What does a Greek liberal, a conservative man, and a gay pundit have in common? They all think Libby should be further investigated by Congress. From Sully:
"It's come to this? I'm watching Scarborough and see both Buchanan and Huffington agreeing that the Congress needs to take the Libby verdict from here on. Both opposed the war. I didn't. But at this point, I agree with them. Why are those of us who favored the war not as eager to investigate whether we were deliberately misled? Weren't we potentially conned as well?"
Better do it now, before Libby gets pardoned.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
The last word on Coulter...
...is best left to Sully here. Not only does fantastically deconstruct what Coulter said, but his post is also very telling about hateful language that we all may say without thinking it's "hurtful." Money quote:
"Coulter's defense of the slur is that it was directed at an obviously straight man and so could not be a real slur. The premise of this argument is that the word faggot is only used to describe gay men and is only effective and derogatory when used against a gay man. But it isn't. In fact, in the schoolyard she cites, the primary targets of the f-word are straight boys or teens or men. The word "faggot" is used for two reasons: to identify and demonize a gay man; and to threaten a straight man with being reduced to the level of a gay man. Coulter chose the latter use of the slur, its most potent and common form. She knew why Edwards qualified. He's pretty, he has flowing locks, he's young-looking. He is exactly the kind of straight guy who is targeted as a "faggot" by his straight peers. This, Ms Coulter, is real social policing by speech. And that's what she was doing: trying to delegitimize and feminize a man by calling him a faggot. It happens every day. It's how insecure or bigoted straight men police their world to keep the homos out.
And for the slur to work, it must logically accept the premise that gay men are weak, effeminate, wusses, sissies, and the rest. A sane gay man has two responses to this, I think. The first is that there is nothing wrong with effeminacy or effeminate gay men - and certainly nothing weak about many of them. In the plague years, I saw countless nelly sissies face HIV and AIDS with as much courage and steel as any warrior on earth. You want to meet someone with balls? Find a drag queen. The courage of many gay men every day in facing down hatred and scorn and derision to live lives of dignity and integrity is not a sign of being a wuss or somehow weak. We have as much and maybe more courage than many - because we have had to acquire it to survive. And that is especially true of gay men whose effeminacy may not make them able to pass as straight - the very people Coulter seeks to demonize. The conflation of effeminacy with weakness, and of gayness with weakness, is what Coulter calculatedly asserted. This was not a joke. It was an attack.
Secondly, gay men are not all effeminate. In the last couple of weeks, we have seen a leading NBA player and a soldier come out to tell their stories. I'd like to hear Coulter tell Amaechi and Alva that they are sissies and wusses. A man in uniform who just lost a leg for his country is a sissy? What Coulter did, in her callow, empty way, was to accuse John Edwards of not being a real man. To do so, she asserted that gay men are not really men either. The emasculation of men in minority groups is an ancient trope of the vilest bigotry. Why was it wrong, after all, for white men to call African-American men "boys"? Because it robbed them of the dignity of their masculinity. And that's what Coulter did last Friday to gays. She said - and conservatives applauded - that I and so many others are not men. We are men, Ann.
As members of other minorities have been forced to say in the past: I am not a faggot. I am a man."
"Coulter's defense of the slur is that it was directed at an obviously straight man and so could not be a real slur. The premise of this argument is that the word faggot is only used to describe gay men and is only effective and derogatory when used against a gay man. But it isn't. In fact, in the schoolyard she cites, the primary targets of the f-word are straight boys or teens or men. The word "faggot" is used for two reasons: to identify and demonize a gay man; and to threaten a straight man with being reduced to the level of a gay man. Coulter chose the latter use of the slur, its most potent and common form. She knew why Edwards qualified. He's pretty, he has flowing locks, he's young-looking. He is exactly the kind of straight guy who is targeted as a "faggot" by his straight peers. This, Ms Coulter, is real social policing by speech. And that's what she was doing: trying to delegitimize and feminize a man by calling him a faggot. It happens every day. It's how insecure or bigoted straight men police their world to keep the homos out.
And for the slur to work, it must logically accept the premise that gay men are weak, effeminate, wusses, sissies, and the rest. A sane gay man has two responses to this, I think. The first is that there is nothing wrong with effeminacy or effeminate gay men - and certainly nothing weak about many of them. In the plague years, I saw countless nelly sissies face HIV and AIDS with as much courage and steel as any warrior on earth. You want to meet someone with balls? Find a drag queen. The courage of many gay men every day in facing down hatred and scorn and derision to live lives of dignity and integrity is not a sign of being a wuss or somehow weak. We have as much and maybe more courage than many - because we have had to acquire it to survive. And that is especially true of gay men whose effeminacy may not make them able to pass as straight - the very people Coulter seeks to demonize. The conflation of effeminacy with weakness, and of gayness with weakness, is what Coulter calculatedly asserted. This was not a joke. It was an attack.
Secondly, gay men are not all effeminate. In the last couple of weeks, we have seen a leading NBA player and a soldier come out to tell their stories. I'd like to hear Coulter tell Amaechi and Alva that they are sissies and wusses. A man in uniform who just lost a leg for his country is a sissy? What Coulter did, in her callow, empty way, was to accuse John Edwards of not being a real man. To do so, she asserted that gay men are not really men either. The emasculation of men in minority groups is an ancient trope of the vilest bigotry. Why was it wrong, after all, for white men to call African-American men "boys"? Because it robbed them of the dignity of their masculinity. And that's what Coulter did last Friday to gays. She said - and conservatives applauded - that I and so many others are not men. We are men, Ann.
As members of other minorities have been forced to say in the past: I am not a faggot. I am a man."
Nice to be wrong (for a change)
Scooter found guilty on four of five counts. From MSNBC.com:
"WASHINGTON - Former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was convicted Tuesday of obstruction, perjury and lying to the FBI in an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative’s identity.
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was accused of lying and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity to reporters.
He was acquitted of one count of lying to the FBI. "
I wish I could get the above picture as a poster. Let the spinning begin!
Greenspan revises comments...
...says now that there's a one-third possiblity of recession:
"SINGAPORE - Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan was quoted as seeing a “one-third probability” of recession in the United States this year, according to an interview with Bloomberg."
That's right calm them down. Problem is the tumor's still there. Still, if you're like Mort Zuckerman you might want to put your money in government bonds in the next couple of months. From the March 4 Mclaughlin Group:
"MR. ZUCKERMAN: My pillow is stuffed with U.S. government bonds. That's the way I sleep, John.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Did you move into government -- did you see this coming?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: No, of course not.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Did anyone have the sense to move into government bonds before it hit?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: I'm sure some people did, but I don't think they did it in anticipation of the Shanghai market going down by 9 percent.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How can you seem so elated, almost, here today?
MR. BUCHANAN: John --
MR. ZUCKERMAN: I'm elated because I'm on this show, John. You know, it's such a thrill.
MR. BUCHANAN: Right. (Laughs.)"
"SINGAPORE - Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan was quoted as seeing a “one-third probability” of recession in the United States this year, according to an interview with Bloomberg."
That's right calm them down. Problem is the tumor's still there. Still, if you're like Mort Zuckerman you might want to put your money in government bonds in the next couple of months. From the March 4 Mclaughlin Group:
"MR. ZUCKERMAN: My pillow is stuffed with U.S. government bonds. That's the way I sleep, John.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Did you move into government -- did you see this coming?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: No, of course not.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Did anyone have the sense to move into government bonds before it hit?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: I'm sure some people did, but I don't think they did it in anticipation of the Shanghai market going down by 9 percent.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How can you seem so elated, almost, here today?
MR. BUCHANAN: John --
MR. ZUCKERMAN: I'm elated because I'm on this show, John. You know, it's such a thrill.
MR. BUCHANAN: Right. (Laughs.)"
Horrible...
Dozens of Shiite pilgrims killed. From MSNBC.com:
"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two suicide bombers killed at least 90 Shiites making a pilgrimage south of Baghdad ahead of a weekend holiday, police said Tuesday.
The pilgrims came under attack as they streamed south, mostly on foot, toward a shrine in Karbala. Two bombers exploded themselves in a crowd of pilgrims in Hillah, about 60 miles south of the capital."
And just in case you thought the US got away scot free:
"Separately, U.S. officials said nine American soldiers died in explosions north of Baghdad on Monday the deadliest single day for U.S. troops in Iraq in nearly a month."
"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two suicide bombers killed at least 90 Shiites making a pilgrimage south of Baghdad ahead of a weekend holiday, police said Tuesday.
The pilgrims came under attack as they streamed south, mostly on foot, toward a shrine in Karbala. Two bombers exploded themselves in a crowd of pilgrims in Hillah, about 60 miles south of the capital."
And just in case you thought the US got away scot free:
"Separately, U.S. officials said nine American soldiers died in explosions north of Baghdad on Monday the deadliest single day for U.S. troops in Iraq in nearly a month."
Blogs are political tools...
...as the Guardian discovers:
"Westerners assume Middle Eastern bloggers are liberal. But the Muslim Brotherhood has just started blogging in force."
Is this a surprise? Are we to be shocked because the East has their Ann Coulters?
"Westerners assume Middle Eastern bloggers are liberal. But the Muslim Brotherhood has just started blogging in force."
Is this a surprise? Are we to be shocked because the East has their Ann Coulters?
Monday, March 05, 2007
Al-Qaeda at Thermopylae
So a couple of days ago I bought and finished 300: March to Glory, the video game that accompanies 300 the movie, coming out on March 9th. The game was overall a pretty fun button masher, with decent graphics and story board. However, and quite a large however, I was a bit confused and puzzled by the game's use of suicide bombers.
For those of you unfamiliar with 300, it's a movie based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller. The story depicts the tale of the 300 Spartans who stood up to the million strong Persian army at Thermopylae at around 480 BC. Stylistic, Miller does take some liberties in developing the story, however I don't remember any suicide bombers in the novel. Enter the video game which features "Persian Slaves," picture Gandhi in a diaper carrying some flaming device. He runs up to a Spartan and boom! It's like downtown Baghdad.
Now I'm not one for political correctness, but why would the makers of the game add such an odd fiction to their game? I wish I could answer that point. I wish I didn't have a feeling that there is a deep down political purpose to the bomber which further enhances the already apparent neo-conservative ideas of the story (west vs. east, freedom and democracy vs. slavery and theocracy), all I do know is that on one hand the "bomber" totally took me out of the game, and in some way was offensive not only to the modern day descendants on Persians (hey Iranians have enough bad press to deal with) but to me having to deal with such an overt political ploy in the middle of my video game which I play to escape reality. If I need to watch someone on a screen twist reality I'll turn on Fox News. What's next, a video game based on the Spanish-American war where Pancho Villa rides up in a low rider? Or how about a video game based on Shaka Zulu? Instead of throwing spears the Zulu's will do drive bys while selling crack to the British. What's wrong with a little racism? It's all just a game.
For those of you unfamiliar with 300, it's a movie based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller. The story depicts the tale of the 300 Spartans who stood up to the million strong Persian army at Thermopylae at around 480 BC. Stylistic, Miller does take some liberties in developing the story, however I don't remember any suicide bombers in the novel. Enter the video game which features "Persian Slaves," picture Gandhi in a diaper carrying some flaming device. He runs up to a Spartan and boom! It's like downtown Baghdad.
Now I'm not one for political correctness, but why would the makers of the game add such an odd fiction to their game? I wish I could answer that point. I wish I didn't have a feeling that there is a deep down political purpose to the bomber which further enhances the already apparent neo-conservative ideas of the story (west vs. east, freedom and democracy vs. slavery and theocracy), all I do know is that on one hand the "bomber" totally took me out of the game, and in some way was offensive not only to the modern day descendants on Persians (hey Iranians have enough bad press to deal with) but to me having to deal with such an overt political ploy in the middle of my video game which I play to escape reality. If I need to watch someone on a screen twist reality I'll turn on Fox News. What's next, a video game based on the Spanish-American war where Pancho Villa rides up in a low rider? Or how about a video game based on Shaka Zulu? Instead of throwing spears the Zulu's will do drive bys while selling crack to the British. What's wrong with a little racism? It's all just a game.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
A sane conservative voice
Ed Morrissey makes sense regarding the Coulter at the CPAC. Money quote:
"First, criticizing Coulter's use of the word "faggot" is not a suppression of free speech; it is an exercise of free speech. We're not advocating her arrest for using the word. We're just saying it was stupid, unnecessary, and hateful. This is no different than Melissa McEwan calling Christians "Christofascist Godbags" and Amanda Marcotte's incendiary hate speech about Catholics. We howled about that when John Edwards hired them; why do we defend Coulter's appearance at CPAC?"
Bingo.
"First, criticizing Coulter's use of the word "faggot" is not a suppression of free speech; it is an exercise of free speech. We're not advocating her arrest for using the word. We're just saying it was stupid, unnecessary, and hateful. This is no different than Melissa McEwan calling Christians "Christofascist Godbags" and Amanda Marcotte's incendiary hate speech about Catholics. We howled about that when John Edwards hired them; why do we defend Coulter's appearance at CPAC?"
Bingo.
I'm probably a left-wing extremist...
...at least according to Joe Klein. Here's a list of what he believes are attributes of a LWE:
"A left-wing extremist exhibits many, but not necessarily all, of the following attributes:
"A left-wing extremist exhibits many, but not necessarily all, of the following attributes:
--believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world.
--believes that American imperialism is the primary cause of Islamic radicalism.
--believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity, but a consequence of America’s fundamental imperialistic nature.
--tends to blame America for the failures of others—i.e. the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan.
--doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history.
--believes American society is fundamentally unfair (as opposed to having unfair aspects that need improvement).
