To top of fthe Muslim response to the Pope's remarks, the guy who's in jail for shooting Pope John Paul II has added his two cents.
Mehmet Ali Agca, still in jail for his 1981 assault, has told the current Pope not to come to Turkey on his planned November visit because his life will be in danger.
See? To prove the Pope wrong, they're willing to kill him. That should finally put to rest all the pesky controversy about the peace and love of Islam.
Case closed!
Wake up and resist.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
See! We're Not ALL Terrorists!
Two Muslim men hijacked a jet from Tirana to Istanbul, Turkey today, to protest the Pope's recent inflammatory speech that suggested a link between violence and Islam. That was good thinking.
The jet was forced to turn and head for Italy, where it landed. This, apparently, was the extent of their protest. Angry about the Pope's speech, and angrier still about a proposed papal visit to Turkey, these two guys made an Istanbul-bound flight land in Italy instead. According to the BBC, the terrorists are in a peaceful negotiation right now.
Despite these men being pretty laid-back for hijackers (the BBC reports that none of the 107 passengers were threatened or saw a weapon, and the two men admitted they would surrender as soon as the hihacking began), can anyone think of a worse way to protest allegations of violence than this? Obviously, these two men didn't set out to hurt anyone, and, equally obviously, the passengers were more confused than frightened, but, for fuck's sake, it's ridiculous. In our current age of trepidation regarding air travel, what kind of idiot would hijack a plane to send some kind of muddled message?
This is like my wife accusing me of being a violent man, and, to show her I'm not, I punch her in the gut instead of the face.
Terrorism Lite, to protest accusations of Full-Flavor Terrorism, is just the sort of retarded shit I've come to expect from Islam. Hell, you can see for yourself. Pay more attention to news from around the world; absorb as much as you can. You'll start to see folks making negative comments about Islam. Not a lot, because it's currently taboo to really criticize this hideous religion, lest we offend the crazy fuckers who practice it, but there are still people out there willing to point out the truth. When you find a critical remark about Islam, write it down. Keep it somewhere you'll see it every day. I guarantee, within a week, some dumb cunt will have done exactly what the critique was lamenting. The Pope says we're violent? We'll hijack a plane - that'll show him! The Danes have published cartoons that (barely) poke fun at Muhammad? We'll goddamn riot all over the world and start killing people! It's like Muslims are powerless to stop themselves from living up to all the negative aspects of their religion. Muslims the world over are upset about racial profiling in airports, but, what did all 19 of the 9/11 terrorists have in common? They were all fucking Muslims! Why should we ignore the one unifying piece of evidence we have? It's regrettable that those who peacefully practice Islam are subject to racial profiling, because it's certain that all Muslims are not terrorists. However, it's equally certain that the terrorists who mean us the most harm are all Muslims.
There are lots of arguments against racial profiling, many of them valid. I'm not arguing in favor of it, merely pointing out that if it walks like a Muslim, shoots like a Muslim, and delivers crazy rants about martying oneself in the cause of Muslims, perhaps being on the lookout for Muslims isn't a silly idea.
I imagine the two gentlemen who hijacked this flight will soon be receiving pretty stout punishments, their lack of malevolence aside. I hope they receive extra time in jail for being morons.
Wake up and resist.
The jet was forced to turn and head for Italy, where it landed. This, apparently, was the extent of their protest. Angry about the Pope's speech, and angrier still about a proposed papal visit to Turkey, these two guys made an Istanbul-bound flight land in Italy instead. According to the BBC, the terrorists are in a peaceful negotiation right now.
Despite these men being pretty laid-back for hijackers (the BBC reports that none of the 107 passengers were threatened or saw a weapon, and the two men admitted they would surrender as soon as the hihacking began), can anyone think of a worse way to protest allegations of violence than this? Obviously, these two men didn't set out to hurt anyone, and, equally obviously, the passengers were more confused than frightened, but, for fuck's sake, it's ridiculous. In our current age of trepidation regarding air travel, what kind of idiot would hijack a plane to send some kind of muddled message?
This is like my wife accusing me of being a violent man, and, to show her I'm not, I punch her in the gut instead of the face.
Terrorism Lite, to protest accusations of Full-Flavor Terrorism, is just the sort of retarded shit I've come to expect from Islam. Hell, you can see for yourself. Pay more attention to news from around the world; absorb as much as you can. You'll start to see folks making negative comments about Islam. Not a lot, because it's currently taboo to really criticize this hideous religion, lest we offend the crazy fuckers who practice it, but there are still people out there willing to point out the truth. When you find a critical remark about Islam, write it down. Keep it somewhere you'll see it every day. I guarantee, within a week, some dumb cunt will have done exactly what the critique was lamenting. The Pope says we're violent? We'll hijack a plane - that'll show him! The Danes have published cartoons that (barely) poke fun at Muhammad? We'll goddamn riot all over the world and start killing people! It's like Muslims are powerless to stop themselves from living up to all the negative aspects of their religion. Muslims the world over are upset about racial profiling in airports, but, what did all 19 of the 9/11 terrorists have in common? They were all fucking Muslims! Why should we ignore the one unifying piece of evidence we have? It's regrettable that those who peacefully practice Islam are subject to racial profiling, because it's certain that all Muslims are not terrorists. However, it's equally certain that the terrorists who mean us the most harm are all Muslims.
There are lots of arguments against racial profiling, many of them valid. I'm not arguing in favor of it, merely pointing out that if it walks like a Muslim, shoots like a Muslim, and delivers crazy rants about martying oneself in the cause of Muslims, perhaps being on the lookout for Muslims isn't a silly idea.
I imagine the two gentlemen who hijacked this flight will soon be receiving pretty stout punishments, their lack of malevolence aside. I hope they receive extra time in jail for being morons.
Wake up and resist.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Beyond Belief
So the NIE has found that in our war on terror, terror is definitely winning. Their report, leaked in part to the media, details how our presence in Iraq is actually breeding stronger, faster, smarter terrorists. This, coupled with growing world-wide disdain for America (from Muslims and non-Muslims alike), shows how our leaders have failed, are failing, and will continue to fail us at every turn.
George W. Bush has grown antagonistic in his defense, falling back on the only policy he has left, which is basically Larry the Cable Guy's "Git R Done." Which, now that I think about it, was the policy he started out with, and the only one he's ever had. He calls into question the validity of the facts, as if all 16 US intelligence agencies could jointly come to this one, massively erroneous conclusion. He also refuses to release the full report, citing (what else?) national security concerns.
This is absurd. We have real, concrete, black and white proof that everything this administration has told us about Iraq and the war on terror is completely false. And our President, always quick to insult our intelligence, is looking us dead in the fucking eyes and saying "This isn't proof. I'm still right."
Why hasn't this bastard been plucked from office? He's been caught lying more than Clinton, Reagan, and Nixon combined, yet he continues to deny reality. What's more, he tells the rest of us that reality is wrong. He is completely immune to our outrage, and indifferent to our concerns. Well, we'll see how his White House fares when the Republicans get their pasty, white, over-fed assess tossed out this November.
Don't forget to vote! It might count this time!
Wake up and resist.
George W. Bush has grown antagonistic in his defense, falling back on the only policy he has left, which is basically Larry the Cable Guy's "Git R Done." Which, now that I think about it, was the policy he started out with, and the only one he's ever had. He calls into question the validity of the facts, as if all 16 US intelligence agencies could jointly come to this one, massively erroneous conclusion. He also refuses to release the full report, citing (what else?) national security concerns.
This is absurd. We have real, concrete, black and white proof that everything this administration has told us about Iraq and the war on terror is completely false. And our President, always quick to insult our intelligence, is looking us dead in the fucking eyes and saying "This isn't proof. I'm still right."
Why hasn't this bastard been plucked from office? He's been caught lying more than Clinton, Reagan, and Nixon combined, yet he continues to deny reality. What's more, he tells the rest of us that reality is wrong. He is completely immune to our outrage, and indifferent to our concerns. Well, we'll see how his White House fares when the Republicans get their pasty, white, over-fed assess tossed out this November.
Don't forget to vote! It might count this time!
Wake up and resist.
Monday, September 18, 2006
The Passion of Christ's Vicar on Earth
The Pope is the new Mel Gibson. Thank Buddha, cause I was getting tired of hearing about the old one. Now, whenever I see "news" somewhere, it's about the Pope's comments on Islam that, unsurprisingly, have outraged the entire Muslim world. When you think about it though, what in our global society doesn't outrage the majority of Muslim countries?
The Pope made a very cogent statement. He referenced a medieval Christian scholar who maintained that the prophet Muhammad brought only evil into the world. Unfortunately, that's pretty much true. Of all the founders of the world's so-called religions, Muhammad stands out as a bloodthirsty warrior bent on spreading his "prophecy" by violence, and no other means.
In 610, Muhammad said the angel Gabriel gave him revelations from Allah. He began preaching in Mecca of One God and that he, Muhammad, was his prophet. The folks in Mecca were having none of it. Even his uncle Abu Lahab, thought Muhammad was out of his tree. Eventually, Muhammad cursed his uncle and his wife. This curse is still a part of Islam's holy book: "May the hands of Abu Lahab perish! May he himself perish! Nothing shall his wealth and gains avail him. He shall be burnt in a flaming fire, and his wife, laden with faggots, shall have a rope of fibre around her neck!" (Qur'an 111:1-5)
After leaving Mecca in 622, Allah's boy ended up in a town close by called Medina (as in, Funky Cold). A group of warriors there accepted his claims of prophecy and pledged their allegiance to him. These were the first Muslims. Muhammad led them against the Quraysh, his former people of Mecca. They raided the caravans that passed by on the way to what would become Islam's most holy city. The city that more or less exiled the founder of Islam for being a dangerous lunatic.
In one massive battle that pitted Muhammad's three hundred Muslims against one thousand of the Quraysh, the prophet routed his enemies. Most of their leaders were captured or killed. One of the leaders, Uqba, begged Muhammad for his life. "Who will look after my children, O Muhammad?" he asked.
"Hell," Muhammad told him, and executed his heathen ass.
This battle formed many important tenets of the developing Muslim philosophy. One was that piety was more important than numbers. Allah's faithful would be protected, no matter the odds. This is especially worrisome now, when many Muslims across the planet feel they have been backed into a corner. Another disturbing point is "It was not ye who slew them; it was Allah." (Qur'an 8:17) Muslims don't kill people; God kills people.
All this is the beginning of what many still insist is a tolerant, loving religion. Can anything that was founded in such bloodshed ever achieve peace? After destroying most of Mecca's forces, Muhammad moved on to the Jews. Because they maintained their own faith, and rejected Islam, he began having key Jewish figures assassinated. Eventually, he issued the overarching command: "Kill any Jew that falls into your power."
Muhammed revealed to his followers the iron-clad, inerrant words of Allah that stated those who reject Islam are "the vilest of creatures." (Qur'an 98:6) They neither deserve nor are given mercy. I've made this point before, but I've got to make it again. Politically correct folks like to say that Muslims who practice the most vicious brand of their religion are "radical." This is not the case. What the world calls "radical Islam," is actually just "Islam." Those who kill non-believers, martyr themselves to destroy their enemies, and refuse to make the slightest concessions or compromises are true Muslims. They don't pick and choose passages from the Qur'an; they don't believe what they like and avoid the murderous stuff; they don't pretend their religion was born out of love. They know the truth. Islam was created by a bandit who plundered the tribes of the Middle East. He demanded total obeisance to Allah and anything less was punishable by death. He had dozens of wives, some only nine years old, none of whom was ever permitted to be anything but a wife, a possession. He was bent on spreading the word of Allah by the only methods that lies can be spread: murder, deceit, mayhem and overwhelming hostility.
The Qur'an doesn't just condone the most hideous behavior we've seen from some of the world's Muslims; it DEMANDS it. Ibn Warraq, a former follower, has said that while there are indeed moderate Muslims, Islam itself is not moderate.
