...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.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
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.
Quote of the day...
I've been reading over the book, The Supreme Court by Jeffery Rosen and I came upon this interesting gem. In William Douglas' concurring opinion to Roe v. Wade the judge declared that there were three sweeping categories of rights protected under the Consititution that were not explictly mentioned:
"First is the autonomous control over the development and expression of one's intellect, interests, tastes, and personality...Second is the freedom of choice in the basic decisions of one's life respecting marriage, divorce, procreation, contraception, and the education and upbringing of children...Third is the freedom to care for one's health and person, freedom from bodily restraint or compulsion, freedom to walk, stroll, or loaf."
Notice in his second section, there's nothing he mentions about gender when it comes to respecting marriage. The basis for a case? Ummm...
"First is the autonomous control over the development and expression of one's intellect, interests, tastes, and personality...Second is the freedom of choice in the basic decisions of one's life respecting marriage, divorce, procreation, contraception, and the education and upbringing of children...Third is the freedom to care for one's health and person, freedom from bodily restraint or compulsion, freedom to walk, stroll, or loaf."
Notice in his second section, there's nothing he mentions about gender when it comes to respecting marriage. The basis for a case? Ummm...
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
24 or Law & Order
I'm posting up a couple of links here and here about the ongoing war of words (or plans as it were) regarding what the US should do about Iran's (ghostly) nuclear program. The Reynolds/ Hewitt plan calls for "...should be responding quietly, killing radical mullahs and Iranian atomic scientists" Nothing new (in fact I do believe that smaller Black Op units are the army of the future, if for no other reason that modern technology has made the individual warrior more deadly, and Black Op missions lead to lower body counts (the "if you're going to drive drunk best to put you in a Mini Cooper and strap yourself in" ideology)), but the debate is now being phrased as the battle for modern culture referances. As Yglesias succinctly puts it:
"American agents are infiltrating Iran killing Iranian scientists and religious leaders and none of them get caught. How? Are there really dozens of Farsi-speaking ninjas working for the CIA? I was going to compare this to a fun-but-stupid movie like The Bourne Identity but the point of that movie (and its sequal) is actually that if you somehow did build a hyper-competent utterly secret government agency it would likely become a cesspool of corruption and abuses of power."
The sad thing is that the influence of the fictional counter-intellegence/ super-spy really does affect our judgement as Americans, and it's alot less liberal an influence than the Right wants us to believe.
"American agents are infiltrating Iran killing Iranian scientists and religious leaders and none of them get caught. How? Are there really dozens of Farsi-speaking ninjas working for the CIA? I was going to compare this to a fun-but-stupid movie like The Bourne Identity but the point of that movie (and its sequal) is actually that if you somehow did build a hyper-competent utterly secret government agency it would likely become a cesspool of corruption and abuses of power."
The sad thing is that the influence of the fictional counter-intellegence/ super-spy really does affect our judgement as Americans, and it's alot less liberal an influence than the Right wants us to believe.
Obama watch...
Obama tells Aussie PM right where he can shove it:
"The 45-year-old senator waded into a major foreign policy row just one day after formally announcing his candidacy, telling Mr Howard he should dispatch 20,000 Australians to Iraq if he wanted to back up his comments.
"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced," Mr Obama told reporters in the mid-western US state of Iowa.
"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400, so if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq.
"Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric.""
But isn't that Bush's plan?
"The 45-year-old senator waded into a major foreign policy row just one day after formally announcing his candidacy, telling Mr Howard he should dispatch 20,000 Australians to Iraq if he wanted to back up his comments.
"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced," Mr Obama told reporters in the mid-western US state of Iowa.
"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400, so if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq.
"Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric.""
But isn't that Bush's plan?
President Giuliani the cons and cons...
One of Sully's readers makes some insightful reasons why the former Mayor of NYC might get the nod:
"The three Big Dogs throughout 2005 were Rice, McCain, and Rudy. Once Condi had made it clear that she wasn't going forward (at least as a Presidential candidate), Mitt Romney was able to move up to the top tier. Romney has tried to corral the "conservative" wing that was supposed to coalesce around the Washington Beltway's conservative candidate, George Allen. However, the flips and flops outlined by you as well as those conservatives not posting on the Corner appear to have damaged Romney in the short term. McCain is not trusted by the base.
You've overblown the power of the "Christianists". You'll see this when Rudy walks away with South Carolina and gets the support of guys like Haley Barbour and Jeb Bush (who is already, silently, in Rudy's corner). "Christianists" don't win elections; Republicans do. That's what the polling is saying - people in our party are recovering a more Republican identity and embracing the idea of a larger tent. All that was needed was for the exclusionary wing to play themselves out ..."
Meanwhile over at TPM they got their hands on a juicy 450 memo that the 1993 Giuliani campaign created to address their canidate's weak points. Most of them still apply today, including such issues as:
"The report raised Giuliani's first marriage — to his second cousin — as a major liability. "In reviewing the news stories describing this event and others in his private life, there are numerous inconsistencies and questionable circumstances about how long the two were married, whether Giuliani knew he was marrying his second cousin, whether he dated other women while still married, and ultimately, how consistent he has been about his personal life."
• On Giuliani's honesty about their familial relationship: "He grew up with her, vacationed with her, married her, then divorced her and had the marriage annulled ... Despite their time together building sand castles out on Long Island, Giuliani claimed, first, he knew, and then he didn't know, Gina was his second cousin."
• Rudy's first marriage was not fully dissolved when he began dating Donna Hanover, who he would later marry — and then divorce after an adultery scandal in 2000.
• On Giuliani's exceptional deferment from the draft to work as a law clerk: "A 'one in a million occurrence' ... Ironically, after avoiding the fighting Giuliani worked in a department supposed to punish others who did the same."
• Giuliani was a Democrat as late as 1972, supporting George McGovern, but later switched to the Republicans in 1980, when doing so would get him ahead in the Justice Department."
