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.
Monday, June 26, 2006
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.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
I Wish the Homos Could Be Happy
A couple days ago my wife walked past a table in the restaurant where we both languish. She overheard someone make the comment "I saw that the gays have been protesting again. You know they protest because they're unhappy people".
People this ignorant should be forced to submit to a beating just for speaking out loud. And they had children with them, so, of course, the kids'll grow up hearing about how the "gays" need our pity and sympathy, and the "gays" need our charity to get by, and the "gays" need us to be ever so nice to them because they'll never be content on their own. No matter what they do, as long as they're queer, they'll never be happy. Goddam, and here I thought "gay" MEANT happy.
I find it difficult to believe that a person can be so naive as to actually convince themselves of something like this. I realize the Bible says faggots go to hell, but it also says that God loves all his creations. It doesn't leave any out. Also, as the story goes, if you accept Jesus as your savior, you're in. No stipulations about "gay" this, or "homo" that.
All these rules that people make up, it's absurd. We don't discriminate against gay animals, and yet instances of homosexuality in the wild are common as houseflies. Let's be perfectly honest here: this God you believe in, this one-and-only omnipotent God; he created EVERYTHING, right? No, don't try to weasel out of it with some half-baked argument your pastor concocted when he was drunk last week, just answer the fuckin question. Did your God create everything? I thought so. Therefore he's responsible for everything that goes on here. He is in control. You idiots say that all the time when bad stuff happens; "Don't worry, God has a plan".
If God created everything, then he's responsible for homosexuality, too. There's no way around this. People throw around words like "abberation" and "unnatural". Let me tell you something; those words don't mean anything. In the entire universe, there are only natural occurences, there is nothing unnatural. And there can be no abberations, because God has a plan. I'm not sure how you folks understand "omnipotent," but when an omnipotent dude makes a plan, there are no abberations. Can't be. Look up "omnipotent" if this confuses you. Therefore, if God is in control, nothing has surprised him. Not Adam and Eve fuckin up the Garden, not Cain killing Abel, and certainly not the millenia of constant homosexual activity that have led to the year 2006 CE.
So. God has created homos for you, the Christians, to save. It's the only explanation. They are a challenge, not an abberation. I'm sure he and his son are tired of you whining to them all day long about how much you want a pony. He created butt sex solely so he could hate it. Then, he created people that want to have butt sex all the time. Then, he told you that he just couldn't stand these people. He told you that it's your job to "correct" whatever it is that's wrong with them. What's funny is that he ALREADY loves them. What's even funnier is that he made them the way they are. And you can't correct them any more than they can correct you. And believe me, you need it more than the gays do. This is where God gets his kicks. Watching you hapless morons scramble around and try to figure out What Jesus Would Do. You know what Jesus would do? He'd have compassion and sympathy for anyone in front of him. You should try that sometime instead of pity and superiority.
It's a shame you fuckers are cursed with free will. You're not using it and you'd be so much happier without it.
People this ignorant should be forced to submit to a beating just for speaking out loud. And they had children with them, so, of course, the kids'll grow up hearing about how the "gays" need our pity and sympathy, and the "gays" need our charity to get by, and the "gays" need us to be ever so nice to them because they'll never be content on their own. No matter what they do, as long as they're queer, they'll never be happy. Goddam, and here I thought "gay" MEANT happy.
I find it difficult to believe that a person can be so naive as to actually convince themselves of something like this. I realize the Bible says faggots go to hell, but it also says that God loves all his creations. It doesn't leave any out. Also, as the story goes, if you accept Jesus as your savior, you're in. No stipulations about "gay" this, or "homo" that.
All these rules that people make up, it's absurd. We don't discriminate against gay animals, and yet instances of homosexuality in the wild are common as houseflies. Let's be perfectly honest here: this God you believe in, this one-and-only omnipotent God; he created EVERYTHING, right? No, don't try to weasel out of it with some half-baked argument your pastor concocted when he was drunk last week, just answer the fuckin question. Did your God create everything? I thought so. Therefore he's responsible for everything that goes on here. He is in control. You idiots say that all the time when bad stuff happens; "Don't worry, God has a plan".
If God created everything, then he's responsible for homosexuality, too. There's no way around this. People throw around words like "abberation" and "unnatural". Let me tell you something; those words don't mean anything. In the entire universe, there are only natural occurences, there is nothing unnatural. And there can be no abberations, because God has a plan. I'm not sure how you folks understand "omnipotent," but when an omnipotent dude makes a plan, there are no abberations. Can't be. Look up "omnipotent" if this confuses you. Therefore, if God is in control, nothing has surprised him. Not Adam and Eve fuckin up the Garden, not Cain killing Abel, and certainly not the millenia of constant homosexual activity that have led to the year 2006 CE.
So. God has created homos for you, the Christians, to save. It's the only explanation. They are a challenge, not an abberation. I'm sure he and his son are tired of you whining to them all day long about how much you want a pony. He created butt sex solely so he could hate it. Then, he created people that want to have butt sex all the time. Then, he told you that he just couldn't stand these people. He told you that it's your job to "correct" whatever it is that's wrong with them. What's funny is that he ALREADY loves them. What's even funnier is that he made them the way they are. And you can't correct them any more than they can correct you. And believe me, you need it more than the gays do. This is where God gets his kicks. Watching you hapless morons scramble around and try to figure out What Jesus Would Do. You know what Jesus would do? He'd have compassion and sympathy for anyone in front of him. You should try that sometime instead of pity and superiority.
It's a shame you fuckers are cursed with free will. You're not using it and you'd be so much happier without it.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
God Gave Me a Fish
Last week off the coast of Kenya, a fisherman caught a tuna. What could be more normal, you ask? It's true, fishermen off the coast of Kenya catch tuna all the time. This tuna was a little different, though. This was Allah's tuna.
According to the source, there was a verse from the Qur'an written on the fish's side. The verse read "You are the best provider". It wasn't written in Sharpie or anything, it was the fish's natural coloration arranged to spell out the holy words.
Predictably, imam's in Kenya have gone crazy, preaching that the tuna is a sign from God. Obviously (at least to those of us capable of abstract thought) this is ridiculous. Why would God send you a fish? This guy sends world-ending floods, pillars of fire, plagues that destroy nations and the like. If God were trying to tell you something, you'd know it. He wouldn't put faint, shimmery words on the side of a bloody tuna fish.
Secondly, why are you looking for a sign anyway? What's the matter with your faith? You need some proof, or what? By definition, faith requires nothing to back it up. You can't proclaim your rock-solid faith to the world, then crow about signs that prove God's existence. Matter of fact, your faith would cause you to view such "signs" as totally spurious. Being able to prove to yourself or others that all the crazy shit you believe is really, really true, is totally irrelevant.
Also, what could it possibly matter, even if it were honestly a sign from God? YOU BELIEVED IT BEFORE, YOU WRETCHED FREAKS!! How does this change your day to day life? Yesterday you believed every word in the Qur'an. Today Allah sends you a tuna with a verse from the Qur'an on it. So what? Do you believe MORE today than yesterday? Perhaps the tuna will sway the fence-sitters. Those that aren't quite convinced Islam is the way to go. Unmoved by the promise of 72 virgins when you martyr yourself and blow up a few hundred infidels along the way? Check out the fish!
If you mentioned to a Zen Buddhist that you had proof that Buddha loved us, he'd smack you with a tuna and laugh while you bled.
According to the source, there was a verse from the Qur'an written on the fish's side. The verse read "You are the best provider". It wasn't written in Sharpie or anything, it was the fish's natural coloration arranged to spell out the holy words.