The Pope was right, and now he's having to make amends because PC apologists won't allow the truth to be spoken of Islam. Muslims are to be deferred to and accepted and embraced, not misunderstood and feared. I understand perfectly, however, and I hope others do, as well. The only "radical" Islam is that which we in the West respect. The watered-down version that allows its proponents to live in peace with others. Real Islam is the edge of a sword. True Muslims still believe that the world will one day be completely under the rule of Allah; truly submissive to his forces. After all, that's what the word Islam means: submission.
I never thought I'd say this, but I totally support the Pope's statement, and I'm appalled that he's being forced to apologize. Muhammad did indeed bring only darkness and evil into the world. It lives on to this day, growing more vicious and intolerant. If something isn't done to quell its influence, darkness and evil may conquer all.
Wake up and resist.
The Pope made a very cogent statement. He referenced a medieval Christian scholar who maintained that the prophet Muhammad brought only evil into the world. Unfortunately, that's pretty much true. Of all the founders of the world's so-called religions, Muhammad stands out as a bloodthirsty warrior bent on spreading his "prophecy" by violence, and no other means.
In 610, Muhammad said the angel Gabriel gave him revelations from Allah. He began preaching in Mecca of One God and that he, Muhammad, was his prophet. The folks in Mecca were having none of it. Even his uncle Abu Lahab, thought Muhammad was out of his tree. Eventually, Muhammad cursed his uncle and his wife. This curse is still a part of Islam's holy book: "May the hands of Abu Lahab perish! May he himself perish! Nothing shall his wealth and gains avail him. He shall be burnt in a flaming fire, and his wife, laden with faggots, shall have a rope of fibre around her neck!" (Qur'an 111:1-5)
After leaving Mecca in 622, Allah's boy ended up in a town close by called Medina (as in, Funky Cold). A group of warriors there accepted his claims of prophecy and pledged their allegiance to him. These were the first Muslims. Muhammad led them against the Quraysh, his former people of Mecca. They raided the caravans that passed by on the way to what would become Islam's most holy city. The city that more or less exiled the founder of Islam for being a dangerous lunatic.
In one massive battle that pitted Muhammad's three hundred Muslims against one thousand of the Quraysh, the prophet routed his enemies. Most of their leaders were captured or killed. One of the leaders, Uqba, begged Muhammad for his life. "Who will look after my children, O Muhammad?" he asked.
"Hell," Muhammad told him, and executed his heathen ass.
This battle formed many important tenets of the developing Muslim philosophy. One was that piety was more important than numbers. Allah's faithful would be protected, no matter the odds. This is especially worrisome now, when many Muslims across the planet feel they have been backed into a corner. Another disturbing point is "It was not ye who slew them; it was Allah." (Qur'an 8:17) Muslims don't kill people; God kills people.
All this is the beginning of what many still insist is a tolerant, loving religion. Can anything that was founded in such bloodshed ever achieve peace? After destroying most of Mecca's forces, Muhammad moved on to the Jews. Because they maintained their own faith, and rejected Islam, he began having key Jewish figures assassinated. Eventually, he issued the overarching command: "Kill any Jew that falls into your power."
Muhammed revealed to his followers the iron-clad, inerrant words of Allah that stated those who reject Islam are "the vilest of creatures." (Qur'an 98:6) They neither deserve nor are given mercy. I've made this point before, but I've got to make it again. Politically correct folks like to say that Muslims who practice the most vicious brand of their religion are "radical." This is not the case. What the world calls "radical Islam," is actually just "Islam." Those who kill non-believers, martyr themselves to destroy their enemies, and refuse to make the slightest concessions or compromises are true Muslims. They don't pick and choose passages from the Qur'an; they don't believe what they like and avoid the murderous stuff; they don't pretend their religion was born out of love. They know the truth. Islam was created by a bandit who plundered the tribes of the Middle East. He demanded total obeisance to Allah and anything less was punishable by death. He had dozens of wives, some only nine years old, none of whom was ever permitted to be anything but a wife, a possession. He was bent on spreading the word of Allah by the only methods that lies can be spread: murder, deceit, mayhem and overwhelming hostility.
The Qur'an doesn't just condone the most hideous behavior we've seen from some of the world's Muslims; it DEMANDS it. Ibn Warraq, a former follower, has said that while there are indeed moderate Muslims, Islam itself is not moderate.
The Pope was right, and now he's having to make amends because PC apologists won't allow the truth to be spoken of Islam. Muslims are to be deferred to and accepted and embraced, not misunderstood and feared. I understand perfectly, however, and I hope others do, as well. The only "radical" Islam is that which we in the West respect. The watered-down version that allows its proponents to live in peace with others. Real Islam is the edge of a sword. True Muslims still believe that the world will one day be completely under the rule of Allah; truly submissive to his forces. After all, that's what the word Islam means: submission.
I never thought I'd say this, but I totally support the Pope's statement, and I'm appalled that he's being forced to apologize. Muhammad did indeed bring only darkness and evil into the world. It lives on to this day, growing more vicious and intolerant. If something isn't done to quell its influence, darkness and evil may conquer all.
Wake up and resist.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
I'm Sorry. I Couldn't Hear You Over Fox News
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday that terrorists are "...actively manipulating the media in this country." He also mentioned that "They can lie with impunity."
Holy rabid dogshit. The irony is so colossal it's sublime. It actually goes beyond words.
Well, except for these:
-Karl Rove leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to the press in order to hamstring her husband, Joseph Wilson, who was a vocal critic of the Administration.
-After Bush "won" in 2004, all the talk was about how he got more votes than any other candidate in history. Few sources mentioned he was voted against more than any other candidate as well.
-The Bush Administration gave the Washington Post an exclusive story during John Roberts' confirmation hearings about how many of his previous government writings wouldn't be released for scrutiny. The Post had to promise not to contact Democrats to hear their side of the story.
-The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's smear campaign against John Kerry was a totally fabricated charade. Experts and eye-witnesses across the board punched countless holes in their ridiculous claims. The media never registered it.
-Scott Ritter, a former senior weapons inspector, proclaimed loud and clear that Saddam did not have WMD's and the cause for war was bogus. The media published every comment in regards to his insanity, his treachery, his lies and his "defense" of Saddam Hussein. They never mentioned that he was completely fucking right.
-A correspondent for Ireland's national broadcasting service, Carole Coleman had her White House press credentials revoked after she asked Bush tough, honest questions about the worsening violence in Iraq. Questions the neutered watchdogs inside the Beltway would never ask.
-The news media gave us countless stories during the Terry Schiavo controversy about how "divided" our nation was, how much of a "furious debate" was going on. No one mentioned that the overwhelming majority in America believed her husband had final say.
-John Kerry's war record was viciously attacked, even after it was proven to be accurate and honest. The media never bothered to get to the bottom of Bush's missing years in the Air National Guard, nor was there any fuss made when he didn't release his entire record to be investigated.
-As Bush visited New Orleans over the last two days, the media very gently pointed out that some folks refute his claims of competently handling the Katrina disaster. Very few came right out and said that the facts and statistics entirely belie the notion that they did anything helpful. Fewer still pointed out that the Administration seemed to actively make the situation worse, especially if you happened to be black.
-The media made very little of the fact that Bush refused to speak to the NAACP for the past six years.
-In recent months, Bush has often travelled the country without a press plane in tow. By leaving the press at home, it ensures that his comments and actions at various fundraisers and social events attended by his rich, white brethren go completely unnoticed.
-Then, of course, there's the little matter of him stealing the election in 2000. The righteous anger the press displayed during Watergate and Bill Clinton's ridiculous impeachment was nowhere to be found. Nor were tenacity, willpower or investigative journalism.
All politicians lie. All Administrations manipulate the media. But for Rumsfeld to have the temerity to tell us that the terrorists are meddling with the facts is a new acme of arrogance. And a lot of people will believe him because they read it in the paper.
I don't think these guys respect my intelligence or opinion anymore.
Wake up and resist.
Holy rabid dogshit. The irony is so colossal it's sublime. It actually goes beyond words.
Well, except for these:
-Karl Rove leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to the press in order to hamstring her husband, Joseph Wilson, who was a vocal critic of the Administration.
-After Bush "won" in 2004, all the talk was about how he got more votes than any other candidate in history. Few sources mentioned he was voted against more than any other candidate as well.
-The Bush Administration gave the Washington Post an exclusive story during John Roberts' confirmation hearings about how many of his previous government writings wouldn't be released for scrutiny. The Post had to promise not to contact Democrats to hear their side of the story.
-The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's smear campaign against John Kerry was a totally fabricated charade. Experts and eye-witnesses across the board punched countless holes in their ridiculous claims. The media never registered it.
-Scott Ritter, a former senior weapons inspector, proclaimed loud and clear that Saddam did not have WMD's and the cause for war was bogus. The media published every comment in regards to his insanity, his treachery, his lies and his "defense" of Saddam Hussein. They never mentioned that he was completely fucking right.
-A correspondent for Ireland's national broadcasting service, Carole Coleman had her White House press credentials revoked after she asked Bush tough, honest questions about the worsening violence in Iraq. Questions the neutered watchdogs inside the Beltway would never ask.
-The news media gave us countless stories during the Terry Schiavo controversy about how "divided" our nation was, how much of a "furious debate" was going on. No one mentioned that the overwhelming majority in America believed her husband had final say.
-John Kerry's war record was viciously attacked, even after it was proven to be accurate and honest. The media never bothered to get to the bottom of Bush's missing years in the Air National Guard, nor was there any fuss made when he didn't release his entire record to be investigated.
-As Bush visited New Orleans over the last two days, the media very gently pointed out that some folks refute his claims of competently handling the Katrina disaster. Very few came right out and said that the facts and statistics entirely belie the notion that they did anything helpful. Fewer still pointed out that the Administration seemed to actively make the situation worse, especially if you happened to be black.
-The media made very little of the fact that Bush refused to speak to the NAACP for the past six years.
-In recent months, Bush has often travelled the country without a press plane in tow. By leaving the press at home, it ensures that his comments and actions at various fundraisers and social events attended by his rich, white brethren go completely unnoticed.
-Then, of course, there's the little matter of him stealing the election in 2000. The righteous anger the press displayed during Watergate and Bill Clinton's ridiculous impeachment was nowhere to be found. Nor were tenacity, willpower or investigative journalism.
All politicians lie. All Administrations manipulate the media. But for Rumsfeld to have the temerity to tell us that the terrorists are meddling with the facts is a new acme of arrogance. And a lot of people will believe him because they read it in the paper.
I don't think these guys respect my intelligence or opinion anymore.
Wake up and resist.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Terror for Breakfast
Ever since America woke up on September 11, 2001, we've been force fed daily doses of terror. The government and the media have ceaselessly prattled on about possible terrorist threats, likely terrorist targets and suspected terrorist activity without pointing to any actual terrorists. We've been made to pay attention to a threat level indicator, bizarrely colored and completely divorced from any generated data. How often have we seen some meaningless shade flash across the TV - TERROR LEVEL: ORANGE - without any reference to what contributed to said level? We are told of endless terrorist plots against our country, yet the government hasn't identified or uncovered a single one in the past six years. Bush keeps telling us that the war in Iraq is somehow part of the "War on Terror," but no one has ever been privy to a scrap of evidence that shows there is any truth to this assertion. The evidence we are overwhelmed with shows that Saddam Hussein terrorized his own people, could never have been a threat to the U.S., and had no part whatsoever in 9/11. Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorists until we installed an ineffectual government in transparent pursuit of stability in a region that will never know it. I assume at some point will we actually have to ship them WMD's.
The majority of us now realize that there was no reason to invade Iraq, especially under the banner of fighting terror. More and more people are also waking up to the fact that our government, with the help of their pet media, are the real terrorists. That sounds like a radical statement, but consider: After 9/11, if American citizens had been completely cut off from the media, how long would we have felt terrorized? Without constant alerts and misinformation, without Fox News and hysterical Homeland Security briefings, would any of us have been this afraid for this long? Who is responsible for our fears in a country that has only suffered a handful of terrorist attacks in its history, and zero after 9/11?
The government. The media. Without their constant and inaccurate representation of a very low-level threat, we would have felt much more secure over the past few years. Of course we were scared after 9/11, and we had a right to be. There is absolutely no shame in the American reaction the days and months following the attacks. The shame falls on our leaders, and our media conglomerates for exploiting our fear long after it should have been put to bed. The Bush administration saw a way to maintain a profile of strength and leadership and the newspapers and TV channels said "Yes, Massah. We sho gonna help. You just tell us what you be needin."
