Well, well, well, looks like the Senate has finally taken a step to stand up to that self-appointed little dictator Bush. Senators have been taking turns standing sentry duty this week — just to prevent Bush from circumventing the confirmation process by immediately installing people in federal posts while the chamber is in recess.
I like it! A 22 second session, presided over by a single Democratic Senator, just for procedural measure to block Bush from just naming people to appointments that require approval. It is a damn shame it has to come to this, but at least they are starting to stand up to the little despot for a change!
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
I Am Holier Than Thou! (Said One Republican to the Other)
Looks like those holier than thou Republican presidential candidates can’t keep their holy feet out of their holy mouths. Let’s see what this inauspicious crowd has been up to lately:
Three of the 10 Republican candidates have publicly proclaimed that they don’t believe in evolution. Of course, one of these three “wise men,” Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas has since dropped out of the race. Good riddance. The other two bozos, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, are still slogging it out. I wonder if they "believe" in other science like nuclear technology?
Then there is Mitt the Mormon. The Mittster seems to be trying to paint himself as the “moral” candidate. He has changed his position on gay marriage and he has indicated that he loves reading the Gideon bible. Confusing, isn’t it? What about the book of Mormon? Oh, no, we can’t have the mindless Christians out there finding out that Jesus visited the US can we? “The values of my faith are much like, or are identical to, the values of other faiths that have a Judeo-Christian philosophical background,” he said at a campaign event in New Hampshire. Well, I kind of agree with him there, I s'pose, because there is a lot of craziness in all of these faiths.
Then we have John McCain’s Mom trashing the Mormons - - although, somewhat to his credit, McCain quickly said that the “views of my mother are not necessarily mine.” Which leaves the question, just what does McCain think about Mormonism? I can guess, because he has stated on the record that the president should be a Christian because the nation was founded on Christian principles. And I can guess, too, that like most Christians he wouldn't categorize Mormons as Christians.
But let’s face it, Mormonism is about as whack-a-doo as you can get (this side of Scientology). OK, I think that most religions are nutso, but at least they are sufficiently ancient that tradition and culture play a big role in their on-going proliferation. To be a Mormon you’d have to be pretty much out to lunch. Mormonism teaches that an American named Joseph Smith was a prophet who received visions from God about how to restore the true and original Christian church. This happened in the 1800s. He supposedly found gold plates that outlined the story, but he wouldn’t let anyone see them. He dictated the book of Mormon by putting the gold plates into a hat and reading them with a magic stone. No, I am not making this shit up. There were around 1.7 million Mormons in 1960. Today there are 13 million. Damn, people are gullible. Enough about Mormon (but if you want to read more about it I heartily recommend Jon Krakauer’s excellent book Under The Banner of Heaven).
Rudy Giuliani is probably the least religious of the motley Republican crew. But he recently received the endorsement of Pat Robertson. And he got this endorsement despite his positions supporting abortion rights and gay rights. Seems the Republicans are desperate for a candidate they think stands at least a fighting chance against Hillary Clinton. But Giuliani is still a scary bastard - mostly by whom he chooses to associate with. Example? New York Rep. Pete King, a Giuliani adviser, proclaimed that there are "too many mosques in this country." So I guess it is cool for a Christian religious fanatic to bash a muslim religious fanatic?
The bottom line though is that none of these fuckers are as scary as George W. Bush, who thinks he talks to god. So even if one of the Democrats does not win (I so hope they do!) the country should be better off in late January 2009.
Three of the 10 Republican candidates have publicly proclaimed that they don’t believe in evolution. Of course, one of these three “wise men,” Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas has since dropped out of the race. Good riddance. The other two bozos, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, are still slogging it out. I wonder if they "believe" in other science like nuclear technology?
Then there is Mitt the Mormon. The Mittster seems to be trying to paint himself as the “moral” candidate. He has changed his position on gay marriage and he has indicated that he loves reading the Gideon bible. Confusing, isn’t it? What about the book of Mormon? Oh, no, we can’t have the mindless Christians out there finding out that Jesus visited the US can we? “The values of my faith are much like, or are identical to, the values of other faiths that have a Judeo-Christian philosophical background,” he said at a campaign event in New Hampshire. Well, I kind of agree with him there, I s'pose, because there is a lot of craziness in all of these faiths.