Predictably, imam's in Kenya have gone crazy, preaching that the tuna is a sign from God. Obviously (at least to those of us capable of abstract thought) this is ridiculous. Why would God send you a fish? This guy sends world-ending floods, pillars of fire, plagues that destroy nations and the like. If God were trying to tell you something, you'd know it. He wouldn't put faint, shimmery words on the side of a bloody tuna fish.
Secondly, why are you looking for a sign anyway? What's the matter with your faith? You need some proof, or what? By definition, faith requires nothing to back it up. You can't proclaim your rock-solid faith to the world, then crow about signs that prove God's existence. Matter of fact, your faith would cause you to view such "signs" as totally spurious. Being able to prove to yourself or others that all the crazy shit you believe is really, really true, is totally irrelevant.
Also, what could it possibly matter, even if it were honestly a sign from God? YOU BELIEVED IT BEFORE, YOU WRETCHED FREAKS!! How does this change your day to day life? Yesterday you believed every word in the Qur'an. Today Allah sends you a tuna with a verse from the Qur'an on it. So what? Do you believe MORE today than yesterday? Perhaps the tuna will sway the fence-sitters. Those that aren't quite convinced Islam is the way to go. Unmoved by the promise of 72 virgins when you martyr yourself and blow up a few hundred infidels along the way? Check out the fish!
If you mentioned to a Zen Buddhist that you had proof that Buddha loved us, he'd smack you with a tuna and laugh while you bled.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Back for the Attack
Aaahh, I'm home. Spent four days in Vegas, and, I have to say, I liked it better there. Warm weather, all sun and no rain, and free fuckin hootch.
Vegas is sweet because it's one of the few vacation spots where it's really OK to be a tourist. You go to the top of the Eiffel Tower, you see the lions at the MGM and the tigers at the Mirage; you gape at the inside of the Luxor and stride through the Bellagio half expecting to see Brad Pitt. You go to shows and yell and scream for the Blue Man Group and feel no compuction whatsoever at letting your mouth hang open at Cirque du Soliel.
I loved it. I threw money around like I was Sean Combs and gambled like I was Dennis Rodman. Not only was all this expected of me, I was never made to feel the least bit self-conscious about it. I gorged myself in fine French resaurants and made sure I rubbed my crab cakes all over my rare prime rib before eating with my elbows on the table. Why should they care how I behave? I'm willingly handing them my money in order to be able to act like a rock star. I was tempted to piss in a slot machine just to see what would happen. Of course, most rock stars wouldn't go broke in a measly four days, but, hey, I was just renting my status.
And what could cap off this vacation? What could make it OK that I left 90 degree weather at noon on Thursday to return to drizzly, cold, Lexington that night? I'll tell you what. Seeing the headline in Friday's paper that Ernie Fletcher has been indicted. Burn, you motherfucker.
Wake up and resist.
Vegas is sweet because it's one of the few vacation spots where it's really OK to be a tourist. You go to the top of the Eiffel Tower, you see the lions at the MGM and the tigers at the Mirage; you gape at the inside of the Luxor and stride through the Bellagio half expecting to see Brad Pitt. You go to shows and yell and scream for the Blue Man Group and feel no compuction whatsoever at letting your mouth hang open at Cirque du Soliel.
I loved it. I threw money around like I was Sean Combs and gambled like I was Dennis Rodman. Not only was all this expected of me, I was never made to feel the least bit self-conscious about it. I gorged myself in fine French resaurants and made sure I rubbed my crab cakes all over my rare prime rib before eating with my elbows on the table. Why should they care how I behave? I'm willingly handing them my money in order to be able to act like a rock star. I was tempted to piss in a slot machine just to see what would happen. Of course, most rock stars wouldn't go broke in a measly four days, but, hey, I was just renting my status.
And what could cap off this vacation? What could make it OK that I left 90 degree weather at noon on Thursday to return to drizzly, cold, Lexington that night? I'll tell you what. Seeing the headline in Friday's paper that Ernie Fletcher has been indicted. Burn, you motherfucker.
Wake up and resist.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Worship Sam Harris! Faster!
I just got done watching the only real hour of news on TV. That's right: The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Stephen Colbert's guest tonight was scholar Sam Harris. His book The End of Faith is something that changed my worldview. I'd felt something out of place for a long, long time, and Mr. Harris put my discomfort into words.
The End of Faith has a simple premise: Religious faith, in all it's various denominations, is destroying the world. With precise research, Mr. Harris puts together a truly frightening picture of the current global picture. His research, combined with his thorough education in science and religion, should terrify you. It should honestly terrify anyone that has picked up his book. What I don't understand is that the cover proclaims it a "New York Times Bestseller". If this is indeed true, what the fuck are the millions of people who bought it doing? If America is 83% Christian (as the book states), what are all these Christians doing with his book? Propping up one of Ann Coulter's books with it?
This book has to have changed minds; if not changed minds, at least infuriated people and rattled the base of their faiths. To my four longtime readers, please, PLEASE pick this book up and spread the word. It's a brilliantly cogent argument against a concept that the majority of earth's population embrace in one form or another. We may not be ready to admit it yet, but faith is exactly what is killing said population. The End of Faith reveals not only how religion is murderously out of control, but offers the first steps to a solution.
I have never seen Stephen Colbert set a guest up so magnificently, nor let one speak for so long uninterrupted. He was just lobbing the ball over the net for Mr. Harris to smash back. This man is not a knee-jerk liberal or a wild reactionary. He was educated at Stanford and has studied most of the world's spiritual traditions for the past twenty years. Pretty soon, he'll have his doctorate in neuroscience, specifically, the neural correlations of faith and disbelief.
The world isn't ready for the ideas in this book. It's up to us to make it ready. As George Bush's executive right wing council shoves God down the world's throat, we few need to stand up. If we are going to be the Opposition, then we must educate ourselves so we can help others learn to stand beside us.
The Opposition. That has a nice ring to it. Come on, folks; Sam Harris can't do it all by himself.
Wake up and resist.
The End of Faith has a simple premise: Religious faith, in all it's various denominations, is destroying the world. With precise research, Mr. Harris puts together a truly frightening picture of the current global picture. His research, combined with his thorough education in science and religion, should terrify you. It should honestly terrify anyone that has picked up his book. What I don't understand is that the cover proclaims it a "New York Times Bestseller". If this is indeed true, what the fuck are the millions of people who bought it doing? If America is 83% Christian (as the book states), what are all these Christians doing with his book? Propping up one of Ann Coulter's books with it?
This book has to have changed minds; if not changed minds, at least infuriated people and rattled the base of their faiths. To my four longtime readers, please, PLEASE pick this book up and spread the word. It's a brilliantly cogent argument against a concept that the majority of earth's population embrace in one form or another. We may not be ready to admit it yet, but faith is exactly what is killing said population. The End of Faith reveals not only how religion is murderously out of control, but offers the first steps to a solution.
I have never seen Stephen Colbert set a guest up so magnificently, nor let one speak for so long uninterrupted. He was just lobbing the ball over the net for Mr. Harris to smash back. This man is not a knee-jerk liberal or a wild reactionary. He was educated at Stanford and has studied most of the world's spiritual traditions for the past twenty years. Pretty soon, he'll have his doctorate in neuroscience, specifically, the neural correlations of faith and disbelief.
The world isn't ready for the ideas in this book. It's up to us to make it ready. As George Bush's executive right wing council shoves God down the world's throat, we few need to stand up. If we are going to be the Opposition, then we must educate ourselves so we can help others learn to stand beside us.