--believes that eternal problems like crime and poverty are the primarily the fault of society.
--believes that America isn’t really a democracy.
--believes that corporations are fundamentally evil.
--believes in a corporate conspiracy that controls the world.
--is intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources.
--dismissively mocks people of faith, especially those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage.
--regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives."
I'll let you decide on which, if not all, of those attributes I share.Friday, March 02, 2007
Classic Coulter...
Extremism at its finest:
"I was going to talk about John Edwards but these days, you have to go into rehab if you say the word 'faggot,'" - Ann Coulter, cheered to the rafters at CPAC [Conservative Political Action Conference] today."
People cheered--not much of a surprise. It's worth stating that this radical partisan bigoted rhetoric is epidemic on both sides of the rafters. Half of the bloggers ready to point a finger will find three pointing back at them.
But she really is a class act. Like Archie Bunker, but not funny.
Hat Tip: Sully
"I was going to talk about John Edwards but these days, you have to go into rehab if you say the word 'faggot,'" - Ann Coulter, cheered to the rafters at CPAC [Conservative Political Action Conference] today."
People cheered--not much of a surprise. It's worth stating that this radical partisan bigoted rhetoric is epidemic on both sides of the rafters. Half of the bloggers ready to point a finger will find three pointing back at them.
But she really is a class act. Like Archie Bunker, but not funny.
Hat Tip: Sully
For those of you concerned about our injured troops...
...don't worry, they'll be kept warm with a hot blanket of sarcasm. Thanks for the in depth coverage Glenn Bond Bourne.
For any of you who want some real info check here.
PS: Thanks to Sully for spelling out my post.
For any of you who want some real info check here.
PS: Thanks to Sully for spelling out my post.
The appeal of Obama...
It's ok Sully, you can say it:
"I'm not sure Barack Obama has sounded an off-key note in his campaign thus far. Am I swooning? No. I've learned my lesson. But read this NPR interview, where Obama has to walk through a racial and cultural minefield. He strides straight ahead, unflappable and sane. I think his appeal is precisely this. He is moving our narrative forward. He is able to speak of race and faith and politics without the usual ideological cant, and without the conventional cliche-ridden positioning...
Why do I keep feeling that he's actually being honest?"
Now that would be insane wouldn't it?
Thursday, March 01, 2007
More good news for Obama...
First Zogby has him beating all the major GOP candidates, and now he's gaining on Hil.
Call him Neo, cause he could be the one.
PS: Think about this for a moment: do candidates win because some one tells the people that they can win? Is Zogby really creating the election right here and now? What do you think?
Call him Neo, cause he could be the one.
PS: Think about this for a moment: do candidates win because some one tells the people that they can win? Is Zogby really creating the election right here and now? What do you think?
I don't know what you're talking about?
Isn't dodging the draft a prerequisite to become a presidential candidate?
"WASHINGTON - If this presidential campaign is anything like the last, John McCain’s Vietnam service will inevitably be contrasted with GOP rival Rudy Giuliani’s avoidance of a war that he opposed...
“Any suggestion that he was dodging the draft is totally, factually inaccurate,” said a senior Giuliani campaign adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. “He opposed the war on tactical and strategic grounds.”"
He even has a crappy reason to boot. He's in like Flynn.
PS: This, by the way, is the exact reason why Hilary won't win.
"WASHINGTON - If this presidential campaign is anything like the last, John McCain’s Vietnam service will inevitably be contrasted with GOP rival Rudy Giuliani’s avoidance of a war that he opposed...
“Any suggestion that he was dodging the draft is totally, factually inaccurate,” said a senior Giuliani campaign adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. “He opposed the war on tactical and strategic grounds.”"
He even has a crappy reason to boot. He's in like Flynn.
PS: This, by the way, is the exact reason why Hilary won't win.
I have an idea
Instead of passing laws to allow civil detainment of sex offenders after their prison sentences have expired, pass their names off to Chris Hansen.
Instead of spending tax money to track these guys down NBC will handle it, and provide us with great entertainment like this:
Capitalism at work.
Instead of spending tax money to track these guys down NBC will handle it, and provide us with great entertainment like this:
Capitalism at work.
Is Giuliani still mayor?
Because this is right up his alley:
"Should New Yorkers be arrested for picking up an unattended bag and not turning it in? The New York Police Department has a sting operation to do just that, but one couple caught up in it says they were doing nothing wrong. NY1’s Criminal Justice reporter Solana Pyne filed the following report.
For Aquarius Cheers and Kia Graves, it started as a routine trip to Target Thursday night to buy their daughter diapers. They were waiting for a train at 59th Street. “I look around and I end up seeing this bag,” recalled Cheers. “It was a Verizon bag. I took it, and look inside of it. I saw there was some electronics. Next thing I know the train is coming.” They grabbed the bag and rushed for the train. "I was like ‘just bring the bag,’ not thinking twice about it,” said Graves. “I was thinking ‘oh we could find a receipt in there,’ and possibly go back to the phone company Verizon." Then a team of undercover officers grabbed Cheers and charged him with petty larceny.
The NYPD calls the sting Operation Lucky Bag, where officers plant a bag and arrest those who take it and do not turn it into a uniformed officer posted nearby."
I'm not even going to get into the fact that this is obviously entrapment, but the entire exercise seems to me to be a waste of time. New York City, and the NYPD feels the need to catch people who, what? Find a bag and then don't immediately return it? As a New Yorker here's the rule; you leave something in the street, subway or train platform, it's gone--you snooze, you lose, and if you do happen to get it back then lucky you. Just be glad you lost it and it wasn't taken from you by some dude who'll get away because I'm getting arrested after picking up a sack full of cigarettes and porn that Officer Putz left for me to find. This is a complete mismanagement of resources, the equivalent of having a teacher assigning you an hours worth of long division to do in class during fourth period of fifth grade. Crap like this is only needed to keep up the already inflated police population in the city. Furthermore the arrests probably are illegal since:
"A Brooklyn judge threw out one Lucky Bag arrest, pointing out that the city's personal property law gives people ten-days to turn in found property worth more than $20."
Pretty soon they'll be giving out free chewing tobacco and arresting people for spitting on the street. Operation Waste of Time.
"Should New Yorkers be arrested for picking up an unattended bag and not turning it in? The New York Police Department has a sting operation to do just that, but one couple caught up in it says they were doing nothing wrong. NY1’s Criminal Justice reporter Solana Pyne filed the following report.
For Aquarius Cheers and Kia Graves, it started as a routine trip to Target Thursday night to buy their daughter diapers. They were waiting for a train at 59th Street. “I look around and I end up seeing this bag,” recalled Cheers. “It was a Verizon bag. I took it, and look inside of it. I saw there was some electronics. Next thing I know the train is coming.” They grabbed the bag and rushed for the train. "I was like ‘just bring the bag,’ not thinking twice about it,” said Graves. “I was thinking ‘oh we could find a receipt in there,’ and possibly go back to the phone company Verizon." Then a team of undercover officers grabbed Cheers and charged him with petty larceny.
The NYPD calls the sting Operation Lucky Bag, where officers plant a bag and arrest those who take it and do not turn it into a uniformed officer posted nearby."
I'm not even going to get into the fact that this is obviously entrapment, but the entire exercise seems to me to be a waste of time. New York City, and the NYPD feels the need to catch people who, what? Find a bag and then don't immediately return it? As a New Yorker here's the rule; you leave something in the street, subway or train platform, it's gone--you snooze, you lose, and if you do happen to get it back then lucky you. Just be glad you lost it and it wasn't taken from you by some dude who'll get away because I'm getting arrested after picking up a sack full of cigarettes and porn that Officer Putz left for me to find. This is a complete mismanagement of resources, the equivalent of having a teacher assigning you an hours worth of long division to do in class during fourth period of fifth grade. Crap like this is only needed to keep up the already inflated police population in the city. Furthermore the arrests probably are illegal since:
"A Brooklyn judge threw out one Lucky Bag arrest, pointing out that the city's personal property law gives people ten-days to turn in found property worth more than $20."
Pretty soon they'll be giving out free chewing tobacco and arresting people for spitting on the street. Operation Waste of Time.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Not for nothing...
...but the Rude Pundit's made his rudest post yet. Seriously, I thought the Secret Service was going to pull me out of my job and finish me Mortal Combat style. Check it out at your own risk here.
Finally...
The US to speak to Syria and Iran about Iraq. From the NYTimes:
"WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 — American officials said today they had agreed to hold the highest-level contact with Iranian authorities in more than two years as part of an international meeting on Iraq.
The meetings, scheduled for the next two months, are expected to include Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Iranian and Syrian counterparts.
The announcement was first made in Baghdad and confirmed by Ms. Rice that the United States would take part in two sets of meetings between Iraq and its neighbors, including Syria and Iran. It represents a shift in President Bush’s avoidance of high-level contacts with the governments in Damascus and, especially, Tehran."
A sea change? Not when the the ice burg is straight ahead. Still it's a good sign, and hopefully it will start some sort of meaningful dialogue when Obama comes into office.
PS: This is not to say that Obama will be president--only that I WANT him to be president. See I retained my objectivity, just like FOX News.
"WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 — American officials said today they had agreed to hold the highest-level contact with Iranian authorities in more than two years as part of an international meeting on Iraq.
The meetings, scheduled for the next two months, are expected to include Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Iranian and Syrian counterparts.
The announcement was first made in Baghdad and confirmed by Ms. Rice that the United States would take part in two sets of meetings between Iraq and its neighbors, including Syria and Iran. It represents a shift in President Bush’s avoidance of high-level contacts with the governments in Damascus and, especially, Tehran."
A sea change? Not when the the ice burg is straight ahead. Still it's a good sign, and hopefully it will start some sort of meaningful dialogue when Obama comes into office.
PS: This is not to say that Obama will be president--only that I WANT him to be president. See I retained my objectivity, just like FOX News.
Coming full circle...
I once had a great discussion on a job interview about the format of writing. I was of the opinion that it was linear while my interviewer thought it was circular. Well if our military situation was a book, I'd be wrong:
"If you checked out yesterday's Worldwide Threat briefing, you could be forgiven for checking your calendar to see if it was still September 10, 2001. Discussing al-Qaeda, John McConnell, the new director of national intelligence, described a metastasizing threat coming from... the lawless Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
This year will be "pivotal" for Afghanistan, McConnell said. From the NYT:
""Mr. McConnell’s assessment was grim: “Long-term prospects for eliminating the Taliban threat appear dim, so long as the sanctuary remains in Pakistan, and there are no encouraging signs that Pakistan is eliminating it. ‘’"
Thanks in large part to Pakistan's toleration of al-Qaeda's growing presence in North Waziristan, it's questionable whether the western troops will be able to even arrest what McConnell called the "resurgence" of Taliban and allied (read: al-Qaeda) forces. Last month, the outgoing U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Lt. General Karl Eikenberry, said that cross-border Taliban raids for December were up a staggering 200 percent. And a new report from the Jamestown Foundation finds that, although their effectiveness is questionable, there were nearly as many suicide-bombing attacks in the first seven weeks of 2007 as in all of 2005."
The wheels on the bus go round and round.
"If you checked out yesterday's Worldwide Threat briefing, you could be forgiven for checking your calendar to see if it was still September 10, 2001. Discussing al-Qaeda, John McConnell, the new director of national intelligence, described a metastasizing threat coming from... the lawless Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
This year will be "pivotal" for Afghanistan, McConnell said. From the NYT:
""Mr. McConnell’s assessment was grim: “Long-term prospects for eliminating the Taliban threat appear dim, so long as the sanctuary remains in Pakistan, and there are no encouraging signs that Pakistan is eliminating it. ‘’"
Thanks in large part to Pakistan's toleration of al-Qaeda's growing presence in North Waziristan, it's questionable whether the western troops will be able to even arrest what McConnell called the "resurgence" of Taliban and allied (read: al-Qaeda) forces. Last month, the outgoing U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Lt. General Karl Eikenberry, said that cross-border Taliban raids for December were up a staggering 200 percent. And a new report from the Jamestown Foundation finds that, although their effectiveness is questionable, there were nearly as many suicide-bombing attacks in the first seven weeks of 2007 as in all of 2005."
The wheels on the bus go round and round.
You can't call out sick...
Sorry folks, the entity that held back unions for decades just can't call out sick:
"WASHINGTON - When Senate Democrats move next month to narrow President Bush's authority to wage war in Iraq, at least one of their own won't be there to help. The same goes for trying to pass a spending bill for the war or a budget for the government.
Such is life for a razor-thin majority two months after Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., suffered a brain hemorrhage that has left him physically weakened, relearning how to speak and unable to report to work - even when big votes hang in the balance."
Even that dude on the pilot episode of Star Trek knew enough to vote down party lines. Johnson can do the same.
PS: Insert your own joke about how brain dead congress is here________________.
Told you to listen to Greenspan...
"NEW YORK - U.S. stocks were wavering in morning trading Wednesday, having opened the session higher after a massive worldwide stock sell-off one day earlier that rattled investor confidence but left fertile ground for bargain hunters.
The Dow Jones industrial average was lately up 20.67 points, or 0.17 percent, having fallen more than 400 points Tuesday in the biggest stock market sell-off since Sept. 11, 2001. The broader Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index was lately up 4.09 points, or 0.29 percent, while the Nasdaq
Composite index slipped 1.87 points, or 0.08 percent.
Investors were digesting new economic data, released after the opening bell, including a 16.6 percent decline in new home sales in January after a 9.1 percent rise in December."
Investors were digesting new economic data, released after the opening bell, including a 16.6 percent decline in new home sales in January after a 9.1 percent rise in December."