Naturally, there are plenty of terrorists out there. Folks who truly have it in for us and would destroy our country if given the chance. While they have not been given the chance, they have been given further reason to hate us. The invasion of Iraq, unconditional support for Israel, refusals to even speak to Hamas or Hezbollah about their legitimate complaints; all these have served to strengthen foreign terrorists' resolve rather than shake it.
However, they remain a very unlikely potential threat right now. Not to say the situation isn't worsening every day, it certainly is. The overseas terrorist threat is going to have to be addressed after the miserable debacle in Iraq is abandoned and we can step back and survey the total damage. But right now the terrorists are already here. They hold public office and edit major newspapers. Obviously, we're not going to stop paying attention to the news. But we don't have to rely on the administration's crooked bullshit as trumpeted by our sensationalist, gleeful, fear-mongering media. It's easy to find news on the internet, whether it's international, untouched by our media (the BBC online), or reported by people concerned with facts and not spin (e.g. Media Matters, Media Channel, BuzzFlash, the Huffington Post, Consortium News).
Your government needs your help in the fight against terror. It needs you to ignore the New York Times and the Washington Post when they report baseless, amorphous threats. It needs you to become an informed and educated citizen, willing to work a little harder to get news untainted by its meddlings. It needs you to vote against its criminals and thugs draining our national finances, killing the poor and reinforcing the rich. It needs you to rail against its empty promises; expose its clumsy lies; destroy its strangling influence before Big Business and Big Brother eliminate you entirely.
Our government has terrorized us long enough. Our way of life, a way they claim to represent and defend, is something they will never be a part of. We're not all wealthy, white, privileged kids whose power and influence are cemented by a long line of wealthy, white, priveleged ancestors. We're Americans, struggling for health care and jobs that haven't been outsourced yet. We're Americans, striving to show our children that there are leaders that can be looked up to. We're Americans, smothered by low wages and resigned to poverty. We're Americans still shattered one year after Katrina, unhelped and forgotten. We're Americans told that the next nightmare 9/11 is right around the corner.
And yet...I'm around that corner. I'm looking at the street and it occurs to me that I'm pretty safe here. I'm pretty safe and I can be happy. You know why? Because I'm a fucking American. The government will bow to MY will, not the other way around.
You're an American, too. Don't let the bastards tell you it means something it doesn't. You were born from rebels, people who fought the government and drove it out. They installed a better system that gives you power and safeguards your freedoms. Two hundred thirty years later it looks like it's time to do some more overthrowing.
On September 11, 2001, we were the victims of a hideous terrorist attack. We will never forget it, but we won't let our government make us victims every day.
Wake up and resist.
The majority of us now realize that there was no reason to invade Iraq, especially under the banner of fighting terror. More and more people are also waking up to the fact that our government, with the help of their pet media, are the real terrorists. That sounds like a radical statement, but consider: After 9/11, if American citizens had been completely cut off from the media, how long would we have felt terrorized? Without constant alerts and misinformation, without Fox News and hysterical Homeland Security briefings, would any of us have been this afraid for this long? Who is responsible for our fears in a country that has only suffered a handful of terrorist attacks in its history, and zero after 9/11?
The government. The media. Without their constant and inaccurate representation of a very low-level threat, we would have felt much more secure over the past few years. Of course we were scared after 9/11, and we had a right to be. There is absolutely no shame in the American reaction the days and months following the attacks. The shame falls on our leaders, and our media conglomerates for exploiting our fear long after it should have been put to bed. The Bush administration saw a way to maintain a profile of strength and leadership and the newspapers and TV channels said "Yes, Massah. We sho gonna help. You just tell us what you be needin."
Naturally, there are plenty of terrorists out there. Folks who truly have it in for us and would destroy our country if given the chance. While they have not been given the chance, they have been given further reason to hate us. The invasion of Iraq, unconditional support for Israel, refusals to even speak to Hamas or Hezbollah about their legitimate complaints; all these have served to strengthen foreign terrorists' resolve rather than shake it.
However, they remain a very unlikely potential threat right now. Not to say the situation isn't worsening every day, it certainly is. The overseas terrorist threat is going to have to be addressed after the miserable debacle in Iraq is abandoned and we can step back and survey the total damage. But right now the terrorists are already here. They hold public office and edit major newspapers. Obviously, we're not going to stop paying attention to the news. But we don't have to rely on the administration's crooked bullshit as trumpeted by our sensationalist, gleeful, fear-mongering media. It's easy to find news on the internet, whether it's international, untouched by our media (the BBC online), or reported by people concerned with facts and not spin (e.g. Media Matters, Media Channel, BuzzFlash, the Huffington Post, Consortium News).
Your government needs your help in the fight against terror. It needs you to ignore the New York Times and the Washington Post when they report baseless, amorphous threats. It needs you to become an informed and educated citizen, willing to work a little harder to get news untainted by its meddlings. It needs you to vote against its criminals and thugs draining our national finances, killing the poor and reinforcing the rich. It needs you to rail against its empty promises; expose its clumsy lies; destroy its strangling influence before Big Business and Big Brother eliminate you entirely.
Our government has terrorized us long enough. Our way of life, a way they claim to represent and defend, is something they will never be a part of. We're not all wealthy, white, privileged kids whose power and influence are cemented by a long line of wealthy, white, priveleged ancestors. We're Americans, struggling for health care and jobs that haven't been outsourced yet. We're Americans, striving to show our children that there are leaders that can be looked up to. We're Americans, smothered by low wages and resigned to poverty. We're Americans still shattered one year after Katrina, unhelped and forgotten. We're Americans told that the next nightmare 9/11 is right around the corner.
And yet...I'm around that corner. I'm looking at the street and it occurs to me that I'm pretty safe here. I'm pretty safe and I can be happy. You know why? Because I'm a fucking American. The government will bow to MY will, not the other way around.
You're an American, too. Don't let the bastards tell you it means something it doesn't. You were born from rebels, people who fought the government and drove it out. They installed a better system that gives you power and safeguards your freedoms. Two hundred thirty years later it looks like it's time to do some more overthrowing.
On September 11, 2001, we were the victims of a hideous terrorist attack. We will never forget it, but we won't let our government make us victims every day.
Wake up and resist.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Glad Tidings
Good numbers today, folks. According to an AP poll, Bush's approval ratings have sunk to 33%, tying his all-time low. This is especially good news since, in the past, anything that cropped up relating to terrorism usually resulted in a boost for this jackass. Unaccountably, Bush's handling of terrorism has always been his strongest suit, producing his best numbers in polls.
The foiled terror plot in the UK has done absolutely nothing for him, however. (Assuming, of course, there actually was a plot. It all remains frustratingly vague, doesn't it?) His numbers haven't jumped up; quite the contrary, they have slipped to the aforementioned 33%. Americans are just sick of this guy. They know for a fact that he's a criminal, and those who can still deceive themselves that he's not are at least willing to admit that his policies are insalubrious, at best. The situation in Iraq is untenable, with constantly escalating violence and an explosive civil war, the seriousness of which has yet to be really addressed. Gas prices are crippling the nation while oil companies continue to rake in record profits. Afghanistan is sinking deeper into new conflict while Bush continues encouraging Israel's bellicose handling of its affairs.
It's got to stop, and the public is beginning to wake up to that. Last month, 20% of Americans said their congressional vote this fall would be, at least partially, to express their opposition to Bush. That number is now up to 29%. That means that nearly a third of the populace is willing to cast a vote for a Democrat simply to help oust the GOP's control of Congress. That's extremely welcome news, especially after Ned Lamont's victory over Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. It shows that wasn't an isolated event, and this trend could very well continue through midterms.
I myself still remain shocked at the public's recalcitrance to completely and overwhelmingly oppose Bush. The numbers are getting better (for those of us who like freedom and such) but they're still dismally low in a nation who has its nose rubbed in Executive arrogance and incompetence every day.
I don't have time to link you to all the sites or recommend all the books that prove my next assertions, but, believe me, the information is not hard to find. The Administration does nothing to cover its tracks, knowing it has nothing to fear from the media or the public. Help me prove them wrong.
Our children are dying because Bush has sent them to war under false pretenses. He is an abominable liar. While it's true that all politicians are liars, Bush is a gleeful, vicious prevaricator. He is surrounded by rich, white, elitist bastards who couldn't care less for your welfare. He is a right-wing, Christian fundamentalist and he's dedicated to turning our democracy into a theocracy. He's also a Rapture Christian, meaning he believes sometime very soon Jesus will come and lift the righteous to Heaven and leave the rest of us to languish on an evil, painful, no doubt smelly Earth. Despite this not being in the Bible, it's the reason Rapture Christians like him have no regard for the environment. Why bother trying to save it if the Rapture is on the way? The good people won't be here to enjoy it. Bush will never represent you or this country. His political moves will reflect his own desires and beliefs which pertain only to his money, his power, and the false notion that he has an immortal soul.
Wake up and resist.
The foiled terror plot in the UK has done absolutely nothing for him, however. (Assuming, of course, there actually was a plot. It all remains frustratingly vague, doesn't it?) His numbers haven't jumped up; quite the contrary, they have slipped to the aforementioned 33%. Americans are just sick of this guy. They know for a fact that he's a criminal, and those who can still deceive themselves that he's not are at least willing to admit that his policies are insalubrious, at best. The situation in Iraq is untenable, with constantly escalating violence and an explosive civil war, the seriousness of which has yet to be really addressed. Gas prices are crippling the nation while oil companies continue to rake in record profits. Afghanistan is sinking deeper into new conflict while Bush continues encouraging Israel's bellicose handling of its affairs.
It's got to stop, and the public is beginning to wake up to that. Last month, 20% of Americans said their congressional vote this fall would be, at least partially, to express their opposition to Bush. That number is now up to 29%. That means that nearly a third of the populace is willing to cast a vote for a Democrat simply to help oust the GOP's control of Congress. That's extremely welcome news, especially after Ned Lamont's victory over Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. It shows that wasn't an isolated event, and this trend could very well continue through midterms.
I myself still remain shocked at the public's recalcitrance to completely and overwhelmingly oppose Bush. The numbers are getting better (for those of us who like freedom and such) but they're still dismally low in a nation who has its nose rubbed in Executive arrogance and incompetence every day.
I don't have time to link you to all the sites or recommend all the books that prove my next assertions, but, believe me, the information is not hard to find. The Administration does nothing to cover its tracks, knowing it has nothing to fear from the media or the public. Help me prove them wrong.
Our children are dying because Bush has sent them to war under false pretenses. He is an abominable liar. While it's true that all politicians are liars, Bush is a gleeful, vicious prevaricator. He is surrounded by rich, white, elitist bastards who couldn't care less for your welfare. He is a right-wing, Christian fundamentalist and he's dedicated to turning our democracy into a theocracy. He's also a Rapture Christian, meaning he believes sometime very soon Jesus will come and lift the righteous to Heaven and leave the rest of us to languish on an evil, painful, no doubt smelly Earth. Despite this not being in the Bible, it's the reason Rapture Christians like him have no regard for the environment. Why bother trying to save it if the Rapture is on the way? The good people won't be here to enjoy it. Bush will never represent you or this country. His political moves will reflect his own desires and beliefs which pertain only to his money, his power, and the false notion that he has an immortal soul.
Wake up and resist.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Check It Out
Granted, the Washington Post is a bastion of Beltway conservatism. And, granted, as part of Bush's kept media, they are perfectly comfortable printing outrignt lies. But come on.
This is just ridiculous.
This article is a pathetic attempt to paint Joe Lieberman as an honest man surrounded by a sea of fickle, bemused, capricious Democrats. If anyone out there is still buying this worthless shit, please send me your address so I can have you disenfranchised.
Wake up and resist.
This is just ridiculous.
This article is a pathetic attempt to paint Joe Lieberman as an honest man surrounded by a sea of fickle, bemused, capricious Democrats. If anyone out there is still buying this worthless shit, please send me your address so I can have you disenfranchised.