The Opposition. That has a nice ring to it. Come on, folks; Sam Harris can't do it all by himself.
Wake up and resist.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
As-Salamu Alaykum
Someone said something stupid in the paper today and I feel like dragging all of you into it. This was in the Lexington Herald-Leader, in the Op-Ed section:
"There have been many insults to Muslims in the newspaper lately. As an American convert to Islam, I'd like to share a few points. Each religion throughout history has had its share of fanatics who do abhorrent acts.
"In modern times, there is the news regarding some Catholic priests. Should we view all Catholics as child molesters?
"Muslims blow up other Muslims and destroy mosques; do these sound like the acts of real Muslims? Those few, who use Islam for their own political goals, don't represent the millions of normal, civil Muslims. Catholics and Protestants fighting in Ireland don't make their religions bad; it's the people who are fighting.
"Many Muslims misquote the Qur'an, but this trick could be done to any holy manuscript.
"Muslims throughout history have lived in peace with Jews and Christians, as evident by the churches and synagogues still standing for centuries and the 15 million who live in Arab countries today. Muslim Web sites, scholars and organizations have condemned terrorism, but that doesn't make for spicy news for most Western media outlets.
"Discover true Islam by reading the Qur'an, reading books by Muslim scholars, or visiting our mosques. Find out why many convert to Islam; for the beauty and truth in it, not for what is on the news."
This was written by a lady in Kentucky who has converted to Islam. She's tired of all the Muslim-hatin and determined to do something about it. Unfortunately, she knows nothing at all about her faith.
As I take you through various refutations of the points above, please remember one thing: THE QUR'AN IS THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD. It is perfect. It came straight from Allah to his prophet Muhammad and was written down to be forever inviolate and immutable. It will never change or modernize in any way because it is the precise expression of God's will. Progress will never touch it and moderation will never dull its edge. However, the Qur'an is arranged loosely around the order in which prophecies were revealed to Muhammad. Mandates that come later in the book, that seem to directly contravene earlier guidelines given by Allah, are the ones that are to be followed. Even modern scholars of Islam agree that Allah modified several key points later on in the Qur'an, and these later teachings are allowed to vitiate the earlier ones.
First, and foremost, Islam regards women as property. There is no way to mitigate this viewpoint; it is absolutely set in stone. For a Western woman, a woman with infinite opportunities and choices to decide to become a Muslim is akin to Jesus becoming a Satanist. Rarely are two things more opposed than women and Islam. Please allow me to elucidate with examples from the Qur'an (and not some local, white boy version; my translation was done by a devout Muslim, a born and bred Middle Easterner):
"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them first, next refuse to share their beds, and last beat them lightly; but if they return to obedience, do not seek against them means of annoyance." (Qur'an 4:34)
The woman is inferior, and is to be ruled by her man. The man makes the money and pays the rent, therefore, his wives will kowtow to him or else. That's right; wiveS.
"Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one, or a captive that your right hands possess that will be more suitable." (Qur'an 4:3)
That's right. You may have four wives. If that don't do it for you, then you can always bang a slave girl, whom your "right hands possess".
"Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like." (Qur'an 2:223)
Your women are just fields. And, as the owner, you can damn well plow a field when you feel like it.
"Allah thus directs you as regards your children's inheritence: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females." (Qur'an 4:11)
Sons will inherit twice as much as daughters. That's fair, cuz, after all, they're the ones that'll have to pay their wives' families later to get the chicks outta their fathers' houses.
Now, people are gonna cite cultural differences on this next one, but bring it on. Little girls are still married off in Islamic countries to this day. Iranian girls can marry at nine with their parents permission, and at thirteen without it. The Ayatollah Khomeini told fathers to "Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house." Get em out 'fore they menstruate, dude. After that, they're someone else's problem.
Muhammad married his favorite wife, Aisha when she was six. And, ever the gentleman, he waited until she was nine before he consummated the relationship. No wonder there are unflattering cartoons about this bastard.
When he already had 9 wives and innumerable concubines, Allah told Muhammad that he could have whomever he pleased, woman-wise:
"O Prophet! We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have paid their dowers; and those whom your right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to you; and daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated from Makkah with you; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her; this only for you, and not for the Believers at large." (Qur'an 33:50)
Well, if I was a prophet, and God ONLY talked to me, and I made all the rules and told folks they'd be punished with death for disobedience, I'd assign me a shit-ton of women, too. Realize that Muhammad was the only one of the faithful who could sleep with any woman he chose. The rest of the men had to make do with their four wives and eight or nine slave girls.
As if all this weren't enough, women's testimony is nearly useless in court. I say nearly, but it took almost two thousand years for it to be "nearly". Before that, it was totally without worth. Currently, in rape cases, women's testimony is often inadmissable. In most Islamic countries it requires four male witnesses to prove an allegation of rape. If a woman accuses a man of this crime, unless it was directly witnessed by four other guys, all of them willing to testify, it's thrown out. And the woman will be lucky if it IS thrown out. If it's not, she many very well find herself in jail or killed for admitting to adultery. So in this case, not only does "no" mean "yes", it also means there a good chance your rape victim will be stoned to death by her brothers and uncles for disgracing her family.
This article also mentions the Catholic priest situation. And by "situation", I mean lock up your sons unless you want some pervert in a robe to bugger em. She asks if we should view all Catholics as child molesters. Certainly not, but I don't see how this has any bearing. The Catholic Church, misguided as it is, has a firm stance AGAINST sexual abuse. The blame lies with the abusers, not the organization.
Islam advises its adherents to make war on unbelievers. It tells Muslims to convert folks by force, or, failing that, to enforce an enormous tax on them. It clearly places men in charge of women and invalidates female existence, except as property. The problem here is with the organization, not with a few, aberrent disciples.
This lady also states that "Those few who use Islam for their own political goals don't represent the millions of normal, civil Muslims."
Actually, she's right here. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. The problem is that people like her (e.g. moderate Muslims) don't represent Islam. The people we call "fanatical", those who strictly adhere to the letter of the law, provide the most realistic expression of Islam as it's described in the Qur'an. We call them "fanatical" because we can't imagine that a mainstream religion is so unapologetically bellicose and intolerant. It makes us feel better to assign such people to the fringes of Islam and pretend that they don't represent its central message. However, since Muslim countries are governed by Sharia, or Islamic law, they are spiritually in line with the Qur'an when they attack non-believers. The prophet mandated the spread of Islam until only Allah was worshipped:
"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home; an evil fate." (Qur'an 9:73)
"Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan." (Qur'an 4:76)
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and beseige them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (Qur'an 9:5)
Allah is forgiving and merciful as long as all those that he sees worhip him and him alone.
The article-writer also states that "Many Muslims misquote the Qur'an..."
No, they don't. Those who blow shit up, including each other, quote the Qur'an perfectly. The book does not JUSTIFY their acts; it DEMANDS them. Most rational people consider Jerry Falwell a fanatic. Yet, do we doubt his ability to quote the Bible? Do we think he makes up verses to suit his hare-brained ideas, or is he just uncannily capable of instantly pointing to the ones that make his case? Serious Muslims know the Qur'an front to back. I would venture that a lot of them have large portions of it memorized. The PC apologists who defend the putative tolerance and love of Islam are the ones selectively interpreting the Qur'an. The faux-regretful scholars who say the Crusades were unprovoked acts of Christian aggression are the worst kind of revisionist historians. They heap opprobrium on Western culture which, due to its self-centeredness, is already miserable. And now, because the invulnerable mantle of Political Correctness rests on Islam's shoulders, we're expected to feel guilty for sins our European fathers didn't commit. The Crusades weren't offensive, folks. They were a direct result of years of Muslim warfare, occupation, and oppression in Europe. When Christians could no longer bear living as indentured half-citizens in their own Muslim-controlled lands, they organized a retaliation. This retaliation, while ultimately unsuccessful, did have an extremely beneficial result: it prevented Europe from being totally overrun and assimilated into the Muslim Empire. Our world today would be a very different place if the Crusades hadn't partially halted the fervent sword of Islam.