Then we have John McCain’s Mom trashing the Mormons - - although, somewhat to his credit, McCain quickly said that the “views of my mother are not necessarily mine.” Which leaves the question, just what does McCain think about Mormonism? I can guess, because he has stated on the record that the president should be a Christian because the nation was founded on Christian principles. And I can guess, too, that like most Christians he wouldn't categorize Mormons as Christians.
But let’s face it, Mormonism is about as whack-a-doo as you can get (this side of Scientology). OK, I think that most religions are nutso, but at least they are sufficiently ancient that tradition and culture play a big role in their on-going proliferation. To be a Mormon you’d have to be pretty much out to lunch. Mormonism teaches that an American named Joseph Smith was a prophet who received visions from God about how to restore the true and original Christian church. This happened in the 1800s. He supposedly found gold plates that outlined the story, but he wouldn’t let anyone see them. He dictated the book of Mormon by putting the gold plates into a hat and reading them with a magic stone. No, I am not making this shit up. There were around 1.7 million Mormons in 1960. Today there are 13 million. Damn, people are gullible. Enough about Mormon (but if you want to read more about it I heartily recommend Jon Krakauer’s excellent book Under The Banner of Heaven).
Rudy Giuliani is probably the least religious of the motley Republican crew. But he recently received the endorsement of Pat Robertson. And he got this endorsement despite his positions supporting abortion rights and gay rights. Seems the Republicans are desperate for a candidate they think stands at least a fighting chance against Hillary Clinton. But Giuliani is still a scary bastard - mostly by whom he chooses to associate with. Example? New York Rep. Pete King, a Giuliani adviser, proclaimed that there are "too many mosques in this country." So I guess it is cool for a Christian religious fanatic to bash a muslim religious fanatic?
The bottom line though is that none of these fuckers are as scary as George W. Bush, who thinks he talks to god. So even if one of the Democrats does not win (I so hope they do!) the country should be better off in late January 2009.
Monday, November 19, 2007
A Modest Proposal for Colorado
A proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution that would give legal rights to fertilized human eggs may be headed for the ballot next year, raising the prospect of a heated local debate over abortion at the same time that Democrats are gathering (t)here for their national convention.
So, this bill will give legal rights to a fertilized egg, huh? You know, I don't think this goes far enough. Why should only fertilized eggs be protected? Why shouldn't every human egg be given protection under the law because every egg is a potential human being?
That mean little girls should be encouraged to have sex as soon as they begin to menstruate. Otherwise they are just murdering all of those potential human beings every time they get their period.
And heck, why stop with eggs? I think semen should be protected under the law, too! That would make you a mass murderer every time you masturbate.
Now that is a notion that could win me support from the Catholics, isn't it?
So, this bill will give legal rights to a fertilized egg, huh? You know, I don't think this goes far enough. Why should only fertilized eggs be protected? Why shouldn't every human egg be given protection under the law because every egg is a potential human being?
That mean little girls should be encouraged to have sex as soon as they begin to menstruate. Otherwise they are just murdering all of those potential human beings every time they get their period.
And heck, why stop with eggs? I think semen should be protected under the law, too! That would make you a mass murderer every time you masturbate.
Now that is a notion that could win me support from the Catholics, isn't it?
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Christianity: World's Largest Case of Stockholm Syndrome
I ran across this interesting treatise calling organized religion, and Christianity in particular, the world's largest undiagnosed, and untreated, case of Stockholm Syndrome.
I had never thought of it that way, but the author makes an interesting case. If true, then it is reasonable to think of your religious friends as being in the control of a psychosis. Which kinda makes some of them easier to understand, doesn't it?
I had never thought of it that way, but the author makes an interesting case. If true, then it is reasonable to think of your religious friends as being in the control of a psychosis. Which kinda makes some of them easier to understand, doesn't it?
