years, something that makes less and less sense the more I hear it. How often have you heard some Republican steaming about how the "liberal press" is out to get them? One can hardly open a newspaper these days without reading an article by a right-winger stating that the media, undivided, as a whole, is out to get them. (With the glaring exception of their home base, Fox News.)
I've done some thinking on this and I've come to the only conclusion that seems to fit. The "liberal media" is not out to get Republicans. Republicans, due to their beliefs and actions, are out to be gotten.
With such demonic pundits as Ann Coulter on their side, how do they expect not to be attacked? With Rush Limbaugh spewing vitriol into his microphone until he sheepishly admits he's addicted to painkillers, how can Republicans imagine they're viewed as anything but the idealogically bankrupt cons that they are?
The morality that they preach is not a unifying concept. It is not a step towards a peaceful society where all people get along in the pluralistic system of tolerance and mutual respect. It is a call for one, rigid set of ethics and beliefs where everyone is uniform in their acceptance of the status quo. It is a uniquely Caucasian viewpont that would deny criticism and demand blind obeisance as proof of membership. If the niggers and spics and dykes and faggots and slopes want to get along with them, then they need to abandon all their congenital, inherited, cultural, spiritual notions and accept the whitewashed version of the truth that is the only mechanism they will ever recognize.
Folks like Bill Frist and Samuel Alito will never accept counterviewpoints as valid. They will continue to push, like the thoughtless oxen that they are, until America has been hammered into the shape that they desire. And that shape precludes anything other than the strict, honky, Christian ideals that they champion with all the fervor of religious idiots.
So, yeah, liberal or not, the media needs to attack these crackers with every ounce of vigor they possess. We all need to attack, with all the means at our disposal until Republicans can prove they no longer deserve it.
Wake up and resist.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Beat It To Death
Have you (or someone you love) been swept up in Da Vinci Code mania? The media assault accompanying the tandem release of the movie and video game insures that we are exposed to the phrases The Da Vinci Code; "So dark the con of man"; and "Mary Magdalene" at least twenty times a day. Each. Of course, that's only if you have a television, car radio, newspaper, magazine, eyeballs, or eardrums. Frankly, and I don't think I'm alone here, I'm sick of it.
I'd like to get through a day without someone wanting to know what I think about it, or, worse, wanting me to want to know what they think. I don't care what you think; I'm concerned with why you think it. Why is this book so important? It's badly written and reads how I imagine the script for Armageddon did. Perhaps that's part of the appeal; it's big and dumb, like wrestling. The characters are flat and totally without life; they seem incapable of engaging the reader. The plot devices and pacing are completely ham-handed. The characters solve puzzles exactly when they must. If they require a resource, or a final bit of knowledge, they receive it at the very last minute, over and over again. With this in mind, the book barrels along at top speed. When readers don't have to wait very long for the characters to catch on, the story just trips right along.
Rather than building suspense, Dan Brown reveals information formulaically, almost as if he were rewarding the reader for sticking with it(which he should). If a chapter concludes with the main characters finally understanding something, or setting eyes on a pertinent item, or cracking a clue, it ends right there, just before you find out. And you won't find out in the next chapter because, invariably, it will deal with secondary characters and cheap plot advancement. No, you won't be let in on the secret til the next chapter, but, don't worry, there's no chance this formula will vary, so the ride won't get too bumpy. It appears Mr. Brown went to the Pythagorean school of writing.
Unfortunately, said school only seems to teach obvious manipulations of plot and story, not true writing. Dan Brown's prose reads like a very talented 8th grader wrote it. It's engaging on a juevenile level, repetitive, and attempts to lead the reader by the nose to each available clue. There is no adumbration, just stark descriptions and revelations. I was left wondering if someone could write a less intriguing mystery.
To top off a sub-par effort by a sub-par author, the book and movie have sparked some of the most ridiculous religious debates since J.K. Rowling went under the gun for teaching kiddies witchcraft. Christians are striving to let the world know that the accusations and "history" of The Da Vinci Code are false and wildly inaccurate. I guess I just kind of assumed when I picked up this NOVEL that I would be reading a fictional story, not a religious commentary with deep, theological implications. But, since believers are in the midst of a campaign to drive our country down the Christian cattle chute and into the theocratic slaughterhouse, they are understandably wary about anything that poses an (even imaginary) threat to their hegemony.