Our Op-Ed lady's next statement pertains to communal living. She says that, throughout history, Muslims and Jews and Christians have all lived together in beautiful, blissful peace. She also states that15 million non-Muslims live in Arab countries today, despite the fact that the term "Arab" denotes an ethnicity that most of the world's Muslims do not belong to. In honor of her ignorance, I ended my last sentence with a preposition.
Jews and Christians were "dhimmis" in the kingdom of Islam. It's an Arabic word that means both "protected" and "guilty". They're "protected" because the Qur'an calls them "People of the Book", that is, followers of Abraham with revealed texts (the Bible, the Qur'an). Yet they're guilty of rejecting Muhammad as a prophet. Implicitly, and perhaps more importantly, they have been exposed to Islam and have refused to accept it as God's Truth. When confronted with the one true way, they have chosen another path. Allah does NOT stand for this:
"It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even thought the Pagans may detest it." (Qur'an 9:33)
Stupid pagans! ("Pagan," by the way, is an ancient word with its roots in Latin that simply means "peasant," or "country dweller.")
"Fight those who do not belive in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth even if they are of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." (Qur'an 9:29)
None of that sounds like a call to tolerance. If people won't recognize the superiority of Islam by converting, the Sharia declares that they may live in Muslim lands, but never be equal to Muslims. An absurd list of ever-changing restrictions governed the behavior of Christians living in THEIR OWN Muslim-occupied homes. Not only were they expected to know the minutiae of these restrictions, they were forced to sign a contract promising fealty. Were they to break any rules, the contract stated that they could be dealt with as "people of defiance and rebellion."
They also had to pay the "Jizya", or non-Muslim tax imposed upon them. You had to pay to play, and if you decided not to convert to the murderous religion that had conquered your homeland, a crushing fee was levied. In addition to this fee, Christians couldn't display the cross, ring their bells too loud, have weapons, display pork or liquor, live in an abode as tall as Muslim buildings, recite prayers out loud, have public funerals, celebrate religious holidays, or build new churches. They had to give up any public seat if a Muslim wanted it, show dog-like respect at all times, and wear clothing that specifically identified them as Christians.
Keep in mind that these people had been invaded and conquered. They were at home, not trespassing into the Muslim world. Rather than being allowed to live in a pluralistic society with everyone equal, they existed as despised outsiders whose lives and fates were controlled by the iron-clad whims of Allah.
One of her final statements was that "Muslim Web sites, scholars and organizations have condemned terrorism..."
Yes, they have...to shore up support from the rabidly PC Western community. In our current times, nothing is more frowned upon than criticizing another's faith. Well, ONE thing is more frowned upon, and that's criticizing Islam for being the freakish, destrucive, uncompromising vehicle of would-be divine rage that it is. Terrorism may be condemned, but until views like this are no longer commonplace, the world is still a terrifying place:
"Islam needs the sword. Whoever has the sword, he will have the earth."
-Abu Hamza al-Masri, then imam of London's Finsbury Park mosque
And this, from America's leading Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur'an should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
Sound like a statement from 300 years ago? It was made in 1998 by Omar Ahmad, the CAIR board chairman.
Sentiments like this go on and on. While Muslim groups in the US may publicly condemn terrorism, they, and the United States still provide aid to Kosovo, Algeria, Somalia, Sudan, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinians, Pakistan, and Indonesia, all of whom support Muslim warfare. Some support is financial, some is material, educational or religious. This must end.
No matter where you go, no matter what you do, all bottom lines in Islam remain unchanged. If you are a non-believer you have three options; conversion, the jizya tax, or war. There is no moderation whatsoever in Islam, you either believe or you don't. If you blaspheme against Islam, or leave it for another religion, the penalty, in ALL modern Muslim countries is still usually death.
I have two friends who are Muslim. One is a very good friend; I would trust him with my life. But they are not good Muslims. One is married to a white, Western girl. The other is dating a white, Western girl. They both smoke. They both drink, though infrequently. I can say for a fact that at least one of them has had sex before marriage. They gamble every Sunday night at our poker game and GODDAM if they don't love a good McRib sandwich. They would never beat their women,who are independent free-thinders. Abdul and Azim are my brothers. Abdul attended my wedding, the marriage of a Zen Buddhist to a girl who is far removed from her Catholic upbringing. According to the Qur'an, they cannot befriend non-Muslims unless their goal is to cozen, with the ultimate corollary of conversion, destruction, or the collection of the jizya. This is a strong statement for the truth of Ibn Warraq's assertion that "There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate."
The long, pugnacious campaign of Islam must come to an end. The collusion between the Muslim world and Western Political Correctness has engendered a dangerous belief that is totally false. This is the idea that Muslim terrorism comes from political disputes or socioeconomic problems. In fact, political disputes and socioeconomic problems arise from simple identification with the Nation of Islam.
Islam is intolerant. It is unaccepting and iron-fisted. If one has convinced oneself that it is not, one has strayed from the actual tenets of the faith. I am a non-violent man. This is not to be confused with pacifism. I will defend if attacked. I will protect my home and my loved ones. Violence is a last-ditch resort, but that doesn't mean I don't know where my Glock is. I am not a pro-gun, Republican arms freak, but I will still exercise my carefully considered, reactive right to blast the shit out of something that obviously wants to do me harm. I am a mental, intellectual Crusader, but I wouldn't hesitate to take up arms if this country suddenly needed defense against the perpetual sword that Islam presents to the world.
Wake up and resist.
"There have been many insults to Muslims in the newspaper lately. As an American convert to Islam, I'd like to share a few points. Each religion throughout history has had its share of fanatics who do abhorrent acts.
"In modern times, there is the news regarding some Catholic priests. Should we view all Catholics as child molesters?
"Muslims blow up other Muslims and destroy mosques; do these sound like the acts of real Muslims? Those few, who use Islam for their own political goals, don't represent the millions of normal, civil Muslims. Catholics and Protestants fighting in Ireland don't make their religions bad; it's the people who are fighting.
"Many Muslims misquote the Qur'an, but this trick could be done to any holy manuscript.
"Muslims throughout history have lived in peace with Jews and Christians, as evident by the churches and synagogues still standing for centuries and the 15 million who live in Arab countries today. Muslim Web sites, scholars and organizations have condemned terrorism, but that doesn't make for spicy news for most Western media outlets.
"Discover true Islam by reading the Qur'an, reading books by Muslim scholars, or visiting our mosques. Find out why many convert to Islam; for the beauty and truth in it, not for what is on the news."
This was written by a lady in Kentucky who has converted to Islam. She's tired of all the Muslim-hatin and determined to do something about it. Unfortunately, she knows nothing at all about her faith.