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
You Really Should Read James Carroll 's Columns
Today I want to promote the columns of James Carroll, columnist for the Boston Globe. He almost always seems to hit the nail spot on its head and get to the heart of matters. For example, consider his most recent column on Turkey and the war in Iraq:
HERE IN TURKEY, Condoleezza Rice offered sage advice to Turkish leaders ahead of the Washington meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Recep Tayip Erdogan. "Effective action means action that can deal with the threat," she said Friday, but won't "make the situation worse." The Turkish military, with a deployed force of up to 100,000 soldiers, is poised to attack positions of militant Kurdish separatist fighters in the Kandil Mountains of northern Iraq. Their cross-border forays into Turkey over the last five weeks have killed dozens of Turks, both soldiers and civilians. Iraqi Kurds tacitly support their fellow Kurds, and Americans have done nothing to dissuade either group. Erdogan is under enormous pressure to respond to such attacks, but Rice highlighted "the need to look for an effective strategy, not just one that's going to strike out, somehow, and not deal with the problem."
As viewed from Turkey, American responses throughout this crisis range from duplicity to double standards. The cautionary message that Rice conveyed to her foreign ministry counterparts here, and that Bush is expected to echo, defines the exact opposite of policies pursued to this day by the Bush administration itself. The conditions that created the terrible prospect facing Turkey - an immediate war with rebel Kurds based in Iraq -- have been wholly manufactured in Washington, which displays an unending capacity to "make the situation worse." Turkey, a staunch US ally, urged restraint four-and-a-half years ago when Bush rolled his dice in Iraq. But when the gamble was lost, it was nations in the Middle East - not America - that paid. Turkey's turn to pony up has come.
The mood here is somber because when war begins, it will be real. Turks understand that the United States, thousands of miles away, is only virtually at war. US soldiers are killing and being killed, to be sure. Yet the main result of their presence as an occupation force has been to ignite and sustain a set of civil wars - now including Turkey's - that have nothing to do with America. Indeed, despite the neo-con rhetoric of "fight them there instead of here," the US occupation of Iraq defends against no direct threat to America. As Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were a paranoid myth, so is the much-hyped dread of "Islamofascism," a phenomenon that, if it did exist, would threaten Islamic peoples and values far more than anything in the West. The problem, of course, is that militant Islamic extremists, however defined, are empowered by the US occupation, not disarmed. Iraq has become a West Point for suicide bombers. Even then, the threat remains local. And although all the belligerents target the American occupiers, and will do so as long as the occupation continues, America has no authentic enemy among Iraq's sectarian belligerents. Turkey does.
In the United States, meanwhile, confusion reigns. After effectively voting against the Iraq occupation last November; after denouncing it in successive polls; after seeing the Bush administration reject its own review panel's call for a shift to diplomacy; after the touted "surge" led to more of the same; after the shock of current oil prices made the real Bush agenda in Iraq plainer ever; and after Dick Cheney and George Bush made the mad prospect of attack on Iran seem possible - the American public has sunk into a dispirited, and perhaps guilt-induced, detachment from the entire mess. (Again last week, Congressional Democrats, debating appropriations, dared look the Pentagon in the eye - and promptly blinked.) No such detachment is possible here in Turkey.
Before Bush's war changed everything in this region, Turkish hopes were high. An expansive European Union beckoned. Turks were poised to play a historic role as the bridge between Islam and the West. But then they found that, in the "us against them" war on terror, no such bridge was wanted. Europe got nervous about Turks already in its cities, and lately European countries have taken actions Turkey regards as friendly to the Kurdish rebels it is fighting. Now come warnings that, if Turkey responds to its made-in-Washington terror threat exactly as Washington does - "to strike out, somehow" - then Turkey can kiss EU admission goodbye.
The question is sharper here than at home: How much higher can the rubble pile of Bush's wreckage mount before Americans emerge from the stupor of shame to stop him?
That is a helluva a good question: when will the US emerge from our stupor of shame?