It goes up, it goes down. Good news for regular folks, we're still so far down that the skies the limit.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Color me suprised...
Maureen Dowd molded her Giffen interview to instigate Clinton-Obama rumble. From Media Matters:
"...Evan Thomas reported that Dowd told the magazine, in Thomas' words, that during her interview with Geffen, "Geffen did not seem out to get the Clintons," adding: "Dowd says Geffen was initially reluctant to be interviewed for her column. ... Dowd says she was the one who brought up questions about Bill Clinton's past as a campaign issue.""
Wait...so you're telling me a reporter, twisted an interviewee's word's to--gasp!--sell papers! NO!
Ann Coulter would be so ashamed.
"...Evan Thomas reported that Dowd told the magazine, in Thomas' words, that during her interview with Geffen, "Geffen did not seem out to get the Clintons," adding: "Dowd says Geffen was initially reluctant to be interviewed for her column. ... Dowd says she was the one who brought up questions about Bill Clinton's past as a campaign issue.""
Wait...so you're telling me a reporter, twisted an interviewee's word's to--gasp!--sell papers! NO!
Ann Coulter would be so ashamed.
And while we're on the topic of wealth...
Mention this when someone tells you how well the "tickle down theory" works:
"The richest bankers are the most lavish spenders -- deploying a larger proportion of their take toward homes, cars and luxury goods. Roughly half of the survey's respondents took home bonuses of more than $5 million last year; this group spent 16% on watches and jewelry and socked away about 9%. By comparison, the other half of respondents -- those who received $2 million to $5 million -- spent only about 7% on baubles and put 23% into savings.And despite the notion that the really rich give more to charity, the rule didn't seem to apply to the bankers in this survey. Respondents gave about 4% to charity. Those receiving bonuses of $5 million or more gave the same proportion as their poorer peers. Says Mr. Prince: "This is not an especially generous group.""
"The richest bankers are the most lavish spenders -- deploying a larger proportion of their take toward homes, cars and luxury goods. Roughly half of the survey's respondents took home bonuses of more than $5 million last year; this group spent 16% on watches and jewelry and socked away about 9%. By comparison, the other half of respondents -- those who received $2 million to $5 million -- spent only about 7% on baubles and put 23% into savings.And despite the notion that the really rich give more to charity, the rule didn't seem to apply to the bankers in this survey. Respondents gave about 4% to charity. Those receiving bonuses of $5 million or more gave the same proportion as their poorer peers. Says Mr. Prince: "This is not an especially generous group.""
Important Story...
From Stories in America:
"The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 - half the federal poverty line - was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. McClatchy's review also found statistically significant increases in the percentage of the population in severe poverty in 65 of 215 large U.S. counties, and similar increases in 28 states. The review also suggested that the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to large urban counties but extends to suburban and rural areas."
Only in America can we fight to "make the world safe for democracy" while our people stare. The sad fact--we can't do much better over there either.
"The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 - half the federal poverty line - was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. McClatchy's review also found statistically significant increases in the percentage of the population in severe poverty in 65 of 215 large U.S. counties, and similar increases in 28 states. The review also suggested that the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to large urban counties but extends to suburban and rural areas."
Only in America can we fight to "make the world safe for democracy" while our people stare. The sad fact--we can't do much better over there either.
More on the US-Pakistan-Taliban love triangle
From Sully:
"From their point of view, surely a coup de grace: showing their firepower and fanaticism within earshot of the vice-president. All that was needed was for the veep to be trapped by a snowstorm for one night for the enemy to act. It certainly helps justify the extraordinary secrecy the secret service deployed for the trips to Pakistan and Afghanistan; but it also helps justify mounting concern that we are losing traction in the war against the Talbian in the region. Pakistan is particularly the threat, after the peace-deal with the terrorists by Musharraf. But here again, diplomacy does not seem to be Cheney's strong suit. "Pakistan does not accept dictation from any side or any source" was Musharraf's original response to Cheney's strong-arm tactics. Kharzai seems more supportive - just alarmed that he may be abandoned in the near or distant future. Both Democrats and Republicans need to make sure that Kharzai knows that U.S. support for his fledlging democracy is solid and bipartisan and open-ended. And that the debacle in Iraq - and whatever redeployments may be needed to grapple with it - will not affect that."
I agree with everything up to the last point. Not that I disagree with that point, only that Sully's comment is a bit murky, because US support for Kharzai's regime isn't "solid" or "open-ended" and in fact much of our support ended with Pat Tilman and our invasion of Iraq. We didn't finish the job there, and in fact Bush did a Pontius Pilate and washed his hands of the Taliban years ago. This is the aftermath. Not only that but or lack of that very same support in conjunction with the arrogance of Bush's rhetoric ("We will hunt down terrorists where ever they are, and we will consider countries that harbor terrorists terrorists themselves") is what makes our dealings with Musharraf impotent and woefully ironic. Here we have an 'ally' who has made an agreement with the Taliban and no mater what Good Cop/ Bad Cop Law and Order type dealings Cheney wants to have with Pakistan they know that, under this administration, we need them more than they need us. This is like playing poker with my fiance--she's going to call all my bluffs because, in the end, she's got my pin number.
"From their point of view, surely a coup de grace: showing their firepower and fanaticism within earshot of the vice-president. All that was needed was for the veep to be trapped by a snowstorm for one night for the enemy to act. It certainly helps justify the extraordinary secrecy the secret service deployed for the trips to Pakistan and Afghanistan; but it also helps justify mounting concern that we are losing traction in the war against the Talbian in the region. Pakistan is particularly the threat, after the peace-deal with the terrorists by Musharraf. But here again, diplomacy does not seem to be Cheney's strong suit. "Pakistan does not accept dictation from any side or any source" was Musharraf's original response to Cheney's strong-arm tactics. Kharzai seems more supportive - just alarmed that he may be abandoned in the near or distant future. Both Democrats and Republicans need to make sure that Kharzai knows that U.S. support for his fledlging democracy is solid and bipartisan and open-ended. And that the debacle in Iraq - and whatever redeployments may be needed to grapple with it - will not affect that."
I agree with everything up to the last point. Not that I disagree with that point, only that Sully's comment is a bit murky, because US support for Kharzai's regime isn't "solid" or "open-ended" and in fact much of our support ended with Pat Tilman and our invasion of Iraq. We didn't finish the job there, and in fact Bush did a Pontius Pilate and washed his hands of the Taliban years ago. This is the aftermath. Not only that but or lack of that very same support in conjunction with the arrogance of Bush's rhetoric ("We will hunt down terrorists where ever they are, and we will consider countries that harbor terrorists terrorists themselves") is what makes our dealings with Musharraf impotent and woefully ironic. Here we have an 'ally' who has made an agreement with the Taliban and no mater what Good Cop/ Bad Cop Law and Order type dealings Cheney wants to have with Pakistan they know that, under this administration, we need them more than they need us. This is like playing poker with my fiance--she's going to call all my bluffs because, in the end, she's got my pin number.
Cheney's near miss...
Cheney escapes Taliban assassination attempt. From MSNBC.com:
"BAGRAM, Afghanistan - A suicide bomber attacked the entrance to the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan on Tuesday during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, killing up to 23 people and wounding 20. The Taliban claimed responsibility and said Cheney, who was unharmed, was the target.
The office of Afghan President Hamid Karzai reported that 23 people had been killed, but the U.S. military put the toll at nine. The discrepancy could not be reconciled immediately. At least one U.S. soldier, an American contractor and a South Korean soldier were among the dead, NATO said."
The office of Afghan President Hamid Karzai reported that 23 people had been killed, but the U.S. military put the toll at nine. The discrepancy could not be reconciled immediately. At least one U.S. soldier, an American contractor and a South Korean soldier were among the dead, NATO said."
I'll try not to say anything bitter--and though I joke about Cheney's death I'd prefer Cheney gets impeached rather than fragged (seriously, I really do prefer it), but I will say that this, if anything, this should be a wake up call to the administration that the Taliban are not only alive and kicking, but planning on a grander scale that Al-qada or any of the other insurgent groups that have vouched for sheer mindless bloodshed in Iraq. Likewise one must question what type of intelligence leak is occurring over in Pakistan (the Taliban's best bud). This administration's interest in going on the offensive in Iran right now seems comparable with the Captain on the Titanic planning its holiday party after the iceburg hit. Who ever gets in office in 2008 is going to have a bucketload of problems to repair.
More insanity...
Car bomb kills 18 kids in Baghdad. From MSNBC.com:
"BAGHDAD - A car bomb exploded near a park west of Baghdad on Tuesday, killing up to 18 boys on a soccer field, police said. Police said the blast occurred in Ramadi, a hotbed of the Sunni insurgency, and that 19 people, most of them children ages 10 to 15, were killed or wounded. State television Iraqiya said 18 children had been killed.The bomb-rigged car blew apart at about 4:15 p.m. local time while the boys were playing.
It was not immediately known if the children were the intended targets, but young people are often caught in Iraq's daily bloodshed."
This is hell.
"BAGHDAD - A car bomb exploded near a park west of Baghdad on Tuesday, killing up to 18 boys on a soccer field, police said. Police said the blast occurred in Ramadi, a hotbed of the Sunni insurgency, and that 19 people, most of them children ages 10 to 15, were killed or wounded. State television Iraqiya said 18 children had been killed.The bomb-rigged car blew apart at about 4:15 p.m. local time while the boys were playing.
It was not immediately known if the children were the intended targets, but young people are often caught in Iraq's daily bloodshed."
This is hell.
Monday, February 26, 2007
A Quickie...
A couple of quick things I wanted to post. I recommend checking out Baghdad Burning, a blog written by Iraqi women. I read over this posting about Sabrine Al-Janabi, the woman allegedly raped by Sunni Iraqi security forces and it was heart breaking. Money quote:
"As I write this, Oprah is on Channel 4 (one of the MBC channels we get on Nilesat), showing Americans how to get out of debt. Her guest speaker is telling a studio full of American women who seem to have over-shopped that they could probably do with fewer designer products. As they talk about increasing incomes and fortunes, Sabrine Al-Janabi, a young Iraqi woman, is on Al Jazeera telling how Iraqi security forces abducted her from her home and raped her. You can only see her eyes, her voice is hoarse and it keeps breaking as she speaks. In the end she tells the reporter that she can’t talk about it anymore and she covers her eyes with shame.She might just be the bravest Iraqi woman ever. Everyone knows American forces and Iraqi security forces are raping women (and men), but this is possibly the first woman who publicly comes out and tells about it using her actual name. Hearing her tell her story physically makes my heart ache. Some people will call her a liar. Others (including pro-war Iraqis) will call her a prostitute- shame on you in advance.I wonder what excuse they used when they took her. It’s most likely she’s one of the thousands of people they round up under the general headline of ‘terrorist suspect’. She might have been one of those subtitles you read on CNN or BBC or Arabiya, “13 insurgents captured by Iraqi security forces.” The men who raped her are those same security forces Bush and Condi are so proud of- you know- the ones the Americans trained. It’s a chapter right out of the book that documents American occupation in Iraq: the chapter that will tell the story of 14-year-old Abeer who was raped, killed and burned with her little sister and parents."
All I know is--regardless of the veracity of these allegations--if this is the Iraqi perception of the US and US led forces, and our battle for their hearts and minds is already lost.
Of course it would help if at least it LOOKED like America gave a damm.
"As I write this, Oprah is on Channel 4 (one of the MBC channels we get on Nilesat), showing Americans how to get out of debt. Her guest speaker is telling a studio full of American women who seem to have over-shopped that they could probably do with fewer designer products. As they talk about increasing incomes and fortunes, Sabrine Al-Janabi, a young Iraqi woman, is on Al Jazeera telling how Iraqi security forces abducted her from her home and raped her. You can only see her eyes, her voice is hoarse and it keeps breaking as she speaks. In the end she tells the reporter that she can’t talk about it anymore and she covers her eyes with shame.She might just be the bravest Iraqi woman ever. Everyone knows American forces and Iraqi security forces are raping women (and men), but this is possibly the first woman who publicly comes out and tells about it using her actual name. Hearing her tell her story physically makes my heart ache. Some people will call her a liar. Others (including pro-war Iraqis) will call her a prostitute- shame on you in advance.I wonder what excuse they used when they took her. It’s most likely she’s one of the thousands of people they round up under the general headline of ‘terrorist suspect’. She might have been one of those subtitles you read on CNN or BBC or Arabiya, “13 insurgents captured by Iraqi security forces.” The men who raped her are those same security forces Bush and Condi are so proud of- you know- the ones the Americans trained. It’s a chapter right out of the book that documents American occupation in Iraq: the chapter that will tell the story of 14-year-old Abeer who was raped, killed and burned with her little sister and parents."
All I know is--regardless of the veracity of these allegations--if this is the Iraqi perception of the US and US led forces, and our battle for their hearts and minds is already lost.
Of course it would help if at least it LOOKED like America gave a damm.
File this one under D--for Duh
Turns out that restaurants in Chinatown charge less for people who can order in Chinese:
"The price you pay for your beef with string beans depends entirely on whether or not you are Chinese - at least according to the menus at one restaurant in Chinatown, city officials say.
The city Human Rights Commission has filed a discrimination complaint against the Canal Seafood Restaurant for allegedly giving a different menu with lower prices to customers who are Chinese."
By the way, its not really about ordering in Chinese, its about being Asian. I go to Wo-Hop with my Asian frat brothers (one is Korean, the other Filipino) and we always get deals. Sometimes I get nearly half off with them. Once I went there with them and then came back myself the next day and ordered the same thing. When they handed me the bill I was like, "Um dude, you know I was here yesterday and you charged me half?" But still, whatever. Like paying the extra loot is going to stop be from ordering the salt and pepper pork (which is SLAMMING). For more on the obviousness of this story check out Yglesias.