As I take you through various refutations of the points above, please remember one thing: THE QUR'AN IS THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD. It is perfect. It came straight from Allah to his prophet Muhammad and was written down to be forever inviolate and immutable. It will never change or modernize in any way because it is the precise expression of God's will. Progress will never touch it and moderation will never dull its edge. However, the Qur'an is arranged loosely around the order in which prophecies were revealed to Muhammad. Mandates that come later in the book, that seem to directly contravene earlier guidelines given by Allah, are the ones that are to be followed. Even modern scholars of Islam agree that Allah modified several key points later on in the Qur'an, and these later teachings are allowed to vitiate the earlier ones.
First, and foremost, Islam regards women as property. There is no way to mitigate this viewpoint; it is absolutely set in stone. For a Western woman, a woman with infinite opportunities and choices to decide to become a Muslim is akin to Jesus becoming a Satanist. Rarely are two things more opposed than women and Islam. Please allow me to elucidate with examples from the Qur'an (and not some local, white boy version; my translation was done by a devout Muslim, a born and bred Middle Easterner):
"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them first, next refuse to share their beds, and last beat them lightly; but if they return to obedience, do not seek against them means of annoyance." (Qur'an 4:34)
The woman is inferior, and is to be ruled by her man. The man makes the money and pays the rent, therefore, his wives will kowtow to him or else. That's right; wiveS.
"Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one, or a captive that your right hands possess that will be more suitable." (Qur'an 4:3)
That's right. You may have four wives. If that don't do it for you, then you can always bang a slave girl, whom your "right hands possess".
"Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like." (Qur'an 2:223)
Your women are just fields. And, as the owner, you can damn well plow a field when you feel like it.
"Allah thus directs you as regards your children's inheritence: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females." (Qur'an 4:11)
Sons will inherit twice as much as daughters. That's fair, cuz, after all, they're the ones that'll have to pay their wives' families later to get the chicks outta their fathers' houses.
Now, people are gonna cite cultural differences on this next one, but bring it on. Little girls are still married off in Islamic countries to this day. Iranian girls can marry at nine with their parents permission, and at thirteen without it. The Ayatollah Khomeini told fathers to "Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house." Get em out 'fore they menstruate, dude. After that, they're someone else's problem.
Muhammad married his favorite wife, Aisha when she was six. And, ever the gentleman, he waited until she was nine before he consummated the relationship. No wonder there are unflattering cartoons about this bastard.
When he already had 9 wives and innumerable concubines, Allah told Muhammad that he could have whomever he pleased, woman-wise:
"O Prophet! We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have paid their dowers; and those whom your right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to you; and daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated from Makkah with you; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her; this only for you, and not for the Believers at large." (Qur'an 33:50)
Well, if I was a prophet, and God ONLY talked to me, and I made all the rules and told folks they'd be punished with death for disobedience, I'd assign me a shit-ton of women, too. Realize that Muhammad was the only one of the faithful who could sleep with any woman he chose. The rest of the men had to make do with their four wives and eight or nine slave girls.
As if all this weren't enough, women's testimony is nearly useless in court. I say nearly, but it took almost two thousand years for it to be "nearly". Before that, it was totally without worth. Currently, in rape cases, women's testimony is often inadmissable. In most Islamic countries it requires four male witnesses to prove an allegation of rape. If a woman accuses a man of this crime, unless it was directly witnessed by four other guys, all of them willing to testify, it's thrown out. And the woman will be lucky if it IS thrown out. If it's not, she many very well find herself in jail or killed for admitting to adultery. So in this case, not only does "no" mean "yes", it also means there a good chance your rape victim will be stoned to death by her brothers and uncles for disgracing her family.
This article also mentions the Catholic priest situation. And by "situation", I mean lock up your sons unless you want some pervert in a robe to bugger em. She asks if we should view all Catholics as child molesters. Certainly not, but I don't see how this has any bearing. The Catholic Church, misguided as it is, has a firm stance AGAINST sexual abuse. The blame lies with the abusers, not the organization.
Islam advises its adherents to make war on unbelievers. It tells Muslims to convert folks by force, or, failing that, to enforce an enormous tax on them. It clearly places men in charge of women and invalidates female existence, except as property. The problem here is with the organization, not with a few, aberrent disciples.
This lady also states that "Those few who use Islam for their own political goals don't represent the millions of normal, civil Muslims."
Actually, she's right here. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. The problem is that people like her (e.g. moderate Muslims) don't represent Islam. The people we call "fanatical", those who strictly adhere to the letter of the law, provide the most realistic expression of Islam as it's described in the Qur'an. We call them "fanatical" because we can't imagine that a mainstream religion is so unapologetically bellicose and intolerant. It makes us feel better to assign such people to the fringes of Islam and pretend that they don't represent its central message. However, since Muslim countries are governed by Sharia, or Islamic law, they are spiritually in line with the Qur'an when they attack non-believers. The prophet mandated the spread of Islam until only Allah was worshipped:
"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home; an evil fate." (Qur'an 9:73)
"Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan." (Qur'an 4:76)
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and beseige them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (Qur'an 9:5)
Allah is forgiving and merciful as long as all those that he sees worhip him and him alone.
The article-writer also states that "Many Muslims misquote the Qur'an..."
No, they don't. Those who blow shit up, including each other, quote the Qur'an perfectly. The book does not JUSTIFY their acts; it DEMANDS them. Most rational people consider Jerry Falwell a fanatic. Yet, do we doubt his ability to quote the Bible? Do we think he makes up verses to suit his hare-brained ideas, or is he just uncannily capable of instantly pointing to the ones that make his case? Serious Muslims know the Qur'an front to back. I would venture that a lot of them have large portions of it memorized. The PC apologists who defend the putative tolerance and love of Islam are the ones selectively interpreting the Qur'an. The faux-regretful scholars who say the Crusades were unprovoked acts of Christian aggression are the worst kind of revisionist historians. They heap opprobrium on Western culture which, due to its self-centeredness, is already miserable. And now, because the invulnerable mantle of Political Correctness rests on Islam's shoulders, we're expected to feel guilty for sins our European fathers didn't commit. The Crusades weren't offensive, folks. They were a direct result of years of Muslim warfare, occupation, and oppression in Europe. When Christians could no longer bear living as indentured half-citizens in their own Muslim-controlled lands, they organized a retaliation. This retaliation, while ultimately unsuccessful, did have an extremely beneficial result: it prevented Europe from being totally overrun and assimilated into the Muslim Empire. Our world today would be a very different place if the Crusades hadn't partially halted the fervent sword of Islam.
Our Op-Ed lady's next statement pertains to communal living. She says that, throughout history, Muslims and Jews and Christians have all lived together in beautiful, blissful peace. She also states that15 million non-Muslims live in Arab countries today, despite the fact that the term "Arab" denotes an ethnicity that most of the world's Muslims do not belong to. In honor of her ignorance, I ended my last sentence with a preposition.
Jews and Christians were "dhimmis" in the kingdom of Islam. It's an Arabic word that means both "protected" and "guilty". They're "protected" because the Qur'an calls them "People of the Book", that is, followers of Abraham with revealed texts (the Bible, the Qur'an). Yet they're guilty of rejecting Muhammad as a prophet. Implicitly, and perhaps more importantly, they have been exposed to Islam and have refused to accept it as God's Truth. When confronted with the one true way, they have chosen another path. Allah does NOT stand for this:
"It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even thought the Pagans may detest it." (Qur'an 9:33)
Stupid pagans! ("Pagan," by the way, is an ancient word with its roots in Latin that simply means "peasant," or "country dweller.")
