Friday, February 27, 2004
- One more note about gay marriage, and then I'm going to get off the topic.
I've stated before that I support the idea in theory. However, there's a caveat:
I am reluctant to acknowledge the idea that man-man and woman-woman relationships are equal to traditional relationships when it comes to parenting.
Man and woman, working together as one parental unit, create a balance that is hard to replicate when you remove one. They are Yin and Yang. I don't know if Yin and Yin would work.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret: men and women are different. You wouldn't know it by the recent trend towards making women more masculine and femininizing men, but the two genders have fundamental differences.
"Man = Woman" does not apply in all cases. Men cannot do everything a woman can do, although exceptions exist. Women cannot do everything a man can do, although exceptions exist.
My belief is that you have to have both, or at least someone to fill each role. I know it's fun to think that a family does not need a man around (Hi Rosie!), but this simply isn't the case.
- While we're on the subject, I think one of the worst events to ever happen to the family is feminism. Not because women need to be subservient to men, or that no woman should work or any other silliness like that. No, it's simply because we now have both parental members focusing on careers, leaving no one devoted to the children in these households.
In fact, a woman devoting her life solely to her children is discouraged in today's society. Such woman are being viewed as "not being independent enough" or "having to rely on a man". They endure subtle taunts from "enlightened" woman who find the idea of entering into an equal partnership with a man- that is, divide up responsibilities amongst the man and woman, even possibly (gasp, shudder) having the woman cook and clean- as a choice only a weak willed or self-identity lacking woman would ever choose.
This is nothing less than hate speech against the housewife and the traditional family.
I have no desire to go back to the time in which women were not allowed to own property, or were barred from most professions. What I do believe in is that somebody has to be there for our children. If it's the female, fine. If it's the male, fine. I plan on writing screenplays from home, so this very well might be the road I travel. I don't really care who does it, as long as it's somebody.
If a two-career household cannot be avoided, or is desired too greatly, it's not the end of the world. It just requires that both parents take upon themselves the extra responsibility to stay involved and help teach their children when they are present.
Sadly, that nasty 'r' word- responsibility- has become more profane than the 'f' word.
I've stated before that I support the idea in theory. However, there's a caveat:
I am reluctant to acknowledge the idea that man-man and woman-woman relationships are equal to traditional relationships when it comes to parenting.
Man and woman, working together as one parental unit, create a balance that is hard to replicate when you remove one. They are Yin and Yang. I don't know if Yin and Yin would work.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret: men and women are different. You wouldn't know it by the recent trend towards making women more masculine and femininizing men, but the two genders have fundamental differences.
"Man = Woman" does not apply in all cases. Men cannot do everything a woman can do, although exceptions exist. Women cannot do everything a man can do, although exceptions exist.
My belief is that you have to have both, or at least someone to fill each role. I know it's fun to think that a family does not need a man around (Hi Rosie!), but this simply isn't the case.
- While we're on the subject, I think one of the worst events to ever happen to the family is feminism. Not because women need to be subservient to men, or that no woman should work or any other silliness like that. No, it's simply because we now have both parental members focusing on careers, leaving no one devoted to the children in these households.
In fact, a woman devoting her life solely to her children is discouraged in today's society. Such woman are being viewed as "not being independent enough" or "having to rely on a man". They endure subtle taunts from "enlightened" woman who find the idea of entering into an equal partnership with a man- that is, divide up responsibilities amongst the man and woman, even possibly (gasp, shudder) having the woman cook and clean- as a choice only a weak willed or self-identity lacking woman would ever choose.
This is nothing less than hate speech against the housewife and the traditional family.
I have no desire to go back to the time in which women were not allowed to own property, or were barred from most professions. What I do believe in is that somebody has to be there for our children. If it's the female, fine. If it's the male, fine. I plan on writing screenplays from home, so this very well might be the road I travel. I don't really care who does it, as long as it's somebody.
If a two-career household cannot be avoided, or is desired too greatly, it's not the end of the world. It just requires that both parents take upon themselves the extra responsibility to stay involved and help teach their children when they are present.
Sadly, that nasty 'r' word- responsibility- has become more profane than the 'f' word.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
For some reason, I seem to be very interested in the San Francisco issue, where a judge has refused to order an injuction halting the gay marriages (illegal in California via voter referdendum).
This is partly because the issue is so polarizing. It's also an interesting issue because there are so many stupid people involved in this process.
Take the mayor of San Francisco, for instance. He started this whole mess under the pretext that he was merely obeying the California Constitution, one which does not support the man and woman definition of marriage due to equal rights violations.
First, let's see if he has a point.
The California Constitution has only one clause that could possibly support Mayor Gavin Newsom's argument; Article I, Section 7b. It states the following...
"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked."
Does this clause give homosexuals the right to marry in California?
The answer is no.
Hetereosexuals are granted the privilage of marriage on the exact same terms as homosexuals. That is, they may only marry one member of the opposite sex. This definition of marriage, passed into law directly by the people of California is enforced upon all citizens. Therefore, it is not an equal rights violation.
The more obvious problem with Newsom's actions is that the governing body he uses to defend them- the California Constitution- is the very body that clearly forbids his behavior.
Article 3, Section 3.5:
"An administrative agency, including an administrative
agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no
power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a
statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an
appellate court has made a determination that such statute is
unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a
statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit
the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a
determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by
federal law or federal regulations."
This leaves Newsom not a leg to stand on.
It also invalidates the entire homosexual lobby's movement in that state.
Their only option left is to declare that the government of California has no right to define an institution for its constituents, even if that definition was given by its own people.
There is absolutely no legal precedent for that judgement.
If the Supreme Court of California chooses to ignore all of this, and declare the "one man, one woman" definition of marriage to be unconstitutional, severe consequences will result. I know certain lobbyists don't want to acknowledge that their actions have legal consequences, and that using the argument that this movement will lead to bigamy is a "red herring". I also know that these people are selfish.
Throwing out the right of a government to define marriage will make marriage meaningless, for if one of its terms can be redefined, then ALL of its terms can be redefined. This isn't crazy talk. I'm not even moralizing here. I'm stating that the people of California will no longer have a legal basis from which to defend itself from bigamist and incestual marriage. For if "one man, one woman" violates equal rights, then so does "two people." That, too, discriminates against one man, two woman groups. Or one woman, two man groups. Or three guys, five girls.
Look, I have stated before that I support gay marriage. I believe that gay couples, if truly committed to the idea of monogomy and the family unit, can be a boon to society. However, I cannot and will not support this perversion of the law.
Marriage isn't a right. It's a way to encourage relationships a society finds healthy and worthwhile, and discourage those it does not. That's right, society is discouraging homosexuality. It has every right to do so. Homosexuals have not yet proven to the people that their relationships are equal to hetereosexual relationships in terms of what they can contribute to society.
If they want to do so, they're going to have to show that they respect the institution. If two gay people want to commit to each other while still leading an open sexual life, that couple is seeking to enter into the wrong institution. If another gay couple is trying to get married so that they will have society's approval, that's still the wrong reason.
However, if two homosexuals truly love each other, want to join their lives together forever while forsaking all others, and start a family out of love and not to show that they can, then may those couples have entrance into marriage, for they have a true need for it.
Of course, we could always redefine marriage to eliminate all that unneccesary "forsake all others" nonsense. After all, that's denying Hugh Hefner the right to marry his six girlfriends if he so chooses.
That would be intolerant of us.
This is partly because the issue is so polarizing. It's also an interesting issue because there are so many stupid people involved in this process.
Take the mayor of San Francisco, for instance. He started this whole mess under the pretext that he was merely obeying the California Constitution, one which does not support the man and woman definition of marriage due to equal rights violations.
First, let's see if he has a point.
The California Constitution has only one clause that could possibly support Mayor Gavin Newsom's argument; Article I, Section 7b. It states the following...
"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked."
Does this clause give homosexuals the right to marry in California?
The answer is no.
Hetereosexuals are granted the privilage of marriage on the exact same terms as homosexuals. That is, they may only marry one member of the opposite sex. This definition of marriage, passed into law directly by the people of California is enforced upon all citizens. Therefore, it is not an equal rights violation.
The more obvious problem with Newsom's actions is that the governing body he uses to defend them- the California Constitution- is the very body that clearly forbids his behavior.
Article 3, Section 3.5:
"An administrative agency, including an administrative
agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no
power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a
statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an
appellate court has made a determination that such statute is
unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a
statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit
the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a
determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by
federal law or federal regulations."
This leaves Newsom not a leg to stand on.
It also invalidates the entire homosexual lobby's movement in that state.
Their only option left is to declare that the government of California has no right to define an institution for its constituents, even if that definition was given by its own people.
There is absolutely no legal precedent for that judgement.