All good points and the personal issues I think are more of an anathema for Republicans rather than Democrats including his support for abortion. But Sully sums up my deep passionate personal reasons for not wanting to see Giuliani elected:
"My major fear with Giuliani is civil liberties. He hasn't met one he wouldn't get rid of. And I doubt the mayor who backed the NYPD in the Diallo case is going to stop torture."
Giuliani--no hyperbole--is a fascist. Unfortunately he came into power after Mayor Dinkins, who had tremendous problems with the cops who refused to work with him. Crime increased, and when Giuliani came in he had the green light to give the police more power. And more power he gave them, like Chris Walken asking Will Farell for more cowbell. Living in Harlem I remember Goonliani's street sweeps where cops would jump out of cars and search entire blocks, throwing twenty or more kids to the ground. Civil liberties aren't in the man's dictionary, unless you were white and living on Park Avenue. It was one of the most degrading spectacles I'd ever witnessed. Emperor Palpatine would blush with shame.
"The three Big Dogs throughout 2005 were Rice, McCain, and Rudy. Once Condi had made it clear that she wasn't going forward (at least as a Presidential candidate), Mitt Romney was able to move up to the top tier. Romney has tried to corral the "conservative" wing that was supposed to coalesce around the Washington Beltway's conservative candidate, George Allen. However, the flips and flops outlined by you as well as those conservatives not posting on the Corner appear to have damaged Romney in the short term. McCain is not trusted by the base.
You've overblown the power of the "Christianists". You'll see this when Rudy walks away with South Carolina and gets the support of guys like Haley Barbour and Jeb Bush (who is already, silently, in Rudy's corner). "Christianists" don't win elections; Republicans do. That's what the polling is saying - people in our party are recovering a more Republican identity and embracing the idea of a larger tent. All that was needed was for the exclusionary wing to play themselves out ..."
Meanwhile over at TPM they got their hands on a juicy 450 memo that the 1993 Giuliani campaign created to address their canidate's weak points. Most of them still apply today, including such issues as:
"The report raised Giuliani's first marriage — to his second cousin — as a major liability. "In reviewing the news stories describing this event and others in his private life, there are numerous inconsistencies and questionable circumstances about how long the two were married, whether Giuliani knew he was marrying his second cousin, whether he dated other women while still married, and ultimately, how consistent he has been about his personal life."
• On Giuliani's honesty about their familial relationship: "He grew up with her, vacationed with her, married her, then divorced her and had the marriage annulled ... Despite their time together building sand castles out on Long Island, Giuliani claimed, first, he knew, and then he didn't know, Gina was his second cousin."
• Rudy's first marriage was not fully dissolved when he began dating Donna Hanover, who he would later marry — and then divorce after an adultery scandal in 2000.
• On Giuliani's exceptional deferment from the draft to work as a law clerk: "A 'one in a million occurrence' ... Ironically, after avoiding the fighting Giuliani worked in a department supposed to punish others who did the same."
• Giuliani was a Democrat as late as 1972, supporting George McGovern, but later switched to the Republicans in 1980, when doing so would get him ahead in the Justice Department."
All good points and the personal issues I think are more of an anathema for Republicans rather than Democrats including his support for abortion. But Sully sums up my deep passionate personal reasons for not wanting to see Giuliani elected:
"My major fear with Giuliani is civil liberties. He hasn't met one he wouldn't get rid of. And I doubt the mayor who backed the NYPD in the Diallo case is going to stop torture."
Giuliani--no hyperbole--is a fascist. Unfortunately he came into power after Mayor Dinkins, who had tremendous problems with the cops who refused to work with him. Crime increased, and when Giuliani came in he had the green light to give the police more power. And more power he gave them, like Chris Walken asking Will Farell for more cowbell. Living in Harlem I remember Goonliani's street sweeps where cops would jump out of cars and search entire blocks, throwing twenty or more kids to the ground. Civil liberties aren't in the man's dictionary, unless you were white and living on Park Avenue. It was one of the most degrading spectacles I'd ever witnessed. Emperor Palpatine would blush with shame.
North Korea to cease nuke program...
From the NY Daily News. I suppose Kim Jong-ll needs more time to torture people. Nice to know he's got his priorities in order.
Monday, February 12, 2007
I still have my doubts...
...but I listen to Juan Cole.
Fact is Iran may not be as 'guilty' as the US makes them out to be but they still suck just as much as the rest. Still, when the Pentagon makes up a PPT presentation you know something's fishy.
Fact is Iran may not be as 'guilty' as the US makes them out to be but they still suck just as much as the rest. Still, when the Pentagon makes up a PPT presentation you know something's fishy.
Enough already!
From the Agonist:
"Originally posted at The Seminal.
A bill introduced last week by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) is beginning to raise eyebrows.
[It] would require ISPs to record all users' surfing activity, IM conversations and email traffic indefinitely.
The bill, dubbed the Safety Act by sponsor Lamar Smith, a republican congressman from Texas, would impose fines and a prison term of one year on ISPs which failed to keep full records. (emphasis mine)"
Not saying that the governement doesn't already do it, but enough is enough. America is America because of our civil rights and when those get torn away we might as well be China with Reality TV.
"Originally posted at The Seminal.
A bill introduced last week by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) is beginning to raise eyebrows.
[It] would require ISPs to record all users' surfing activity, IM conversations and email traffic indefinitely.
The bill, dubbed the Safety Act by sponsor Lamar Smith, a republican congressman from Texas, would impose fines and a prison term of one year on ISPs which failed to keep full records. (emphasis mine)"
Not saying that the governement doesn't already do it, but enough is enough. America is America because of our civil rights and when those get torn away we might as well be China with Reality TV.
Intellectual Two Face??
From the NYtimes, the story of a grad student who's just finished his dissertation in geosciences from the University of Rhode Island. The problem? He endorses Intellegent Design:
"For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”
He likened his situation to that of a socialist studying economics in a department with a supply-side bent. “People hold all sorts of opinions different from the department in which they graduate,” he said. “What’s that to anybody else?”"