"Fight those who do not belive in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth even if they are of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." (Qur'an 9:29)
None of that sounds like a call to tolerance. If people won't recognize the superiority of Islam by converting, the Sharia declares that they may live in Muslim lands, but never be equal to Muslims. An absurd list of ever-changing restrictions governed the behavior of Christians living in THEIR OWN Muslim-occupied homes. Not only were they expected to know the minutiae of these restrictions, they were forced to sign a contract promising fealty. Were they to break any rules, the contract stated that they could be dealt with as "people of defiance and rebellion."
They also had to pay the "Jizya", or non-Muslim tax imposed upon them. You had to pay to play, and if you decided not to convert to the murderous religion that had conquered your homeland, a crushing fee was levied. In addition to this fee, Christians couldn't display the cross, ring their bells too loud, have weapons, display pork or liquor, live in an abode as tall as Muslim buildings, recite prayers out loud, have public funerals, celebrate religious holidays, or build new churches. They had to give up any public seat if a Muslim wanted it, show dog-like respect at all times, and wear clothing that specifically identified them as Christians.
Keep in mind that these people had been invaded and conquered. They were at home, not trespassing into the Muslim world. Rather than being allowed to live in a pluralistic society with everyone equal, they existed as despised outsiders whose lives and fates were controlled by the iron-clad whims of Allah.
One of her final statements was that "Muslim Web sites, scholars and organizations have condemned terrorism..."
Yes, they have...to shore up support from the rabidly PC Western community. In our current times, nothing is more frowned upon than criticizing another's faith. Well, ONE thing is more frowned upon, and that's criticizing Islam for being the freakish, destrucive, uncompromising vehicle of would-be divine rage that it is. Terrorism may be condemned, but until views like this are no longer commonplace, the world is still a terrifying place:
"Islam needs the sword. Whoever has the sword, he will have the earth."
-Abu Hamza al-Masri, then imam of London's Finsbury Park mosque
And this, from America's leading Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur'an should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
Sound like a statement from 300 years ago? It was made in 1998 by Omar Ahmad, the CAIR board chairman.
Sentiments like this go on and on. While Muslim groups in the US may publicly condemn terrorism, they, and the United States still provide aid to Kosovo, Algeria, Somalia, Sudan, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinians, Pakistan, and Indonesia, all of whom support Muslim warfare. Some support is financial, some is material, educational or religious. This must end.
No matter where you go, no matter what you do, all bottom lines in Islam remain unchanged. If you are a non-believer you have three options; conversion, the jizya tax, or war. There is no moderation whatsoever in Islam, you either believe or you don't. If you blaspheme against Islam, or leave it for another religion, the penalty, in ALL modern Muslim countries is still usually death.
I have two friends who are Muslim. One is a very good friend; I would trust him with my life. But they are not good Muslims. One is married to a white, Western girl. The other is dating a white, Western girl. They both smoke. They both drink, though infrequently. I can say for a fact that at least one of them has had sex before marriage. They gamble every Sunday night at our poker game and GODDAM if they don't love a good McRib sandwich. They would never beat their women,who are independent free-thinders. Abdul and Azim are my brothers. Abdul attended my wedding, the marriage of a Zen Buddhist to a girl who is far removed from her Catholic upbringing. According to the Qur'an, they cannot befriend non-Muslims unless their goal is to cozen, with the ultimate corollary of conversion, destruction, or the collection of the jizya. This is a strong statement for the truth of Ibn Warraq's assertion that "There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate."
The long, pugnacious campaign of Islam must come to an end. The collusion between the Muslim world and Western Political Correctness has engendered a dangerous belief that is totally false. This is the idea that Muslim terrorism comes from political disputes or socioeconomic problems. In fact, political disputes and socioeconomic problems arise from simple identification with the Nation of Islam.
Islam is intolerant. It is unaccepting and iron-fisted. If one has convinced oneself that it is not, one has strayed from the actual tenets of the faith. I am a non-violent man. This is not to be confused with pacifism. I will defend if attacked. I will protect my home and my loved ones. Violence is a last-ditch resort, but that doesn't mean I don't know where my Glock is. I am not a pro-gun, Republican arms freak, but I will still exercise my carefully considered, reactive right to blast the shit out of something that obviously wants to do me harm. I am a mental, intellectual Crusader, but I wouldn't hesitate to take up arms if this country suddenly needed defense against the perpetual sword that Islam presents to the world.
Wake up and resist.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Happy Easter (And by Easter, I Mean Zombie Day)!!
Just a little something to think about as you go about your business this fine Zombie Day, Year of Our Lord, 2006.
If we are created in God's image, as the Bible says, are we more like God, or is he more like us? The reason I ask this is simple; If one praises God for all the good in one's life, yet doesn't assign blame for all the bad, or even beseech him to let up a little, where is the accountability? If one takes all the fabulous with a big grin and a "Boy thankya!", yet just humbles down and eats the shit, too, why shouldn't the rest of life be like that?
When God smiles, you smile back. When he pisses all over you, you just take it with a "that's life" kind of attitude. What a bizarre way to run a universe. What if we all did that, you fools? Let's say you work for a big-ass company, and let's say that company's name is...oh, I don't know...Enron. When you're the executive VP and all the numbers are great, you get slaps on the back (as well as ludicrous bonuses). When you fuck up and cover up the bad numbers, thus screwing a whole fuckton of employees out of a lot of cash, you have to go to court. Well, some of you have to go to court. All right...TWO of you have to go to court. The point is, why couldn't those guys, whom I bet were all good Christians, just shrug and go, "Hey, that's life." If we were made like God, and God is praised for the world's goodness, but totally exculpated for the suffering, why aren't we?
Best case scenario for us humans; we are allowed to tell our subordinates (of which I have none) that all the world's pain corresponds to our mysterious plan, and they must have blind faith in this plan, because they are not advanced enough to view the tiniest bit of it. Ever.
Try explaining that to your kids.
Happy Zombie Day! Watch out for Jesus; all he wants is brains!
If we are created in God's image, as the Bible says, are we more like God, or is he more like us? The reason I ask this is simple; If one praises God for all the good in one's life, yet doesn't assign blame for all the bad, or even beseech him to let up a little, where is the accountability? If one takes all the fabulous with a big grin and a "Boy thankya!", yet just humbles down and eats the shit, too, why shouldn't the rest of life be like that?
When God smiles, you smile back. When he pisses all over you, you just take it with a "that's life" kind of attitude. What a bizarre way to run a universe. What if we all did that, you fools? Let's say you work for a big-ass company, and let's say that company's name is...oh, I don't know...Enron. When you're the executive VP and all the numbers are great, you get slaps on the back (as well as ludicrous bonuses). When you fuck up and cover up the bad numbers, thus screwing a whole fuckton of employees out of a lot of cash, you have to go to court. Well, some of you have to go to court. All right...TWO of you have to go to court. The point is, why couldn't those guys, whom I bet were all good Christians, just shrug and go, "Hey, that's life." If we were made like God, and God is praised for the world's goodness, but totally exculpated for the suffering, why aren't we?
Best case scenario for us humans; we are allowed to tell our subordinates (of which I have none) that all the world's pain corresponds to our mysterious plan, and they must have blind faith in this plan, because they are not advanced enough to view the tiniest bit of it. Ever.
Try explaining that to your kids.
Happy Zombie Day! Watch out for Jesus; all he wants is brains!
Thursday, April 13, 2006
It's All Zen
Hello, all. It's one-fifteen in the morning and I'm on my third glass of wine. My head is pleasantly thrumming, and, as I download songs onto my iPod, I thought I'd give you a quick post.
The title of this blog is "Zensense", and the first few posts pertained pretty directly to Buddhism. After those, the Buddhist references and topics became staggered, until, recently, everything is current events or politics. Most of you out there are probably more interested in current events and politics than you are in Buddhism. However, I'm not pandering to your needs and wants.