PS: You know at first I thought it said "City Hunan Rights Commission" leading me to wonder why the city would have an agency dedicated to protecting the rights of a Chinese cuisine. Then I realized that it was the Human Rights Commission and I wanted to stab myself in the eye with a rusty screwdriver. A human rights violation...I tell you--try to con a white guy and there's no telling who they'll send after you.
"The price you pay for your beef with string beans depends entirely on whether or not you are Chinese - at least according to the menus at one restaurant in Chinatown, city officials say.
The city Human Rights Commission has filed a discrimination complaint against the Canal Seafood Restaurant for allegedly giving a different menu with lower prices to customers who are Chinese."
By the way, its not really about ordering in Chinese, its about being Asian. I go to Wo-Hop with my Asian frat brothers (one is Korean, the other Filipino) and we always get deals. Sometimes I get nearly half off with them. Once I went there with them and then came back myself the next day and ordered the same thing. When they handed me the bill I was like, "Um dude, you know I was here yesterday and you charged me half?" But still, whatever. Like paying the extra loot is going to stop be from ordering the salt and pepper pork (which is SLAMMING). For more on the obviousness of this story check out Yglesias.
PS: You know at first I thought it said "City Hunan Rights Commission" leading me to wonder why the city would have an agency dedicated to protecting the rights of a Chinese cuisine. Then I realized that it was the Human Rights Commission and I wanted to stab myself in the eye with a rusty screwdriver. A human rights violation...I tell you--try to con a white guy and there's no telling who they'll send after you.
Congress to investigate Walter Reed scandal
Guess they're finally getting serious about our helping our troops:
"Starting next week, the Senate wades into the muck at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The Senate Armed Services Committee announced today that next Tuesday, March 6, a host of responsible Defense officials will parade to the Dirksen building to try to explain how conditions at the Army's elite hospital complex deteriorated to the horrific conditions depicted in last week's depressing Washington Post series."
The officals need to be fired immediately, and hopefully this will be the kick in the ass to get more funding for veteran care.
"Starting next week, the Senate wades into the muck at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The Senate Armed Services Committee announced today that next Tuesday, March 6, a host of responsible Defense officials will parade to the Dirksen building to try to explain how conditions at the Army's elite hospital complex deteriorated to the horrific conditions depicted in last week's depressing Washington Post series."
The officals need to be fired immediately, and hopefully this will be the kick in the ass to get more funding for veteran care.
The forgotten...
I would like to state for the record that the academy did make one mistake this year. Rinko Kikuchi's performance in Babel was nothing short of astounding. For someone to convey that depth of emotion without uttering a word was extraordinary and it made the overrated Babel worth watching. Rent it just for her.
Iran War or Dick Cheney Impeachment watch--you judge
Think only kooks like me think that the Bush Adm is gearing up for war with Iraq? Then check out this article from the Sunday Times:
"SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”. "
When Cheney loses the confidence of the people its just another day at the office, but when he loses the respect of the Pentagon this country gets further weakened. Isn't he due for another heart attack? For someone with a bad ticker he sure handles stress well.
"SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”. "
When Cheney loses the confidence of the people its just another day at the office, but when he loses the respect of the Pentagon this country gets further weakened. Isn't he due for another heart attack? For someone with a bad ticker he sure handles stress well.
A Star is Born...
Sully's take on the Obama--Giffen connection. Money quote:
"It’s ridiculously early for such measurements, but a tracking poll showed Clinton with a 14-point lead over Obama among Democrats at the end of January. Her lead last week was down to four points. And what does she have to get back on track? A ruthless political machine that only emphasises the freshness of her opponent. Even her “first woman president” schtick has been neutralised. Why not the first black president instead? If you’re a Hollywood liberal, it’s a wash."
2007 is looking to be the year for black people in Hollywood. When they didn't need to prove their NAACP credentials they gave Oscars to Forrest Whitaker and Jennifer Hudson, nominating Eddie Murphy to boot. Why is this important? Because if Obama can scoop up that Hollywood money he will be a candidate to be reckoned with.
"It’s ridiculously early for such measurements, but a tracking poll showed Clinton with a 14-point lead over Obama among Democrats at the end of January. Her lead last week was down to four points. And what does she have to get back on track? A ruthless political machine that only emphasises the freshness of her opponent. Even her “first woman president” schtick has been neutralised. Why not the first black president instead? If you’re a Hollywood liberal, it’s a wash."
2007 is looking to be the year for black people in Hollywood. When they didn't need to prove their NAACP credentials they gave Oscars to Forrest Whitaker and Jennifer Hudson, nominating Eddie Murphy to boot. Why is this important? Because if Obama can scoop up that Hollywood money he will be a candidate to be reckoned with.
Serbia found not guilty
From MSNBC.com:
"THE HAGUE, Netherlands - The United Nations’ highest court on Monday exonerated Serbia of direct responsibility for the mass slaughter of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica during the 1992-95 Bosnia war, but ruled that it failed to prevent genocide."
Sounds alright so far, I mean how much culpability can you give an entire nation for the acts of their leaders, especially since, pragmatically, the people rarely, if ever, actually have a say in their government's policies. But then:
"The International Court of Justice said Serbia also failed to comply with its obligations to punish those who carried out the genocide in July 1995, and ordered the government to hand over suspects for trial by a separate U.N. court."
And:
"However, it rejected Bosnia’s claim for monetary reparations."
My problem, who is culpable? Don't these people deserve some type of justice? Or, like the Native American, or Australian natives, do they get nada. Only time will tell.
"THE HAGUE, Netherlands - The United Nations’ highest court on Monday exonerated Serbia of direct responsibility for the mass slaughter of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica during the 1992-95 Bosnia war, but ruled that it failed to prevent genocide."
Sounds alright so far, I mean how much culpability can you give an entire nation for the acts of their leaders, especially since, pragmatically, the people rarely, if ever, actually have a say in their government's policies. But then:
"The International Court of Justice said Serbia also failed to comply with its obligations to punish those who carried out the genocide in July 1995, and ordered the government to hand over suspects for trial by a separate U.N. court."
And:
"However, it rejected Bosnia’s claim for monetary reparations."
My problem, who is culpable? Don't these people deserve some type of justice? Or, like the Native American, or Australian natives, do they get nada. Only time will tell.
When Greenspan talks...
...I usually listen.
"HONG KONG - Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned Monday that the American economy might slip into recession by year's end.
He said the U.S. economy has been expanding since 2001 and that there are signs the current economic cycle is coming to an end.
"When you get this far away from a recession invariably forces build up for the next recession, and indeed we are beginning to see that sign," Greenspan said via satellite link to a business conference in Hong Kong. "For example in the U.S., profit margins ... have begun to stabilize, which is an early sign we are in the later stages of a cycle.""
"HONG KONG - Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned Monday that the American economy might slip into recession by year's end.
He said the U.S. economy has been expanding since 2001 and that there are signs the current economic cycle is coming to an end.
"When you get this far away from a recession invariably forces build up for the next recession, and indeed we are beginning to see that sign," Greenspan said via satellite link to a business conference in Hong Kong. "For example in the U.S., profit margins ... have begun to stabilize, which is an early sign we are in the later stages of a cycle.""
Oscar wrap-up...
Not going to spend too much time on this. I thought Ellen did a good job. Her performance was subdued, and not too over the top (thank you for omitting the dance routine--Billy Crystal killed that for another 75 years). Will Farrell and Jack Black killed (and Will has a surprisingly good singing voice), and congrats to Al Gore (someone else was nominated for best Doc?), Forrest Whitaker, Jennifer Hudson, and of course Martin (or as Eastwood calls him, Marty) Scorsese for best director, an award he was way overdue for, made even better by having his contemporaries present him with the Oscar.
All in all, it was a pretty good show.
All in all, it was a pretty good show.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Quote of the day...
From over at Moment of Triumph, this gem in regards to a new game played by college Republicans at NYU. The game? Hunting down illegal immigrants (or at least those played by other Republicans):
"Look, if someone is humping your leg, they probably want to fuck you. If someone is acting out a hunt, they probably want to kill you. I'm not saying that bloodshed is inevitable, I'm saying that bloodshed is what they desire."
PS: Because of illness I haven't been posting at my regular clip. Hopefully next week I'll be back to my regular verbose self.
"Look, if someone is humping your leg, they probably want to fuck you. If someone is acting out a hunt, they probably want to kill you. I'm not saying that bloodshed is inevitable, I'm saying that bloodshed is what they desire."
PS: Because of illness I haven't been posting at my regular clip. Hopefully next week I'll be back to my regular verbose self.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Joe Klein is right...
...and exposes a central problem within the liberal mode of operations:
[Talking about the Kos beef with moderate Democrat Ellen Taucher (D-Calif)] "This is a suicidal waste of time...While you infants are getting all self-righteous about the sins of moderates and littering the space with pornographic comments, the Republicans have spent the day sending bombs like this to people like me. They've done one for each Democratic candidate for President. Some perspective, please, from the commentariat."
The link Klein puts out there takes you to the Republican National Conventions website's list of talking points against every Democratic candidate for President. Featuring such nuggets as:
"Bill Richardson: A Self-Promoting, Washington Insider With A Controversial Record
"John Edwards: A Hypocritical, Inexperienced Liberal With A New Negative Attitude (Sounds like a Dance doesn't it?)
"Barack Obama: An Inexperienced, Insulated, Arrogant, Unabashed Liberal"
Well at least they didn't paint in little Hitler mustaches and horns on their photos. Meanwhile over at The Hall of Superfriends they...have a nice article on African-American Democrats for black history month. This is sorta like if the Rebellion got their hands on the plans for the Death Star, and Princess Leia posted up her recipe for weed brownies. I'm reminded of another Star Wars parody, Spaceballs, when Dark Helmet says, "Do you know why good always loses to evil? Because good is stupid."
Maybe not, but sometimes we are too dammed nice.
[Talking about the Kos beef with moderate Democrat Ellen Taucher (D-Calif)] "This is a suicidal waste of time...While you infants are getting all self-righteous about the sins of moderates and littering the space with pornographic comments, the Republicans have spent the day sending bombs like this to people like me. They've done one for each Democratic candidate for President. Some perspective, please, from the commentariat."
The link Klein puts out there takes you to the Republican National Conventions website's list of talking points against every Democratic candidate for President. Featuring such nuggets as:
"Bill Richardson: A Self-Promoting, Washington Insider With A Controversial Record
"John Edwards: A Hypocritical, Inexperienced Liberal With A New Negative Attitude (Sounds like a Dance doesn't it?)
"Barack Obama: An Inexperienced, Insulated, Arrogant, Unabashed Liberal"
Well at least they didn't paint in little Hitler mustaches and horns on their photos. Meanwhile over at The Hall of Superfriends they...have a nice article on African-American Democrats for black history month. This is sorta like if the Rebellion got their hands on the plans for the Death Star, and Princess Leia posted up her recipe for weed brownies. I'm reminded of another Star Wars parody, Spaceballs, when Dark Helmet says, "Do you know why good always loses to evil? Because good is stupid."
Maybe not, but sometimes we are too dammed nice.
While at Town Hall...
...Michael Medved loses his mind:
"Tim Hardaway (and most of his former NBA teammates) wouldn’t welcome openly gay players into the locker room any more than they’d welcome profoundly unattractive, morbidly obese women. I specify unattractive females because if a young lady is attractive (or, even better, downright “hot”) most guys, very much including the notorious love machines of the National Basketball Association, would probably welcome her joining their showers. The ill-favored, grossly overweight female is the right counterpart to a gay male because, like the homosexual, she causes discomfort due to the fact that attraction can only operate in one direction. She might well feel drawn to the straight guys with whom she’s grouped, while they feel downright repulsed at the very idea of sex with her."
So...does Medved want to have sex with fat women, or buff NBA stars, or some sort of combination of the two like Grandmama? All I like is that he is deeply, deeply confused.
Then again this is what happens when you let movie critics talk about anything other than movies. What? Is Gene Shalit going to start talking about the Iraq war?
"President Bush announced a plan to increase troop levels in Iraq yesterday, and let me tell you it's the SHIITE!"
More jokes at Medved's expense over at Rude Pundit.
"Tim Hardaway (and most of his former NBA teammates) wouldn’t welcome openly gay players into the locker room any more than they’d welcome profoundly unattractive, morbidly obese women. I specify unattractive females because if a young lady is attractive (or, even better, downright “hot”) most guys, very much including the notorious love machines of the National Basketball Association, would probably welcome her joining their showers. The ill-favored, grossly overweight female is the right counterpart to a gay male because, like the homosexual, she causes discomfort due to the fact that attraction can only operate in one direction. She might well feel drawn to the straight guys with whom she’s grouped, while they feel downright repulsed at the very idea of sex with her."
So...does Medved want to have sex with fat women, or buff NBA stars, or some sort of combination of the two like Grandmama? All I like is that he is deeply, deeply confused.
Then again this is what happens when you let movie critics talk about anything other than movies. What? Is Gene Shalit going to start talking about the Iraq war?
"President Bush announced a plan to increase troop levels in Iraq yesterday, and let me tell you it's the SHIITE!"
More jokes at Medved's expense over at Rude Pundit.
Jason Jack Bauer Bourne 007 defends his position...