The argument is that this book and movie will make Christians question the history of their religion, and, by extension, their own faith. The implication, however is much more interesting. If a silly book like this, and an equally silly movie can ostensibly waver the bedrock of faith in a Christian country, perhaps your hold isn't as tight as you thought. Maybe people's faith is less a matter of certainty (as Christians believe) and more a matter of convenience (as I believe).
Churches are struggling to fill their pews these days. Despite an overwhelming majority of people who identify themselves as Christians, surprisingly few actually attend formal worship. And of those few who make the claim, contemporary polls suggest that many of those are actually lying. In this atmosphere it's easy to understand why church leaders are so afraid of this paltry little book. Christians seem to be looking for any excuse to further disregard their faith.
Unfortunately, the other side of the argument is just as lacking. The idea that Dan Brown has revolutionized the history of Christianity is just as absurd as the claims the actual religion makes. I haven't researched it myself, but if even half of what I've read debunking Brown's "evidence" is true, this book is just what it was published as: A WORK OF FUCKING FICTION. As intelligent people of reason who do not rely on religious faith, we don't need history to be rewritten in order to support our theories of science and logic. This book (and don't forget the movie!) is not a cause to mount a new attack on Christianity based upon "historical" evidence of its lies and brutalities. Instead it's a reminder to keep pressure on the so-called Christians to act the way Jesus taught them, rather than terrorize the world with their religion. And make no mistake, Christian America; just because you use legislature and lobbyists instead of bullets and bombs doesn't change the fact that you are indeed a religious terrorist.
Wake up and resist.
I'd like to get through a day without someone wanting to know what I think about it, or, worse, wanting me to want to know what they think. I don't care what you think; I'm concerned with why you think it. Why is this book so important? It's badly written and reads how I imagine the script for Armageddon did. Perhaps that's part of the appeal; it's big and dumb, like wrestling. The characters are flat and totally without life; they seem incapable of engaging the reader. The plot devices and pacing are completely ham-handed. The characters solve puzzles exactly when they must. If they require a resource, or a final bit of knowledge, they receive it at the very last minute, over and over again. With this in mind, the book barrels along at top speed. When readers don't have to wait very long for the characters to catch on, the story just trips right along.
Rather than building suspense, Dan Brown reveals information formulaically, almost as if he were rewarding the reader for sticking with it(which he should). If a chapter concludes with the main characters finally understanding something, or setting eyes on a pertinent item, or cracking a clue, it ends right there, just before you find out. And you won't find out in the next chapter because, invariably, it will deal with secondary characters and cheap plot advancement. No, you won't be let in on the secret til the next chapter, but, don't worry, there's no chance this formula will vary, so the ride won't get too bumpy. It appears Mr. Brown went to the Pythagorean school of writing.
Unfortunately, said school only seems to teach obvious manipulations of plot and story, not true writing. Dan Brown's prose reads like a very talented 8th grader wrote it. It's engaging on a juevenile level, repetitive, and attempts to lead the reader by the nose to each available clue. There is no adumbration, just stark descriptions and revelations. I was left wondering if someone could write a less intriguing mystery.
To top off a sub-par effort by a sub-par author, the book and movie have sparked some of the most ridiculous religious debates since J.K. Rowling went under the gun for teaching kiddies witchcraft. Christians are striving to let the world know that the accusations and "history" of The Da Vinci Code are false and wildly inaccurate. I guess I just kind of assumed when I picked up this NOVEL that I would be reading a fictional story, not a religious commentary with deep, theological implications. But, since believers are in the midst of a campaign to drive our country down the Christian cattle chute and into the theocratic slaughterhouse, they are understandably wary about anything that poses an (even imaginary) threat to their hegemony.
The argument is that this book and movie will make Christians question the history of their religion, and, by extension, their own faith. The implication, however is much more interesting. If a silly book like this, and an equally silly movie can ostensibly waver the bedrock of faith in a Christian country, perhaps your hold isn't as tight as you thought. Maybe people's faith is less a matter of certainty (as Christians believe) and more a matter of convenience (as I believe).