Opinion is one thing, emperical fact is another. I can't see how someone can hold on to a theory based on superstitution and at the same time hold onto the contrapositive scientific theory. It would seem to lead towards sometype of a intellectual schizophrenia. Now the question that the Times addresses is whether the intitution (in this case the Uni. of Rhode Island) should give him a degree since his personal beliefs run counter to the very paradigm of what he's studying. Their approach to this question though seems more political then intellectually honest. In other words, it's not whether he holds a diverging perspective, it's rather does his degree validate his religious beliefs? My answer? It's not up to the university to judge, and a student should not be denied the fruits of his work because of personal beliefs that run counter to the traditional foundation of his work. It would be like denying a person a PhD in American History because they believe Communism is the best system of government. If a person does the work (and from the article this guy's work within the school has been exemplary) within the correct framwork of the program and scientific discourse then he should recieve his degree. It has been the province of religion to silence and ostracize dissenting views. Academia should not engage in the same prejudice, even when the ideals run counter to the emperical view as long as the course work does not reflect that personal belief.
"For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”
He likened his situation to that of a socialist studying economics in a department with a supply-side bent. “People hold all sorts of opinions different from the department in which they graduate,” he said. “What’s that to anybody else?”"
Opinion is one thing, emperical fact is another. I can't see how someone can hold on to a theory based on superstitution and at the same time hold onto the contrapositive scientific theory. It would seem to lead towards sometype of a intellectual schizophrenia. Now the question that the Times addresses is whether the intitution (in this case the Uni. of Rhode Island) should give him a degree since his personal beliefs run counter to the very paradigm of what he's studying. Their approach to this question though seems more political then intellectually honest. In other words, it's not whether he holds a diverging perspective, it's rather does his degree validate his religious beliefs? My answer? It's not up to the university to judge, and a student should not be denied the fruits of his work because of personal beliefs that run counter to the traditional foundation of his work. It would be like denying a person a PhD in American History because they believe Communism is the best system of government. If a person does the work (and from the article this guy's work within the school has been exemplary) within the correct framwork of the program and scientific discourse then he should recieve his degree. It has been the province of religion to silence and ostracize dissenting views. Academia should not engage in the same prejudice, even when the ideals run counter to the emperical view as long as the course work does not reflect that personal belief.
Is Rummy getting sued?
Sully thinks so:
"Wonkette now confirms a reader's observation:
Donald Rumsfeld has now been spotted repeatedly visiting the swank Washington DC law firm of Williams & Connelly. If this firm has one claim to fame, then it's representing the high and mighty inside the Beltway when they get into criminal law trouble. So let's guess which of Rumsfeld's legal issues have taken him there: he's a) being sued for damages by Iraqis and Afghans, b) facing an indictment on war crimes in Germany; c) getting pulled into all kinds of dirt on Iraq contract corruption.
Rummy and Cheney: they're going to need a lot of lawyers in the years ahead."
Don't forget about Bush.
"Wonkette now confirms a reader's observation:
Donald Rumsfeld has now been spotted repeatedly visiting the swank Washington DC law firm of Williams & Connelly. If this firm has one claim to fame, then it's representing the high and mighty inside the Beltway when they get into criminal law trouble. So let's guess which of Rumsfeld's legal issues have taken him there: he's a) being sued for damages by Iraqis and Afghans, b) facing an indictment on war crimes in Germany; c) getting pulled into all kinds of dirt on Iraq contract corruption.
Rummy and Cheney: they're going to need a lot of lawyers in the years ahead."
Don't forget about Bush.
If we need to know about shrimps on a barbie we'll call you...
Some Australian dude rips Obama. Turns out this guy isn't Steve Irvin either.
Funny how the PM went after Obama for being anti-war but not any of the other canidates including forerunner Hilary Clinton, who has also expressed a willingness to pull US troops out of Iraq. Why...this couldn't be racism could it?
Funny how the PM went after Obama for being anti-war but not any of the other canidates including forerunner Hilary Clinton, who has also expressed a willingness to pull US troops out of Iraq. Why...this couldn't be racism could it?
And I completely believe you...
If I were deaf, dumb and completely dead. Money quote:
"TEHRAN, Iran - Iran on Monday rejected U.S. accusations that the highest levels of Iranian leadership have armed Shiite militants in Iraq with armor-piercing roadside bombs."
Sure, and Kim Kardashian isn't coming out with a sex tape, and Anna Nicole Smith didn't take drugs and there were WMDs in Iraq.
Wow. Those were alot of references. Eat your heart out Dennis Miller!
"TEHRAN, Iran - Iran on Monday rejected U.S. accusations that the highest levels of Iranian leadership have armed Shiite militants in Iraq with armor-piercing roadside bombs."
Sure, and Kim Kardashian isn't coming out with a sex tape, and Anna Nicole Smith didn't take drugs and there were WMDs in Iraq.
Wow. Those were alot of references. Eat your heart out Dennis Miller!
US base attack near Tokyo?
Actually footage taken.
Just kidding, but this is turning into an interesting story. We'll be watching this one closely.
How do you celebrate an anniversary in Iraq?
Blow something up of course. Then again, the anniversary was for a bombing so I suppose it does made some macabre sense.
Money quote:
"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Thunderous explosions and dense black smoke swirled through the center of Baghdad on Monday when at least two car bombs — one parked in an underground garage — tore through a crowded marketplace, setting off dozens of secondary explosions and killing at least 71 people, police said. Another bombing nearby killed at least nine."
And this is supposed to be in the "safe" section of Baghdad? Then again, calling any place in Iraq "safe" is like saying that there's a "cool" spot on the sun. Either way you're toast.
Grammy surprise...
You know, just when you think that the Grammy Awards have nothing to offer suddenly the remarkable happens. Last night the Police reunited and even more stunning--Stuart Copland didn't stab Sting in the eye. Amazing. I'm still trying to get the video posted up.