Glenn defends himself here. Money quotes (or in Glenn's case, would they be money shots (triple puns intended)):
"Campos chose to devote an entire column (“The right’s Ward Churchill,” Feb. 20) to a blog entry of mine from last week, in which I wondered why the Bush administration wasn’t acting covertly to kill radical mullahs and atomic scientists, rather than preparing a major attack on Iran. (Silly me, I thought this was advocating a less warlike approach). According to Campos, this suggestion was both morally wrong — suggesting that we kill people this way made me a “fascist” and an “extremist” — and illegal."
While I'm not at all familiar with Campos' argument, I would like to say that what is morally wrong about Reynolds POV is that he claims, through omission, there are only two methods to settle this dispute. A) Full out war (intervention), or B) Covert operations (assassination). What ever happened to negotiation? Not enough guns? Of yeah I forgot, that's hippy peacenik talk. Words, what are they good for?
"Similarly, the September 1944 Allied bombing raids on the German rocket sites at Peenemunde regarded the death of scientists involved in research and development of that facility to have been as important as destruction of the missiles themselves. Attack of these individuals would not constitute assassination.”
International law is unlikely to be a problem either. The bombing attack on Moammar Qaddafi was legally justified, according to the State Department’s legal adviser, as an act of self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter because of Qaddafi’s terrorist activities."
...according to the State Department's legal adviser, umm...tell you what, how about we have the UN put Reagan on trial and we'll see how legal his actions were. Or let's try another scenario, say you have a child and you know he'll be drafted in the Iran war (coming to a city near you soon!), you assassinate the President in order to preserve your child's life. Would that be called an act of self-defense? Would that be permissible under your "approach?"
What Glenn doesn't get (and the whole AEI for that matter) is that this isn't a legal and historical intellectual exercise, but this are serious matters of life and death, and since the specter of death looms across the world rather than over their own homes and families they don't feel close moral connections between their philosophies and the implications of those philosophies. At least that my personal feeling. Any one who's that cold blooded, anyone who can casually call for death and destruction (yes Glenn even just a Navy Seal raid with night vision and silence laser guided hollow tipped bullets and all that other Q branch nonsense that you love) that easily must have a Vulcan-like ability for personal detachment that's creepy, if not a bit psychopathic.
Still Campos' calls to have Reynolds fired are unfair. No matter how vile his opinion, Glenn Jack Bond Bourne has the right to non-violently express his thoughts and no matter how much I disagree with him I agree with the freedom of speech more. And you know what--I even promise not to assassinate him. Now that's love.
"Campos chose to devote an entire column (“The right’s Ward Churchill,” Feb. 20) to a blog entry of mine from last week, in which I wondered why the Bush administration wasn’t acting covertly to kill radical mullahs and atomic scientists, rather than preparing a major attack on Iran. (Silly me, I thought this was advocating a less warlike approach). According to Campos, this suggestion was both morally wrong — suggesting that we kill people this way made me a “fascist” and an “extremist” — and illegal."
While I'm not at all familiar with Campos' argument, I would like to say that what is morally wrong about Reynolds POV is that he claims, through omission, there are only two methods to settle this dispute. A) Full out war (intervention), or B) Covert operations (assassination). What ever happened to negotiation? Not enough guns? Of yeah I forgot, that's hippy peacenik talk. Words, what are they good for?
"Similarly, the September 1944 Allied bombing raids on the German rocket sites at Peenemunde regarded the death of scientists involved in research and development of that facility to have been as important as destruction of the missiles themselves. Attack of these individuals would not constitute assassination.”
International law is unlikely to be a problem either. The bombing attack on Moammar Qaddafi was legally justified, according to the State Department’s legal adviser, as an act of self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter because of Qaddafi’s terrorist activities."
...according to the State Department's legal adviser, umm...tell you what, how about we have the UN put Reagan on trial and we'll see how legal his actions were. Or let's try another scenario, say you have a child and you know he'll be drafted in the Iran war (coming to a city near you soon!), you assassinate the President in order to preserve your child's life. Would that be called an act of self-defense? Would that be permissible under your "approach?"
What Glenn doesn't get (and the whole AEI for that matter) is that this isn't a legal and historical intellectual exercise, but this are serious matters of life and death, and since the specter of death looms across the world rather than over their own homes and families they don't feel close moral connections between their philosophies and the implications of those philosophies. At least that my personal feeling. Any one who's that cold blooded, anyone who can casually call for death and destruction (yes Glenn even just a Navy Seal raid with night vision and silence laser guided hollow tipped bullets and all that other Q branch nonsense that you love) that easily must have a Vulcan-like ability for personal detachment that's creepy, if not a bit psychopathic.
Still Campos' calls to have Reynolds fired are unfair. No matter how vile his opinion, Glenn Jack Bond Bourne has the right to non-violently express his thoughts and no matter how much I disagree with him I agree with the freedom of speech more. And you know what--I even promise not to assassinate him. Now that's love.
Dowd Diss...
I hadn't noticed Maureen Dowd's Anti-Obama article, but Eric Boehlert put the hit out on it here. Money quote:
"As a campaigner, Sen. Barack Obama is angry and overwhelmed.
That was the unflattering takeaway from Maureen Dowd's catty column (subscription required) last week about the Illinois senator's foray onto the presidential campaign trail, as Dowd traipsed out to the heartland to watch the Democratic sensation up close. But as is her custom, Dowd fixated on personality and stagecraft, not substance, as the poison-penned, Wednesday/Saturday columnist for The New York Times painted a relentlessly unflattering portrait of the senator.
In the eyes of Dowd, Obama was out of his element on the national stage: "testy," "irritated," and "conflicted."
Dowd's attack, hyped on the Drudge Report the night before the column was published and widely seen as the first real Obama hit piece of the season by a major pundit, deserves attention not because of the (largely nonexistent) insight Dowd shed on Obama's emerging candidacy, but because Dowd included several of her now-trademark -- and highly dubious -- attacks; attacks that in the past have been embraced by the mainstream press and tripped up Democrats such as Hillary Rodham Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry.
The truth is, almost nothing about the Obama column rang true. In part, because Dowd provided virtually no evidence to back up her contentious claims that Obama was "testy," "irritated," and "conflicted" while campaigning in Iowa."
Personally, I have a small crush on Dowd--I find her witty, attractive, and intelligent, even if the majority of her opinion is based on Freudian methodology. Regardless Maureen, please keep of of Obama. He's going to have enough on his plate dealing with the putzes over at Fox News to have to contend with your caustic lashings. Besides don't you have your plate full with the Bush Administration. If any group of people needed a head shrinking its them.
"As a campaigner, Sen. Barack Obama is angry and overwhelmed.
That was the unflattering takeaway from Maureen Dowd's catty column (subscription required) last week about the Illinois senator's foray onto the presidential campaign trail, as Dowd traipsed out to the heartland to watch the Democratic sensation up close. But as is her custom, Dowd fixated on personality and stagecraft, not substance, as the poison-penned, Wednesday/Saturday columnist for The New York Times painted a relentlessly unflattering portrait of the senator.
In the eyes of Dowd, Obama was out of his element on the national stage: "testy," "irritated," and "conflicted."
Dowd's attack, hyped on the Drudge Report the night before the column was published and widely seen as the first real Obama hit piece of the season by a major pundit, deserves attention not because of the (largely nonexistent) insight Dowd shed on Obama's emerging candidacy, but because Dowd included several of her now-trademark -- and highly dubious -- attacks; attacks that in the past have been embraced by the mainstream press and tripped up Democrats such as Hillary Rodham Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry.
The truth is, almost nothing about the Obama column rang true. In part, because Dowd provided virtually no evidence to back up her contentious claims that Obama was "testy," "irritated," and "conflicted" while campaigning in Iowa."
Personally, I have a small crush on Dowd--I find her witty, attractive, and intelligent, even if the majority of her opinion is based on Freudian methodology. Regardless Maureen, please keep of of Obama. He's going to have enough on his plate dealing with the putzes over at Fox News to have to contend with your caustic lashings. Besides don't you have your plate full with the Bush Administration. If any group of people needed a head shrinking its them.
This just in...
...Tim Hardaway hates Newsweek's Jonathan Darman and Evan Thomas:
"A February 26 Newsweek article by Jonathan Darman and Evan Thomas described former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) as "buff and handsome in late middle age.""
PS: That will be the last Tim Hardaway joke I make. Honest.
"A February 26 Newsweek article by Jonathan Darman and Evan Thomas described former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) as "buff and handsome in late middle age.""
PS: That will be the last Tim Hardaway joke I make. Honest.
Still Disgusting...
From Glenn "Jack Bauer" Reynolds:
"Well, we're hardly weak in this battle. Civilized societies have always won against barbarians ever since the industrial revolution made making things a greater source of power than breaking them.
Civilized societies have found it harder, though, to beat the barbarians without killing all, or nearly all, of them. Were it really to become all-out war of the sort that Osama and his ilk want, the likely result would be genocide -- unavoidable, and provoked, perhaps, but genocide nonetheless, akin to what Rome did to Carthage, or to what Americans did to American Indians. That's what happens when two societies can't live together, and the weaker one won't stop fighting -- especially when the weaker one targets the civilians and children of the stronger. This is why I think it's important to pursue a vigorous military strategy now. Because if we don't, the military strategy we'll have to follow in five or ten years will be light-years beyond "vigorous.""
Let his words sink in till you get that nice cold shiver down your spine. I used to think that such words came from fear, but now I think it comes from a cold blooded egotistical idealism; basiclly reading too many books and not knowing enough people. You want to know the mentality of the Neo-cons then look no further. It's the mentality that ironically goes against every precept of the Constitution and Democracy. Social Darwinism at its best. I'm right, you're wrong and there is no middle, no compromise. Might makes right and the strong have the moral obligation to exterminate the weak. Glenn has the same ideals as Apocalypse from the X-men comics, but without the cool costume. What stuns me is that he doesn't seem to see that his rhetoric is no different than that of Bin laden or Hitler, and his intellectualism only makes that callousness more terrifying.
I can't even say anymore about it I'm so...sorry I just threw up a little in my mouth. More on it here and here.
"Well, we're hardly weak in this battle. Civilized societies have always won against barbarians ever since the industrial revolution made making things a greater source of power than breaking them.
Civilized societies have found it harder, though, to beat the barbarians without killing all, or nearly all, of them. Were it really to become all-out war of the sort that Osama and his ilk want, the likely result would be genocide -- unavoidable, and provoked, perhaps, but genocide nonetheless, akin to what Rome did to Carthage, or to what Americans did to American Indians. That's what happens when two societies can't live together, and the weaker one won't stop fighting -- especially when the weaker one targets the civilians and children of the stronger. This is why I think it's important to pursue a vigorous military strategy now. Because if we don't, the military strategy we'll have to follow in five or ten years will be light-years beyond "vigorous.""
Let his words sink in till you get that nice cold shiver down your spine. I used to think that such words came from fear, but now I think it comes from a cold blooded egotistical idealism; basiclly reading too many books and not knowing enough people. You want to know the mentality of the Neo-cons then look no further. It's the mentality that ironically goes against every precept of the Constitution and Democracy. Social Darwinism at its best. I'm right, you're wrong and there is no middle, no compromise. Might makes right and the strong have the moral obligation to exterminate the weak. Glenn has the same ideals as Apocalypse from the X-men comics, but without the cool costume. What stuns me is that he doesn't seem to see that his rhetoric is no different than that of Bin laden or Hitler, and his intellectualism only makes that callousness more terrifying.
I can't even say anymore about it I'm so...sorry I just threw up a little in my mouth. More on it here and here.
McCain's flip-flop
The man changes more than Mitt Rommey. From ABC:
"Cheney also responded to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who said in a recent interview with the Politico newspaper that, "The president listened too much to the vice president. … Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the vice president and, most of all, the secretary of defense."
"I just fundamentally disagree with John," Cheney told ABC News. "John said some nasty things about me the other day, and then next time he saw me ran over to me and apologized. Maybe he'll apologize to [former Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld."" [Boldface mine]
How is it that guys like Kerry and McCain can show such courage in the line of fire, but can't stand up to these DC Chickenhawks? Thankfully there's Jim Webb.
"Cheney also responded to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who said in a recent interview with the Politico newspaper that, "The president listened too much to the vice president. … Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the vice president and, most of all, the secretary of defense."
"I just fundamentally disagree with John," Cheney told ABC News. "John said some nasty things about me the other day, and then next time he saw me ran over to me and apologized. Maybe he'll apologize to [former Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld."" [Boldface mine]
How is it that guys like Kerry and McCain can show such courage in the line of fire, but can't stand up to these DC Chickenhawks? Thankfully there's Jim Webb.
Only in Bushworld...
...can the British pull out from Iraq be proof that the US is winning:
""The president views this as a success," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. "The president wants to do the same thing, to bring our troops home as soon as possible.
"The president is grateful for the support of the British forces in the past and into the future. While the United Kingdom is maintaining a robust force in southern Iraq, we're pleased that conditions in Basra have improved sufficiently that they are able to transition more control to the Iraqis."
"The United States shares the same goal of turning over to the Iraqi security forces and reducing the number of American troops in Iraq," the statement added."
So bringing "our troops home" means sending more out. I see. Right this is making alot of sense."
What I'd like to know is, are the British as full of shit as we are, meaning have conditions in Basra "improved sufficiently?" Is so, what are they doing that we aren't? Then again maybe the Brits real concern was over Prince Harry. Will he still have leave? He was supposed to be sent to Basra...
Note: I'm sure concern over Prince Harry did not enter into the decision to pull British troops out. But maybe this did.
""The president views this as a success," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. "The president wants to do the same thing, to bring our troops home as soon as possible.
"The president is grateful for the support of the British forces in the past and into the future. While the United Kingdom is maintaining a robust force in southern Iraq, we're pleased that conditions in Basra have improved sufficiently that they are able to transition more control to the Iraqis."