If the Supreme Court of California chooses to ignore all of this, and declare the "one man, one woman" definition of marriage to be unconstitutional, severe consequences will result. I know certain lobbyists don't want to acknowledge that their actions have legal consequences, and that using the argument that this movement will lead to bigamy is a "red herring". I also know that these people are selfish.
Throwing out the right of a government to define marriage will make marriage meaningless, for if one of its terms can be redefined, then ALL of its terms can be redefined. This isn't crazy talk. I'm not even moralizing here. I'm stating that the people of California will no longer have a legal basis from which to defend itself from bigamist and incestual marriage. For if "one man, one woman" violates equal rights, then so does "two people." That, too, discriminates against one man, two woman groups. Or one woman, two man groups. Or three guys, five girls.
Look, I have stated before that I support gay marriage. I believe that gay couples, if truly committed to the idea of monogomy and the family unit, can be a boon to society. However, I cannot and will not support this perversion of the law.
Marriage isn't a right. It's a way to encourage relationships a society finds healthy and worthwhile, and discourage those it does not. That's right, society is discouraging homosexuality. It has every right to do so. Homosexuals have not yet proven to the people that their relationships are equal to hetereosexual relationships in terms of what they can contribute to society.
If they want to do so, they're going to have to show that they respect the institution. If two gay people want to commit to each other while still leading an open sexual life, that couple is seeking to enter into the wrong institution. If another gay couple is trying to get married so that they will have society's approval, that's still the wrong reason.
However, if two homosexuals truly love each other, want to join their lives together forever while forsaking all others, and start a family out of love and not to show that they can, then may those couples have entrance into marriage, for they have a true need for it.
Of course, we could always redefine marriage to eliminate all that unneccesary "forsake all others" nonsense. After all, that's denying Hugh Hefner the right to marry his six girlfriends if he so chooses.
That would be intolerant of us.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
I was browsing the net as always tonight, responding to various people and doing research in order to better educate my viewpoint. In the process, I happened to come across this. It's a sampling of user comments on www.democraticunderground.com. Granted, it's not even close to being a representation of the entire Democratic Party. However, it is scary to realize that the people behind these moronic comments have the power to cancel out YOUR vote.
Here we go.
The 10 Worst Quotes From The Democratic Underground for 2003.
10) "A war of real information and real issues alone is doomed to fail. The Texas Fascist Party carries elections by drawing the hordes of stupid white men who are itching to 'get even' for decades of imagined slights. Arguing issues with these people is pointless.
These people are not interested in issues, social justice, or even the fact that the US government will go bankrupt in a decade. All they want is to get back at welfare mothers, blacks, Arabs, immigrants, liberals, feminists, and intellectuals for shrinking their paychecks and threatening their masculinity. They are a nation of psychopaths created and sustained by right-wing hatred and are utterly beyond the limits of reason.
The way to approach this vital segment of the electorate is not with issues but rather with propaganda. Speak to their hatred and direct it not towards the goals of the Texas Fascist Party but rather against them. Make them hate not liberals for raising taxes but rather offshoring that deprives them of their jobs. Make them hate big government which takes from hard working people such as themselves and gives it to the rich. Chanelling hatred, not addressing issues, is the challenge for resistance propagandists." -- Resistance Is Futile
--
9) "Doesn't a part of you wish that Queasy and Duh-day were alive?
I'll admit they're scum and rightfully so, but anything that lands as even more humiliation on W's grotesque shrivelled face is that much the better.
It's sad, really, that as despicable as they are, Saddam's family seems to be the lesser of two evils when you compare them to the wretched little b*stard* occupying the White House and destroying America in the process..." -- thermodynamic
--
8) "I'm assuming (Michael Kelly's) family won't be reading this, but frankly, I'm gratified to learn that he paid the ultimate price for his sins of warmongering. This guy was scum. My first thoughts on seeing the thread were that I hoped it was that scum Post warmongering writer. My second thought was that it was a late April Fool's joke. But no false sadness from me, only happiness that someone as mean and vicious as Mike Kelly got what was coming. As for all the posts about "coming by his views honestly" and "not speaking ill of the dead", congratulations on taking the high road guys, but *ssholes like Kelly have to die sometime, and I prefer it is as a direct result of their sins. But what do I know, I'm happy that Reagan has Alzheimers and that * has access to pretzels. I wish death on my enemies, and these guys are enemies." -- jackswift on the death of Michael Kelly in Iraq
--
7) "well...I guess I'm "supposed" to feel good about (Saddam being captured) Because he is a "brutal dictator" who "killed thousands of his own people."
But he was also a guy who posed no threat to us. And a guy who managed to keep a hostile area of the world relatively sedate (albeith through brutal tactics). And a guy who was a secular muslim leader instead of a hardcore fundamentalist.
But I think in cold, crass political terms. I think it's good for Bush so I think it's bad for me. So I'm not happy, and I don't care if it's politically incorrect to say so." -- Magic Rat
--
6) "...We know the recall's about getting a Repub Gov. in office in order to make California easier to steal, or make the 2004 Election at least close ENOUGH to steal our precious Electoral votes. We know it has nothing to do with Gray Davis being crummy, really.
...I think Rove's got something particularly nasty up his sleeve this time that will change Arnold's fortunes dramatically. I mean, he's about to subject himself and Maria to more salient stories about what he calls "getting my helmet polished." This could be humiliating to him, even before he loses. But what if he "knew" the fix was in?
...My tinfoil hat theory is this:
ROVE/BUSH/CHENEY ARE GOING TO INSTIGATE SOME MIHOP (made it happen on purpose) TERROR ATTACK, BIO ATTACK IN THE US, MAYBE CALIFORNIA, WHEREBY CALIFORNIANS WILL BE CLAMORING FOR A "STRONG" GOVERNOR TO PROTECT US! THEY CAN FINISH THE JOB ENRON STARTED, AND GET A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR TO HAND THEM THE STATE IN 2004." -- CaptainMidnight
--
5) "The capture of Saddam is all fine and good, but does how does this help someone facing a bleak Christmas because they lost their job? How does this help someone with an illness who just lost their insurance coverage? How does this help someone who's underemployed, working several jobs and struggling to pay the mortgage? It just don't make me any money." -- bushwentawol
--
4) "..I expect that the A**HOLES and Sons of B****ES at www.rightwingnews.com will try to smear us first with stupid EDITED POSTS then insist that the feds arrest all of us as traitors. Typical of a Nazi group. Typical of low-life Fascist and Racist Pigs. They will try to scare us off. These people fear free speech because it tears their mask off. I have ONE MESSAGE for them...
Well, you ba****ds, bring it on. I ain't afraid of your f***in jails. Bring it on, you worthless bunches of s**t! You saltless wastes of human skin!
Turn me in! Have ME arrested! Go ahead, you idiots! Bug my telephones! Follow me! Spy on me! Track me down through the internet! VIOLATE my constitutional rights! I hate this stupid oil-war fever! NO WAR for BIG OIL AND SUVs! NO WAR! The ROTUS SUCKS! ARREST ME for giving that chimpanzee the "finger!!" THE ROTUS SUCKS!
And so does his useless, worthless,politically motivated war! And so do YOU, you products of a bowel movement! You are a worthless bunch of morons who want to feed us all to the cannons while you (chickenhawks ) sit next to your swimming pools! Have ME arrested for SPEAKING OUT! Bring it on! Turn ME in as a traitor to your Joe McCarthy Homeland Security, you goose-stepping, "HEIL HITLER" fools!
I hereby challenge you!
I GUARANTEE that you a**holes will regret the day you were born if you mess with this black woman.
Steal and PRINT THIS POST, if you dare!
(Forgive me Lord--this really made me mad!)" -- brensgrrl
--
3) "When the 2nd plane hit the WTC I remember thinking......OMG, he's got his war now. Then, the next day or the day after that, when the roar of "war with Iraq and Afganistan" really got going I couldn't help but think "well Bush II get's to finish Daddy's work now". As for when the plane hit the Pentagon and the other plane went down in that field in Penn I screamed at the TV, "Get the WH, for God's sake you missed the WH." I invented some cuss words on that one. There were times before 9/11 as well as in the days to follow that the boy king mentioned Saddam "tried to kill my Dad" and couldn't help but scream at the TV each time, "Well, give him a medal for effort anyway." -- LiberalLibra
--
2) "What we MUST realize in order to win - Americans are stupid and uninformed. This is very important because in order to win we must understand the way the average American thinks. I'm afraid WE have nothing in common with them.
I came to the two following conclusions when I saw the large number of people who voted for Bush back in 2000.
#1 - I would dare to assume that most of us here are in the upper 1%-20% of the population intelligence-wise. We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve. WE are not the norm. The Republicans understand that the average American is not very bright. They cater and pander to the masses. The Democratic Party tries to appeal to the population about "issues" that these people just don't understand.
I've heard it said that the reason that Clinton's sex scandal resonated so strongly among "the people" was because it was a scandal that the average American understood. The average person can't understand a financial scandal.