Other highlights--people who didn't deserve it won awards. Did the Dixie Chicks even have a new album out last year? I might have heard it but the Bush adminstration told me it was giving aid to the enemy. It's a political victory, but musically I don't know. Was there any thing of quality out this year? I'm still listening to Pearl Jam's Ten, so search me.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Racism from the Liberal Left?
John Ridley gives a good case for it. Money quote:
"And, please, would my people stop complaining every time somebody in the so-called liberal media asks the question: "Is America ready for a black president?" Yes, that question posits a negative. Yeah, the question really should be "can American stand one more rich old out of touch white guy as president," of course the question is in total abeyance of the fact that a black person has been four heart beats away from the presidency for the last seven years. But it's a nice safety valve. Kinda like when the faux liberals start a conversation with: "Do you want me to put some hip hop on?" or come back from vacation and say: "Oh my God, I'm as dark as you!""
It's the same kind of racism that makes the white media call Kramer a racist when we blacks understood that Kosmo just had a really bad day. And when white people have bad days and you add a few blacks in the mix you might just get a few "niggers" tossed around. Hey it's human nature, and we'd rather that than then getting dragged from the back of a pick up truck till our eyeballs fall out. Just ask George Jefferson.
"And, please, would my people stop complaining every time somebody in the so-called liberal media asks the question: "Is America ready for a black president?" Yes, that question posits a negative. Yeah, the question really should be "can American stand one more rich old out of touch white guy as president," of course the question is in total abeyance of the fact that a black person has been four heart beats away from the presidency for the last seven years. But it's a nice safety valve. Kinda like when the faux liberals start a conversation with: "Do you want me to put some hip hop on?" or come back from vacation and say: "Oh my God, I'm as dark as you!""
It's the same kind of racism that makes the white media call Kramer a racist when we blacks understood that Kosmo just had a really bad day. And when white people have bad days and you add a few blacks in the mix you might just get a few "niggers" tossed around. Hey it's human nature, and we'd rather that than then getting dragged from the back of a pick up truck till our eyeballs fall out. Just ask George Jefferson.
Here come the Sith...
...and they're bring Cobra and the Legion of Doom along for good measure. Here's how they plan to attack Obama:
"Now, Obama's about to endure a going-over that would make a proctologist blush. Why has he sometimes said his first name is Arabic, and other times Swahili? Why did he make up names in his first book, as the introduction acknowledges? Why did he say two years ago that he would "absolutely" serve out his Senate term, which ends in 2011, and that the idea of him running for president this cycle was "silly" and hype "that's been a little overblown"?
In interviews, strategists in both parties pointed to four big vulnerabilities: Obama's inexperience, the thinness of his policy record, his frank liberalism in a time when the party needs centrist voters and the wealth of targets that are provided by the personal recollections in his first book, from past drug use to conversations that cannot be documented.
Beginning with his announcement for president on Saturday, the long knives will be out for Obama from three directions: Reporters, perpetuating the boom and bust cycle of a ravenous media culture, will try to make up for fawning coverage of the past. Democratic rivals want to get him out of the way. And some top Republicans think the party would have a better chance with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., as the nominee, since she is a known quantity while
Obama can try to define himself as anything he wants.
Officials at the top of both parties calculate that Obama has risen too fast to sustain his popularity in the cauldron of a presidential campaign. Democrats talk of "vapid platitudes" that could produce a "soufflÃ-effect" an implosion as journalists and activists begin probing for substance behind Obama's appealing promise of "a different kind of politics" and "a new kind of politics.""
Whew glad this was put up, or else he'd have no idea what was coming. Being that as it is, here's a few tips I'd like to give the junior Senator:
1) Regarding of the origins of your name, think of the great Bard and his phrase "A rose by any other name..." Swahii or Arabic, don't both have great traditions which should be admired just as much as a German or English? Should Giuliani or Clinton be ashamed of their backgrounds?
2) You sought to protect the idenities of the people in your books, a silent covenent between you and those people. So far no one who has been outed or identified as those people has complained that they were mischaracterized, so why should we?
3) True you said that you would finish out your term, but you're fortunate enough to be so young in the game that you haven't been put on the record as flip-flopping on bigger and more important issues like your opponents. Point that out, and remember that ultimately that promise was a bond between you and your constituents in Illinois. If you should pay for that it would be there. (But I doubt it)
4) If your candidacy is "hype" remind the media that it's the people who will decide on how serious your chances are. I think that the candidacies of Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Rommey are just as much "hype" as yours if not more so. Fact is you're is still a long shot, but as any candidate will say it's still early in the ball game, and in the latter innings the game is up for grabs.
5) Your inexperience is a factor, but not overwhelming. Clinton's years in the Senate only overshadow you by one term, and Edwards by even less. Stress that your inexperience in Washington makes you a true outsider and thusly a sincere choice to those who don't want "business as usual"
6) Appeal to your strengths: You're the most elequent speaker the Democratic party has produced since Bobby Kennedy. Rhetorically you can run rings around your opponents, and, with the exception of Edwards and Kuchinich you're ready to phrase things in terms of class warfare which will be the battleground the Bush adminstration has left for 2008 as the people begin to recognize that our foriegn and fiscal policies were based more on class than national security. Use that "frank liberalism" to your advantage and you might (stress on might) have a chance.
7) But no matter what--don't shoot yourself in the foot. Meaning that you have plenty of time in your career and a bright future ahead. Take strong stands but don't overreach and please, please don't take any advice from John Kerry. Oh please Jesus, don't do that.
"Now, Obama's about to endure a going-over that would make a proctologist blush. Why has he sometimes said his first name is Arabic, and other times Swahili? Why did he make up names in his first book, as the introduction acknowledges? Why did he say two years ago that he would "absolutely" serve out his Senate term, which ends in 2011, and that the idea of him running for president this cycle was "silly" and hype "that's been a little overblown"?