"The United States shares the same goal of turning over to the Iraqi security forces and reducing the number of American troops in Iraq," the statement added."
So bringing "our troops home" means sending more out. I see. Right this is making alot of sense."
What I'd like to know is, are the British as full of shit as we are, meaning have conditions in Basra "improved sufficiently?" Is so, what are they doing that we aren't? Then again maybe the Brits real concern was over Prince Harry. Will he still have leave? He was supposed to be sent to Basra...
Note: I'm sure concern over Prince Harry did not enter into the decision to pull British troops out. But maybe this did.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Just something I remembered...
You can't have an insurgent without a surge. Think about it, but not too deeply or else you'll make Bush feel bad.
Mardi Gras is back, but will it make a difference...
Interesting mix of stories from MSNBC.com. Here's the happy hopeful one, followed by the sadly confused. We probably won't know for about a week until the receipts come in.
Is someone besides Cos reading my blog...
Something interesting happened which I wanted to share. Back on Saturday I wrote a response to Ken Levine's posting on Huffpo regarding his opinion on Tim Hardaway's rant, criticizing what I think were some off-handed racist comments he made. Later that day I received an anonymous comment on that post:
"Wow you're very articulate. :)"
Now getting a comment on one of my postings is, to me, an event that's up there with getting invited to the Playboy mansion--a highly desired but rare occurrence. Figuring that it was some prankster I replied back:
"I am, aren't I?"
A comment that only proves my eloquence. Then today I decided to look over Ken's blog, which is pretty interesting in its own right, and I noticed this:
"It bothers me that people have misinterpreted my Tim Hardaway rant as racist. People, come on! That was not my intent. So to avoid any further misunderstanding I've decided to just junk the post. Moving on to new less controversial topics...."
Could Ken have seen my post? Was he the anonymous poster? Will Batman and the Boy Wonder really escape the Joker's jaws of death? The world may never know. Either way I just wanted to state for the record a couple of things:
1) I don't know Ken and I have no idea if he's a racist or not. Just because a person can say things that are construed as racist doesn't mean that they are a racist. Hell, sometimes I think I'm a racist, but who knows? I just think a person should be who they are.
2) I'm not about junking posts just because they inspire debate and criticism from others. While I might have thought Levine's comments might have been a bit insensitive I don't believe in just editing them out. Even self-censorship can be destructive.
3) I appreciate Ken acknowledging his critics. In this day and age of "F-you" debate it's nice to see other peoples' opinions getting some respect.
Either way, I'm adding Ken's blog to my roll. Hey, the guy worked on Cheers, Frasier, Wings, and Everybody Loves Raymond--anyone who's brought that much comedy to the world can't be all that bad.
"Wow you're very articulate. :)"
Now getting a comment on one of my postings is, to me, an event that's up there with getting invited to the Playboy mansion--a highly desired but rare occurrence. Figuring that it was some prankster I replied back:
"I am, aren't I?"
A comment that only proves my eloquence. Then today I decided to look over Ken's blog, which is pretty interesting in its own right, and I noticed this:
"It bothers me that people have misinterpreted my Tim Hardaway rant as racist. People, come on! That was not my intent. So to avoid any further misunderstanding I've decided to just junk the post. Moving on to new less controversial topics...."
Could Ken have seen my post? Was he the anonymous poster? Will Batman and the Boy Wonder really escape the Joker's jaws of death? The world may never know. Either way I just wanted to state for the record a couple of things:
1) I don't know Ken and I have no idea if he's a racist or not. Just because a person can say things that are construed as racist doesn't mean that they are a racist. Hell, sometimes I think I'm a racist, but who knows? I just think a person should be who they are.
2) I'm not about junking posts just because they inspire debate and criticism from others. While I might have thought Levine's comments might have been a bit insensitive I don't believe in just editing them out. Even self-censorship can be destructive.
3) I appreciate Ken acknowledging his critics. In this day and age of "F-you" debate it's nice to see other peoples' opinions getting some respect.
Either way, I'm adding Ken's blog to my roll. Hey, the guy worked on Cheers, Frasier, Wings, and Everybody Loves Raymond--anyone who's brought that much comedy to the world can't be all that bad.
Losing the war at home...
You show how much you love your children by how you care for them. The government shows us how much they love their soldiers by this:
"Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.
This is the world of Building 18, not the kind of place where Duncan expected to recover when he was evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center from Iraq last February with a broken neck and a shredded left ear, nearly dead from blood loss. But the old lodge, just outside the gates of the hospital and five miles up the road from the White House, has housed hundreds of maimed soldiers recuperating from injuries suffered in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Any one wanna guess how long it will be before Tony Snow calls this a 'liberal hoax,' or something equally as insensitive? Three...two...one...BOOM.
"Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.
This is the world of Building 18, not the kind of place where Duncan expected to recover when he was evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center from Iraq last February with a broken neck and a shredded left ear, nearly dead from blood loss. But the old lodge, just outside the gates of the hospital and five miles up the road from the White House, has housed hundreds of maimed soldiers recuperating from injuries suffered in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Any one wanna guess how long it will be before Tony Snow calls this a 'liberal hoax,' or something equally as insensitive? Three...two...one...BOOM.
Democracy and War
From Mithras:
"We didn't win the Cold War by fighting. We won it because the other guy lost. We won it by not fighting. We could have nuked China; we didn't and China is slowly moving down the path to freedom. We killed a million Vietnamese for no good reason and it took far longer for them to move to a free-market economy than it would have if we had dealt with Ho when he first came to us, after World War II. So much suffering we caused by blundering around, so much harm we did inadvertently to the cause of freedom.
A war to liberate people from an invader, as we did in Europe in the 40s or even in Kuwait in the 90s, makes sense. A war to liberate people from the trials of their own history does not."
Sometimes the correct thing to do is to do nothing at all. It sorta reminds me of when I was in High School. There was a girl I was fanatically in love with and I showered her with gifts (that I couldn't afford) and praise (that she wasn't worthy of) and the more I pushed the less she liked me. Years later when I saw her again, she told me, "Yeah, I thought you were cute, but you were annoying as F-ck!" That might just be the eulogy for the US in Iraq. We liked your Democracy, we hated your war.
By the way, now I'm only as annoying as shit.
"We didn't win the Cold War by fighting. We won it because the other guy lost. We won it by not fighting. We could have nuked China; we didn't and China is slowly moving down the path to freedom. We killed a million Vietnamese for no good reason and it took far longer for them to move to a free-market economy than it would have if we had dealt with Ho when he first came to us, after World War II. So much suffering we caused by blundering around, so much harm we did inadvertently to the cause of freedom.
A war to liberate people from an invader, as we did in Europe in the 40s or even in Kuwait in the 90s, makes sense. A war to liberate people from the trials of their own history does not."
Sometimes the correct thing to do is to do nothing at all. It sorta reminds me of when I was in High School. There was a girl I was fanatically in love with and I showered her with gifts (that I couldn't afford) and praise (that she wasn't worthy of) and the more I pushed the less she liked me. Years later when I saw her again, she told me, "Yeah, I thought you were cute, but you were annoying as F-ck!" That might just be the eulogy for the US in Iraq. We liked your Democracy, we hated your war.
By the way, now I'm only as annoying as shit.
Bush's secret fantasy...
From a review of a biography of Ariel Sharon, by Uri Dan:
"Speaking of George Bush, with whom Sharon developed a very close relationship, Uri Dan recalls that Sharon's delicacy made him reluctant to repeat what the president had told him when they discussed Osama bin Laden. Finally he relented. And here is what the leader of the Western world, valiant warrior in the battle of cultures, promised to do to bin Laden if he caught him: "I will screw him in the ass!""
This just in: Tim Hardaway hates President Bush.
"Speaking of George Bush, with whom Sharon developed a very close relationship, Uri Dan recalls that Sharon's delicacy made him reluctant to repeat what the president had told him when they discussed Osama bin Laden. Finally he relented. And here is what the leader of the Western world, valiant warrior in the battle of cultures, promised to do to bin Laden if he caught him: "I will screw him in the ass!""
This just in: Tim Hardaway hates President Bush.
The Break-up
A-Rod on Jeter:
"You go from sleeping over at somebody's house five days a week and now you don't sleep over...it's not that big of a deal."
This just in: Tim Hardaway hates A-Rod and Jeter.
Media shouts out Obama in Clinton moment
So how does this work? Hil gives a speech in the deep south to a majority black audience, but the story isn't about how good her speech was, it's about how blacks can like another candidate besides Obama:
"Sen. Hillary Clinton made her first swing to the South yesterday, drawing an enthusiastic crowd of African-Americans and showing that Sen. Barack Obama doesn't have a lock on the black vote."
Once again the "liberal" press exposes the slip of its white hood. What the hell does one have to do with the other. So blacks can't enjoy--or heaven help--vote for anyone other than the black guy? Can you imagine if the headline was "Obama gives a speech to an enthusiastic crowd of White-Americans showing that the entire field of Democratic candidates doesn't have a lock on the white vote?"
Just sickening. Glad to know what the Daily News thinks about blacks...but wait, I knew that already...
"Sen. Hillary Clinton made her first swing to the South yesterday, drawing an enthusiastic crowd of African-Americans and showing that Sen. Barack Obama doesn't have a lock on the black vote."
Once again the "liberal" press exposes the slip of its white hood. What the hell does one have to do with the other. So blacks can't enjoy--or heaven help--vote for anyone other than the black guy? Can you imagine if the headline was "Obama gives a speech to an enthusiastic crowd of White-Americans showing that the entire field of Democratic candidates doesn't have a lock on the white vote?"
Just sickening. Glad to know what the Daily News thinks about blacks...but wait, I knew that already...
How's that for liberal...
Yet another big case decided today:
"WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court threw out a $79.5 million punitive damages award to a smoker’s widow Tuesday, a boon to businesses seeking stricter limits on big-dollar jury verdicts.
The 5-4 ruling was a victory for Altria Group Inc.’s Philip Morris USA, which contested an Oregon Supreme Court decision upholding the verdict.
In the majority opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court said the verdict could not stand because the jury in the case was not instructed that it could punish Philip Morris only for the harm done to the plaintiff, not to other smokers whose cases were not before it."
Not sure if I'm for or against the decision. 79.5 million isn't chump change but I'm no big fan of Phillip Morris either. According to MSNBC.com the 79.5 mil was in punitive damages which are,"...intended to punish a defendant for its behavior and to deter repetition." But 79.5 million isn't exactly a punishment to the corporate giant, and it can't repeat the same mistake (at least it cigarettes) because of the overabundance of information on the health risks of smoking.
On thing I'd like to note though are the individual judges votes:
"Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, joined with Breyer.
Dissenting were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas."
So the 'liberal' and 'moderate' judges voted for corporations while the 'conservative' justices voted against. Just goes to show you that what happens behind those doors is more complex that simple partisan hacking. At least when they're not voting on the next President of the United States.
"WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court threw out a $79.5 million punitive damages award to a smoker’s widow Tuesday, a boon to businesses seeking stricter limits on big-dollar jury verdicts.
The 5-4 ruling was a victory for Altria Group Inc.’s Philip Morris USA, which contested an Oregon Supreme Court decision upholding the verdict.
In the majority opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court said the verdict could not stand because the jury in the case was not instructed that it could punish Philip Morris only for the harm done to the plaintiff, not to other smokers whose cases were not before it."
Not sure if I'm for or against the decision. 79.5 million isn't chump change but I'm no big fan of Phillip Morris either. According to MSNBC.com the 79.5 mil was in punitive damages which are,"...intended to punish a defendant for its behavior and to deter repetition." But 79.5 million isn't exactly a punishment to the corporate giant, and it can't repeat the same mistake (at least it cigarettes) because of the overabundance of information on the health risks of smoking.
On thing I'd like to note though are the individual judges votes:
"Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, joined with Breyer.
Dissenting were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas."
So the 'liberal' and 'moderate' judges voted for corporations while the 'conservative' justices voted against. Just goes to show you that what happens behind those doors is more complex that simple partisan hacking. At least when they're not voting on the next President of the United States.
Big win for Bush, Big loss for Freedom
From MSNBC.com:
"WASHINGTON - Guantanamo Bay detainees may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling upholding a key provision in President Bush’s anti-terrorism law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners.
"Federal courts have no jurisdiction in these cases," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote for the court majority in his 25-page opinion."
That may be, but in that case, who does have jurisdiction? Does being in a US military prison mean that there is no habeas corpus? Does one have to appeal in a international court? I would hope not since there isn't an international ruling that the US doesn't feel it has the right to ignore. Either way, this constructionist ruling is a blow to liberty everywhere.
"WASHINGTON - Guantanamo Bay detainees may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling upholding a key provision in President Bush’s anti-terrorism law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners.
"Federal courts have no jurisdiction in these cases," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote for the court majority in his 25-page opinion."
That may be, but in that case, who does have jurisdiction? Does being in a US military prison mean that there is no habeas corpus? Does one have to appeal in a international court? I would hope not since there isn't an international ruling that the US doesn't feel it has the right to ignore. Either way, this constructionist ruling is a blow to liberty everywhere.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Bloomy suspends Alt Side of the street parking...
From NY1.com:
Alternate side parking is suspended again today, so drivers can use the brief warm up to free their cars from their icy grips.
After heavy criticism, Mayor Michael Bloomberg reversed his decision to keep the rules in effect, and waived all tickets handed out Thursday and Friday.
Most car owners welcomed the news, but said it was too little, too late.
"I wish I would have heard that earlier,” said one driver. “I have two cars. I had to dig them out, move them down, and put them back into the same ice. But what are you going to do?"