HERE IN TURKEY, Condoleezza Rice offered sage advice to Turkish leaders ahead of the Washington meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Recep Tayip Erdogan. "Effective action means action that can deal with the threat," she said Friday, but won't "make the situation worse." The Turkish military, with a deployed force of up to 100,000 soldiers, is poised to attack positions of militant Kurdish separatist fighters in the Kandil Mountains of northern Iraq. Their cross-border forays into Turkey over the last five weeks have killed dozens of Turks, both soldiers and civilians. Iraqi Kurds tacitly support their fellow Kurds, and Americans have done nothing to dissuade either group. Erdogan is under enormous pressure to respond to such attacks, but Rice highlighted "the need to look for an effective strategy, not just one that's going to strike out, somehow, and not deal with the problem."
As viewed from Turkey, American responses throughout this crisis range from duplicity to double standards. The cautionary message that Rice conveyed to her foreign ministry counterparts here, and that Bush is expected to echo, defines the exact opposite of policies pursued to this day by the Bush administration itself. The conditions that created the terrible prospect facing Turkey - an immediate war with rebel Kurds based in Iraq -- have been wholly manufactured in Washington, which displays an unending capacity to "make the situation worse." Turkey, a staunch US ally, urged restraint four-and-a-half years ago when Bush rolled his dice in Iraq. But when the gamble was lost, it was nations in the Middle East - not America - that paid. Turkey's turn to pony up has come.
The mood here is somber because when war begins, it will be real. Turks understand that the United States, thousands of miles away, is only virtually at war. US soldiers are killing and being killed, to be sure. Yet the main result of their presence as an occupation force has been to ignite and sustain a set of civil wars - now including Turkey's - that have nothing to do with America. Indeed, despite the neo-con rhetoric of "fight them there instead of here," the US occupation of Iraq defends against no direct threat to America. As Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were a paranoid myth, so is the much-hyped dread of "Islamofascism," a phenomenon that, if it did exist, would threaten Islamic peoples and values far more than anything in the West. The problem, of course, is that militant Islamic extremists, however defined, are empowered by the US occupation, not disarmed. Iraq has become a West Point for suicide bombers. Even then, the threat remains local. And although all the belligerents target the American occupiers, and will do so as long as the occupation continues, America has no authentic enemy among Iraq's sectarian belligerents. Turkey does.
In the United States, meanwhile, confusion reigns. After effectively voting against the Iraq occupation last November; after denouncing it in successive polls; after seeing the Bush administration reject its own review panel's call for a shift to diplomacy; after the touted "surge" led to more of the same; after the shock of current oil prices made the real Bush agenda in Iraq plainer ever; and after Dick Cheney and George Bush made the mad prospect of attack on Iran seem possible - the American public has sunk into a dispirited, and perhaps guilt-induced, detachment from the entire mess. (Again last week, Congressional Democrats, debating appropriations, dared look the Pentagon in the eye - and promptly blinked.) No such detachment is possible here in Turkey.
Before Bush's war changed everything in this region, Turkish hopes were high. An expansive European Union beckoned. Turks were poised to play a historic role as the bridge between Islam and the West. But then they found that, in the "us against them" war on terror, no such bridge was wanted. Europe got nervous about Turks already in its cities, and lately European countries have taken actions Turkey regards as friendly to the Kurdish rebels it is fighting. Now come warnings that, if Turkey responds to its made-in-Washington terror threat exactly as Washington does - "to strike out, somehow" - then Turkey can kiss EU admission goodbye.
The question is sharper here than at home: How much higher can the rubble pile of Bush's wreckage mount before Americans emerge from the stupor of shame to stop him?
That is a helluva a good question: when will the US emerge from our stupor of shame?
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
How Can We Continue to Support Pakistan?
I feel like I am hallucinating. Musharraf has suspended Pakistan's consitution and essentially declared martial law. This would seem to run counter to the expressed goal of the administration of George W. Bush, that being the further spread of democracy throughout the world. Yet, there is no unilateral condemnation of this attack of democracy from the Bush administration. And it would appear that the US will continue to funnel loads of money to Pakistan as a "partner" in the war on terror.
How fucking crazy is that? Pakistan is imprisoning opposition leaders. Pakistani police beat and arrested lawyers protesting Musharraf's terroristic power-grab. And the US contributes to it by continuing to send funds for the Pakistani military?
Truly, any sentient human being at this point should be able to condemn the Bush administration as muddled and having no clear focus. Anyone still supporting Bush at this point must be a petrified turd lacking a brainstem... but I guess there are more of those laying about than I would imagine, huh?