Churches are struggling to fill their pews these days. Despite an overwhelming majority of people who identify themselves as Christians, surprisingly few actually attend formal worship. And of those few who make the claim, contemporary polls suggest that many of those are actually lying. In this atmosphere it's easy to understand why church leaders are so afraid of this paltry little book. Christians seem to be looking for any excuse to further disregard their faith.
Unfortunately, the other side of the argument is just as lacking. The idea that Dan Brown has revolutionized the history of Christianity is just as absurd as the claims the actual religion makes. I haven't researched it myself, but if even half of what I've read debunking Brown's "evidence" is true, this book is just what it was published as: A WORK OF FUCKING FICTION. As intelligent people of reason who do not rely on religious faith, we don't need history to be rewritten in order to support our theories of science and logic. This book (and don't forget the movie!) is not a cause to mount a new attack on Christianity based upon "historical" evidence of its lies and brutalities. Instead it's a reminder to keep pressure on the so-called Christians to act the way Jesus taught them, rather than terrorize the world with their religion. And make no mistake, Christian America; just because you use legislature and lobbyists instead of bullets and bombs doesn't change the fact that you are indeed a religious terrorist.
Wake up and resist.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
The Chair Leg of Truth Does Not Lie
I'm sure you'll notice I've changed the site name again. I'm nothing if not fickle. I've been searching for something with the perfect ring to it; something that strikes the right chord deep inside the meat of my heart.
Of course, I'll wager none of you are familiar with the chair leg of truth. You should be. Warren Ellis has created a masterpiece with his comic Transmetropolitan. I know, I know; most of you are saying "Please. A comic book? That shit's for kids." Give it a try. It's one of the most amazing things I've ever read. The story is fabulous, the artwork is incredible, and the main character, Spider Jerusalem, is everything I wish I could be as an outlaw journalist. Transmetropolitan was the final ingredient in my desire to take up a pen and mount a lifelong attack to find the Truth, always.
This comic ain't no underwear-on-the-outside, muscle-bound festival of multi-colored tights. It has no superheroes or supervillians. It's a story. A real, literate, compelling, dark, hysterical story. You don't even have to buy those pathetic little monthly comics to read it; you know, the stuff that's printed on smudgy newspaper and filled with ads for worthless crap. Transmet has been bound up in ten gorgeous trade paperbacks with no advertising whatsoever. Buy the first two: "Back on the Street," and "Lust for Life." If you're not hooked, me and the chair leg of truth will be there to explain it to you.
Wake up and resist.
Of course, I'll wager none of you are familiar with the chair leg of truth. You should be. Warren Ellis has created a masterpiece with his comic Transmetropolitan. I know, I know; most of you are saying "Please. A comic book? That shit's for kids." Give it a try. It's one of the most amazing things I've ever read. The story is fabulous, the artwork is incredible, and the main character, Spider Jerusalem, is everything I wish I could be as an outlaw journalist. Transmetropolitan was the final ingredient in my desire to take up a pen and mount a lifelong attack to find the Truth, always.
This comic ain't no underwear-on-the-outside, muscle-bound festival of multi-colored tights. It has no superheroes or supervillians. It's a story. A real, literate, compelling, dark, hysterical story. You don't even have to buy those pathetic little monthly comics to read it; you know, the stuff that's printed on smudgy newspaper and filled with ads for worthless crap. Transmet has been bound up in ten gorgeous trade paperbacks with no advertising whatsoever. Buy the first two: "Back on the Street," and "Lust for Life." If you're not hooked, me and the chair leg of truth will be there to explain it to you.
Wake up and resist.
Friday, June 09, 2006
1 , 2...
Not enough time to do much here before work but it seems that Blogger.com is working a bit better.
Just a little something to think about:
The conservative right's mid-term push is well underway. After the dismal failure of the gay marriage amendment ban on Wednesday(which they KNEW wouldn't pass), we had less than 24 hours before the next blitz. The current media frenzy is highly sensationalized coverage of the apparent death of Musab al-Zarqawi. I'm sure you've heard of him. After gays, lesbians, feminists, and athiests, he was one of the biggest terrorist threats to our country. Coincidentally, a three-day AP poll concluded the same day the Zarqawi story surfaced. The poll found that 59% of Americans do not support the war in Iraq.