In interviews, strategists in both parties pointed to four big vulnerabilities: Obama's inexperience, the thinness of his policy record, his frank liberalism in a time when the party needs centrist voters and the wealth of targets that are provided by the personal recollections in his first book, from past drug use to conversations that cannot be documented.
Beginning with his announcement for president on Saturday, the long knives will be out for Obama from three directions: Reporters, perpetuating the boom and bust cycle of a ravenous media culture, will try to make up for fawning coverage of the past. Democratic rivals want to get him out of the way. And some top Republicans think the party would have a better chance with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., as the nominee, since she is a known quantity while
Obama can try to define himself as anything he wants.
Officials at the top of both parties calculate that Obama has risen too fast to sustain his popularity in the cauldron of a presidential campaign. Democrats talk of "vapid platitudes" that could produce a "soufflÃ-effect" an implosion as journalists and activists begin probing for substance behind Obama's appealing promise of "a different kind of politics" and "a new kind of politics.""
Whew glad this was put up, or else he'd have no idea what was coming. Being that as it is, here's a few tips I'd like to give the junior Senator:
1) Regarding of the origins of your name, think of the great Bard and his phrase "A rose by any other name..." Swahii or Arabic, don't both have great traditions which should be admired just as much as a German or English? Should Giuliani or Clinton be ashamed of their backgrounds?
2) You sought to protect the idenities of the people in your books, a silent covenent between you and those people. So far no one who has been outed or identified as those people has complained that they were mischaracterized, so why should we?
3) True you said that you would finish out your term, but you're fortunate enough to be so young in the game that you haven't been put on the record as flip-flopping on bigger and more important issues like your opponents. Point that out, and remember that ultimately that promise was a bond between you and your constituents in Illinois. If you should pay for that it would be there. (But I doubt it)
4) If your candidacy is "hype" remind the media that it's the people who will decide on how serious your chances are. I think that the candidacies of Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Rommey are just as much "hype" as yours if not more so. Fact is you're is still a long shot, but as any candidate will say it's still early in the ball game, and in the latter innings the game is up for grabs.
5) Your inexperience is a factor, but not overwhelming. Clinton's years in the Senate only overshadow you by one term, and Edwards by even less. Stress that your inexperience in Washington makes you a true outsider and thusly a sincere choice to those who don't want "business as usual"
6) Appeal to your strengths: You're the most elequent speaker the Democratic party has produced since Bobby Kennedy. Rhetorically you can run rings around your opponents, and, with the exception of Edwards and Kuchinich you're ready to phrase things in terms of class warfare which will be the battleground the Bush adminstration has left for 2008 as the people begin to recognize that our foriegn and fiscal policies were based more on class than national security. Use that "frank liberalism" to your advantage and you might (stress on might) have a chance.
7) But no matter what--don't shoot yourself in the foot. Meaning that you have plenty of time in your career and a bright future ahead. Take strong stands but don't overreach and please, please don't take any advice from John Kerry. Oh please Jesus, don't do that.
Was Anna Nicole Smith murdered?
I don't know...a history of drugs, yo-yo diets, and reality TV...feed your favorite conspiracy theory. I know I will, in fact if you really wanna know who killed Anna Nicole Smith I'll tell you. His name rhymes with Bick Bheney, and he hired his aide Booter Gibby to commit the act. Why? Why the hell not? Did they really have to out Valerie Plame? Well if you really want a reason maybe it was to quiet this, or this.
Yes, and I will accept the award for first person to tie Anna Nicole's death to Dick Cheney and the Libby trial. Thank you to all my fans.
File this one under D, for despicable
Homeless people dumped on the streets by hospitals. From MSNBC.com:
"LOS ANGELES - A hospital van dropped off a paraplegic man on Skid Row, allegedly leaving him crawling in the street with nothing more than a soiled gown and a broken colostomy bag, police said."
I don't know what we need more universal health insurance, or better hospital workers. What I do know is that whoever ordered the drop and whomever was in that van need to get to be fired immediately. Someone who would do something as cold and callous as that shouldn't be allowed around the sick.
"LOS ANGELES - A hospital van dropped off a paraplegic man on Skid Row, allegedly leaving him crawling in the street with nothing more than a soiled gown and a broken colostomy bag, police said."
I don't know what we need more universal health insurance, or better hospital workers. What I do know is that whoever ordered the drop and whomever was in that van need to get to be fired immediately. Someone who would do something as cold and callous as that shouldn't be allowed around the sick.
Public Land, Private Funds
Juan Gonzalez over at the Daily News has a nice expose about a private party that Mayor Bloomberg's company had on Randalls Island last year. Problem is, Randalls Island like Central Park is public land and from what I see in the article Bloomberg LP took up the entire space:
"East Harlem residents who crossed the footbridge into Randalls Island hoping to enjoy the park were confronted during those days by an unusual police presence, metal barriers and signs that read: "Private Event - Do Not Enter."
Now usually I wouldn't care to comment about something like this. Personally I think that public lands should be leased on a periodic basic to private companies. The land should be leased at a time when the public would be less likely to use it, and the money collected can be then put into the development of the land. Sounds proper doesn't it. But as you keep reading you notice that Randalls Island Sports Foundation (the group in charge of Randalls Island) hasn't quite been on the up and up:
"Randalls Island Sports Foundation officials refused this week to answer questions about how much the company paid to use the park or what the foundation's policy is for private parties on the island... It is part of the reason why East Harlem leaders and citywide advocates are battling a City Hall plan to give 20 of Manhattan's richest private schools exclusive use on weekday afternoons for the next 20 years to most of the more than 60 new ballfields that will soon be built or renovated on the island. That contract, which was secretly hatched between the foundation and the private schools over the past year, will be voted on Wednesday by the city's Franchise and Concessions Review Committee."
From top to bottom, from the Bush Adminstration to petty-ante (in comparision) sweetheart deals like this the problem the people have with the government is the lack of transparency. It's not that we're anti-capitalist or anti-corporation, but that we're anti-secrets. Hevesi had to pay the piper--will you?