Wake up and resist.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
I Dare You To Care
I doubt you need me to point this out, but all national news media are forsaking most actual breaking news in order to bring you constant, uninterrupted, methodically stupid coverage of what Mel Gibson has done, is doing, and will be doing.
I know it may seem counterintuitive, but, if you are concerned with actual NEWS, I urge you to get your information from a source that doesn't place Mel Gibson as a priority.
I'd also like to point out that, as news pours in from around the world, as the international media is swamped with information about Israel and Hezbollah, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the failing health of Fidel Castro, and crazy fuckers in Korea with the bomb, as well as much more, we are listening to around the clock coverage pertaining to a gentlemen who matters very little in the big scheme. Someone whose comments matter even less, considering the overwhelming anti-Semitism, sexism, and general jackassery that we observe on a worldwide scale every day. In case you've been captivated by Fox News or MSNBC or CNN or any "news" channel that insists on reporting the whereabouts, mental status, or forgiveness level of one Mel Gibson, I will gladly tell you why that's not important:
1) Mel Gibson lives in America.
I know that doesn't mean much to a lot of folks these days, but it means a FUCK of a lot to me. We don't live in a police state, nor do we live in a true theocracy, at least not yet.
2) Mel Gibson lives in America.
A lot of shit happens here. I can't imagine caring less what Mel Gibson does. Unless, of course, the NSA has discovered that he might be a terrorist, in which case we should raise the Terror Alert Level to Smokin Burnt Umber.
3) Mel Gibson lives in America.
Here, we are free to hate, despise, or criticize whomever we please. Defamation and libel suits aside, we may publicly deride on the Internet, on the airwaves, in books and magazines, or with really big fucking signs, the race, religion or gender of anyone. I'm not sticking up for ignorance here; I'm sticking up for freedom. Any kind of prejudice, whether inbred or learned is despicable. But no one can remove these rights.
4) Mel Gibson lives in America.
He can say whatever the hell he pleases. I don't care if he said that all Buddhists will end up as crack-whores serving Richard Gere in his mansion built from baby harp seal bricks held together with the sperm of 5000 homosexual AIDS victims. We can't pick and chose who gets to say what. It's up to you, the news consumer, to educate yourself so that the massive amounts of fluff and drivel the media throw at you can be filtered through your own, personal, empirical experience. We must learn, through research and intellect, to separate the fiction from the facts; the important from the useless.
Whatever Mel Gibson said, or did, is totally irrelevant to your day-to-day life, even if you are a Jew, a woman named Sugar Tits, or someone who thought Braveheart blew. He is just as entitled to his prejudices, bigotry and hatred as you are. Ann Coulter makes her living by cleverly marketing uninformed opinions one thousand times worse than anything Mel will ever say. Her ostensible rage and righteousness are so overwrought as to be actually cartoonish. And you're telling me the nation is held spellbound by a story of a guy who acts the way we've all seen a friend act after a night of heavy drinking?
Mel Gibson can hate Jews. He can make inflammatory statements about Jews. You know why? Cause he lives in America. You are no better or worse than he is.
Wake up and resist.
I know it may seem counterintuitive, but, if you are concerned with actual NEWS, I urge you to get your information from a source that doesn't place Mel Gibson as a priority.
I'd also like to point out that, as news pours in from around the world, as the international media is swamped with information about Israel and Hezbollah, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the failing health of Fidel Castro, and crazy fuckers in Korea with the bomb, as well as much more, we are listening to around the clock coverage pertaining to a gentlemen who matters very little in the big scheme. Someone whose comments matter even less, considering the overwhelming anti-Semitism, sexism, and general jackassery that we observe on a worldwide scale every day. In case you've been captivated by Fox News or MSNBC or CNN or any "news" channel that insists on reporting the whereabouts, mental status, or forgiveness level of one Mel Gibson, I will gladly tell you why that's not important:
1) Mel Gibson lives in America.
I know that doesn't mean much to a lot of folks these days, but it means a FUCK of a lot to me. We don't live in a police state, nor do we live in a true theocracy, at least not yet.
2) Mel Gibson lives in America.
A lot of shit happens here. I can't imagine caring less what Mel Gibson does. Unless, of course, the NSA has discovered that he might be a terrorist, in which case we should raise the Terror Alert Level to Smokin Burnt Umber.
3) Mel Gibson lives in America.
Here, we are free to hate, despise, or criticize whomever we please. Defamation and libel suits aside, we may publicly deride on the Internet, on the airwaves, in books and magazines, or with really big fucking signs, the race, religion or gender of anyone. I'm not sticking up for ignorance here; I'm sticking up for freedom. Any kind of prejudice, whether inbred or learned is despicable. But no one can remove these rights.
4) Mel Gibson lives in America.
He can say whatever the hell he pleases. I don't care if he said that all Buddhists will end up as crack-whores serving Richard Gere in his mansion built from baby harp seal bricks held together with the sperm of 5000 homosexual AIDS victims. We can't pick and chose who gets to say what. It's up to you, the news consumer, to educate yourself so that the massive amounts of fluff and drivel the media throw at you can be filtered through your own, personal, empirical experience. We must learn, through research and intellect, to separate the fiction from the facts; the important from the useless.
Whatever Mel Gibson said, or did, is totally irrelevant to your day-to-day life, even if you are a Jew, a woman named Sugar Tits, or someone who thought Braveheart blew. He is just as entitled to his prejudices, bigotry and hatred as you are. Ann Coulter makes her living by cleverly marketing uninformed opinions one thousand times worse than anything Mel will ever say. Her ostensible rage and righteousness are so overwrought as to be actually cartoonish. And you're telling me the nation is held spellbound by a story of a guy who acts the way we've all seen a friend act after a night of heavy drinking?
Mel Gibson can hate Jews. He can make inflammatory statements about Jews. You know why? Cause he lives in America. You are no better or worse than he is.
Wake up and resist.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Protecting What's Not Under Attack
The Washington Supreme Court voted recently to keep firmly in place the state's gay marriage ban. Despite the fact that the vote was close (5-4), as well as all the talk about Washington being a "liberal leaning" state, the reason the Court gave for upholding the ban is one of the most ludicrous things you'll hear this year.
Justice Barbara Madsen writes in the controlling opinion that all this "is constitutional becasue the Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival."
Procreation. Essential to survival. The deductive leaps made by the Washington Supreme Court are truly staggering in their perspicacity. Unfortunately, their ridiculous legal double-talk is pathetically transparent. The last time I ran through the phone book the population on Earth was rapidly approaching seven billion. I can't imagine anything, short of a Texas-sized asteroid colliding with us, threatening the survival of the species. If one HALF of the bloody planet turned queer overnight, we wouldn't have a problem filling this place to capacity. The procreating humans are here to stay.
How can refusing to let gay people marry further procreation anyway? If they can't get married, do they stop being gay? Do they enter the breeding pool? Do more straight people get married and have kids just to rub it in gay faces?
More to the point, where does the Constitution that these folks are defending guarantee safety, much less the continued survival of the species? The Constitution makes provisions to DEFEND the population, but it certainly doesn't shoulder the burden of ensuring humanity's survival. The right to have children is constantly being defended; the right NOT to have children is usually overlooked. If people want to remain childless, whether straight or gay, it's no one's business but their own. Not the God-lovers who demand more mouths to feed and praise Jesus; not the weeping hearts who believe marriage is only about the progeny; and not the patriots that want to guarantee a good bumper crop of young 'uns to send into the teeth of the next war. My wife and I never want children. Should we be denied the benefits of marriage? Of course not. Legally, we can't be denied those benefits. So why is it OK when the couple in question is gay?
This species will survive. There is no question about that. The fact that a state Supreme Court thinks it's a good enough reason to deny equal rights to one group of people speaks volumes about the mentality of this nation. As does the notion that marriage is somehow being attacked. All the organizations dedicated to theocracy preach the same tired old bullshit about how they must "defend" the institution of marriage. From what? What could possibly threaten marriage? No, what they're worried about is what's threatening their RELIGION. If gay folks, whom God obviously hates, are allowed to wed, then what's to stop the rest of the self-aware, free-thinkers from chipping away at their ridiculous faith? If faggots and dykes can get married, if that affront to God is allowed, then the gates to religious fascism will begin to swing closed instead of open.
And the religious right in American can't have that. They've worked to long, too hard, and too selfishly to stand by while the freedoms they've taken away are slowly restored. This is not about marriage-it never was. This is about defending the stranglehold Chrisianity has on this country. If it's allowed to slip, even an inch, then science, logic, and peace may have a chance to come flooding back in.
Back off, Christians. Why don't you try defending heterosexual marriage from it's 60 percent divorce rate before you start telling the rest of us how to handle it?
Wake up and resist.
Justice Barbara Madsen writes in the controlling opinion that all this "is constitutional becasue the Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival."
Procreation. Essential to survival. The deductive leaps made by the Washington Supreme Court are truly staggering in their perspicacity. Unfortunately, their ridiculous legal double-talk is pathetically transparent. The last time I ran through the phone book the population on Earth was rapidly approaching seven billion. I can't imagine anything, short of a Texas-sized asteroid colliding with us, threatening the survival of the species. If one HALF of the bloody planet turned queer overnight, we wouldn't have a problem filling this place to capacity. The procreating humans are here to stay.
How can refusing to let gay people marry further procreation anyway? If they can't get married, do they stop being gay? Do they enter the breeding pool? Do more straight people get married and have kids just to rub it in gay faces?
More to the point, where does the Constitution that these folks are defending guarantee safety, much less the continued survival of the species? The Constitution makes provisions to DEFEND the population, but it certainly doesn't shoulder the burden of ensuring humanity's survival. The right to have children is constantly being defended; the right NOT to have children is usually overlooked. If people want to remain childless, whether straight or gay, it's no one's business but their own. Not the God-lovers who demand more mouths to feed and praise Jesus; not the weeping hearts who believe marriage is only about the progeny; and not the patriots that want to guarantee a good bumper crop of young 'uns to send into the teeth of the next war. My wife and I never want children. Should we be denied the benefits of marriage? Of course not. Legally, we can't be denied those benefits. So why is it OK when the couple in question is gay?
This species will survive. There is no question about that. The fact that a state Supreme Court thinks it's a good enough reason to deny equal rights to one group of people speaks volumes about the mentality of this nation. As does the notion that marriage is somehow being attacked. All the organizations dedicated to theocracy preach the same tired old bullshit about how they must "defend" the institution of marriage. From what? What could possibly threaten marriage? No, what they're worried about is what's threatening their RELIGION. If gay folks, whom God obviously hates, are allowed to wed, then what's to stop the rest of the self-aware, free-thinkers from chipping away at their ridiculous faith? If faggots and dykes can get married, if that affront to God is allowed, then the gates to religious fascism will begin to swing closed instead of open.
And the religious right in American can't have that. They've worked to long, too hard, and too selfishly to stand by while the freedoms they've taken away are slowly restored. This is not about marriage-it never was. This is about defending the stranglehold Chrisianity has on this country. If it's allowed to slip, even an inch, then science, logic, and peace may have a chance to come flooding back in.
Back off, Christians. Why don't you try defending heterosexual marriage from it's 60 percent divorce rate before you start telling the rest of us how to handle it?
Wake up and resist.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
It's Like They Don't Even Respect Us
As if more evidence was needed in the campaign to unseat the GOP criminals in power, we get this:
http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?
Just read today's post and then tell me the Republicans are even a bit concerned about what we think or whether they get caught. They know that, no matter our opinion, our shock, our outrage, even getting nabbed stuffing money into their pockets or stuffing dead hookers into holes, they cannot be touched.
Ziggy over at www.highlyagitated.blogspot.com brought this article to my attention today. I'm sure he, like the rest of us, is newly overwhelmed by the sense of frustrated impotence this brings. I've learned never to believe I've seen it all; never to think I can't be freshly agape at these antics or offended by the moral superiority.
A moral superiority, by the way, that has Joe Lieberman attacking Ned Lamont's wife and the Bush Administration classifying Wal-Mart as a small business so they can sneak them an extra check or two and call it helping out the underdog.