Now, since the Bush administration knew the gay amendment thing would never fly, what are we left to surmise? It was a simple ploy for simple folk, to show that our witless leaders still care about the burning conservative issues of the day. But to divert everyone's attention right back to the war the next day? Are we really going to buy this? Any of us?
In a time of tumbling approval ratings and declining Republican influence, the right has once again trotted out just what they think we need to see at just the right moment. As usual, it's slightly less compelling that a junior-high production of All the President's Men.
Those were the first two pitches: the gay marriage amendment and the killing of a top terror suspect. Expect a third in the coming days or weeks. An Orange terror alert or the assassination of Saddam Hussein in the courtroom to the great rejoicing of commoners in Iraq. The commoners who are killing our soldiers and not harboring the scattered, impotent remains of the Al-Qaeda network which Zarqawi couldn't mastermind.
Wake up and resist.
Just a little something to think about:
The conservative right's mid-term push is well underway. After the dismal failure of the gay marriage amendment ban on Wednesday(which they KNEW wouldn't pass), we had less than 24 hours before the next blitz. The current media frenzy is highly sensationalized coverage of the apparent death of Musab al-Zarqawi. I'm sure you've heard of him. After gays, lesbians, feminists, and athiests, he was one of the biggest terrorist threats to our country. Coincidentally, a three-day AP poll concluded the same day the Zarqawi story surfaced. The poll found that 59% of Americans do not support the war in Iraq.
Now, since the Bush administration knew the gay amendment thing would never fly, what are we left to surmise? It was a simple ploy for simple folk, to show that our witless leaders still care about the burning conservative issues of the day. But to divert everyone's attention right back to the war the next day? Are we really going to buy this? Any of us?
In a time of tumbling approval ratings and declining Republican influence, the right has once again trotted out just what they think we need to see at just the right moment. As usual, it's slightly less compelling that a junior-high production of All the President's Men.
Those were the first two pitches: the gay marriage amendment and the killing of a top terror suspect. Expect a third in the coming days or weeks. An Orange terror alert or the assassination of Saddam Hussein in the courtroom to the great rejoicing of commoners in Iraq. The commoners who are killing our soldiers and not harboring the scattered, impotent remains of the Al-Qaeda network which Zarqawi couldn't mastermind.
Wake up and resist.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
The Missing Link
Man, did you guys ever miss out. After I bothered everyone with that e-mail, I sat down and wrote a post. It took about an hour and a half and was one of my better efforts. I was pretty proud of it. It was all about...aahh, you wouldn't be interested.
It's a moot point since goddamn blogger.com ate it. Wouldn't save it; wouldn't publish it; just made it disappear never to return. Since then I've been wrestling night and day with both the blog and the Dashboard site that allows me to control it. This is the first time in days it's allowed me access to the screen where actual blog-writing takes place. So this little blurb is a trial, just to see if I'll be able to keep posting or if it'll vanish.
Either way, considering all the trouble I've had with the site of late, be on the lookout for another irritating mass e-mail alerting you to my new location. I might be able to stay here, but unless it stops forbidding me to write, it's fairly pointless. Sorry in advance for the pending confusion, as well as my constant whining for someone to come read this stuff.
By the way, I saw in the New York Times today that George Bush has suggested that immigrants learn to speak English. I can only imagine they're thinking he should do the same.
It's a moot point since goddamn blogger.com ate it. Wouldn't save it; wouldn't publish it; just made it disappear never to return. Since then I've been wrestling night and day with both the blog and the Dashboard site that allows me to control it. This is the first time in days it's allowed me access to the screen where actual blog-writing takes place. So this little blurb is a trial, just to see if I'll be able to keep posting or if it'll vanish.
Either way, considering all the trouble I've had with the site of late, be on the lookout for another irritating mass e-mail alerting you to my new location. I might be able to stay here, but unless it stops forbidding me to write, it's fairly pointless. Sorry in advance for the pending confusion, as well as my constant whining for someone to come read this stuff.
By the way, I saw in the New York Times today that George Bush has suggested that immigrants learn to speak English. I can only imagine they're thinking he should do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