In addition, people of average or lower intelligence tend to not be as logical or reasoned as those of higher intelligence - they deal with emotion. Therefore they are more likely to get riled up about someone burning a flag rather than a illogical tax cut.
#2 - The majority of people do not read the newspaper OR listen to the news, CNN, etc. Therefore -they get their news from the Tonight Show, Letterman, Oprah and Saturday Night Live. Or, they get their news from talking to their co-workers at the water cooler.
Also, for the few people who DO listen to the news - who do they hear it from? Fox News and Bill O'Reilly are the most popular. Most newspapers and media outlets are owned by Republicans.
THIS is what we are fighting against people. In order to win we will need to start pandering to the masses." -- Janekat
--
1) "I realize that not every GI Joe was 100peeercent behind Prseeedent Booosh going into this war; but I do know that that is what an overwhelming number of them and their famlies screamed in the face of protesters who were trying to protect these kids. Well, there is more than one way to be "dead" for your country. They are not only not accompishing squat in Iraq, they are doing crap nothing for the safety, defense of the US of A over there directly. But "indirectly" they are doing a lot.
The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a sh*t hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly--i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum. It is obscene, Barbie Bush, how other sons (of much nobler blood) have to die to save us from your Rosemary's Baby spawn and his ungodly cohorts." -- Starpass
People, realize that apathy towards what goes on in this country comes at a price. The price is that fanatics on both sides of the aisle are left unchecked by the resonable center. If the moderates in this counter continue to not pay attention, then politicians will have no choice but to cater to the extremists in this country. If they're the only ones who care enough to vote, then they'll be the ones who choose where we go.
Care. Learn. Decide. For the sake of this country.
Here we go.
The 10 Worst Quotes From The Democratic Underground for 2003.
10) "A war of real information and real issues alone is doomed to fail. The Texas Fascist Party carries elections by drawing the hordes of stupid white men who are itching to 'get even' for decades of imagined slights. Arguing issues with these people is pointless.
These people are not interested in issues, social justice, or even the fact that the US government will go bankrupt in a decade. All they want is to get back at welfare mothers, blacks, Arabs, immigrants, liberals, feminists, and intellectuals for shrinking their paychecks and threatening their masculinity. They are a nation of psychopaths created and sustained by right-wing hatred and are utterly beyond the limits of reason.
The way to approach this vital segment of the electorate is not with issues but rather with propaganda. Speak to their hatred and direct it not towards the goals of the Texas Fascist Party but rather against them. Make them hate not liberals for raising taxes but rather offshoring that deprives them of their jobs. Make them hate big government which takes from hard working people such as themselves and gives it to the rich. Chanelling hatred, not addressing issues, is the challenge for resistance propagandists." -- Resistance Is Futile
--
9) "Doesn't a part of you wish that Queasy and Duh-day were alive?
I'll admit they're scum and rightfully so, but anything that lands as even more humiliation on W's grotesque shrivelled face is that much the better.
It's sad, really, that as despicable as they are, Saddam's family seems to be the lesser of two evils when you compare them to the wretched little b*stard* occupying the White House and destroying America in the process..." -- thermodynamic
--
8) "I'm assuming (Michael Kelly's) family won't be reading this, but frankly, I'm gratified to learn that he paid the ultimate price for his sins of warmongering. This guy was scum. My first thoughts on seeing the thread were that I hoped it was that scum Post warmongering writer. My second thought was that it was a late April Fool's joke. But no false sadness from me, only happiness that someone as mean and vicious as Mike Kelly got what was coming. As for all the posts about "coming by his views honestly" and "not speaking ill of the dead", congratulations on taking the high road guys, but *ssholes like Kelly have to die sometime, and I prefer it is as a direct result of their sins. But what do I know, I'm happy that Reagan has Alzheimers and that * has access to pretzels. I wish death on my enemies, and these guys are enemies." -- jackswift on the death of Michael Kelly in Iraq
--
7) "well...I guess I'm "supposed" to feel good about (Saddam being captured) Because he is a "brutal dictator" who "killed thousands of his own people."
But he was also a guy who posed no threat to us. And a guy who managed to keep a hostile area of the world relatively sedate (albeith through brutal tactics). And a guy who was a secular muslim leader instead of a hardcore fundamentalist.
But I think in cold, crass political terms. I think it's good for Bush so I think it's bad for me. So I'm not happy, and I don't care if it's politically incorrect to say so." -- Magic Rat
--
6) "...We know the recall's about getting a Repub Gov. in office in order to make California easier to steal, or make the 2004 Election at least close ENOUGH to steal our precious Electoral votes. We know it has nothing to do with Gray Davis being crummy, really.
...I think Rove's got something particularly nasty up his sleeve this time that will change Arnold's fortunes dramatically. I mean, he's about to subject himself and Maria to more salient stories about what he calls "getting my helmet polished." This could be humiliating to him, even before he loses. But what if he "knew" the fix was in?
...My tinfoil hat theory is this:
ROVE/BUSH/CHENEY ARE GOING TO INSTIGATE SOME MIHOP (made it happen on purpose) TERROR ATTACK, BIO ATTACK IN THE US, MAYBE CALIFORNIA, WHEREBY CALIFORNIANS WILL BE CLAMORING FOR A "STRONG" GOVERNOR TO PROTECT US! THEY CAN FINISH THE JOB ENRON STARTED, AND GET A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR TO HAND THEM THE STATE IN 2004." -- CaptainMidnight
--
5) "The capture of Saddam is all fine and good, but does how does this help someone facing a bleak Christmas because they lost their job? How does this help someone with an illness who just lost their insurance coverage? How does this help someone who's underemployed, working several jobs and struggling to pay the mortgage? It just don't make me any money." -- bushwentawol
--
4) "..I expect that the A**HOLES and Sons of B****ES at www.rightwingnews.com will try to smear us first with stupid EDITED POSTS then insist that the feds arrest all of us as traitors. Typical of a Nazi group. Typical of low-life Fascist and Racist Pigs. They will try to scare us off. These people fear free speech because it tears their mask off. I have ONE MESSAGE for them...
Well, you ba****ds, bring it on. I ain't afraid of your f***in jails. Bring it on, you worthless bunches of s**t! You saltless wastes of human skin!
Turn me in! Have ME arrested! Go ahead, you idiots! Bug my telephones! Follow me! Spy on me! Track me down through the internet! VIOLATE my constitutional rights! I hate this stupid oil-war fever! NO WAR for BIG OIL AND SUVs! NO WAR! The ROTUS SUCKS! ARREST ME for giving that chimpanzee the "finger!!" THE ROTUS SUCKS!
And so does his useless, worthless,politically motivated war! And so do YOU, you products of a bowel movement! You are a worthless bunch of morons who want to feed us all to the cannons while you (chickenhawks ) sit next to your swimming pools! Have ME arrested for SPEAKING OUT! Bring it on! Turn ME in as a traitor to your Joe McCarthy Homeland Security, you goose-stepping, "HEIL HITLER" fools!
I hereby challenge you!
I GUARANTEE that you a**holes will regret the day you were born if you mess with this black woman.
Steal and PRINT THIS POST, if you dare!
(Forgive me Lord--this really made me mad!)" -- brensgrrl
--
3) "When the 2nd plane hit the WTC I remember thinking......OMG, he's got his war now. Then, the next day or the day after that, when the roar of "war with Iraq and Afganistan" really got going I couldn't help but think "well Bush II get's to finish Daddy's work now". As for when the plane hit the Pentagon and the other plane went down in that field in Penn I screamed at the TV, "Get the WH, for God's sake you missed the WH." I invented some cuss words on that one. There were times before 9/11 as well as in the days to follow that the boy king mentioned Saddam "tried to kill my Dad" and couldn't help but scream at the TV each time, "Well, give him a medal for effort anyway." -- LiberalLibra
--
2) "What we MUST realize in order to win - Americans are stupid and uninformed. This is very important because in order to win we must understand the way the average American thinks. I'm afraid WE have nothing in common with them.
I came to the two following conclusions when I saw the large number of people who voted for Bush back in 2000.
#1 - I would dare to assume that most of us here are in the upper 1%-20% of the population intelligence-wise. We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve. WE are not the norm. The Republicans understand that the average American is not very bright. They cater and pander to the masses. The Democratic Party tries to appeal to the population about "issues" that these people just don't understand.
I've heard it said that the reason that Clinton's sex scandal resonated so strongly among "the people" was because it was a scandal that the average American understood. The average person can't understand a financial scandal.
In addition, people of average or lower intelligence tend to not be as logical or reasoned as those of higher intelligence - they deal with emotion. Therefore they are more likely to get riled up about someone burning a flag rather than a illogical tax cut.
#2 - The majority of people do not read the newspaper OR listen to the news, CNN, etc. Therefore -they get their news from the Tonight Show, Letterman, Oprah and Saturday Night Live. Or, they get their news from talking to their co-workers at the water cooler.