Perhaps you're thinking that, as I look towards school, and my Major/Minor combo of Journalism and PolySci, I'm trending towards that. This is also not the case.
In fact, no matter what I write about on this poor, misguided blog, it's all Zen. Zen isn't a religion, or a spirituality. It's a method of looking at the world based on the Buddha's instructions for waking up. Well, actually that's a bit erroneous. Saying it's a "method" of looking at the world implies that it's subjective; one of many, equally valid "methods". In fact, there are no other, equally valid methods compared to Buddhism because Buddhism studies what IS, not what COULD BE.
Buddhism is not based on beliefs. It is not structured around the conjecture surrounding life and death. It's astronomy compared to astrology. If we use telescopes to observe the actual life of stars, then we use Buddhism to observe the actual truth of life. Religions use the astrology approach, the mystic unfolding of layers of omen and purported meaning and symbolism to try to point to the inherent holiness of man. Well, man is no more holy than dogshit drying in the sun. What this means is, that instead of rejecting man's holiness, it's time to accept the holiness of dogshit.
Zen is not everything in the way that Jesus is everywhere. Zen is not present in all things, nor does it have gods watching over all of you. It will not grant you wishes or show you the higher purpose of suffering. It will not throw you a lifeline from the heavens that you may grasp in times of peril. What it will do is equip you to see this life for what it is. It will remove your blinders and, rather than prepare you for this world, it will strip you down and send you out.
Saying that Zen is beauty as well as ugliness, or ecstasy as well as pain accords it a duality that it doesn't possess. Zen is not above duality, nor is it beyond duality. There is neither above nor beyond, and there is no duality. Would you seperate breathing from biology? Can you remove the sun from sunshine, or the cold from death?
I say this to you in all seriousness, with no hint of hippie philosophy or metaphorical jousting: ALL IS ONE. This is not a slogan. It's not something designed to make you feel better. I don't give a fuck if you makes you feel WORSE. This is how shit works, and you can spend your life fighting against it, or you can observe it at an everyday level. Don't worry about some god, or some metaphysical argument for the existence of a soul. Live like you are your neighbor. Live like the refrigerator handle is the most sacred object in your house. Touch your car tire and know it's made of the same stuff as your wife. Have an orgasm and think of death, just next door.
Nothing is apart from Zen; there is nothing without Zen; Zen is our eyes and ears and tongues and brains. Every day, every subject here is Zen. Tom Delay and George Bush and Jesus and yo Mama; they're all Zen.
Enjoy.
The title of this blog is "Zensense", and the first few posts pertained pretty directly to Buddhism. After those, the Buddhist references and topics became staggered, until, recently, everything is current events or politics. Most of you out there are probably more interested in current events and politics than you are in Buddhism. However, I'm not pandering to your needs and wants.
Perhaps you're thinking that, as I look towards school, and my Major/Minor combo of Journalism and PolySci, I'm trending towards that. This is also not the case.
In fact, no matter what I write about on this poor, misguided blog, it's all Zen. Zen isn't a religion, or a spirituality. It's a method of looking at the world based on the Buddha's instructions for waking up. Well, actually that's a bit erroneous. Saying it's a "method" of looking at the world implies that it's subjective; one of many, equally valid "methods". In fact, there are no other, equally valid methods compared to Buddhism because Buddhism studies what IS, not what COULD BE.
Buddhism is not based on beliefs. It is not structured around the conjecture surrounding life and death. It's astronomy compared to astrology. If we use telescopes to observe the actual life of stars, then we use Buddhism to observe the actual truth of life. Religions use the astrology approach, the mystic unfolding of layers of omen and purported meaning and symbolism to try to point to the inherent holiness of man. Well, man is no more holy than dogshit drying in the sun. What this means is, that instead of rejecting man's holiness, it's time to accept the holiness of dogshit.
Zen is not everything in the way that Jesus is everywhere. Zen is not present in all things, nor does it have gods watching over all of you. It will not grant you wishes or show you the higher purpose of suffering. It will not throw you a lifeline from the heavens that you may grasp in times of peril. What it will do is equip you to see this life for what it is. It will remove your blinders and, rather than prepare you for this world, it will strip you down and send you out.
Saying that Zen is beauty as well as ugliness, or ecstasy as well as pain accords it a duality that it doesn't possess. Zen is not above duality, nor is it beyond duality. There is neither above nor beyond, and there is no duality. Would you seperate breathing from biology? Can you remove the sun from sunshine, or the cold from death?
I say this to you in all seriousness, with no hint of hippie philosophy or metaphorical jousting: ALL IS ONE. This is not a slogan. It's not something designed to make you feel better. I don't give a fuck if you makes you feel WORSE. This is how shit works, and you can spend your life fighting against it, or you can observe it at an everyday level. Don't worry about some god, or some metaphysical argument for the existence of a soul. Live like you are your neighbor. Live like the refrigerator handle is the most sacred object in your house. Touch your car tire and know it's made of the same stuff as your wife. Have an orgasm and think of death, just next door.
Nothing is apart from Zen; there is nothing without Zen; Zen is our eyes and ears and tongues and brains. Every day, every subject here is Zen. Tom Delay and George Bush and Jesus and yo Mama; they're all Zen.
Enjoy.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Who Cares?
I read in the paper today that the world is in grave danger. Apparently, we are on the cusp of having "BC" and "AD" totally replaced with "BCE" and "CE". I would imagine that most of you know that "BC" is "Before Christ" and "AD" is "Anno Domini", or "year of our lord". Whoops. I mean Lord. Sorry. "BCE" stands for "Before Common Era," and, naturally, "CE" is "Common Era."
These terms have been in use by virtually every portion of the global intellectual community for years. Pick up any modern book pertaining to history, philosophy, sociology, archaeology, etc, and you'd be hard pressed to find "BC" or "AD" in them, unless there's a "BCE" or "CE" directly after them. These terms are anachronisms, and it's time everyone faced that.
The article I read was in the Lexington paper, and, predictably, Kentucky Christians are in an uproar. They cite the long and venerable history these terms have enjoyed (2000 years, or less than half of recorded history), how everyone in the world is used to it (except for 67% of the world's population, who don't worship Jesus), and how these terms are part of our heritage (along with owning black people, growing weed, and not letting women vote).
Keeping "BC" and "AD" in the common vernacular is as goofy as goofy gets. The measurement of time is not another excuse for folks to advertise their religion. For fuck's sake, Jesus is everywhere. You can't swing a dead cat around here without knocking out four born-again assholes that want to talk to you about their savior. Give it a rest. You love Jesus. Everyone KNOWS you love Jesus. Stop bugging the rest of the world when they won't pay attention to your small-minded, paltry, selfish excuse for spirituality. How many perfectly viable calendars have you people ruined in an effort to align most of your major holidays with pagan rituals that you worked so hard to get rid of? Jesus was NOT born on December 25th. The rest of the planet is NOT totally kosher with you guys marking the "before" and "after" of your self-important history with the spurious birth and death dates of Jesus. I might add that Jesus lived in one of the most diligently recorded periods of human existence. Why is it, then, that his life is only recorded in one book?
Please don't bother me with your fear of change masquerading as religious righteousness. The Rebublicans are in power right now, and they're writing their own ticket. When they lose power, they're going to have to face certain realities. Number motherfucking one is that the wall between church and state is going to remain just where Thomas Jefferson and all the other framers put it right before they went to bring in their crop of dope, refuse to pay taxes to Big Government, and have sex with their slave girls. We're GONNA call the shit "BCE" and "CE". Bitch about stem cells.