How fucking crazy is that? Pakistan is imprisoning opposition leaders. Pakistani police beat and arrested lawyers protesting Musharraf's terroristic power-grab. And the US contributes to it by continuing to send funds for the Pakistani military?
Truly, any sentient human being at this point should be able to condemn the Bush administration as muddled and having no clear focus. Anyone still supporting Bush at this point must be a petrified turd lacking a brainstem... but I guess there are more of those laying about than I would imagine, huh?
Friday, November 2, 2007
Another Stupid Bush Tactic
Have you been following the Mukasey nomination hearings? Earlier this week, Bush's nominee for Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, refused to answer Senator's questions about whether he considers waterboarding torture. IMHO this is a perfectly legitimate question and any Attorney General nominee should be asked the question... and expected to answer it.
What was Bush's response? He said, and I quote, "If the Senate Judiciary Committee were to block Judge Mukasey on these grounds, they would set a new standard for confirmation that could not be met by any responsible nominee for attorney general," Bush said in a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
"That would guarantee that America would have no attorney general during this time of war," the president said.
It is obvious that this president does not like America. He does not like the checks and balances of a three branch government where each branch is equal. He does not like our Constitution. He is an enemy of freedom. And if he doesn't get his way, well, then he is taking his ball and going home.
January 2009 cannot come soon enough!
What was Bush's response? He said, and I quote, "If the Senate Judiciary Committee were to block Judge Mukasey on these grounds, they would set a new standard for confirmation that could not be met by any responsible nominee for attorney general," Bush said in a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
"That would guarantee that America would have no attorney general during this time of war," the president said.
It is obvious that this president does not like America. He does not like the checks and balances of a three branch government where each branch is equal. He does not like our Constitution. He is an enemy of freedom. And if he doesn't get his way, well, then he is taking his ball and going home.
January 2009 cannot come soon enough!
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Yosemite McCain
When talking about Osama Bin Laden, John McCain has previously stated, in one of the many debates, "He is going to pay and he will die" . . . "We will bring him to justice" . . . "I will follow him to the gates of hell."
Then last Tuesday (October 23, 2007), during a speach at Thompson Center Arms, a subsidiary of Smith & Wesson, McCain elabtorated saying: "I will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell and I will shoot him with your products."
This is not the type of thing I want a presidential candidate, let alone a president of the USA, to say. OK, so Bush has lowered the level of discourse and eloquence that we expect in a president with his continual, almost daily mangling of the English language and absurd comments. But I want Bush to be an aberration, not the first in a line of idiots.
And then, to make matters worse, the two-faced idiot (that would be McCain) later told reporters he was joking. He must think it is one helluva funny joke if he keeps telling versions of it over and over.
What's next? I guess if he speaks in Detroit he'll say something like: "I will drive down to the gates of hell and run Osama Bin Laden over with your SUVs."
Or if he speaks a Bob Jones University he can say "I will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell and lynch him just like youse guys like."
What do you think? Let's all help Yosemite McCain write his upcoming speeches... do you have any ideas on how he can tweak this compelling message for other audiences?
Then last Tuesday (October 23, 2007), during a speach at Thompson Center Arms, a subsidiary of Smith & Wesson, McCain elabtorated saying: "I will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell and I will shoot him with your products."
This is not the type of thing I want a presidential candidate, let alone a president of the USA, to say. OK, so Bush has lowered the level of discourse and eloquence that we expect in a president with his continual, almost daily mangling of the English language and absurd comments. But I want Bush to be an aberration, not the first in a line of idiots.
And then, to make matters worse, the two-faced idiot (that would be McCain) later told reporters he was joking. He must think it is one helluva funny joke if he keeps telling versions of it over and over.
What's next? I guess if he speaks in Detroit he'll say something like: "I will drive down to the gates of hell and run Osama Bin Laden over with your SUVs."
Or if he speaks a Bob Jones University he can say "I will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell and lynch him just like youse guys like."
What do you think? Let's all help Yosemite McCain write his upcoming speeches... do you have any ideas on how he can tweak this compelling message for other audiences?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