Also, for the few people who DO listen to the news - who do they hear it from? Fox News and Bill O'Reilly are the most popular. Most newspapers and media outlets are owned by Republicans.
THIS is what we are fighting against people. In order to win we will need to start pandering to the masses." -- Janekat
--
1) "I realize that not every GI Joe was 100peeercent behind Prseeedent Booosh going into this war; but I do know that that is what an overwhelming number of them and their famlies screamed in the face of protesters who were trying to protect these kids. Well, there is more than one way to be "dead" for your country. They are not only not accompishing squat in Iraq, they are doing crap nothing for the safety, defense of the US of A over there directly. But "indirectly" they are doing a lot.
The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a sh*t hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly--i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum. It is obscene, Barbie Bush, how other sons (of much nobler blood) have to die to save us from your Rosemary's Baby spawn and his ungodly cohorts." -- Starpass
People, realize that apathy towards what goes on in this country comes at a price. The price is that fanatics on both sides of the aisle are left unchecked by the resonable center. If the moderates in this counter continue to not pay attention, then politicians will have no choice but to cater to the extremists in this country. If they're the only ones who care enough to vote, then they'll be the ones who choose where we go.
Care. Learn. Decide. For the sake of this country.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
The gay marriage issue has exploded.
In Massechusetts, a judge ordered the legislature to pass a law sanctifying gay marriage. In San Francisco, the city has defied state law by issuing marriage certificates to gay couples.
All of this has been tearing away at me, because I don't know where to go.
In an email to a friend, I wrote about my feelings on the subject. What I wrote was so indicative of how torn I am on the issue that I figured I should put my feelings down here as well.
On the one hand, I don't believe that gay marriage will be the downfall of Western civilization as some people believe, like Michael Savage, who I listen to but don't always agree with. It's also hard for me to argue against something that brings happiness to others.
On the other hand, I just can't state that a city government defying the law set by the people as a good thing. If you support gay marriage, I think that's great. But we have a process for this sort of thing, and despite the best efforts of those bumbling politicians, it actually works most of the time. But the judge in Massechusetts who ruled that the legislature had to pass a law should be impeached immediately. Judges do not have the power to order the representitives of the people to do something. Nor should they, lest our democracy become an oligarchy.
It's also improper for a mayor of a major city to openly defy the laws set upon him by the people of California.
Look, I think gays can create great family units if they have the right intentions. They can and should be allowed to try. However, subverting the process set down by the people sets a very bad precedent, one that is only going to create problems down the road. Also, if we declare marriage to be an inalienable right under the constitution, the very next thing that's going to happen is that the laws on incestual and bigamist marriages are going to come crumbling down. This is essentially going to make marriage meaningless, and it might very well destroy the concept of the traditional American family unit. If we sanctified gay marriage the proper way- by convincing the people of its legitimacy and allowing them to vote for its lawfulness- we wouldn't have to worry about any of this. However, it's going to come up now, and it isn't going to be pretty.
I'm trying really really hard to be happy about all of this, because I know it has given others joy. I don't know if I can be. If we go down this road, the consequences will be dire, and there is no way to know just how severe the damage will be.
I guess the only thing left to say is, I am happy that you are happy, and I am happy that those getting married now are happy. I pray to God that we all can remain happy from all of this.
In Massechusetts, a judge ordered the legislature to pass a law sanctifying gay marriage. In San Francisco, the city has defied state law by issuing marriage certificates to gay couples.
All of this has been tearing away at me, because I don't know where to go.
In an email to a friend, I wrote about my feelings on the subject. What I wrote was so indicative of how torn I am on the issue that I figured I should put my feelings down here as well.
On the one hand, I don't believe that gay marriage will be the downfall of Western civilization as some people believe, like Michael Savage, who I listen to but don't always agree with. It's also hard for me to argue against something that brings happiness to others.
On the other hand, I just can't state that a city government defying the law set by the people as a good thing. If you support gay marriage, I think that's great. But we have a process for this sort of thing, and despite the best efforts of those bumbling politicians, it actually works most of the time. But the judge in Massechusetts who ruled that the legislature had to pass a law should be impeached immediately. Judges do not have the power to order the representitives of the people to do something. Nor should they, lest our democracy become an oligarchy.
It's also improper for a mayor of a major city to openly defy the laws set upon him by the people of California.
Look, I think gays can create great family units if they have the right intentions. They can and should be allowed to try. However, subverting the process set down by the people sets a very bad precedent, one that is only going to create problems down the road. Also, if we declare marriage to be an inalienable right under the constitution, the very next thing that's going to happen is that the laws on incestual and bigamist marriages are going to come crumbling down. This is essentially going to make marriage meaningless, and it might very well destroy the concept of the traditional American family unit. If we sanctified gay marriage the proper way- by convincing the people of its legitimacy and allowing them to vote for its lawfulness- we wouldn't have to worry about any of this. However, it's going to come up now, and it isn't going to be pretty.
I'm trying really really hard to be happy about all of this, because I know it has given others joy. I don't know if I can be. If we go down this road, the consequences will be dire, and there is no way to know just how severe the damage will be.
I guess the only thing left to say is, I am happy that you are happy, and I am happy that those getting married now are happy. I pray to God that we all can remain happy from all of this.
Saturday, February 14, 2004
One of the greatest internal debates I have had in my head is where I stand on religion.
I've been all over the map. When I was in elementary school, it was "Christian, I guess." High school, I turned to atheism. After I graduated, I came to the conclusion that I was a theist- that is, I believed in God, but not in a doctrine.
My history and family have a lot to do with my beliefs. See, my mother came from a fanatically Christian family. Her parents and siblings are the kind of Christians that don't want you to go trick-or-treating because it's the devil's holiday.
Most of the time, my parents didn't bother indoctrinating us with any religion. Sometimes, though, they relented under the pressure. My mom made my brother and I spend one Halloween with my Aunt Biddy (All of my aunts aren't called by their names. They're called by the most asinine nicknames you could think of, such as "Pig" and "Chicken".) in a church. I'm not sure why exactly my mom wanted me to be there. All we did was sing songs that glorified God.
Karl Marx once wrote that religion "is the opium of the people". Being around 10 at the time, I hadn't read this yet. However, when I watched the face of my Aunt Biddy as she sung of God's glory- eyes closed, hands out, gently swaying, an unnaturally blissful look of peace- the seeds for my own exploration of that idea were planted.
My extended family made attempts to convert us occasionally. My grandma tried to give my brother an exorcism because we were playing with toys made by the devil- that is, of course, Power Rangers toys. My aunt convinced my mother to wipe my Dungeons and Dragons game off of our computer after she saw me playing it during a visit, a memory which irritates me to this day. These are actually the more harmless examples: they said things about our non-religious nature that are so horrendous that I won't go into them here. Needless to say, the example of my extended family was a deterrent to my ever joining a religious denomination.
At one point, my dad became convinced that we hadn't been taught proper morals or something, so he deemed it neccessary to start taking us to church. (For the record, we didn't do anything particularly immoral. The main problem was that our teachers complained about us a lot. They particularly took offense to my sleeping through their class, although I could easily absorb the material public schools teach in my sleep. In the 12th grade, I proved this theory, as I would answer the questions my teacher would pose to the class while my head was buried in my hands.) This newfound belief that a good-sized helping of God would cure our social ills was reinforced after our first church visit, when my dad declared that it went so well that we'd be doing it every week.
The next week, they starting preaching that the unbelievers would be going to hell when Judgement Day came, beliefs my dad apparently finds to be silly. Thus the great church experiement ended.
In high school, I started reading about all of the injustices the Church of the Middle Ages had done to the people. This combined with my personal experience with my family, as well as those Christians who had attacked my religious reluctance in the past, led me to conclude that religion was silly. Thus, I became an atheist.
At least, I thought I did.
However, whenever I would go through a hard time, I found myself talking to God. I'd ask for answers, solicit his help, or even sometimes damn him outright.
This threw atheism out the window.
After trying on the agnostiscism label and realising it didn't fit, I realized that I was going about it the wrong way: I was trying to find one of society's designated labels to see how I could define myself. I decided that everybody had the whole God thing wrong.
These are the core beliefs that I hold about God. I believe that unlike most religions, they are consistent with all facts.
1. God exists.
2. He is a being we cannot comprehend.
3. He is, literally, everything. The universe is his body, and we are cells inside of it.
4. God perceives everything that takes place within him, and nothing that takes place without.
5. All books on God are written by man for a purpose. They are the stories that define their culture, and nothing more.
6. Man's definition of God is, in fact, Man's definition of the human spirit.
7. God would never, ever deign to influence the human race in any way. The moment he does, we become nothing more than puppets.