My sentiments exactly.
Alternate side parking is suspended again today, so drivers can use the brief warm up to free their cars from their icy grips.
After heavy criticism, Mayor Michael Bloomberg reversed his decision to keep the rules in effect, and waived all tickets handed out Thursday and Friday.
Most car owners welcomed the news, but said it was too little, too late.
"I wish I would have heard that earlier,” said one driver. “I have two cars. I had to dig them out, move them down, and put them back into the same ice. But what are you going to do?"
My sentiments exactly.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Is that what you really see?
From Huffpo:
"Well, the NBA sure put Tim Hardaway in his place. For stating in a radio interview that he "hates gays", David Stern, the stern commissioner of the NBA, has banned Hardaway from participating in ANY of this weekend's All-Star activities. If he had only said "hates bi-sexuals" he could have still entered the Sprite Slam Dunk contest.
How about banning players for being morons? How about requiring an SAT score above their shoe size? How about insisting they all buy "hooked on phonics"? The NBA wonders why it has such a horrible image, why its glittering All-Star game isn't even televised on a broadcast network. Then it allows kids to drop out of college or skip college altogether to join the league. Here's what the average sports fan sees when he comes across an NBA game: mean, arrogant, scary looking, tattooed, prison inmates. Not exactly All-American role models unless you're a gang member or skinhead. In interviews these players often come off sounding like Pogo. So when Tim Hardaway says a spectacularly idiotic thing the league may feign shock and outrage but the truth is - what do they expect? And Hardaway is supposed to learn his lesson and become tolerant of homosexuals because he can't take part in the Foot Locker Three-Point Shootout. Stupidity in the NBA is not confined to the players."
You know this reminds me of a dentist visit I had about five years ago. I'm in the chair, and this guy, an older white man, is digging around in my mouth ranting about how the Knicks suck, and how they're a "bunch of apes running around." Needless to say, I had my mouth full so I wasn't able to say anything, but that was the first and last time I ever went to him.
The NBA, which every one knows is primarily African-American, catches alot of heat, some of it warranted some of it not. When Tim Hardaway opens his dumb mouth and spouts off alot hatred, I look and say, he's a dumbass who happens to be a basketball player. When Kobe drops his pants and then snitches on his teammates I say, hey there's a punk...who happens to be a basketball player. But maybe I think these things because I'm black. Where I grew up the people around me dressed like the NBA, acted like the NBA, and wanted to be in the NBA. You get to see the 'ballers' as it were as regular guys with extraordinary talents. But when I read the above article by Ken Levine, a white guy, I can't help but have my antenne of racism spark like Peter Parker's Spider-sense. Seems to me that any time some scandal comes out of the NBA white dudes (usually the guys who sit courtside at games) get up in arms about how the NBA is (to quote Levine), "mean, arrogant, scary looking, tattooed, prison inmates." Umm, who in the NBA look the the people who happen to be predominately in prisons...umm Steve Nash..wait he's Canadian...Dirk Nowitski...yeah guess it must be those other black dudes.
So is Levine a racist? Jezz no, or at least he's not any more racist than I am, he's just racist in a different way. When anyone's approached by something unknown and threatening the first instinct is to ridicule it. With him it's a bunch of tattooed up black dudes dribbling a ball. With Tim Hardaway it's gay people, and with me its old white dudes in suits who vote in Congress or who live in a White House. I just thought it was pretty ironic that a post that criticizes some one for saying some some insensitive things about a group, would then say insensitive things about another group.
By the way Tim Hardaway is still an asshole.
PS: By the way Levine, Hardaway's retired from the NBA so he couldn't have entered the slam dunk contest. OH MY! TEETH DELIVERS THE FACIAL! I LOVE THIS GAME!
"Well, the NBA sure put Tim Hardaway in his place. For stating in a radio interview that he "hates gays", David Stern, the stern commissioner of the NBA, has banned Hardaway from participating in ANY of this weekend's All-Star activities. If he had only said "hates bi-sexuals" he could have still entered the Sprite Slam Dunk contest.
How about banning players for being morons? How about requiring an SAT score above their shoe size? How about insisting they all buy "hooked on phonics"? The NBA wonders why it has such a horrible image, why its glittering All-Star game isn't even televised on a broadcast network. Then it allows kids to drop out of college or skip college altogether to join the league. Here's what the average sports fan sees when he comes across an NBA game: mean, arrogant, scary looking, tattooed, prison inmates. Not exactly All-American role models unless you're a gang member or skinhead. In interviews these players often come off sounding like Pogo. So when Tim Hardaway says a spectacularly idiotic thing the league may feign shock and outrage but the truth is - what do they expect? And Hardaway is supposed to learn his lesson and become tolerant of homosexuals because he can't take part in the Foot Locker Three-Point Shootout. Stupidity in the NBA is not confined to the players."
You know this reminds me of a dentist visit I had about five years ago. I'm in the chair, and this guy, an older white man, is digging around in my mouth ranting about how the Knicks suck, and how they're a "bunch of apes running around." Needless to say, I had my mouth full so I wasn't able to say anything, but that was the first and last time I ever went to him.
The NBA, which every one knows is primarily African-American, catches alot of heat, some of it warranted some of it not. When Tim Hardaway opens his dumb mouth and spouts off alot hatred, I look and say, he's a dumbass who happens to be a basketball player. When Kobe drops his pants and then snitches on his teammates I say, hey there's a punk...who happens to be a basketball player. But maybe I think these things because I'm black. Where I grew up the people around me dressed like the NBA, acted like the NBA, and wanted to be in the NBA. You get to see the 'ballers' as it were as regular guys with extraordinary talents. But when I read the above article by Ken Levine, a white guy, I can't help but have my antenne of racism spark like Peter Parker's Spider-sense. Seems to me that any time some scandal comes out of the NBA white dudes (usually the guys who sit courtside at games) get up in arms about how the NBA is (to quote Levine), "mean, arrogant, scary looking, tattooed, prison inmates." Umm, who in the NBA look the the people who happen to be predominately in prisons...umm Steve Nash..wait he's Canadian...Dirk Nowitski...yeah guess it must be those other black dudes.
So is Levine a racist? Jezz no, or at least he's not any more racist than I am, he's just racist in a different way. When anyone's approached by something unknown and threatening the first instinct is to ridicule it. With him it's a bunch of tattooed up black dudes dribbling a ball. With Tim Hardaway it's gay people, and with me its old white dudes in suits who vote in Congress or who live in a White House. I just thought it was pretty ironic that a post that criticizes some one for saying some some insensitive things about a group, would then say insensitive things about another group.
By the way Tim Hardaway is still an asshole.
PS: By the way Levine, Hardaway's retired from the NBA so he couldn't have entered the slam dunk contest. OH MY! TEETH DELIVERS THE FACIAL! I LOVE THIS GAME!
Yet another reason why I hate Crooks and Liars...
Cause they hate Ralph Nader:
I really believe that one of the ways we could "fix" Washington is by getting some third (and fourth) party candidates in the process. When Ralph Nader first announced his candidacy in 2000, I was a big fan. When he announced in 2004, I was less than thrilled. Whether or not he wants to accept responsibility for it, Nader's campaign arguably did contribute significantly to Bush's ultimate placement in the White House. That protestations and requests from even the Green Party to not run in 2004 fell on deaf ears, my (and others', judging from this SF Chronicle article) esteem feel quite a bit.
Former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader said he is considering a presidential run in 2008 and strongly suggested today he would enter the race if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the Democratic Party nomination.
"She's just another bad version of (former President) Bill Clinton,'' Nader told KGO radio host Ronn Owens in San Francisco.
[..]"To an awful lot of people, Ralph Nader appears to be threatening, once again, to play the role of a spoiled brat whose purpose in life appears to be … electing Republicans by draining off votes from Democrats,'' said (Phil) Trounstine, who heads the San Jose State Center for Policy and Research.
Nader's presidential aspirations are viewed by many as evidence that he is on "an enormous ego trip with potentially destructive impact,'' Trounstine said.
Nader's is the subject of a searing new documentary, "An Unreasonable Man,'' which chronicles his early work as a consumer advocate and the turn in his career toward presidential politics. In the film, critics lambaste Nader, the author of "Unsafe at Any Speed,'' for abandoning his consumer advocacy, and suggest he is the ultimate egotist."
Yeah, a guy who decides to PLAY a role in HIS democracy, brings up good points, and has probably done more for the average joe than any of our so called leaders from either party, and he's the asshole. Sometimes I just hate everyone.
I really believe that one of the ways we could "fix" Washington is by getting some third (and fourth) party candidates in the process. When Ralph Nader first announced his candidacy in 2000, I was a big fan. When he announced in 2004, I was less than thrilled. Whether or not he wants to accept responsibility for it, Nader's campaign arguably did contribute significantly to Bush's ultimate placement in the White House. That protestations and requests from even the Green Party to not run in 2004 fell on deaf ears, my (and others', judging from this SF Chronicle article) esteem feel quite a bit.
Former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader said he is considering a presidential run in 2008 and strongly suggested today he would enter the race if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the Democratic Party nomination.
"She's just another bad version of (former President) Bill Clinton,'' Nader told KGO radio host Ronn Owens in San Francisco.
[..]"To an awful lot of people, Ralph Nader appears to be threatening, once again, to play the role of a spoiled brat whose purpose in life appears to be … electing Republicans by draining off votes from Democrats,'' said (Phil) Trounstine, who heads the San Jose State Center for Policy and Research.
Nader's presidential aspirations are viewed by many as evidence that he is on "an enormous ego trip with potentially destructive impact,'' Trounstine said.
Nader's is the subject of a searing new documentary, "An Unreasonable Man,'' which chronicles his early work as a consumer advocate and the turn in his career toward presidential politics. In the film, critics lambaste Nader, the author of "Unsafe at Any Speed,'' for abandoning his consumer advocacy, and suggest he is the ultimate egotist."
Yeah, a guy who decides to PLAY a role in HIS democracy, brings up good points, and has probably done more for the average joe than any of our so called leaders from either party, and he's the asshole. Sometimes I just hate everyone.
Inspiring
I wanted to repost a reader's letter to Sully, which can be found here. Who ever this is, he captures perfectly many of my own thoughts concerning Jesus and Christianity:
"I am an atheist (who was once a Christian) and wanted to comment on your latest missive to Sam Harris.
I would describe my own embrace of science and secular humanism as being motivated by a form of faith that is deeper than Christian faith. I believe that if Jesus lived today, he would be a secular humanist and would reject Christianity, just as he "rejected" Judaism and inspired Christianity. Christianity was once the vehicle for the boldest and most honest thinking about reality, the brotherhood of man, and the human condition. I think in light of the advances in science and our exposure to other religious traditions, it is time again to humanize further our understanding of "God" (or the source of all truth, goodness, and beauty) and come to a more universal understanding of religion.
It's time again to look beyond the letter and literal interpretation of immortality, heaven, hell, and miracles, and see the essence and spirit of these ideas. What is it about love that survives death? What is the ideal world? What is eternal separation from all that is good? Where do fundamentally new ideas and relationships come from? In the 21st century, we are able to see more clearly than the saints before us (just as Jesus was able to see more clearly than prophets before him) that deeds of love live on forever in the hearts and minds of all those who are transformed by such love and by those who value loving acts of goodness and justice. This is the immortality of the saints.
Heaven is not some place where we will go when our body dies. It is the world that we all yearn for and that each man of faith and good helps to realize in his small way through the march of human history. Hell is not some burning pit for the doomed and unsaved. Rather, it's a metaphor for the eternal separation from this community of the saints that the wicked are doomed never to realize by their rejection of what is good and beautiful. What are miracles? They are not supernatural gifts from an all-knowing God. Rather, they are what men of faith and good appreciate in this universe, despite all that is broken, evil and ugly.
I find that I am better able to love and appreciate Jesus as a humanist imagining him as a man than when I was a Christian and imagined him as a God or a spiritual presence. Jesus was a man therefore he is one of us and we can truly become like him.
I feel that I have lost nothing by rejecting the doctrines of Christianity. Rather, I have rediscovered what it means to have true faith and true understanding by embracing humanism and science. Humanism then does not reject Christianity, it completes it. Paul was wrong. Our faith is not foolish if Jesus is not literally and physically risen from the dead. We know our faith is true, because we know that death has not defeated him. As a humanist, I do not discard the rich legacy and richness of the Christian tradition, rather I claim to be the true heir to the Christian patrimony. Christians embrace a shallower version of Jesus. I know this because I continue to be transformed by Jesus's love and he continues to inspire my humanist faith - faith that there is yet some good in this earth, that we can all be redeemed by love, and that we should all choose life and should try to live it fully in a spirit of peace and brotherhood with all mankind. It makes no difference to me whether Jesus was born of virgin or rose bodily from his grave after three days. These are signs that the wicked demand because they do not have the heart to see the divine in Jesus and in all of us without such signs. Blessed are those who follow Jesus not having seen and without any need for signs and wonders."
Personally I would take out the 'blessed' at the end of this, but I think that Jesus the man would be a stronger role model for people precisely because of his humanity rather than his 'divinity'.
"I am an atheist (who was once a Christian) and wanted to comment on your latest missive to Sam Harris.
I would describe my own embrace of science and secular humanism as being motivated by a form of faith that is deeper than Christian faith. I believe that if Jesus lived today, he would be a secular humanist and would reject Christianity, just as he "rejected" Judaism and inspired Christianity. Christianity was once the vehicle for the boldest and most honest thinking about reality, the brotherhood of man, and the human condition. I think in light of the advances in science and our exposure to other religious traditions, it is time again to humanize further our understanding of "God" (or the source of all truth, goodness, and beauty) and come to a more universal understanding of religion.