My disgust knows no bounds. I would rather see the Dems take back Congress in November and wander aimlessly around for a few months than see this deceitful, arrogant, fascist bullshit continue for one more hour.
Wake up and resist.
http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?
Just read today's post and then tell me the Republicans are even a bit concerned about what we think or whether they get caught. They know that, no matter our opinion, our shock, our outrage, even getting nabbed stuffing money into their pockets or stuffing dead hookers into holes, they cannot be touched.
Ziggy over at www.highlyagitated.blogspot.com brought this article to my attention today. I'm sure he, like the rest of us, is newly overwhelmed by the sense of frustrated impotence this brings. I've learned never to believe I've seen it all; never to think I can't be freshly agape at these antics or offended by the moral superiority.
A moral superiority, by the way, that has Joe Lieberman attacking Ned Lamont's wife and the Bush Administration classifying Wal-Mart as a small business so they can sneak them an extra check or two and call it helping out the underdog.
My disgust knows no bounds. I would rather see the Dems take back Congress in November and wander aimlessly around for a few months than see this deceitful, arrogant, fascist bullshit continue for one more hour.
Wake up and resist.
No Prescription Necessary
So you're walking down the street. Maybe you're on the way to work, maybe you're shopping, maybe you're just enjoying the feeling of walking around. Whatever the case, you're walking, the sun is shining on your face, your blood is pumping easily, peacefully; all feels right and comfortable and perhaps even wonderful.
Which makes it all the more startling when you twist your ankle stepping off a curb and stumble into an intersection where you're struck by a car. The car swerves and you're not hit full-on, more of a glancing blow. Of course, it's more than enough to explosively fracture your tibia in your lower leg.
When you're released from the hospital a couple days later, what do you imagine you're given to facilitate mobility? A wheelchair, naturally, to get to the front doors, but then what? What primitive, yet effective device are you handed so you can drag your busted ass around? A crutch.
And what do you do with your crutch? You sock it under your arm and learn how to hobble around on it. You occasionally bump your leg on something and the pain is quite bad, but you learn to use the crutch to navigate around the worst of the pain.
You spend a few months like this while your leg heals. You have to use your crutch because your leg won't support your weight. You get around OK. You're not out playing soccer or hiking the AT but you can mostly keep up. Your friends help you out when they can, but this is something you get used to on your own.
As your leg gets better you don't rely as heavily on the crutch. Perhaps you can go most of the day limping about on your own, but, as the hours draw out, you have to lean on it a bit. Pretty soon, you're only using it a few times a week, and, eventually, when everything is knitted back together, you stop needing it altogether. You're back to your old, pre-crippled self, frolicking and gamboling like a wee kitten.
Now, let's imagine circumstances are just slightly different. Instead of being mashed by a car, let's say you were mashed by love. Everything was ducky, you and your beloved were enjoying your days together with the promise of many more to come. You were deep in it, your heart was totally committed and there wasn't a thing you could do about it. With no warning whatsoever, your beloved leaves you, shatters your hopes, and drives fang-marks through the meat of your heart. You feel broken. You feel incapable of facing the next day; of living through work, bills, bad TV, and glitzy, unreal Hollywood romance wherever you turn.
So what do you do? What's the one thing you can do that no one would look down on you for when your leg is broken, but everyone will when it's your heart that's broken? That's right. Use a crutch.
For many, many years I've heard people refer to alcohol as a "crutch," and I've never understood why it carries such a pejorative connotation. Why is it OK to use a wooden crutch to alleviate pain and facilitate living, but it's pathetic to use an alcoholic crutch to do the same fucking thing?
When your heart's been fractured, day-to-day living is a constant marathon of hurt. There is nothing that isn't affected. It's much harder to walk with a broken heart than a broken leg. At least when you sit down most of the pain is off your leg. Nothing ameliorates the feeling of love-sickness. Nothing, that is, except alcohol.
And it works the same as any other crutch. You use it constantly at the beginning, when the pain is awful. You self-medicate as you see fit and you make it through your days. Not with the same grace and aplomb you would normally, but, hey, you're making it. Your friends help, often just by being there, but, quite often, you're alone. And that's the problem, isn't it? Just a few days ago, you weren't alone. You had that SOMEBODY. Now you don't. Now it's just you and your crutch.
So you drink. You drink and the pain goes further away and you wake up a bit hungover. You drink a bit less the next day, but the pain still fucks off elsewhere. You wake up with your hangover a little more moderate. As time passes, you're drinking less and re-integrating more. You're more engaged with life, with moving on and being happy. There's still pain, of course, and drinking takes the edge off, but you don't need it as much as before. One way or another you get to the place where healing has happened. At this point, you can start drinking for fun again.
So I don't want to hear anymore of this shit about "Oh, he's drinking to forget about her." Fuck yes, he is, and there's nothing wrong with it. Or "She just drinks because he hurt her so much." Damn right, it hurts, and vodka makes it feel better. Or what about "Maybe you shouldn't drink so much. You should deal with this." Drinking IS dealing with it. It dulls pain, it temporarily erases wretched memories, and it inspires brief moments of happiness. All this on the road to wellness.
Drinking while hurt is not burying your head in the sand. It's not avoiding problems and copping out unless you NEVER STOP DRINKING. If you use it like a tool, and put it down when things get better, it's no worse than using a literal crutch.
Which makes it all the more startling when you twist your ankle stepping off a curb and stumble into an intersection where you're struck by a car. The car swerves and you're not hit full-on, more of a glancing blow. Of course, it's more than enough to explosively fracture your tibia in your lower leg.
When you're released from the hospital a couple days later, what do you imagine you're given to facilitate mobility? A wheelchair, naturally, to get to the front doors, but then what? What primitive, yet effective device are you handed so you can drag your busted ass around? A crutch.
And what do you do with your crutch? You sock it under your arm and learn how to hobble around on it. You occasionally bump your leg on something and the pain is quite bad, but you learn to use the crutch to navigate around the worst of the pain.
You spend a few months like this while your leg heals. You have to use your crutch because your leg won't support your weight. You get around OK. You're not out playing soccer or hiking the AT but you can mostly keep up. Your friends help you out when they can, but this is something you get used to on your own.
As your leg gets better you don't rely as heavily on the crutch. Perhaps you can go most of the day limping about on your own, but, as the hours draw out, you have to lean on it a bit. Pretty soon, you're only using it a few times a week, and, eventually, when everything is knitted back together, you stop needing it altogether. You're back to your old, pre-crippled self, frolicking and gamboling like a wee kitten.
Now, let's imagine circumstances are just slightly different. Instead of being mashed by a car, let's say you were mashed by love. Everything was ducky, you and your beloved were enjoying your days together with the promise of many more to come. You were deep in it, your heart was totally committed and there wasn't a thing you could do about it. With no warning whatsoever, your beloved leaves you, shatters your hopes, and drives fang-marks through the meat of your heart. You feel broken. You feel incapable of facing the next day; of living through work, bills, bad TV, and glitzy, unreal Hollywood romance wherever you turn.
So what do you do? What's the one thing you can do that no one would look down on you for when your leg is broken, but everyone will when it's your heart that's broken? That's right. Use a crutch.
For many, many years I've heard people refer to alcohol as a "crutch," and I've never understood why it carries such a pejorative connotation. Why is it OK to use a wooden crutch to alleviate pain and facilitate living, but it's pathetic to use an alcoholic crutch to do the same fucking thing?
When your heart's been fractured, day-to-day living is a constant marathon of hurt. There is nothing that isn't affected. It's much harder to walk with a broken heart than a broken leg. At least when you sit down most of the pain is off your leg. Nothing ameliorates the feeling of love-sickness. Nothing, that is, except alcohol.
And it works the same as any other crutch. You use it constantly at the beginning, when the pain is awful. You self-medicate as you see fit and you make it through your days. Not with the same grace and aplomb you would normally, but, hey, you're making it. Your friends help, often just by being there, but, quite often, you're alone. And that's the problem, isn't it? Just a few days ago, you weren't alone. You had that SOMEBODY. Now you don't. Now it's just you and your crutch.
So you drink. You drink and the pain goes further away and you wake up a bit hungover. You drink a bit less the next day, but the pain still fucks off elsewhere. You wake up with your hangover a little more moderate. As time passes, you're drinking less and re-integrating more. You're more engaged with life, with moving on and being happy. There's still pain, of course, and drinking takes the edge off, but you don't need it as much as before. One way or another you get to the place where healing has happened. At this point, you can start drinking for fun again.
So I don't want to hear anymore of this shit about "Oh, he's drinking to forget about her." Fuck yes, he is, and there's nothing wrong with it. Or "She just drinks because he hurt her so much." Damn right, it hurts, and vodka makes it feel better. Or what about "Maybe you shouldn't drink so much. You should deal with this." Drinking IS dealing with it. It dulls pain, it temporarily erases wretched memories, and it inspires brief moments of happiness. All this on the road to wellness.
Drinking while hurt is not burying your head in the sand. It's not avoiding problems and copping out unless you NEVER STOP DRINKING. If you use it like a tool, and put it down when things get better, it's no worse than using a literal crutch.
Monday, July 17, 2006
What War?
The L.A. Times reports that when asked if the US was winning the war in Iraq, General Peter J. Schoomaker had to think for a good 10 seconds before he could reply. The General, known for his honesty, finally replied, "I think I would answer by telling you I don't think we're losing."
A resounding endorsement, to be sure. However, it was closely followed by this nugget of pure truth: "The challenge...is becoming more complex, and it's going to continue to be. That's why I tell you I think we're closer to the beginning than we are to the end of this."
General George W. Casey, Jr., supreme commander of our forces in Iraq, has also said that, due to increasing sectarian violence, it appears the number of troops in Baghdad might go up, instead of down as he'd hoped.
Now, consider the position in which the GOP and the White House find themselves. They must rabidly support the war. They cannot point to many negatives in Iraq because every single one can be traced to their own lies leading to the war, and their aggressive incompetence in handling it. They must openly ridicule Democrats who push for a loose timetable to withdraw our troops. They must, in their own empty words, "Stay the course."
But the two people in charge of operations in Iraq are dubious about success. They are worried about the growing violence and instability of the entire region. Retired military officers, normally strong supporters of this sort of thing, have loudly called for Rumsfeld to be removed as Defense Secretary. The American public is becoming more and more convinced that the indisputable facts are indeed correct. Bush decided long before the war began that it would happen no matter what (see the Downing Street Memo); he manipulated and falsified information to try to convice the world this was justified (see Colin Powell's February, 2003 address to the U.N.); the entire Middle East is prepping for a brutal, all-out war (see Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, etc).
Faced with the overwhelming evidence pointing to their utter lack of credibility in regard to Iraq, what do you suppose Bush and Co. will do? What do you suppose they will instruct their GOP minions to do, or the castrated watchdogs who report news inside the Beltway? It's time for more prestidigitation, more issue waving and baiting and switching. They've already tried gay marriage and flag-burning, what's next? As Ziggy points out over on Highly Agitated, the right-wing attacks on Ned Lamont are cranking up. Look for the Repubs to really start getting into Dem-bashing as midterms draw nearer. Look for personal and idealogical attacks on Democratic candidates, as well as on any media that dare speak positively about them. Watch for more spastic applause as individual states continue to ban homosexual unions. Watch continued polls that show increasing opposition to the war be eclipsed by Republican talking points about Democracy in Iraq. Eventually, watch for those poll numbers to no longer even be reported by the mainstream media. Most of all, watch your back. Like any good magician, the GOP will be creating fire and flash and smoke, and while you're oohing and ahhing, their other hand is pick-pocketing more of your freedoms.
Wake up and resist.
A resounding endorsement, to be sure. However, it was closely followed by this nugget of pure truth: "The challenge...is becoming more complex, and it's going to continue to be. That's why I tell you I think we're closer to the beginning than we are to the end of this."
General George W. Casey, Jr., supreme commander of our forces in Iraq, has also said that, due to increasing sectarian violence, it appears the number of troops in Baghdad might go up, instead of down as he'd hoped.