8. When we die, we become a lesser spirit similar to God.
9. Heaven is the rejoining of a spirit with God's consciousness.
9. Hell is the inability of a spirit to rejoin with God. If God allowed a spirit of sin to rejoin him, its sin would spread like a sickness, tearing it apart. God may not even have the capacity to allow such a spirit to rejoin with him.
10. There is only one sin, that of pride. This is the belief that all must think as you do, that your successes prove this, and that your failures were put upon you by others. Most pride is washed away during a recouncillary period of spirit and God, as we take responsibility for the life we lived. Those who fail to do so, do not rejoin with God.
All of this is merely the conclusions I've drawn based on my analysis of the world. It is of course entirely within the realm of possibility that God does not exist, that we are a great accident, and that oblivion awaits all of us upon our deaths.
It is also cynical, cheap, depressing, and unlikely in the extreme.
There is another important conclusion here: religion, for all of its flaws, has served an invaluable role in the progress of the human race. In darker times, where peace and order did not exist, it served as a manifestation of the human spirit that people could latch on to and use as a base for a moral code. It gave our people a reason to act responsibly towards ourselves and our fellow man, and prevented us from murdering our own species in cold blood. Those who give themselves to God should be given our utmost respect, whether you agree with their views or not. For in so giving their lives, they are giving themselves to bettering the human condition.
That's how I feel. I want to get some idea of where you all stand, so I'll ask you to do this:
Tell me an idea you hold about religion or God that is unique to you. I've spent a lot of time thinking about all of this, and I'm wondering if anybody has anything interesting to add. It doesn't have to be big; just something that's personal to you. If you don't want to comment publically about it, send me an email at KastellSBlawer@aol.com.
I've been all over the map. When I was in elementary school, it was "Christian, I guess." High school, I turned to atheism. After I graduated, I came to the conclusion that I was a theist- that is, I believed in God, but not in a doctrine.
My history and family have a lot to do with my beliefs. See, my mother came from a fanatically Christian family. Her parents and siblings are the kind of Christians that don't want you to go trick-or-treating because it's the devil's holiday.
Most of the time, my parents didn't bother indoctrinating us with any religion. Sometimes, though, they relented under the pressure. My mom made my brother and I spend one Halloween with my Aunt Biddy (All of my aunts aren't called by their names. They're called by the most asinine nicknames you could think of, such as "Pig" and "Chicken".) in a church. I'm not sure why exactly my mom wanted me to be there. All we did was sing songs that glorified God.
Karl Marx once wrote that religion "is the opium of the people". Being around 10 at the time, I hadn't read this yet. However, when I watched the face of my Aunt Biddy as she sung of God's glory- eyes closed, hands out, gently swaying, an unnaturally blissful look of peace- the seeds for my own exploration of that idea were planted.
My extended family made attempts to convert us occasionally. My grandma tried to give my brother an exorcism because we were playing with toys made by the devil- that is, of course, Power Rangers toys. My aunt convinced my mother to wipe my Dungeons and Dragons game off of our computer after she saw me playing it during a visit, a memory which irritates me to this day. These are actually the more harmless examples: they said things about our non-religious nature that are so horrendous that I won't go into them here. Needless to say, the example of my extended family was a deterrent to my ever joining a religious denomination.
At one point, my dad became convinced that we hadn't been taught proper morals or something, so he deemed it neccessary to start taking us to church. (For the record, we didn't do anything particularly immoral. The main problem was that our teachers complained about us a lot. They particularly took offense to my sleeping through their class, although I could easily absorb the material public schools teach in my sleep. In the 12th grade, I proved this theory, as I would answer the questions my teacher would pose to the class while my head was buried in my hands.) This newfound belief that a good-sized helping of God would cure our social ills was reinforced after our first church visit, when my dad declared that it went so well that we'd be doing it every week.
The next week, they starting preaching that the unbelievers would be going to hell when Judgement Day came, beliefs my dad apparently finds to be silly. Thus the great church experiement ended.
In high school, I started reading about all of the injustices the Church of the Middle Ages had done to the people. This combined with my personal experience with my family, as well as those Christians who had attacked my religious reluctance in the past, led me to conclude that religion was silly. Thus, I became an atheist.
At least, I thought I did.
However, whenever I would go through a hard time, I found myself talking to God. I'd ask for answers, solicit his help, or even sometimes damn him outright.
This threw atheism out the window.
After trying on the agnostiscism label and realising it didn't fit, I realized that I was going about it the wrong way: I was trying to find one of society's designated labels to see how I could define myself. I decided that everybody had the whole God thing wrong.
These are the core beliefs that I hold about God. I believe that unlike most religions, they are consistent with all facts.
1. God exists.
2. He is a being we cannot comprehend.
3. He is, literally, everything. The universe is his body, and we are cells inside of it.
4. God perceives everything that takes place within him, and nothing that takes place without.
5. All books on God are written by man for a purpose. They are the stories that define their culture, and nothing more.
6. Man's definition of God is, in fact, Man's definition of the human spirit.
7. God would never, ever deign to influence the human race in any way. The moment he does, we become nothing more than puppets.
8. When we die, we become a lesser spirit similar to God.
9. Heaven is the rejoining of a spirit with God's consciousness.
9. Hell is the inability of a spirit to rejoin with God. If God allowed a spirit of sin to rejoin him, its sin would spread like a sickness, tearing it apart. God may not even have the capacity to allow such a spirit to rejoin with him.
10. There is only one sin, that of pride. This is the belief that all must think as you do, that your successes prove this, and that your failures were put upon you by others. Most pride is washed away during a recouncillary period of spirit and God, as we take responsibility for the life we lived. Those who fail to do so, do not rejoin with God.
All of this is merely the conclusions I've drawn based on my analysis of the world. It is of course entirely within the realm of possibility that God does not exist, that we are a great accident, and that oblivion awaits all of us upon our deaths.
It is also cynical, cheap, depressing, and unlikely in the extreme.
There is another important conclusion here: religion, for all of its flaws, has served an invaluable role in the progress of the human race. In darker times, where peace and order did not exist, it served as a manifestation of the human spirit that people could latch on to and use as a base for a moral code. It gave our people a reason to act responsibly towards ourselves and our fellow man, and prevented us from murdering our own species in cold blood. Those who give themselves to God should be given our utmost respect, whether you agree with their views or not. For in so giving their lives, they are giving themselves to bettering the human condition.
That's how I feel. I want to get some idea of where you all stand, so I'll ask you to do this:
Tell me an idea you hold about religion or God that is unique to you. I've spent a lot of time thinking about all of this, and I'm wondering if anybody has anything interesting to add. It doesn't have to be big; just something that's personal to you. If you don't want to comment publically about it, send me an email at KastellSBlawer@aol.com.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
President Bush appeared on the show "Meet The Press" yesterday, where he responded to all of the criticisms leveled his way.
Having heard excerpts from that appearence, I've come to the conclusion that I should analyze the question here.
The question is simple. Should the President have gone to war?
Now, let's get some things out of the way first. We are not going to discuss whether the President lied or misled the American people, because he didn't. This isn't a debatable issue. President Clinton and the rest of the international community came to the same conclusions about Iraq as President Bush did. The Senate, which approved the resolution authorizing force in Iraq, saw the same intelligence Bush did. There is no way anyone can intelligently justify holding the position that Bush lied, so we're going to throw that viewpoint in the garbage. That's why it isn't a big deal that the President's independent commission on the intelligence in Iraq isn't going to come to any conclusions until 2005. That would be because that commission is not designed to investigate the President. We already have all the facts neccessary to do so. The commission is designed to evaluate lessons learned from Iraq, and apply them to North Korea and other hostile nations. They aren't going to damn the President for lying, because even a cursory look at what happened makes that assertion laughable.
Second, it is clear that oil has nothing to do with this. If the President had no problems using war as a method of procuring oil, then we would be invading Saudi Arabia right now. If you want to say that oil is negatively affecting our foreign policy, that's a valid point. Saudi Arabia, the home country of most of the 9/11 bombers, a country that has been tied financially to 9/11, is still considered an ally. This is partly for practical purposes, but mostly we don't confront the Saudis because we need their oil. This is not new: the Saudi royal family has been a corrupt regime for a long time now, and no American President has seen fit to confront them.
Now, let's analyze the buildup to the Iraqi war.
We'll work from this premise: YOU are President of the United States. It is 2002.
Currently, you have a few thousand troops in Afghanistan searching for Osama bin Laden. You're also working to establish a democracy there so that the people can decide for themselves where their country will go.
But while your attention is focused on the pursuit of bin Laden and helping the economy, your advisors come to you with warnings about an old foe: Iraq.
Now, you've considered what to do about Iraq before. You drew up a plan for invading Iraq soon after you became President, for when you had to deal with the problem. And you knew that eventually the problem would have to be dealt with. Saddam had kicked U.N. inspectors out of the country, and was being left to his own devices. Intelligence at the time stated that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program. You knew that he at one time had chemical weapons. You know because he admitted to it, and used these weapons on the Iranians and Kurds. However, you put it off. The status quo was to contain Saddam via the no-fly zones.