These terms have been in use by virtually every portion of the global intellectual community for years. Pick up any modern book pertaining to history, philosophy, sociology, archaeology, etc, and you'd be hard pressed to find "BC" or "AD" in them, unless there's a "BCE" or "CE" directly after them. These terms are anachronisms, and it's time everyone faced that.
The article I read was in the Lexington paper, and, predictably, Kentucky Christians are in an uproar. They cite the long and venerable history these terms have enjoyed (2000 years, or less than half of recorded history), how everyone in the world is used to it (except for 67% of the world's population, who don't worship Jesus), and how these terms are part of our heritage (along with owning black people, growing weed, and not letting women vote).
Keeping "BC" and "AD" in the common vernacular is as goofy as goofy gets. The measurement of time is not another excuse for folks to advertise their religion. For fuck's sake, Jesus is everywhere. You can't swing a dead cat around here without knocking out four born-again assholes that want to talk to you about their savior. Give it a rest. You love Jesus. Everyone KNOWS you love Jesus. Stop bugging the rest of the world when they won't pay attention to your small-minded, paltry, selfish excuse for spirituality. How many perfectly viable calendars have you people ruined in an effort to align most of your major holidays with pagan rituals that you worked so hard to get rid of? Jesus was NOT born on December 25th. The rest of the planet is NOT totally kosher with you guys marking the "before" and "after" of your self-important history with the spurious birth and death dates of Jesus. I might add that Jesus lived in one of the most diligently recorded periods of human existence. Why is it, then, that his life is only recorded in one book?
Please don't bother me with your fear of change masquerading as religious righteousness. The Rebublicans are in power right now, and they're writing their own ticket. When they lose power, they're going to have to face certain realities. Number motherfucking one is that the wall between church and state is going to remain just where Thomas Jefferson and all the other framers put it right before they went to bring in their crop of dope, refuse to pay taxes to Big Government, and have sex with their slave girls. We're GONNA call the shit "BCE" and "CE". Bitch about stem cells.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Get Down On It
It has recently been brought to my attention that I might, in fact, blog like old people fuck. Ziggy, I know you don't have a dog in this race, except it gives you an excuse to look something up at the office before you have to actually get down to work. Considering Jes has much better taste than you do, I can't imagine she'd bother herself with this paltry little masturbation exercise before she starts making some headway in the day's bidness. And, speaking of bidness, what exactly are you accomplishing at home? Your woman's lip seems to be running independently of your control. She spoke to me several times about her "ideas" about raising YOUR son. Dig in, Trench. The masculine movement needs you. If I have to put on my red pimp suit and come up there, everyone's gonna be sorry.
Since we're talking about masculinity, Tom Delay naturally comes to mind. The once and future king of the GOP has told us all that he'll be stepping down over the next few months. I can only imagine that he'll step further down as the DA gets closer and closer to the financial and political missteps that ol' Tommy took to get to where he is. Chief of Staff: busted. Top aides: busted. Steps taken to crush Texas' Democrats into a gerrymandered, confused minority twaddle: duly fuckin noted. And the nerve, the absolute, in-your-face, audacity of this man is unbelievable. To state that he's stepping down so that the Democratic party will not be ablt to attack and fill his position with a lesser candidate is as ludicrous as insisting that the Bush administration didn't pay to have over 100,000 Florida voters disenfranchised. Tom Delay, of Texas, is resigning his post because, much like Enron, he has hidden the details of his insolvency to the degree that his ass is now grass. He has helped structure the Republican party to its newest exteme; an extension of the right-wing religious organization that is working at its peak to kill science in your child's classroom, and your own rights at home. God is on Tom Delay's side, and he will not hesitate to tell you the same. Since the Bush regime illegally seized control of this nation, the religious right has been striving to remove dollars from your pocket and place them in the coffers of "faith based initiatives". Tom Delay is one of the people that has been assuring this regime that the right people are in the right places at the right times.
One would think that to have this walking, lying, enemy of the state out of office is a step in the right direction. One could, however, be wrong. Keep in mind that this administration has railroaded every opponent out of DC, and raised to iconic stature people of color that share their elitist, white agenda. Witness the exit of Colin Powell and the rise of Condoleeza Rice. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear Tiger Woods nominated for a Supreme Court appointment.
To the four people that read this blog, I am certain you know that you no longer have any power. As the gap between the hugely rich and everyone else widens, what are we going to do now? Bush's latest tax cuts in 2003, which pertained to investement capital, are finally showing pollable results. Of the 63oo Americans that make over ten million bucks a year, they saved an average of 525,000 dollars. The 62,000,000 Americans that make under 5o,ooo dollars a year; yeah, they saved 425 dollars. If there's anyone out there that is still willing to defend Bush against the allegations of being the worst big-money, big-business, pro-corporate tycoon that the US has ever seen, I welcome your arguments.
Please forward all of your comments to the Halliburton Corporation, which has recently won a no-contest bid to host a site pertaining to criticisms of the president. The fee is bearable and all proceeds go directly to disenfranchising your future votes.
Since we're talking about masculinity, Tom Delay naturally comes to mind. The once and future king of the GOP has told us all that he'll be stepping down over the next few months. I can only imagine that he'll step further down as the DA gets closer and closer to the financial and political missteps that ol' Tommy took to get to where he is. Chief of Staff: busted. Top aides: busted. Steps taken to crush Texas' Democrats into a gerrymandered, confused minority twaddle: duly fuckin noted. And the nerve, the absolute, in-your-face, audacity of this man is unbelievable. To state that he's stepping down so that the Democratic party will not be ablt to attack and fill his position with a lesser candidate is as ludicrous as insisting that the Bush administration didn't pay to have over 100,000 Florida voters disenfranchised. Tom Delay, of Texas, is resigning his post because, much like Enron, he has hidden the details of his insolvency to the degree that his ass is now grass. He has helped structure the Republican party to its newest exteme; an extension of the right-wing religious organization that is working at its peak to kill science in your child's classroom, and your own rights at home. God is on Tom Delay's side, and he will not hesitate to tell you the same. Since the Bush regime illegally seized control of this nation, the religious right has been striving to remove dollars from your pocket and place them in the coffers of "faith based initiatives". Tom Delay is one of the people that has been assuring this regime that the right people are in the right places at the right times.
One would think that to have this walking, lying, enemy of the state out of office is a step in the right direction. One could, however, be wrong. Keep in mind that this administration has railroaded every opponent out of DC, and raised to iconic stature people of color that share their elitist, white agenda. Witness the exit of Colin Powell and the rise of Condoleeza Rice. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear Tiger Woods nominated for a Supreme Court appointment.
To the four people that read this blog, I am certain you know that you no longer have any power. As the gap between the hugely rich and everyone else widens, what are we going to do now? Bush's latest tax cuts in 2003, which pertained to investement capital, are finally showing pollable results. Of the 63oo Americans that make over ten million bucks a year, they saved an average of 525,000 dollars. The 62,000,000 Americans that make under 5o,ooo dollars a year; yeah, they saved 425 dollars. If there's anyone out there that is still willing to defend Bush against the allegations of being the worst big-money, big-business, pro-corporate tycoon that the US has ever seen, I welcome your arguments.
Please forward all of your comments to the Halliburton Corporation, which has recently won a no-contest bid to host a site pertaining to criticisms of the president. The fee is bearable and all proceeds go directly to disenfranchising your future votes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