Now, consider the position in which the GOP and the White House find themselves. They must rabidly support the war. They cannot point to many negatives in Iraq because every single one can be traced to their own lies leading to the war, and their aggressive incompetence in handling it. They must openly ridicule Democrats who push for a loose timetable to withdraw our troops. They must, in their own empty words, "Stay the course."
But the two people in charge of operations in Iraq are dubious about success. They are worried about the growing violence and instability of the entire region. Retired military officers, normally strong supporters of this sort of thing, have loudly called for Rumsfeld to be removed as Defense Secretary. The American public is becoming more and more convinced that the indisputable facts are indeed correct. Bush decided long before the war began that it would happen no matter what (see the Downing Street Memo); he manipulated and falsified information to try to convice the world this was justified (see Colin Powell's February, 2003 address to the U.N.); the entire Middle East is prepping for a brutal, all-out war (see Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, etc).
Faced with the overwhelming evidence pointing to their utter lack of credibility in regard to Iraq, what do you suppose Bush and Co. will do? What do you suppose they will instruct their GOP minions to do, or the castrated watchdogs who report news inside the Beltway? It's time for more prestidigitation, more issue waving and baiting and switching. They've already tried gay marriage and flag-burning, what's next? As Ziggy points out over on Highly Agitated, the right-wing attacks on Ned Lamont are cranking up. Look for the Repubs to really start getting into Dem-bashing as midterms draw nearer. Look for personal and idealogical attacks on Democratic candidates, as well as on any media that dare speak positively about them. Watch for more spastic applause as individual states continue to ban homosexual unions. Watch continued polls that show increasing opposition to the war be eclipsed by Republican talking points about Democracy in Iraq. Eventually, watch for those poll numbers to no longer even be reported by the mainstream media. Most of all, watch your back. Like any good magician, the GOP will be creating fire and flash and smoke, and while you're oohing and ahhing, their other hand is pick-pocketing more of your freedoms.
Wake up and resist.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Cries of Embryonic Pain
In a move guaranteed to surprise no one, the Catholic Church is cranking up the anachronism machine again. Their never-ending efforts to set the population back hundreds of years at a time and ignore the blush of modernity continue unabated. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo led the Holy See back up onto it's creaky, old high horse last week in an interview published by a Catholic weekly, reports the New York Times.
Cardinal Trujillo is pushing for changes in Church law that would allow scientists involved in stem cell research to be excommunicated. Not just regular ol' excommunicated either; immediate, invisible, sudden-death excommunication by God. In 1990, Pope John Paul published the Evangelium Vitae, which, among other horrors, declared that abortion would precipitate instant excommunication for both women and doctors. This is called latae senentiae, and it means that the Church doesn't have to do anything; you basically excommunicate yourself automatically if you have or perform an abortion. The Big Catholic Fathers consider abortion so severe that no judgement from them is necessary. No papers are filed, you don't get a notice in the mail, no phone call, just the total and irrevocable severing of your bond with Jesus.
To the short list of offenses that warrant automatic, light-speed holy exile from the love and grace of God forever, Cardinal Trujillo would like to add pretty much anyone involved with embryonic stem cell research. His quote in the Times reads "Destroying an embryo is equivalent to abortion. Excommunication is valid for the women, the doctors and researchers who destroy embryos."
The article also states that it's "unclear" if the Pope is currently in favor of this newest anti-science tactic. However, he will be attending the final day of the Church's World Meeting of Families on July 9 in Spain. Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, will also be there. And, since his responsibilities include new policy proposals, it's a safe bet he will be sitting down in the Papal presence to do some politicking.
Even if the Pope is already on board, or will be convinced at the meetings this month, there's little chance of the changes taking place anytime soon. The Rev. Brian Johnstone says "Clarification of such a delicate point of this importance is unlikely to be made at such a large gathering."
Obviously, since Church dogma maintains that life begins at the moment of conception, both abortion and embryonic harvesting of stem-cells are out. But to assign a spiritual penalty, and the Church's most drastic one at that, to these procedures is truly religious terrorism.
Abortion is a private choice that a woman makes; if one consideration of that decision is spiritual teaching then I don't see a problem. But when an iron-clad dictum mandates one course of action and totally forbids the other, conflicts become prevalent. Human life is not black and white, and neither are decisions, even religious ones. Abortion is an intensely personal issue that everyone must reconcile for themselves. The Church's opinion should be valid to practicing Catholics, but it shouldn't be allowed to intrude upon secular law.
Stem-cell research is the greatest, most promising thing to arise in the scientific community since antiseptics were discovered. If it is allowed funding and study it could very well save millions of people their lives and minds. This is neither private nor personal: the promise that stem cells hold literally affects millions of people worldwide suffering from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, diabetes, burns, muscular dystrophy, loss of hearing and vision, and countless other afflictions. To deny these millions the very real possibility of a cure or the alleviation of their conditions based on an unverifiable spiritual belief is an act of tragic cruelty. The Vatican is telling sons and daughters that the observable suffering of their living parents is unimportant next to the idea of protecting life that may never be.
In his book The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, Sam Harris delivers a concise description of stem-cell research:
The embryos in question will have been cultured in vitro (not removed from a woman's body) and permitted to grow for three to five days. At this stage of development, an embryo is called a blastocyst and consists of about 150 cells arranged in a microscopic sphere. Interior to the blastocyst is a small group of about 30 embryonic stem cells. These cells have two properties that make them of such abiding interest to scientists: as stem cells, they can remain in an unspecialized state, reproducing themselves through cell division for long periods of time (a population of such cells living in culture is known as a cell line); stem cells are also pluripotent, which means they have the potential to become any specialized cell in the human body-neurons of the brain and spinal cord, insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, muscle cells of the heart, and so forth.
Mr. Harris goes on to say that the embryos are destroyed at the 150-cell stage, but there is no physical evidence whatsoever to suggest that they feel the pain or loss in any way. He baldly states, however, that the immeasurable pain and misery felt by those who could be helped by stem cell research is tangible every day.
Again, I must point out that the Church has it's own, very specific place in this scheme. Science is unbiased, empirical, and based soley on facts. Religion is biased, philosophical, and concerned with invisible qualities such as faith. Therefore, the Church is relegated to an advisory position only. It's opinions must only be valid to those who choose to accept it's belief system. Science cannot be hindered by the religious notion that life begins at conception when it accepts (and the law declares) that life begins at birth. It's understandable that, since so many people look to their spiritual leaders for guidance on so many topics, that guidance should be available. What's incomprehensible is millions of people with myriad, incompatible beliefs thinking that science should be governed by superstition, conjecture and unprovable concepts.
I know most of us are used to George Bush lying to us. What's more, we're aware of the vast resources his administration has at their disposal to create, substantiate, and disperse these lies. On May 24, 2005, in the East Room of the White House, he fed the American public a heinous falsehood. This lie towers as a monument to his blatant, right-wing disregard for a factual approach to science. Bush stated that "The children here today remind us that there is no such thing as a spare embryo." The overwhelming evidence to the contrary comes from the June/July 2006 issue of Free Inquiry, in an aritcle titled "Lies in Embryo," by Arthur Caplan. According to Mr. Caplan, America is storing somewhere in the neighborhood of four hundred thousand frozen embryos, with more being created every month. Bush's proposed alternative to using them for stem cell research is the argument that they can be "adopted". And many are. But with such a staggering number of embryos in clinics around the US, there is no way to imagine that even a small percentage of them will be adopted. Many donors of existing embryos have died; some couples created them hoping to have their own child, and don't wish to donate them when their efforts failed; there are even folks who specifically wish them to be used for research if they cannot conceive.
Many couples opt for in vitro fertilization so that at least one of them can give sperm or an egg and thus contribute to the genetic makeup of the child. They have no desire to adopt an embryo created by others. Even if everyone who couldn't have a baby wanted to use an embryo donated by two strangers, there aren't four hundred thousand couples in the country who could afford the procedure. If a couple tries unsuccessfully to have their own child and finds out one or both of them are infertile, adopting a living baby is much easier and cheaper than in vitro.
All this points to one, very obvious fact: There is an undeniable surfeit of "spare" embryos in clinics all across America. In fact, there are so many "spares", that Mr. Caplan says with authority that "...the only fate that awaits nearly all of the embryos now frozen in the United States and the new surplus embryos being created every day is to be destroyed."
Bush has again twisted the facts to back his own, insupportable ideas. It would be wonderful if every embryo could be adopted by a loving family, if every child was a wanted child. This is not the case, and Bush knows it's not the case. He's pushing his own agenda of "life-affirming alternatives" to stem cell research because he disagrees with it on religious grounds.
Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Holland and Spain are among the countries that have decided to use their extra embryos for research. And here, in the world's only superpower, we're still being told by leaders that our invisible friends in the sky will never condone research to alleviate the boundless suffering of the living.
Wake up and resist.
Cardinal Trujillo is pushing for changes in Church law that would allow scientists involved in stem cell research to be excommunicated. Not just regular ol' excommunicated either; immediate, invisible, sudden-death excommunication by God. In 1990, Pope John Paul published the Evangelium Vitae, which, among other horrors, declared that abortion would precipitate instant excommunication for both women and doctors. This is called latae senentiae, and it means that the Church doesn't have to do anything; you basically excommunicate yourself automatically if you have or perform an abortion. The Big Catholic Fathers consider abortion so severe that no judgement from them is necessary. No papers are filed, you don't get a notice in the mail, no phone call, just the total and irrevocable severing of your bond with Jesus.
To the short list of offenses that warrant automatic, light-speed holy exile from the love and grace of God forever, Cardinal Trujillo would like to add pretty much anyone involved with embryonic stem cell research. His quote in the Times reads "Destroying an embryo is equivalent to abortion. Excommunication is valid for the women, the doctors and researchers who destroy embryos."
The article also states that it's "unclear" if the Pope is currently in favor of this newest anti-science tactic. However, he will be attending the final day of the Church's World Meeting of Families on July 9 in Spain. Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, will also be there. And, since his responsibilities include new policy proposals, it's a safe bet he will be sitting down in the Papal presence to do some politicking.
Even if the Pope is already on board, or will be convinced at the meetings this month, there's little chance of the changes taking place anytime soon. The Rev. Brian Johnstone says "Clarification of such a delicate point of this importance is unlikely to be made at such a large gathering."
Obviously, since Church dogma maintains that life begins at the moment of conception, both abortion and embryonic harvesting of stem-cells are out. But to assign a spiritual penalty, and the Church's most drastic one at that, to these procedures is truly religious terrorism.
Abortion is a private choice that a woman makes; if one consideration of that decision is spiritual teaching then I don't see a problem. But when an iron-clad dictum mandates one course of action and totally forbids the other, conflicts become prevalent. Human life is not black and white, and neither are decisions, even religious ones. Abortion is an intensely personal issue that everyone must reconcile for themselves. The Church's opinion should be valid to practicing Catholics, but it shouldn't be allowed to intrude upon secular law.
Stem-cell research is the greatest, most promising thing to arise in the scientific community since antiseptics were discovered. If it is allowed funding and study it could very well save millions of people their lives and minds. This is neither private nor personal: the promise that stem cells hold literally affects millions of people worldwide suffering from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, diabetes, burns, muscular dystrophy, loss of hearing and vision, and countless other afflictions. To deny these millions the very real possibility of a cure or the alleviation of their conditions based on an unverifiable spiritual belief is an act of tragic cruelty. The Vatican is telling sons and daughters that the observable suffering of their living parents is unimportant next to the idea of protecting life that may never be.
In his book The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, Sam Harris delivers a concise description of stem-cell research:
The embryos in question will have been cultured in vitro (not removed from a woman's body) and permitted to grow for three to five days. At this stage of development, an embryo is called a blastocyst and consists of about 150 cells arranged in a microscopic sphere. Interior to the blastocyst is a small group of about 30 embryonic stem cells. These cells have two properties that make them of such abiding interest to scientists: as stem cells, they can remain in an unspecialized state, reproducing themselves through cell division for long periods of time (a population of such cells living in culture is known as a cell line); stem cells are also pluripotent, which means they have the potential to become any specialized cell in the human body-neurons of the brain and spinal cord, insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, muscle cells of the heart, and so forth.