Your advisors said that Iraq isn't worth the trouble at this time. They've been successfully contained. (A site that states the pre-9/11 position of Bush's cabinet on Iraq using excerpts from Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice can be found here.)
Then, 9/11 happened. You took decisive action: you invaded Afghanistan, removed the regime from power that supported the terrorist organisation responsible, and dismantled the training camps of al-Qaida. However, Osama and the remnants of al-Qaida had yet to be found. So you left soldiers there to search for Osama.
About a year passed, and you had not yet found him.
But your advisors are coming to you with new intelligence. They are saying that it is likely that within one year, Saddam Hussein will have nuclear weapons capabilities.
So you demand that Saddam let U.N. inspectors back into the country and cooperate with them fully, or the U.S. will be forced to take action. You ask the U.N. to support this action, and they agree, passing resolution 1441. After originally laughing off the demands, Saddam decides the risk isn't worth it, and lets the inspectors back into the country.
You congratulate Saddam for doing the right thing, but warn that if Saddam does not show the inspectors where his WMD programs and stockpiles are, or what he did with them, then grave consequences will result.
After giving the inspectors a few months, your Secretary of State comes to the conclusion that Saddam is interfering with the inspectors' progress yet again. (A summary of Powell's testimony can be found here.)
You go to the U.N. with this evidence, and say that Saddam needs to be held in breach of U.N. resolution 1441. Their reply is to give the U.N. inspectors more time.
(David's Note: More time to do what? It was made clear to Saddam that if he wanted to avoid war, he would show the inspectors where his programs were and what he did with his weapons. He didn't. What was giving him more time going to accomplish?)
You consider the facts:
- Saddam Hussein has shown a willingness many times over to violate the cease fire agreement that ended the Gulf War.
- Saddam, at one point, had biological and chemical weapons. He had used these weapons on his own people. We had no clue what he had left.
- In 1998, Saddam threw U.N. inspectors out of the country. Before that, he had impeded their progress by stopping them from searching key sites on the inspector's schedule. Reasonable deduction suggests there was a reason why he did these things.
- U.S. intelligence had historically UNDERestimated the WMD programs of hostile nations, including North Korea, Iran, and Iraq itself at the end of the Gulf war.
- al-Qaida is still actively searching for WMD to use against America. If Iraq should have any, they could sell some to bin Laden, who could then turn around and use it in a terrorist action against America.
I now pose to you the following question:
Putting yourself in the place of the President at the time he made his decision, what would your decision have been?
If you choose to confront Iraq, you risk a political backlash both at home and abroad. However, you prevent an evil dictator from ever becoming the threat to our country that he would surely become if left in power.
If you choose to follow the U.N.'s lead and give Iraq a break, you give yourself a political foundation to fall back on. You don't take the risk of having American politicans criticising your decision, the people don't have a chance to disapprove of the risk you didn't take, and some countries aren't given a "reason" to hate you. However, you run the very real risk of Iraq becoming an imminent threat at some point. If that happens during your Presidency, or if god forbid, Saddam kills or supports an action that kills another 3,000 Americans, then you will be held responsible for not having dealt with Iraq when you had the chance to prevent it from endangering our country.
The responsibility. The possible blame. The risk. All of this burden is on you.
So the question remains.
What would you choose?
Having heard excerpts from that appearence, I've come to the conclusion that I should analyze the question here.
The question is simple. Should the President have gone to war?
Now, let's get some things out of the way first. We are not going to discuss whether the President lied or misled the American people, because he didn't. This isn't a debatable issue. President Clinton and the rest of the international community came to the same conclusions about Iraq as President Bush did. The Senate, which approved the resolution authorizing force in Iraq, saw the same intelligence Bush did. There is no way anyone can intelligently justify holding the position that Bush lied, so we're going to throw that viewpoint in the garbage. That's why it isn't a big deal that the President's independent commission on the intelligence in Iraq isn't going to come to any conclusions until 2005. That would be because that commission is not designed to investigate the President. We already have all the facts neccessary to do so. The commission is designed to evaluate lessons learned from Iraq, and apply them to North Korea and other hostile nations. They aren't going to damn the President for lying, because even a cursory look at what happened makes that assertion laughable.
Second, it is clear that oil has nothing to do with this. If the President had no problems using war as a method of procuring oil, then we would be invading Saudi Arabia right now. If you want to say that oil is negatively affecting our foreign policy, that's a valid point. Saudi Arabia, the home country of most of the 9/11 bombers, a country that has been tied financially to 9/11, is still considered an ally. This is partly for practical purposes, but mostly we don't confront the Saudis because we need their oil. This is not new: the Saudi royal family has been a corrupt regime for a long time now, and no American President has seen fit to confront them.
Now, let's analyze the buildup to the Iraqi war.
We'll work from this premise: YOU are President of the United States. It is 2002.
Currently, you have a few thousand troops in Afghanistan searching for Osama bin Laden. You're also working to establish a democracy there so that the people can decide for themselves where their country will go.
But while your attention is focused on the pursuit of bin Laden and helping the economy, your advisors come to you with warnings about an old foe: Iraq.
Now, you've considered what to do about Iraq before. You drew up a plan for invading Iraq soon after you became President, for when you had to deal with the problem. And you knew that eventually the problem would have to be dealt with. Saddam had kicked U.N. inspectors out of the country, and was being left to his own devices. Intelligence at the time stated that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program. You knew that he at one time had chemical weapons. You know because he admitted to it, and used these weapons on the Iranians and Kurds. However, you put it off. The status quo was to contain Saddam via the no-fly zones.
Your advisors said that Iraq isn't worth the trouble at this time. They've been successfully contained. (A site that states the pre-9/11 position of Bush's cabinet on Iraq using excerpts from Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice can be found here.)
Then, 9/11 happened. You took decisive action: you invaded Afghanistan, removed the regime from power that supported the terrorist organisation responsible, and dismantled the training camps of al-Qaida. However, Osama and the remnants of al-Qaida had yet to be found. So you left soldiers there to search for Osama.
About a year passed, and you had not yet found him.
But your advisors are coming to you with new intelligence. They are saying that it is likely that within one year, Saddam Hussein will have nuclear weapons capabilities.
So you demand that Saddam let U.N. inspectors back into the country and cooperate with them fully, or the U.S. will be forced to take action. You ask the U.N. to support this action, and they agree, passing resolution 1441. After originally laughing off the demands, Saddam decides the risk isn't worth it, and lets the inspectors back into the country.
You congratulate Saddam for doing the right thing, but warn that if Saddam does not show the inspectors where his WMD programs and stockpiles are, or what he did with them, then grave consequences will result.
After giving the inspectors a few months, your Secretary of State comes to the conclusion that Saddam is interfering with the inspectors' progress yet again. (A summary of Powell's testimony can be found here.)
You go to the U.N. with this evidence, and say that Saddam needs to be held in breach of U.N. resolution 1441. Their reply is to give the U.N. inspectors more time.
(David's Note: More time to do what? It was made clear to Saddam that if he wanted to avoid war, he would show the inspectors where his programs were and what he did with his weapons. He didn't. What was giving him more time going to accomplish?)
You consider the facts:
- Saddam Hussein has shown a willingness many times over to violate the cease fire agreement that ended the Gulf War.
- Saddam, at one point, had biological and chemical weapons. He had used these weapons on his own people. We had no clue what he had left.
- In 1998, Saddam threw U.N. inspectors out of the country. Before that, he had impeded their progress by stopping them from searching key sites on the inspector's schedule. Reasonable deduction suggests there was a reason why he did these things.
- U.S. intelligence had historically UNDERestimated the WMD programs of hostile nations, including North Korea, Iran, and Iraq itself at the end of the Gulf war.
- al-Qaida is still actively searching for WMD to use against America. If Iraq should have any, they could sell some to bin Laden, who could then turn around and use it in a terrorist action against America.
I now pose to you the following question:
Putting yourself in the place of the President at the time he made his decision, what would your decision have been?
If you choose to confront Iraq, you risk a political backlash both at home and abroad. However, you prevent an evil dictator from ever becoming the threat to our country that he would surely become if left in power.
If you choose to follow the U.N.'s lead and give Iraq a break, you give yourself a political foundation to fall back on. You don't take the risk of having American politicans criticising your decision, the people don't have a chance to disapprove of the risk you didn't take, and some countries aren't given a "reason" to hate you. However, you run the very real risk of Iraq becoming an imminent threat at some point. If that happens during your Presidency, or if god forbid, Saddam kills or supports an action that kills another 3,000 Americans, then you will be held responsible for not having dealt with Iraq when you had the chance to prevent it from endangering our country.
The responsibility. The possible blame. The risk. All of this burden is on you.
So the question remains.
What would you choose?