It's time again to look beyond the letter and literal interpretation of immortality, heaven, hell, and miracles, and see the essence and spirit of these ideas. What is it about love that survives death? What is the ideal world? What is eternal separation from all that is good? Where do fundamentally new ideas and relationships come from? In the 21st century, we are able to see more clearly than the saints before us (just as Jesus was able to see more clearly than prophets before him) that deeds of love live on forever in the hearts and minds of all those who are transformed by such love and by those who value loving acts of goodness and justice. This is the immortality of the saints.
Heaven is not some place where we will go when our body dies. It is the world that we all yearn for and that each man of faith and good helps to realize in his small way through the march of human history. Hell is not some burning pit for the doomed and unsaved. Rather, it's a metaphor for the eternal separation from this community of the saints that the wicked are doomed never to realize by their rejection of what is good and beautiful. What are miracles? They are not supernatural gifts from an all-knowing God. Rather, they are what men of faith and good appreciate in this universe, despite all that is broken, evil and ugly.
I find that I am better able to love and appreciate Jesus as a humanist imagining him as a man than when I was a Christian and imagined him as a God or a spiritual presence. Jesus was a man therefore he is one of us and we can truly become like him.
I feel that I have lost nothing by rejecting the doctrines of Christianity. Rather, I have rediscovered what it means to have true faith and true understanding by embracing humanism and science. Humanism then does not reject Christianity, it completes it. Paul was wrong. Our faith is not foolish if Jesus is not literally and physically risen from the dead. We know our faith is true, because we know that death has not defeated him. As a humanist, I do not discard the rich legacy and richness of the Christian tradition, rather I claim to be the true heir to the Christian patrimony. Christians embrace a shallower version of Jesus. I know this because I continue to be transformed by Jesus's love and he continues to inspire my humanist faith - faith that there is yet some good in this earth, that we can all be redeemed by love, and that we should all choose life and should try to live it fully in a spirit of peace and brotherhood with all mankind. It makes no difference to me whether Jesus was born of virgin or rose bodily from his grave after three days. These are signs that the wicked demand because they do not have the heart to see the divine in Jesus and in all of us without such signs. Blessed are those who follow Jesus not having seen and without any need for signs and wonders."
Personally I would take out the 'blessed' at the end of this, but I think that Jesus the man would be a stronger role model for people precisely because of his humanity rather than his 'divinity'.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Iraq Resolution Passes
The title says it all. From MSNBC.com:
"WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush's plan to deploy more troops to Iraq on Friday, opening an epic confrontation between Congress and commander in chief over an unpopular war that has taken the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.
The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182, with 6 not voting."
Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of the Iraq fiasco. More to come tomorrow when the Senate votes on their resolution.
"WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush's plan to deploy more troops to Iraq on Friday, opening an epic confrontation between Congress and commander in chief over an unpopular war that has taken the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.
The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182, with 6 not voting."
Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of the Iraq fiasco. More to come tomorrow when the Senate votes on their resolution.
Something I've been wanting to say for a while...
...to the conservatives who call the New York Times liberal. The New York Times is not liberal.
And to the liberals who call the New York Times conservative. The New York Times is not conservative.
The New York Times is mostly moderate, with a crap load of left and right radicals on their Op-Ed page. You should see their meetings.
And to the liberals who call the New York Times conservative. The New York Times is not conservative.
The New York Times is mostly moderate, with a crap load of left and right radicals on their Op-Ed page. You should see their meetings.
Just a thought...
You know, if Obama doesn't make it with the Presidency, I think he'd make a hell of a Supreme Court Justice. Think about it.
Iran War Watch
Quote by Def Sec Robert Gates:
"For the umpteenth time, we are not looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran."
Ah huh.
Mayor Bloomberg to Car Owners: F You.
I'll admit, when I used to live in the city I didn't care much about alternate side of the street parking, or snowstorms, or the weather in general. In Manhattan mostly everyone uses public transportation and because of that those rules, regulations, and general conditions didn't really affect my life.
Then I moved to Brooklyn, and my fiance's mother loaned us her car. That was the beginning of the end.
Now I still hate cars, dangerous monstrous gas addicted terrors, but now that it's a part of my reality I've got to deal with it. When it snows I have to dig it out. Not my fiance, not my dad, not a cop, and not the mayor. Me. So, being that as it is, all I ask is that people allow me to do my business in peace.
I suppose the above was too much for the Mayor to take.
Last night I found my car buried under a ton of ice. Not snow, ice. My fiance and I checked 311 and discovered that alternate side of the street parking was still in effect, so for the next hour and a half, I shoveled, pounded, and busted ice from around the car like I was unearthing a f-cking Woolly Mammoth from a glacier. Needless to say, beyond following the rules I still have no idea why I was forced to do so.
First off, my car was buried because city plows buried it as they were clearing the one lane street where I was parked. Secondly, even if all the cars do get moved (highly unlikely considering the amount of snow and ice, and the large elderly population in my neighborhood) what is the city going to do about the street? Unless NYC has an ice crusher, or a team of flamethrowers I don't know about, cleaning the street will be useless until the temp rises. Now I understand that as I write this entire streets are being closed down for sanitation crews, but the work will be much too slow, and the city will pay too much in overtime for it to make much of a difference. We have public transportation for a reason. As long as the side walks are clean and people can make it to the subways business can still continue. Instead Mayor Bloomberg has decided to increase our already tangled court system which will be burdened down by people fighting (and probably winning) their parking violations. Suspending alt side parking for one day till the weekend would have been a merciful and practical decision in the face of this harsh weather.
""It was easy to move your car," Bloomberg told reporters. "I don't like to get up early in the morning and have to do anything either. I'd like to sleep in too. But it was the right thing to do.""
Bloomy, I still support you as Mayor but this statement is incredibly callous. First off, you take the train every day to work, a fact that holds you in high esteem with many of your supporters. And secondly, if you did have to drive would you really dig out your car? If I had your money I sure as hell wouldn't.
I think Bloomy's position was best described by Bk Councilman Vincent Gentile who said,
"It's "just another example of the Manhattan-centric method of management by this administration...It is bad enough that Brooklyn residents have to deal with slush on the road and trapped cars, but then to add insult to injury by not suspending alternate side parking and having the audacity to ticket Brooklyn drivers is ludicrous."
As a former Manhattan-centric New Yorker, I know what Gentile means--but a Mayor can't just think of the city in making policy decisions. Especially when a small act of kindness can ease the suffering of thousands.
PS: I do want to give a shout out to the good Samaritan who helped me out yesterday. Into my forty-something minute of digging, a dude passed by who offered me and the guy behind me a hand. Like a typical New Yorker I expected him to hit me up for cash or steal my car, but when it was all done, like a real hero, he smiled and wished me the best. To who ever you are thanks for the help and for reminding me that humanity is still worth saving.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The disfigured Marine
If you've been reading Sully's blog you've seen the wedding pics. I understand why he's showing them, since, graphically, they're a very persusive argument for pulling the troops out. However I feel personally that they're a bit gratutious and even more so, they should be unnecessary as anti-war propoganda. If people don't know that in a WAR people get BLOWN TO BITS then they either they've been living in a cave with the rest of the Bush adminstration or they're just idiots. There have been two reasons why I never joined up with the armed forces. One, I don't like the idea of doing someone else's dirty work. If I'm going to have to kill someone I want the responsiblity to be my own, and I would hope that I would have the courage to stand up, in front of a court, and state my guilt and my reasons for committing that act. The second is fear. Yes, I'm afraid of war. But rather than be ashamed of my fear I embrace it. Fear is what creates civilizations just as much as courage, because blind courage is stupidity and the check against that is fear. I don't want to get my face shot off. I like my arms and my legs. Personally I'm more scared of being disfigured than dead. When you'd dead you're dead, and you're going to die eventually, but to be scarred...there are some things worse than death.
I'm not saying this to say that I'm smart and Marines are stupid. I made my choices just like they made their choices, but what I am saying is that with every decision comes consequences. Just like the decision to lie. Some people would say that whatever happened to that Marine was his own fault, he knew what he was getting into, yadda, yadda, yadda. I've always hated that attitude because it puts the fault on the victim, and let's not mince words, this man is a victim. He's a victim of a lie. I don't trust the government, it's my upbringing and my background. But some people do, and I understand that. But now the government's been caught in a lie. Someone has to take responsiblity for that. Someone has got to pay a price, and that someone has got to be this admistration. For the sake of us all.
I'm not saying this to say that I'm smart and Marines are stupid. I made my choices just like they made their choices, but what I am saying is that with every decision comes consequences. Just like the decision to lie. Some people would say that whatever happened to that Marine was his own fault, he knew what he was getting into, yadda, yadda, yadda. I've always hated that attitude because it puts the fault on the victim, and let's not mince words, this man is a victim. He's a victim of a lie. I don't trust the government, it's my upbringing and my background. But some people do, and I understand that. But now the government's been caught in a lie. Someone has to take responsiblity for that. Someone has got to pay a price, and that someone has got to be this admistration. For the sake of us all.
Alberto Gonzales is a sick man...
I don't particually like name calling, but for the guy who's supposed to be the Top lawyer in the country, and an American citizen, he talks and acts more like a deranged psychopath. Check out the conversation he had with Argentina's ministers of the Interior and Justice:
"Iribarne [Minister of Justice] explained to him that the methods used by the Argentine dictatorship three decades ago led to state terrorism, which the current government rejected. Fernandez said that Argentina's cooperation had a limit: he mentioned explicitly Gonzales' famous memos and explained to him the goverment's disagreement with their substance. He added that the Argentine government is part of the International Crimes Tribunal and supports the application of the statute of Rome, which it created, and the Geneva Conventions.
The astonishing response from Gonzales was that those memos had not been written with public dissemination in mind. "Either way they reflect your thinking, which we don't agree with," the Interior minister replied. " [Boldface mine]
Don't forget this is supposed to be the "New World" talking to the "Third World." Too bad our morals are dictated by Fox Television.
"Iribarne [Minister of Justice] explained to him that the methods used by the Argentine dictatorship three decades ago led to state terrorism, which the current government rejected. Fernandez said that Argentina's cooperation had a limit: he mentioned explicitly Gonzales' famous memos and explained to him the goverment's disagreement with their substance. He added that the Argentine government is part of the International Crimes Tribunal and supports the application of the statute of Rome, which it created, and the Geneva Conventions.
The astonishing response from Gonzales was that those memos had not been written with public dissemination in mind. "Either way they reflect your thinking, which we don't agree with," the Interior minister replied. " [Boldface mine]
Don't forget this is supposed to be the "New World" talking to the "Third World." Too bad our morals are dictated by Fox Television.
The President who cried wolf?
Well duh.
"The specter of the war in Iraq -- a war the Bush administration denied it was planning, supported by evidence that turned out to be false -- looms large over administration policy toward Iran. Skeptical members of Congress have questioned administration charges of Tehran's support for Iraqi insurgents and President Bush's insistence that his plans for dealing with Iran remain purely diplomatic. The administration, conscious of its low credibility, believes it has gone out of its way to convince doubters that Iran is not Iraq all over again.
"No, no, no, no," White House spokesman Tony Snow said Monday in response to questions about whether the administration embellished evidence against Iran in a U.S. military briefing in Baghdad the previous day. "I'm almost ready to hit my head on the microphone.""
That would be completely AWESOME!
Seriously thought, this is so sad. This President really has become the boy who cried wolf, and is at a point where only the AFI would believe CIA intel. Now I not only do believe but have to believe that Iran doesn't have WMDs, because if they did and Bush really is telling the truth then the Middle East is in a sorrier state of affairs then we could have ever guessed.
Note: Actually the Middle East is in a sorrier state of affairs.
"The specter of the war in Iraq -- a war the Bush administration denied it was planning, supported by evidence that turned out to be false -- looms large over administration policy toward Iran. Skeptical members of Congress have questioned administration charges of Tehran's support for Iraqi insurgents and President Bush's insistence that his plans for dealing with Iran remain purely diplomatic. The administration, conscious of its low credibility, believes it has gone out of its way to convince doubters that Iran is not Iraq all over again.
"No, no, no, no," White House spokesman Tony Snow said Monday in response to questions about whether the administration embellished evidence against Iran in a U.S. military briefing in Baghdad the previous day. "I'm almost ready to hit my head on the microphone.""
That would be completely AWESOME!
Seriously thought, this is so sad. This President really has become the boy who cried wolf, and is at a point where only the AFI would believe CIA intel. Now I not only do believe but have to believe that Iran doesn't have WMDs, because if they did and Bush really is telling the truth then the Middle East is in a sorrier state of affairs then we could have ever guessed.
Note: Actually the Middle East is in a sorrier state of affairs.
Now Madeline Albright can call herself a classic beauty
"LONDON - So maybe Mark Antony loved Cleopatra for her mind. That is the conclusion being drawn by academics at Britain's University of Newcastle from a Roman denarius coin which depicts the celebrated queen of Egypt as a sharp-nosed, thin-lipped woman with a protruding chin."
I'll tumble for ya baby.
Loser rant...
Tim Hardaway hates gay people? That's ok, turns out the basketball never really liked him.
In a way I'm glad he said what he said. Many, many people feel the same way but disguise their hatred with a smooth flow of rhetoric. It's refreshing to hear honesty even if it's complete and utter bile. The devil you can see is the devil you know.
In a way I'm glad he said what he said. Many, many people feel the same way but disguise their hatred with a smooth flow of rhetoric. It's refreshing to hear honesty even if it's complete and utter bile. The devil you can see is the devil you know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