Mr. Harris goes on to say that the embryos are destroyed at the 150-cell stage, but there is no physical evidence whatsoever to suggest that they feel the pain or loss in any way. He baldly states, however, that the immeasurable pain and misery felt by those who could be helped by stem cell research is tangible every day.
Again, I must point out that the Church has it's own, very specific place in this scheme. Science is unbiased, empirical, and based soley on facts. Religion is biased, philosophical, and concerned with invisible qualities such as faith. Therefore, the Church is relegated to an advisory position only. It's opinions must only be valid to those who choose to accept it's belief system. Science cannot be hindered by the religious notion that life begins at conception when it accepts (and the law declares) that life begins at birth. It's understandable that, since so many people look to their spiritual leaders for guidance on so many topics, that guidance should be available. What's incomprehensible is millions of people with myriad, incompatible beliefs thinking that science should be governed by superstition, conjecture and unprovable concepts.
I know most of us are used to George Bush lying to us. What's more, we're aware of the vast resources his administration has at their disposal to create, substantiate, and disperse these lies. On May 24, 2005, in the East Room of the White House, he fed the American public a heinous falsehood. This lie towers as a monument to his blatant, right-wing disregard for a factual approach to science. Bush stated that "The children here today remind us that there is no such thing as a spare embryo." The overwhelming evidence to the contrary comes from the June/July 2006 issue of Free Inquiry, in an aritcle titled "Lies in Embryo," by Arthur Caplan. According to Mr. Caplan, America is storing somewhere in the neighborhood of four hundred thousand frozen embryos, with more being created every month. Bush's proposed alternative to using them for stem cell research is the argument that they can be "adopted". And many are. But with such a staggering number of embryos in clinics around the US, there is no way to imagine that even a small percentage of them will be adopted. Many donors of existing embryos have died; some couples created them hoping to have their own child, and don't wish to donate them when their efforts failed; there are even folks who specifically wish them to be used for research if they cannot conceive.
Many couples opt for in vitro fertilization so that at least one of them can give sperm or an egg and thus contribute to the genetic makeup of the child. They have no desire to adopt an embryo created by others. Even if everyone who couldn't have a baby wanted to use an embryo donated by two strangers, there aren't four hundred thousand couples in the country who could afford the procedure. If a couple tries unsuccessfully to have their own child and finds out one or both of them are infertile, adopting a living baby is much easier and cheaper than in vitro.
All this points to one, very obvious fact: There is an undeniable surfeit of "spare" embryos in clinics all across America. In fact, there are so many "spares", that Mr. Caplan says with authority that "...the only fate that awaits nearly all of the embryos now frozen in the United States and the new surplus embryos being created every day is to be destroyed."
Bush has again twisted the facts to back his own, insupportable ideas. It would be wonderful if every embryo could be adopted by a loving family, if every child was a wanted child. This is not the case, and Bush knows it's not the case. He's pushing his own agenda of "life-affirming alternatives" to stem cell research because he disagrees with it on religious grounds.
Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Holland and Spain are among the countries that have decided to use their extra embryos for research. And here, in the world's only superpower, we're still being told by leaders that our invisible friends in the sky will never condone research to alleviate the boundless suffering of the living.
Wake up and resist.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
You Spin Me Right Round, Baby
Despite yet another setback, the GOP is determined to use all of their blistering, public losses to their advantage. Unfortunately, many Democrats and some of the voters may be dumb enough to buy it.
Shockingly, the Supreme Court handed the Republicans their latest defeat. Bush has long been clamoring about military commissions for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who haven't managed to kill themselves yet. This is a flagrant end-run around the Constitution and the Geneva Convention and the Supreme Court struck the idea down. In the face of numerous human-rights violations at Gitmo, the administration still insists that most of the prisoners being held with no charges against them and no real hope of a trial are members of al-Qaeda or other terror groups.
The Court ruled that Congress must come up with new rules for trying these detainees, and make sure that the issue is put before the public so they know exactly what's going on. Many critics are using this as another weapon in the battle to have Gitmo shut down for good. It's defenders, predictably, are howling that closing the prison would put killers on the streets. This, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of prisoners haven't been charged, much less proven a killer. Not to mention the US policy of rendering prisoners back to their home turf to be tortured and executed.
Once again, the GOP has dragged out their worn-down, listless, swaybacked one-trick pony. With their demands that Democrats back Bush on this thing, they're again threatening to brand the Dems as weak on terror if they oppose. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has stated that the ruling "affirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system." John A. Boehner, House Majority leader, attacked those comments, insisting Pelosi was advocating "special privileges for terrorists."
Only a right-wing spin doctor could advance that notion, considering the SUSPECTED terror suspects have been bereft of charges or trials to even begin to prove their affiliations. They don't have ANY privileges, much less "special" ones.
Terry Nelson, Bush's 2004 political director has said that "It would be good politics to have a debate about this if Democrats are going to argue for additional rights for terrorists." Other GOP strategists have insisted this is a good time for Bush to "put Democrats on the spot."
No, it isn't. I can't believe the utter gall of Terry Nelson; no one is arguing for "additional" rights here. People are demanding that the prisoners' original rights be restored. If Bush and Co. are so maniacally convinced that these detainees are terrorists, how hard should it be to prove it in a fair trail? Or to even come up with something to charge them with? Democrats had better find a touch of unity and refuse to be "put on the spot." This is a step forward! Stop being wishy-washy! Don't let the Republicans turn a ploughshare into a sword. This is a major, legal setback for an administration that should have toppled long ago. We need to give it a good, strong shove here and watch as it drowns in it's own criminal intent.
A majority of Americans favor holding prisoners at Guantanamo. 71%, however, also support charges being brought against them or identifying them as Prisoners of War. Let's give them what they want, Democratic Party. Let's come up with new rules so that these people can be tried. If their trials support the charges that they're terrorists, then we can enjoy some bipartisan unity. If, as many believe, the trials will not support such charges, then the American public's opinion of Guantanamo Bay will swing fully into the negative. If that happens, the GOP will finally have to swallow some bitter medicine, and maybe some Republican voters will realize the extent to which their party has deceived them by spinning obvious defeats into victories.
Wake up and resist.
Shockingly, the Supreme Court handed the Republicans their latest defeat. Bush has long been clamoring about military commissions for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who haven't managed to kill themselves yet. This is a flagrant end-run around the Constitution and the Geneva Convention and the Supreme Court struck the idea down. In the face of numerous human-rights violations at Gitmo, the administration still insists that most of the prisoners being held with no charges against them and no real hope of a trial are members of al-Qaeda or other terror groups.
The Court ruled that Congress must come up with new rules for trying these detainees, and make sure that the issue is put before the public so they know exactly what's going on. Many critics are using this as another weapon in the battle to have Gitmo shut down for good. It's defenders, predictably, are howling that closing the prison would put killers on the streets. This, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of prisoners haven't been charged, much less proven a killer. Not to mention the US policy of rendering prisoners back to their home turf to be tortured and executed.
Once again, the GOP has dragged out their worn-down, listless, swaybacked one-trick pony. With their demands that Democrats back Bush on this thing, they're again threatening to brand the Dems as weak on terror if they oppose. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has stated that the ruling "affirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system." John A. Boehner, House Majority leader, attacked those comments, insisting Pelosi was advocating "special privileges for terrorists."
Only a right-wing spin doctor could advance that notion, considering the SUSPECTED terror suspects have been bereft of charges or trials to even begin to prove their affiliations. They don't have ANY privileges, much less "special" ones.
Terry Nelson, Bush's 2004 political director has said that "It would be good politics to have a debate about this if Democrats are going to argue for additional rights for terrorists." Other GOP strategists have insisted this is a good time for Bush to "put Democrats on the spot."
No, it isn't. I can't believe the utter gall of Terry Nelson; no one is arguing for "additional" rights here. People are demanding that the prisoners' original rights be restored. If Bush and Co. are so maniacally convinced that these detainees are terrorists, how hard should it be to prove it in a fair trail? Or to even come up with something to charge them with? Democrats had better find a touch of unity and refuse to be "put on the spot." This is a step forward! Stop being wishy-washy! Don't let the Republicans turn a ploughshare into a sword. This is a major, legal setback for an administration that should have toppled long ago. We need to give it a good, strong shove here and watch as it drowns in it's own criminal intent.
A majority of Americans favor holding prisoners at Guantanamo. 71%, however, also support charges being brought against them or identifying them as Prisoners of War. Let's give them what they want, Democratic Party. Let's come up with new rules so that these people can be tried. If their trials support the charges that they're terrorists, then we can enjoy some bipartisan unity. If, as many believe, the trials will not support such charges, then the American public's opinion of Guantanamo Bay will swing fully into the negative. If that happens, the GOP will finally have to swallow some bitter medicine, and maybe some Republican voters will realize the extent to which their party has deceived them by spinning obvious defeats into victories.
Wake up and resist.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Enjoy Your Pink Prison Jumpsuit
Good news, everyone!! It looks like a Republican may actually get what he deserves!
Anybody remember Carey Lee Cramer? Hired (through thus-untraceable funds) to create a 2000 TV spot that accused the Clinton-Gore administration of giving China nuclear technologies in return for campaign funds, his head is now on the chopping block. This political consultant's company created a rip-off of President Johnson's televised 1964 "Daisy" attack on candidate Barry Goldwater, implying that he would lead the country to nuclear war.
Cramer, 44, has been convicted on several counts of pedophilia. Specifically, one count of aggravated sexual ASSAULT of a child, two counts of indecency with a child by contact, and one count of indecency with a child by exposure. His accuser is the eight year old girl featured in the 2000 TV ad.
Accused by the little girl he hired to try to convince the world that Clinton had sold nuclear capabilities to China. It's a horrifying thing that children still suffer these abuses, no matter the adult involved; the irony, however, the absolute poetic justice of this instance, is as brutal as it is hideous.
Cramer faces up to 149 years in prison. I do not wish him to be raped in jail. However, I hope he can, through a medical miracle, serve all 149 years. And I hope every day is spent in the fear of imminent rape. Every single day.
Anybody remember Carey Lee Cramer? Hired (through thus-untraceable funds) to create a 2000 TV spot that accused the Clinton-Gore administration of giving China nuclear technologies in return for campaign funds, his head is now on the chopping block. This political consultant's company created a rip-off of President Johnson's televised 1964 "Daisy" attack on candidate Barry Goldwater, implying that he would lead the country to nuclear war.
Cramer, 44, has been convicted on several counts of pedophilia. Specifically, one count of aggravated sexual ASSAULT of a child, two counts of indecency with a child by contact, and one count of indecency with a child by exposure. His accuser is the eight year old girl featured in the 2000 TV ad.
Accused by the little girl he hired to try to convince the world that Clinton had sold nuclear capabilities to China. It's a horrifying thing that children still suffer these abuses, no matter the adult involved; the irony, however, the absolute poetic justice of this instance, is as brutal as it is hideous.
Cramer faces up to 149 years in prison. I do not wish him to be raped in jail. However, I hope he can, through a medical miracle, serve all 149 years. And I hope every day is spent in the fear of imminent rape. Every single day.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Duh
I don't know why I didn't realize this sooner, but, yesterday, I was struck by the real reason Bush and Co. are so furious with the New York Times. If the Republican-led administration is riffling bank records, transactions, and studying money trails, of course they wouldn't want anyone to know about it. They're not trying to protect the secrecy of a plan designed to help defend America; no, their reason is much more personal and avaricious. If people get wind of exactly where they're looking, or what they're looking at, it's only a matter of time before the Republicans have to explain the enormous amounts of misbegotten funds, illicit bribes, and laundering schemes they've buried.
Here are some interesting facts that probably won't be investigated for signs of financial terrorism ties:
George H.W. Bush is a Senior Advisor for the Carlyle Group, a shadowy equity management firm. They have long done business with the Saudis. If I remember correctly, nearly all of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian. Carlyle, using the Bush's deep connections in Saudi Arabia, has done business with members of the bin Laden family before and after 9/11. Why aren't these funds being traced? Is it not curious that the country that produced most of our 9/11 attackers has strong business ties to our ruling class?