Monday, February 09, 2004
"There is not, of necessity, any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. ... The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account for awhile, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just, and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way to all – gives hope to all, and ... energy, and progress, and improvement of conditions to all."
-Abraham Lincoln
-Abraham Lincoln
No new posts in the last couple of days, due to not spending the weekend stuck at the computer. I'll update tomorrow likely.
In the meantime, consider this.
The Democrats' portrayal of George W. Bush is of someone who coasted through his education due to who he was, as opposed to what he was capable of. Apparently all he ever did was party, snort cocaine, and rest on his father's reputation to earn his education.
This portrayal of Bush is an insipidly ignorant one. Bush has a Harvard MBA. It is impossible to get a Harvard MBA on reputation alone, no matter who you are. The program has little tolerance for students who can't apply the knowledge they've gained in university. They can't afford it. The entire appeal of the MBA is its status as an indicator of advanced ability. This status would be diminished if non-performing, well-connected students were allowed to graduate from the program.
For more information, check out this article.
In the meantime, consider this.
The Democrats' portrayal of George W. Bush is of someone who coasted through his education due to who he was, as opposed to what he was capable of. Apparently all he ever did was party, snort cocaine, and rest on his father's reputation to earn his education.
This portrayal of Bush is an insipidly ignorant one. Bush has a Harvard MBA. It is impossible to get a Harvard MBA on reputation alone, no matter who you are. The program has little tolerance for students who can't apply the knowledge they've gained in university. They can't afford it. The entire appeal of the MBA is its status as an indicator of advanced ability. This status would be diminished if non-performing, well-connected students were allowed to graduate from the program.
For more information, check out this article.
Thursday, February 05, 2004
I'm changing the mission of this site.
In my very first post, I stated that the name "Dig The D" was the temporary name, until I could find something better.
It was more than that.
I needed to find a purpose for this site. I bounced around a bit, logging parts of my day along with commentary on issues. However, I found that I was drifting further away from myself. Instead of writing about my day, I found myself pursuing philosophical truths. I have found a need to search for answers. Answers to my questions, and to all of the unanswered questions of our time.
So I'm going to put aside talking about personal matters. I'll do so occasionally, but anybody who keeps up with this blog can tell that I don't seem to focus on such things. Don't get me wrong: I am interested in my own life, and content with where I am now. I just don't feel that need to write about it.
So I'm going to satisfy my need to figure out where the world should head.
Politics won't be the focus. I don't follow politics due to any great love for it, but because it's a neccessary evil. I'll talk about politics when it is pertinent to a philosophical discussion.
I care if people read this blog. I want people to hear me. But I'm not doing this for anybody but myself. Through this blog, I can write out my thoughts, keep them logged, and use them to help figure out the truth.
So I guess I care about you in that I'd like your help in this. When I put forth an idea, I want you to either challenge it, or else help me figure out its significance.
Let us find the light in this world together.
In my very first post, I stated that the name "Dig The D" was the temporary name, until I could find something better.
It was more than that.
I needed to find a purpose for this site. I bounced around a bit, logging parts of my day along with commentary on issues. However, I found that I was drifting further away from myself. Instead of writing about my day, I found myself pursuing philosophical truths. I have found a need to search for answers. Answers to my questions, and to all of the unanswered questions of our time.
So I'm going to put aside talking about personal matters. I'll do so occasionally, but anybody who keeps up with this blog can tell that I don't seem to focus on such things. Don't get me wrong: I am interested in my own life, and content with where I am now. I just don't feel that need to write about it.
So I'm going to satisfy my need to figure out where the world should head.
Politics won't be the focus. I don't follow politics due to any great love for it, but because it's a neccessary evil. I'll talk about politics when it is pertinent to a philosophical discussion.
I care if people read this blog. I want people to hear me. But I'm not doing this for anybody but myself. Through this blog, I can write out my thoughts, keep them logged, and use them to help figure out the truth.
So I guess I care about you in that I'd like your help in this. When I put forth an idea, I want you to either challenge it, or else help me figure out its significance.
Let us find the light in this world together.
From an AOL News article:
WASHINGTON (Feb. 5) -- In his first public defense of prewar intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet said Thursday that U.S. analysts had never claimed Iraq was an imminent threat, the main argument used by President Bush for going to war.
Sigh.
From the 2003 State Of The Union Address:
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
Why is it acceptable for the news media to distort the facts?
WASHINGTON (Feb. 5) -- In his first public defense of prewar intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet said Thursday that U.S. analysts had never claimed Iraq was an imminent threat, the main argument used by President Bush for going to war.
Sigh.
From the 2003 State Of The Union Address:
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
Why is it acceptable for the news media to distort the facts?
I promise I'll discuss the abortion issue next entry.
Now, last entry was an Angry David piece.
It's time to see Analytical David come out.
You all know that I found JJ's little halftime show stunt to be insulting. That is all good and well to talk about. However, there's something more interesting to talk about here.
If we operate under the assumption that CBS, MTV, and the performers involved knew what they were doing-wait, you say they're claiming they didn't know? They're saying it was an accident?
Hmmmm.....
1. Why would Janet and Justin feel compelled not to tell MTV that they were going to do a bra reveal? Britney Spears has done much the same thing on MTV shows, with hardy approval.
2. There are indications that everybody, from the performers to executives at CBS, knew about the stunt. The Drudge Report is claiming that "The decision to go forward went to the very top of the network." I've also heard a volunteer for the event claim that Janet and Justin did do a red bra reveal during rehearsals.....which is inconsistent with current statements that the stunt was "unrehearsed" and planned by the performers after final rehersals without MTV approval.
3. "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song."
As I was saying, let's operate under the assumption that all parties were willing participants. We'll give the NFL the benefit of the doubt, as they had no involvement in producing the show itself.
There's something more interesting to talk about here than how awful and deplorable the stunt was.
How have we arrived to the point where something like this would even be considered, much less approved by the networks?
There's a genesis to this problem. A reason why the moral fiber of this country has been withering away. A reason why teenage pregnancy is rampant among our young generation.
Well, consider the main influence on pop culture, MTV. Those who care about the idea of "coolness" have typically looked to MTV for a definition of the term.
MTV, being a business, is out to make a profit.
So what group has the most money to spend, and the greatest desire to spend it on "cool" things? What group works part-time jobs, making minimum wage or more without having any bills to spend this income on?
Teenagers.
So MTV caters to them. They hold up Britney Spears as their icon, a performer who has never been able to survive without using overt sexuality as a crutch. The rest of their performers rely on either pimping badassness (DMX, Snoop Dogg), whiny teenage angst (A Perfect Circle, Limp Bizkit, Papa Roach), or simply throwing as much shit on stage as possible and seeing what sticks while relying on songs other, more talented people created in order to look like "a genius" or an "exciting performer." (Puffy, I'm looking at YOU.)
Talent simply isn't as easily to sell as generic marketable personas, nor is it as readily availible. That's why there's so few Michelle Branchs, Vanessa Carltons, and Linkin Parks.
So now most performers use sex as their weapon to sell records and tickets.
I'm not talking about a performer being sexy as a part of their persona. That's fine, and being a male I encourage it. Christina Aguilera is quite wild, but she's using sex to make a point (valid or not), and she has the talent to back it up.
I'm talking about those who use shock sex as their base. Think about it: has there ever been a single memorable Britney Spears performence that wasn't based on shock sex? Nope. Not one.
And it's the purchasing power of teenagers that make it all possible. That make it all profitable. In a capitalist society, you vote with your wallet. Our children have out-voted us.
Oddly enough, the genesis for all of this was the passing of child labor laws that put a limit on where and how a child could work, coupled with laws that require children to be in school until a certain age.
Obviously, these laws are just. However, they have had an unexpected side effect. Since children legally have to be in school, all of them are placed in an enviorment that chews up those who buck the popular trend.
For every generation of teenagers, the popular trend is to rebel.
Hence the swing movement of the 50s. The chemical inducement movement of the 60s. The free love movement of the 70s. The wild, colorful, bubble gum, indifference to the world movement of the 80s. The dark inner rage of the 90s.
Children are now deciding what our society will accept before they reach maturity.
I have no idea what to do about it.
Now, last entry was an Angry David piece.
It's time to see Analytical David come out.
You all know that I found JJ's little halftime show stunt to be insulting. That is all good and well to talk about. However, there's something more interesting to talk about here.
If we operate under the assumption that CBS, MTV, and the performers involved knew what they were doing-wait, you say they're claiming they didn't know? They're saying it was an accident?
Hmmmm.....
1. Why would Janet and Justin feel compelled not to tell MTV that they were going to do a bra reveal? Britney Spears has done much the same thing on MTV shows, with hardy approval.
2. There are indications that everybody, from the performers to executives at CBS, knew about the stunt. The Drudge Report is claiming that "The decision to go forward went to the very top of the network." I've also heard a volunteer for the event claim that Janet and Justin did do a red bra reveal during rehearsals.....which is inconsistent with current statements that the stunt was "unrehearsed" and planned by the performers after final rehersals without MTV approval.