PS: Ok, that was a bit of hyperbole. I highly doubt there will be a Randalls Island-gate, but some clarity with the public on the part of Bloomberg would be nice.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Not saying that I need to do it...
...but if you ever need to hide weed from the cops then check this out.
The other stuff on the drug war is pretty interesting too.
Hat Tip: Wizard of Covenington
The other stuff on the drug war is pretty interesting too.
Hat Tip: Wizard of Covenington
Breaking news
Anna Nicole Smith has just passed away to that Playboy mansion in the sky.
My first instinct was to insert a joke here, but beyond that being in tremendously bad taste, I do have fond memories of her from my adolescent high school years. She represents a bit of childhood nostalgia; and is by far my favorite Playboy model ever. That picture is how I'll always remember her. Before Trimspa, and before that horrible E! show.
Here's to you Anna, you have to us heterosexual men far more than we ever gave to you, especially your late husband.
Yeah I know I said no jokes but what can I do? I'm a jerk.
By the way...
...in case you haven't noticed I haven't posted anything about that whole astronaut/kidnapping/love triangle thing. Why? Because I could care less.
Nope, I won't even give you a link. Go read an In Touch magazine you loser.
Nope, I won't even give you a link. Go read an In Touch magazine you loser.
An end to the Edwards/ Blogger Contraversy?
Probably not, but I like the Edwards response:
“The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.”
Get ready for the Right to complain about his wiffy language (I'm copyrighting that word "wiffy"(as in soft or waffling) by the way), but I think he makes some good points and ultimately, as long as Marcotte and McEwen keep from dropping the F-bomb, I think he'll score more points then he loses. Anyway every one will forget about this mess in a week. They'll be talking about this instead.
Fuck.
“The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.”
Get ready for the Right to complain about his wiffy language (I'm copyrighting that word "wiffy"(as in soft or waffling) by the way), but I think he makes some good points and ultimately, as long as Marcotte and McEwen keep from dropping the F-bomb, I think he'll score more points then he loses. Anyway every one will forget about this mess in a week. They'll be talking about this instead.
Fuck.
Time for Plan B
Some of my frat brothers and I take a yearly trip. This year we were thinking about going to Thailand. Then I saw this:
"While Bangkok is still abuzz over whodunit over the New Year’s Eve bombings, the southern insurgency continues to escalate. The level of killing has gone up to over two people a day, minor by Iraqi standards, but still the most lethal conflict in Southeast Asia, bar none; and it has the potential to grow dramatically in 2007. "
Yeeeeahhhh...Barcelona anyone?
"While Bangkok is still abuzz over whodunit over the New Year’s Eve bombings, the southern insurgency continues to escalate. The level of killing has gone up to over two people a day, minor by Iraqi standards, but still the most lethal conflict in Southeast Asia, bar none; and it has the potential to grow dramatically in 2007. "
Yeeeeahhhh...Barcelona anyone?
The BEST JOKE EVER
I was just checking out Media Matters, and they had this post about how McCain bloggers called Chelsea Clinton "ugly." Well I really don't know, or care about the name calling (hey, she isn't Halle Berry and I'm not Brad Pitt), but the actual joke is a killer:
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."
Thirty years from now, this will be included in the updated edition of The People's History
From Stories in America:
"I was arrested yesterday, Monday February 5th, along with 10 others in the first of many action of a sustained campaign to end the Iraq War called “The Occupation Project”Senator McCain was targeted yesterday because he is a staunch supporter of the ongoing occupation of Iraq. The message brought to McCain’s Capitol Hill office by Voices For Creative Non-Violence, CodePINK, Veterans For Peace was “Stop Funding the War!” Two time Nobel Peace Prize nominee Kathy Kelly was among those arrested. There were also coordinated actions at McCain’s offices in his homestate of Arizona, as well as other demonstrations nationwide including sit-ins at Barrak Obama’s and Dick Durbin’s offices in Chicago which resulted in 8 additional arrests."
Not quite sure why Obama was targeted, but I enjoy hearing about our people making their voices heard rather than sitting on their couch watching American Idol.
Yeah, right...
From the Denver post:
"The Rev. Ted Haggard emerged from three weeks of intensive counseling convinced he is "completely heterosexual" and told an oversight board that his sexual contact with men was limited to his accuser."
Ok here we have a dude caught with another dude smoking Meth and going at it like Rock 'Em Sock 'em robots except they're not hitting each other with their fists. He gets caught and he gets treatment...for his homosexuality. It just shows you the mentality of the Rev. Haggard's followers that they would rather have their leader get treated for his homosexuality rather than his...CRYSTAL METH ADDICTION. That's like if my fiance caught me licking whipped cream off of another woman, and sent me to Weight Watchers.
"The Rev. Ted Haggard emerged from three weeks of intensive counseling convinced he is "completely heterosexual" and told an oversight board that his sexual contact with men was limited to his accuser."
Ok here we have a dude caught with another dude smoking Meth and going at it like Rock 'Em Sock 'em robots except they're not hitting each other with their fists. He gets caught and he gets treatment...for his homosexuality. It just shows you the mentality of the Rev. Haggard's followers that they would rather have their leader get treated for his homosexuality rather than his...CRYSTAL METH ADDICTION. That's like if my fiance caught me licking whipped cream off of another woman, and sent me to Weight Watchers.
A video for our times
I came across this video by the Gorillaz, and as I was watching it I thought that it was a great metaphor for our times. It really captures the desperation and suffering of the innocent. Enjoy.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Faith
I wanted to post a response to a letter someone sent into Sully, quote:
"I've never had faith, and I've always wanted it. My father is a Baptist minister (the liberal New England kind) and I've seen the joy that belief has brought to people. I've heard stories of 'miracles' from people I know and trust. I've been through stage 3 cancer and a year of debilitating treatment. I actually thought, at the beginning of my cancer odyssey, that the upside might be some sort of revelation. A brush of death might bring my road to Damascus experience. Instead, I just had a lot of uncomfortable feelings about all the people who told me they were praying for me. I've always wanted that peace and sense of security that people who put their trust in God and Christ seem to have. But it's never been there. Ever."