Also, Halliburton signed $73 million worth of contracts with Iraq while Dick Cheney was the CEO. It was done sneakily, through two subsidiary companies so it didn't break any UN regualtions, but it was done. Cheney himself has admitted that the company did business with Libya and Iran as well.
Now, I'm sure all the huge corporations (if there are any) that don't feature a prominent right-wing politician or one of his rich benefactors will have their bank records thoroughly pilfered if they've had any dealings such as the ones described above. But I'm equally sure that Cheney, Bush Sr., his idiot child and all his friends will remain above the fray.
Wake up and resist.
Here are some interesting facts that probably won't be investigated for signs of financial terrorism ties:
George H.W. Bush is a Senior Advisor for the Carlyle Group, a shadowy equity management firm. They have long done business with the Saudis. If I remember correctly, nearly all of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian. Carlyle, using the Bush's deep connections in Saudi Arabia, has done business with members of the bin Laden family before and after 9/11. Why aren't these funds being traced? Is it not curious that the country that produced most of our 9/11 attackers has strong business ties to our ruling class?
Also, Halliburton signed $73 million worth of contracts with Iraq while Dick Cheney was the CEO. It was done sneakily, through two subsidiary companies so it didn't break any UN regualtions, but it was done. Cheney himself has admitted that the company did business with Libya and Iran as well.
Now, I'm sure all the huge corporations (if there are any) that don't feature a prominent right-wing politician or one of his rich benefactors will have their bank records thoroughly pilfered if they've had any dealings such as the ones described above. But I'm equally sure that Cheney, Bush Sr., his idiot child and all his friends will remain above the fray.
Wake up and resist.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Sit! Lie Down! Stay!
Peter King (R-NY), who just happens to be the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, is squawking his head off. He is completely furious with the New York Times and wants Bush and his cronies to bring criminal charges against the paper.
The Times only offense, of course, is reporting the news. In this case, breaking a story about how the administration is secretly combing financial records in their never-ending, yet rarely-effective, endeavors to find terrorists.
King is rallying the troops to enforce one of Bush's greatest mandates; crush the press, cow the editors, hamstring the journalists, marginalize the tough reporters until the media presents what we TELL them to present. In the past six years it's worked great. So great, in fact, that the mainstream media eats from Bush's one hand while the other is cocked back in a fist.
This can be easily seen by the Times' carefully contrived explanaion of how they weighed the facts very deliberately before deciding to go ahead and DO THEIR JOB. Their meticulous near-apology to the administraion that hounds them at every turn is a scrap of evidence on the mountain that Bush has created.
Rebublican-controlled Congress is rallying behind the empty cry "Stay the course," while the vast majority of Americans reject this rhetoric, and the media refuses to print anything that will point out its worthlessness.
Wake up and resist.
The Times only offense, of course, is reporting the news. In this case, breaking a story about how the administration is secretly combing financial records in their never-ending, yet rarely-effective, endeavors to find terrorists.
King is rallying the troops to enforce one of Bush's greatest mandates; crush the press, cow the editors, hamstring the journalists, marginalize the tough reporters until the media presents what we TELL them to present. In the past six years it's worked great. So great, in fact, that the mainstream media eats from Bush's one hand while the other is cocked back in a fist.
This can be easily seen by the Times' carefully contrived explanaion of how they weighed the facts very deliberately before deciding to go ahead and DO THEIR JOB. Their meticulous near-apology to the administraion that hounds them at every turn is a scrap of evidence on the mountain that Bush has created.
Rebublican-controlled Congress is rallying behind the empty cry "Stay the course," while the vast majority of Americans reject this rhetoric, and the media refuses to print anything that will point out its worthlessness.
Wake up and resist.
Careful What You Wish For
It appears that one of the Bush administration's top goals may yet be realized: unity in the Middle East. Unfortunately, it seems the Middle East may be solidifying internal relations in an attempt to present a unified front against the United States. This is rather contrary to Mr. Bush's unfounded vision of the American-led Democracy machine turning the region into a non-violent utopia. However, it probably doesn't come as much of a shock to the rest of the world, which has undertood from the start that Bush's actions in the Middle East are intrusive, divisive, disorganized, shortsighted displays of military brawn.
In light of US backed pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear program, many governments formerly hostile towards Tehran are beginning to extend hands of peace. Iran's national security chief, Ali Larijani met with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak recently in Cairo. Saudi Arabian foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal came to Tehran this month to proclaim the strong and friendly bond between the two countries. Iran, recognizing its blooming fortune, has conveyed messages of friendship to each and every state in the Persian Gulf.
The key to many of these newly peaceful endeavors seems to be Syria, which is playing a delicate dual role in the region. What it offers Iran is very enticing: the chance to establish a powerful unity that reaches from Syria to Palestine. Hamas, which provides Palestinian leadership, is allied with both Iran and Syria. This would lend unmistakable authority to an area that has been torn by disagreement and war since time immemorial.
Syria has much to offer the rest of the Middle East, as well. Considering its secular government, and its diverse blend of religious and ethnic groups, Syria is uniquely suited to align itself with other ideals around the region. Ideals that an Islamic government could only endorse at the risk of offending potential friends. For example, Syria is backing the Sunni effort to curtail the growing Shiite influence, a move that has won both dollars and support from many. This is also partly predicated by the US installation of Shiite leadership in Iraq's new "government."
The obvious problem with this is that, if Iran accepts the deal that Europe and America is offerring, Syria could be abandoned and left weaker than before. Its religious and ethnic diversity works against as well as for it, and Syria is stricken with internal conflicts that are soemwhat soothed by its beneficial relationship with Iran. Various military and economic agreements between the two range from telecommunications deals to education plans. In addition, Iran is selling missles to Syria and constructing cement and car plants there.
Syria is building better relations with other nations, too. The king of Bahrain visited this month, and President Assad (of Syria) hosted a telephone conference with the king of Jordan. Jordan and Syria's ties have been stressed due to the Jordanian accusation that Hamas terrorists were smuggling weapons there with Damascas' aid.
Iran has reassured its neighbor that there's nothing to worry about. Ambassador to Syria Muhammad Hassan Akhtari has said that Iran won't make any deal with the West that is "against the interest of Syria." He went on to say "Now that Iran is stronger, why would it sell out its friends, and sell out Syria?" Indeed.
In addition to these developments, things continue to get disturbing in Somalia. A terrorist wanted by the US has been appointed head of the Council of the Islamic Courts, which is basically Mogadishu's new parliament. Muslim cleric Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys will be a frightening counterpart to the moderate stance the new government is trying to show the world. He has accused America of backing the recently-overthrown warlords as revenge for the 1990's killing of US soldiers in Mogadishu. He is also a militant proponent of Sharia, or rule by Islamic law, which critics say is both helping and hurting the already ravaged country. Helping because it lends a much-needed strength to a shattered leadership; hurting because it's uncompromising and unforgiving. Somalia's new representatives seem bent on inviting journalists in to chronicle the two distinct faces of the land: one is the open willingness to consider the rest of the world's regard; the other is the masked fighter with an AK-47, refusing to shake his interviewer's hand because he isn't a Muslim. It seems apparent that the armed fighters are in control of everything, including the PR that tries to soften their image as moderates.
Whether Somalia extends friendship to Iran, Syria and others is impossible to predict right now. What is certain, however, is the influence Bush and his policies are having on the Middle East. Unity, indeed may prevail. If it does, the US (and its shocked leaders) may be looking at a region suddenly stabilized by its opposition to the Imperialism of the West.
Wake up and resist.
In light of US backed pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear program, many governments formerly hostile towards Tehran are beginning to extend hands of peace. Iran's national security chief, Ali Larijani met with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak recently in Cairo. Saudi Arabian foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal came to Tehran this month to proclaim the strong and friendly bond between the two countries. Iran, recognizing its blooming fortune, has conveyed messages of friendship to each and every state in the Persian Gulf.
The key to many of these newly peaceful endeavors seems to be Syria, which is playing a delicate dual role in the region. What it offers Iran is very enticing: the chance to establish a powerful unity that reaches from Syria to Palestine. Hamas, which provides Palestinian leadership, is allied with both Iran and Syria. This would lend unmistakable authority to an area that has been torn by disagreement and war since time immemorial.
Syria has much to offer the rest of the Middle East, as well. Considering its secular government, and its diverse blend of religious and ethnic groups, Syria is uniquely suited to align itself with other ideals around the region. Ideals that an Islamic government could only endorse at the risk of offending potential friends. For example, Syria is backing the Sunni effort to curtail the growing Shiite influence, a move that has won both dollars and support from many. This is also partly predicated by the US installation of Shiite leadership in Iraq's new "government."
The obvious problem with this is that, if Iran accepts the deal that Europe and America is offerring, Syria could be abandoned and left weaker than before. Its religious and ethnic diversity works against as well as for it, and Syria is stricken with internal conflicts that are soemwhat soothed by its beneficial relationship with Iran. Various military and economic agreements between the two range from telecommunications deals to education plans. In addition, Iran is selling missles to Syria and constructing cement and car plants there.
Syria is building better relations with other nations, too. The king of Bahrain visited this month, and President Assad (of Syria) hosted a telephone conference with the king of Jordan. Jordan and Syria's ties have been stressed due to the Jordanian accusation that Hamas terrorists were smuggling weapons there with Damascas' aid.
Iran has reassured its neighbor that there's nothing to worry about. Ambassador to Syria Muhammad Hassan Akhtari has said that Iran won't make any deal with the West that is "against the interest of Syria." He went on to say "Now that Iran is stronger, why would it sell out its friends, and sell out Syria?" Indeed.
In addition to these developments, things continue to get disturbing in Somalia. A terrorist wanted by the US has been appointed head of the Council of the Islamic Courts, which is basically Mogadishu's new parliament. Muslim cleric Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys will be a frightening counterpart to the moderate stance the new government is trying to show the world. He has accused America of backing the recently-overthrown warlords as revenge for the 1990's killing of US soldiers in Mogadishu. He is also a militant proponent of Sharia, or rule by Islamic law, which critics say is both helping and hurting the already ravaged country. Helping because it lends a much-needed strength to a shattered leadership; hurting because it's uncompromising and unforgiving. Somalia's new representatives seem bent on inviting journalists in to chronicle the two distinct faces of the land: one is the open willingness to consider the rest of the world's regard; the other is the masked fighter with an AK-47, refusing to shake his interviewer's hand because he isn't a Muslim. It seems apparent that the armed fighters are in control of everything, including the PR that tries to soften their image as moderates.
Whether Somalia extends friendship to Iran, Syria and others is impossible to predict right now. What is certain, however, is the influence Bush and his policies are having on the Middle East. Unity, indeed may prevail. If it does, the US (and its shocked leaders) may be looking at a region suddenly stabilized by its opposition to the Imperialism of the West.
Wake up and resist.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Move the Power, or Lose It Again
I keep thinking I'm going to go to bed. Yet, when I lie down, I'm tortured by visions of a Republican majority continuing its iron-fisted rule of our Congress.
If you don't believe the things I say, if you're still uncertain about the facts that I present to you, do your own research. Don't trust the links I give you, to the right of this column. Don't trust salon.com or the Drudge Report or Media Matters. Dig deeper. Ignore the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and the full-color USA Today and find out for yourself.
If you come up with data, hard-core, real defensible facts that prove I'm wrong, I'll come to your town. And I will personally gerrymander your ass until you don't know up from Democrat or left from weapons of mass destruction. Give up your viewpoint and just look at what's been done. Look objectively and tell me that everything is still OK.
Wake up and resist.
If you don't believe the things I say, if you're still uncertain about the facts that I present to you, do your own research. Don't trust the links I give you, to the right of this column. Don't trust salon.com or the Drudge Report or Media Matters. Dig deeper. Ignore the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and the full-color USA Today and find out for yourself.
If you come up with data, hard-core, real defensible facts that prove I'm wrong, I'll come to your town. And I will personally gerrymander your ass until you don't know up from Democrat or left from weapons of mass destruction. Give up your viewpoint and just look at what's been done. Look objectively and tell me that everything is still OK.
Wake up and resist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