3. "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song."
As I was saying, let's operate under the assumption that all parties were willing participants. We'll give the NFL the benefit of the doubt, as they had no involvement in producing the show itself.
There's something more interesting to talk about here than how awful and deplorable the stunt was.
How have we arrived to the point where something like this would even be considered, much less approved by the networks?
There's a genesis to this problem. A reason why the moral fiber of this country has been withering away. A reason why teenage pregnancy is rampant among our young generation.
Well, consider the main influence on pop culture, MTV. Those who care about the idea of "coolness" have typically looked to MTV for a definition of the term.
MTV, being a business, is out to make a profit.
So what group has the most money to spend, and the greatest desire to spend it on "cool" things? What group works part-time jobs, making minimum wage or more without having any bills to spend this income on?
Teenagers.
So MTV caters to them. They hold up Britney Spears as their icon, a performer who has never been able to survive without using overt sexuality as a crutch. The rest of their performers rely on either pimping badassness (DMX, Snoop Dogg), whiny teenage angst (A Perfect Circle, Limp Bizkit, Papa Roach), or simply throwing as much shit on stage as possible and seeing what sticks while relying on songs other, more talented people created in order to look like "a genius" or an "exciting performer." (Puffy, I'm looking at YOU.)
Talent simply isn't as easily to sell as generic marketable personas, nor is it as readily availible. That's why there's so few Michelle Branchs, Vanessa Carltons, and Linkin Parks.
So now most performers use sex as their weapon to sell records and tickets.
I'm not talking about a performer being sexy as a part of their persona. That's fine, and being a male I encourage it. Christina Aguilera is quite wild, but she's using sex to make a point (valid or not), and she has the talent to back it up.
I'm talking about those who use shock sex as their base. Think about it: has there ever been a single memorable Britney Spears performence that wasn't based on shock sex? Nope. Not one.
And it's the purchasing power of teenagers that make it all possible. That make it all profitable. In a capitalist society, you vote with your wallet. Our children have out-voted us.
Oddly enough, the genesis for all of this was the passing of child labor laws that put a limit on where and how a child could work, coupled with laws that require children to be in school until a certain age.
Obviously, these laws are just. However, they have had an unexpected side effect. Since children legally have to be in school, all of them are placed in an enviorment that chews up those who buck the popular trend.
For every generation of teenagers, the popular trend is to rebel.
Hence the swing movement of the 50s. The chemical inducement movement of the 60s. The free love movement of the 70s. The wild, colorful, bubble gum, indifference to the world movement of the 80s. The dark inner rage of the 90s.
Children are now deciding what our society will accept before they reach maturity.
I have no idea what to do about it.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Okay, here's the correct take on the Super Bowl Halftime Show.
Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson are selfish. Pompous. Self-absorbed. Unconcerned of others.
Now *I* didn't find Janet's boob exposure that offensive. I don't have that stigma.
Maybe *you* didn't find it that offensive.
If they'd done this on another MTV awards show, it just would've been "MTV Slides Further Into the Moral Abyss." Their audience expects that. Most of them like that sort of thing.
Fine. I wouldn't have had any problem with that.
However, there are a lot of people in this country who think it is wrong to behave that way, especially where children can see. Whether you agree with them or not, they not only have no interest in watching a man violently reveal a woman's breast on TV, but find such an act offensive to watch. This wasn't even an MTV awards show, where you'd expect that sort of thing. Those people were trying to watch the biggest sports event of the year. Why would they expect they'd be subjected to nudity?
But these people weren't given a second thought. After all, they're too 'uptight' anyways.
Come on, people. I know it's fun to say this kind of stuff doesn't do any harm, but can we not have ONE event on television that everybody in this country can watch? That children can watch?
Justin and Janet don't care. They have records to sell.
Sunday night wasn't about Justin and Janet. It was supposed to be about the New England Patriots and the Carolina Panthers battling it out for the right to be called Champions. We were supposed to celebrate the winners while honoring the losers for their effort. The spirit of competition was to be celebrated.
Nope. Justin and Janet had to make it about them.
You wanted to watch a clean sports competition with your children? You wanted to throw a family party around a clean event?
Too bad. Trumping Britney and Madonna on the PLS (Pointlessly Lewd Scale) is more important than what you, the customer, want.
You know what? I shouldn't be making a big deal about this. Neither should you. After all, it was just a boob. You shouldn't get all upset about that. That's just the way it is in the times we live in. You have to let this sort of thing go.
I don't have to let this go. The people of America do not have to let this go. We will not just stand by and watch as the sexual liberation movement takes over all forms of entertainment.
And we're not standing by.
The people of America voiced their opposition to this crap last night. CBS's phone lines were flooded with complaints, and everybody involved- MTV, the NFL, and CBS- backpedaled as fast as they could. Hopefully they are now aware that this will not be tolerated, and that if they want us to continue to support them with our viewership, they will not allow another such stunt to take place.
Understand that the boob didn't offend me. It is just a boob. What offends me is the idea that the people of America should be forced to watch something that repulses them. Justin and Janet *knew* that a huge portion of the audience would be repulsed by this stunt. They *knew* that doing this stunt would, in essence, force those in America who object to this sort of thing to watch it without giving them a choice.
They knew all of this. They did it anyway.
That is unacceptable.
It is wrong to force-feed ideas of sexual liberation down the throats of those who want no part of it. Whether you agree with those morally opposed to such acts or not, all of us should stand up and fight for them. Their views must be respected, just as Hollywood's sexual liberation views must be.
Just as I have fought the Parents Television Council in the past, I now fight Justin and Janet in their quest to shock America at any cost.
Of course, what do they care?
They have records to sell.
Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson are selfish. Pompous. Self-absorbed. Unconcerned of others.
Now *I* didn't find Janet's boob exposure that offensive. I don't have that stigma.
Maybe *you* didn't find it that offensive.
If they'd done this on another MTV awards show, it just would've been "MTV Slides Further Into the Moral Abyss." Their audience expects that. Most of them like that sort of thing.
Fine. I wouldn't have had any problem with that.
However, there are a lot of people in this country who think it is wrong to behave that way, especially where children can see. Whether you agree with them or not, they not only have no interest in watching a man violently reveal a woman's breast on TV, but find such an act offensive to watch. This wasn't even an MTV awards show, where you'd expect that sort of thing. Those people were trying to watch the biggest sports event of the year. Why would they expect they'd be subjected to nudity?
But these people weren't given a second thought. After all, they're too 'uptight' anyways.
Come on, people. I know it's fun to say this kind of stuff doesn't do any harm, but can we not have ONE event on television that everybody in this country can watch? That children can watch?
Justin and Janet don't care. They have records to sell.
Sunday night wasn't about Justin and Janet. It was supposed to be about the New England Patriots and the Carolina Panthers battling it out for the right to be called Champions. We were supposed to celebrate the winners while honoring the losers for their effort. The spirit of competition was to be celebrated.
Nope. Justin and Janet had to make it about them.
You wanted to watch a clean sports competition with your children? You wanted to throw a family party around a clean event?
Too bad. Trumping Britney and Madonna on the PLS (Pointlessly Lewd Scale) is more important than what you, the customer, want.
You know what? I shouldn't be making a big deal about this. Neither should you. After all, it was just a boob. You shouldn't get all upset about that. That's just the way it is in the times we live in. You have to let this sort of thing go.
Wrong. Wrong, wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong.
I don't have to let this go. The people of America do not have to let this go. We will not just stand by and watch as the sexual liberation movement takes over all forms of entertainment.
And we're not standing by.
The people of America voiced their opposition to this crap last night. CBS's phone lines were flooded with complaints, and everybody involved- MTV, the NFL, and CBS- backpedaled as fast as they could. Hopefully they are now aware that this will not be tolerated, and that if they want us to continue to support them with our viewership, they will not allow another such stunt to take place.
Understand that the boob didn't offend me. It is just a boob. What offends me is the idea that the people of America should be forced to watch something that repulses them. Justin and Janet *knew* that a huge portion of the audience would be repulsed by this stunt. They *knew* that doing this stunt would, in essence, force those in America who object to this sort of thing to watch it without giving them a choice.
They knew all of this. They did it anyway.
That is unacceptable.
It is wrong to force-feed ideas of sexual liberation down the throats of those who want no part of it. Whether you agree with those morally opposed to such acts or not, all of us should stand up and fight for them. Their views must be respected, just as Hollywood's sexual liberation views must be.
Just as I have fought the Parents Television Council in the past, I now fight Justin and Janet in their quest to shock America at any cost.
Of course, what do they care?
They have records to sell.
Sunday, February 01, 2004
Update: The NPAT test at www.vote-smart.org seems to be gone. That is, they seem to have changed it so that you can't take the test yourself. I'm not really sure why. Hopefully they'll put that back up.