I feel sorry for this person. But what I really feel sorry about is that it seems from this that they feel that faith is something that can only be found in religion or belief in a higher deity. Does faith necessarily have to come from a higher power? I don't believe so. I call myself agnostic (pretty much because I can't deny that there might (stress on might) be a God), but I think I have plenty of faith which guides my life and gives me hope. For instance I have faith that the next episodes of Prison Break and Heroes are going to rock. I have faith that I will live to see the Knicks win an NBA championship. I have faith in myself; a belief that I will publish a novel (even if I have to self-publish and sell my book on the street) and get my PhD, and, even further more, that I am a decent person who has worth. Ihave faith that the world is not going to hell, because I believe that people are primarily decent and not self-destructive. I have faith that good trumps evil. I have faith that AK does beat Ax more times than not no matter now many time people draw out against me. I have faith in the laws of averages, mathematics, physics, and, in general, science. I have faith that the smallest things can be wonderful if you really study them, and it is the appreciation of that beauty that makes life worth living.
Take it for what you will, but that's my faith.
"I've never had faith, and I've always wanted it. My father is a Baptist minister (the liberal New England kind) and I've seen the joy that belief has brought to people. I've heard stories of 'miracles' from people I know and trust. I've been through stage 3 cancer and a year of debilitating treatment. I actually thought, at the beginning of my cancer odyssey, that the upside might be some sort of revelation. A brush of death might bring my road to Damascus experience. Instead, I just had a lot of uncomfortable feelings about all the people who told me they were praying for me. I've always wanted that peace and sense of security that people who put their trust in God and Christ seem to have. But it's never been there. Ever."
I feel sorry for this person. But what I really feel sorry about is that it seems from this that they feel that faith is something that can only be found in religion or belief in a higher deity. Does faith necessarily have to come from a higher power? I don't believe so. I call myself agnostic (pretty much because I can't deny that there might (stress on might) be a God), but I think I have plenty of faith which guides my life and gives me hope. For instance I have faith that the next episodes of Prison Break and Heroes are going to rock. I have faith that I will live to see the Knicks win an NBA championship. I have faith in myself; a belief that I will publish a novel (even if I have to self-publish and sell my book on the street) and get my PhD, and, even further more, that I am a decent person who has worth. Ihave faith that the world is not going to hell, because I believe that people are primarily decent and not self-destructive. I have faith that good trumps evil. I have faith that AK does beat Ax more times than not no matter now many time people draw out against me. I have faith in the laws of averages, mathematics, physics, and, in general, science. I have faith that the smallest things can be wonderful if you really study them, and it is the appreciation of that beauty that makes life worth living.
Take it for what you will, but that's my faith.
Disgusting
This from the New York Observer, an ad against Republican State Senate canidate Craig Johnson.
PS: Johnson won. Here's one up for the side of good taste.
Iran War Watch
From the NY Daily News:
"BAGHDAD - The alleged abduction of an Iranian diplomat is threatening to escalate the tense standoff between Iran and the United States - and could swell into a major diplomatic crisis for Iraq's fragile, Shiite-dominated government. Iran has blamed the U.S. for the kidnapping - or possibly arrest - on Sunday in Baghdad of Jalal Sharafi, a second secretary at the Iranian Embassy.
Tehran said it holds the Americans responsible for his safety.
U.S. authorities deny any role in the disappearance."
But as I reported here, the US new policy towards Iran in Iraq has been:
"The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort."
Things are heating up...and not in a good way.
"BAGHDAD - The alleged abduction of an Iranian diplomat is threatening to escalate the tense standoff between Iran and the United States - and could swell into a major diplomatic crisis for Iraq's fragile, Shiite-dominated government. Iran has blamed the U.S. for the kidnapping - or possibly arrest - on Sunday in Baghdad of Jalal Sharafi, a second secretary at the Iranian Embassy.
Tehran said it holds the Americans responsible for his safety.
U.S. authorities deny any role in the disappearance."
But as I reported here, the US new policy towards Iran in Iraq has been:
"The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort."
Things are heating up...and not in a good way.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Mel Gibson's peeps...
Not just Joe Pesci and Danny Glover. Full story here about the other Christian nutjobs. There's fanatics all around.
Par for the course...
So it turns out there's a big hoopla about the Super Bowl Snickers Ad that showed two men kissing each other. More specifically, people are upset about the ad's additional web content that allowed the audience to vote on the commercial's ending. Now I saw the ad and I laughed--it seemed pretty silly--but when I looked over the web content I can certainly understand why gay rights groups would get upset, since it's obvious that some of these endings were insensitive, and perhaps downright violent.
But before everyone starts talking about how this is a political and anti-gay attack from a Pro-Republican company, I would like to mention a personal story in regards to the advertising industry.
Once I participated in a focus group for a Beck's beer series of ads. For those unfamiliar with a focus group, it's where a group of people from some particular demographic is gathered in a room, watches an ad, and gives feedback. (And for an hour or so work, the 100$ ain't too shabby). Anyway, the ads we saw were supposed to be focused on the idea of men who make choices. The one I remember the most was a guy who's at a concert with his friend and his friend's girlfriend. The friend goes to get a beer and the girlfriend comes on to the guy. His choice: does he kiss her or tell his friend. If he kisses her then she blackmails him, and if he doesn't then his friend is caught on the big screen making out with some other girl--the implication being that his friend passed up an opportunity.
The focus group voted down this one citing that it was just plain depressing. But I was wondering why in this ad (a theme continued throughout all the ads) were women cast as shrews and whores. In the other ads women were either breaking some guy's heart by sleeping their their friends (and in one sick case, their Dad), or leaving them for not being wealthy enough. Sure, beer might be consumed by a majority of guys but is this the male image of women? Is it the company's image?
But then I realized that the advertisers aren't concerned with political correctness, and their feelings about women are irrelevant . Their primary concern is creating controversy. Get enough people heated, sickened, or feeling anything strongly and you've sold the product. Regardless of what we (the focus group) thought of the ads we all agreed that we'd remember them, and sure enough I bought a Becks on the way home. What all these gay rights groups don't understand is that by protesting this ad they're only helping Mars Co. sell more candy. We're all mind-slaves to the idiot box, and, like a Chinese finger-puzzle, our revolting only strengthens our bonds.
But before everyone starts talking about how this is a political and anti-gay attack from a Pro-Republican company, I would like to mention a personal story in regards to the advertising industry.
Once I participated in a focus group for a Beck's beer series of ads. For those unfamiliar with a focus group, it's where a group of people from some particular demographic is gathered in a room, watches an ad, and gives feedback. (And for an hour or so work, the 100$ ain't too shabby). Anyway, the ads we saw were supposed to be focused on the idea of men who make choices. The one I remember the most was a guy who's at a concert with his friend and his friend's girlfriend. The friend goes to get a beer and the girlfriend comes on to the guy. His choice: does he kiss her or tell his friend. If he kisses her then she blackmails him, and if he doesn't then his friend is caught on the big screen making out with some other girl--the implication being that his friend passed up an opportunity.
The focus group voted down this one citing that it was just plain depressing. But I was wondering why in this ad (a theme continued throughout all the ads) were women cast as shrews and whores. In the other ads women were either breaking some guy's heart by sleeping their their friends (and in one sick case, their Dad), or leaving them for not being wealthy enough. Sure, beer might be consumed by a majority of guys but is this the male image of women? Is it the company's image?
But then I realized that the advertisers aren't concerned with political correctness, and their feelings about women are irrelevant . Their primary concern is creating controversy. Get enough people heated, sickened, or feeling anything strongly and you've sold the product. Regardless of what we (the focus group) thought of the ads we all agreed that we'd remember them, and sure enough I bought a Becks on the way home. What all these gay rights groups don't understand is that by protesting this ad they're only helping Mars Co. sell more candy. We're all mind-slaves to the idiot box, and, like a Chinese finger-puzzle, our revolting only strengthens our bonds.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Bush to ask for more money for wars...
From MSNBC.com:
"WASHINGTON - The Bush administration will ask for another $100 billion for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year and seek $145 billion for 2008, a senior administration official said Friday."
Fiscally this is ending up a nightmare. I just realized yesterday how much money the tax man pulls out of my check, and I keep thinking, "But I don't want it to go to the war. I really don't." Yet the GOP is supposed to be the party of so-called "fiscial responsiblity". I think we're discovering that the only difference between the two parties isn't the difference between small and big government but how the respective parties big government would like to spend your money. Personally, I'd rather have universal health coverage and free college tuition than have my well earned money go to eternal war.
"WASHINGTON - The Bush administration will ask for another $100 billion for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year and seek $145 billion for 2008, a senior administration official said Friday."
Fiscally this is ending up a nightmare. I just realized yesterday how much money the tax man pulls out of my check, and I keep thinking, "But I don't want it to go to the war. I really don't." Yet the GOP is supposed to be the party of so-called "fiscial responsiblity". I think we're discovering that the only difference between the two parties isn't the difference between small and big government but how the respective parties big government would like to spend your money. Personally, I'd rather have universal health coverage and free college tuition than have my well earned money go to eternal war.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Hannibal Rising...only to sink again
...or maybe he just bobbles on the surface.
Yesterday, along with my fiance, I attended the New York premiere of the movie Hannibal Rising, and let me tell you, the experience of attending a movie premiere was a great deal more interesting the movie. Though ironically, what made the former more interesting than the latter was mundaneness of both events.
The premiere, at the 66st Lincoln Center IMAX theater had the red carpet and the photographers, at least that's what I saw as I and the rest of the audience went up the back way. Inside we were assigned seats which were simply awful. I think they gave me the mathematically second worse seat in the house. No matter, since there was plenty of space because the whole place was at about about half capacity. All that ado for naught. Word was we were suppose to take our assigned places until the "celebrities" took their seats, but as my friend who worked at the theater said, 'what celebrities? Every one is an unknown in that film!' Which I soon discovered once the lights went down. The only dude I remembered in that whole flick was the guy who played Danny Deckchair. I could have been sitting next to Hannibal himself and wouldn't have known. Which leads me to the second thing. For a movie premiere the audience was surprisingly common. My fiance and I happen to attend many sneak previews for movies (just run a Google search--you'll be surprised how many test audiences you can participate in), and many times its just a good slice of New York, from the poorest black woman to the Fifth avenue princess with the fur coat. This audience was no different and, as one, we proceeded to immediately break the rules, stealing and bartering for better seats. I think Harvey Weinstein had some company in the back row. Oh yeah he was there too. He's pretty fat, though it could have just been wads of money he had strapped to his belly. Remember, Hollywood people are pretty eccentric.
After all that the movie itself was a pretty big let down. The kid who plays the young Hannibal was good--no Anthony Hopkins--but good. In fact the performances all around were quite solid. What was the greatest let down for me was the script, penned by Thomas Harris the creator of the Hannibal series and writer of the original novels. Usually as sophisticated as his protagonist, this story was a typical revenge flick that just happened to star Hannibal Lecter, though with a touch here and there it could have stared anyone from Bruce Wayne to Stephen Segal. You do get a sense of where Hannibal's particular 'craving' comes from, but while undeniably traumatizing, the event doesn't get visceral enough to be convincing. You keep thinking that for Hannibal to be who he is the 'event' means nothing and that, like Dexter (the Showtime character) he's just your run of the mill sociopath who hides behind a myth. Regardless, unless you're a huge fan of the series you'd be better off renting this one on a rainy day.
But then again, I'm not Rex Reed, I'm just a face in the crowd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
