Shortly after "repudiating" the Reverend John Hagee's statement that Adolph Hitler's actions were merely the Will of Gawd (but not necessarily last testament) John Mccain made sure to let everyone know:
"I have said I do not believe Senator Obama shares Reverend Wright's extreme views. But let me also be clear, Reverend Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual advisor, and I did not attend his church for twenty years. I have denounced statements he made immediately upon learning of them, as I do again today."
All well and good, I suppose. Except that McCain actively sought this guy's endorsement at a time when he was neck and neck with the Reverend Mike Huckabee for the hearts and votes of evangelical psychos and used them to pull away and earn the Republican endorsement for President. Except that McCain's actual spiritual guide (the Reverend Rod Parsley) says this:
"Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world."
And
"America was founded with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed and I believe Sept. 11, 2001 was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."
And McCain has yet to "repudiate" Parsley. Not that extremist Islamics don't intend to conquer the woeld and force Islam down everyone's throats, just like the extremist Christians intend to do (see Ann Coulter and "Let's go in and convert them or kill them").
Hmmm, "rupudiate Parsley" sounds like something one would do with a zester or a slicer or something. I'd be satisfied with a boiling and basting.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
Worst Album Ever?
In no particular order (and many vomitous thanks to Generik for the link) are my votes for Worst Album Ever based on the list provided.
Supernova? Or Chevy Nova?
Supernova? Or Chevy Nova?
Convoy Pit Crew?
I think "He Touched Me" might not be about the Lord.
Featuring the smash hit: "Going Postal Blues".
...which made for very small sales.
Love Songs For Serial Killers
...ing.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Lick 'Em, Stick 'Em And Send 'Em
Something I blogged a bit about sometime previously has finally reared its ugly head in the mainstream Press (oh yes, do I ever feel omniscient and overbearingly important). This article from the Washington Post speaks to the secretive disloyalty of our government when it comes to openness and transparency concerning legal moves. Why is it so important to drug up illegal aliens when removing them from our soil? is it because they could be a danger to those around them? How? How, when they are obviously going to be unarmed and surrounded by CIA or FBI or Secret Service or Federal Marshal goons who are armed and the subject will have obviously been searched and relieved of anything that could be thought of as a potential weapon? Most likely, it's because those "officials" concerned don't want to run the risk that the detainee might talk to other passengers, because these "undesirables" are being deported on commercial flights (something the Washington Post did not report, but I did some time ago...ooh, that feeling of self-righteousness is getting even more powerful). This is so fucking Big Brother...if we are to be seen by ourselves and the world as a true (cough, cough) "beacon of hope", then we cannot allow our leaders to engage in or otherwise condone this type of action against anyone. And these are not necessarily aliens being flown to secret foreign prisons (renditions in case any one's forgotten those). They are often simply being kicked out of the country. If they are in the country illegally, by all means make them leave if it's such a dangerously big deal. But drug them, sedate them to the point of unconsciousness or inability to speak? That is not American, that is not the hallmark of a Democracy that wants to "spread" its "love" (ala OB/GYNs and female patients to semi-quote the Commander in Crawford) to every corner of the world. That is Syrian and North Korean and Iranian and Libyan and Lebanese and Israeli and Russian (okay, to be honest, most of these countries would just kill the poor son of a bitch and dump him just on the other side of their borders if they cared even that much, but you get the idea...).
But what are we doing here and why? And what message are we sending out? This, obviously, is an action that the administration hoped would never be seen in public print. It is, also, an action that someone in the Administration decided was not only good for our country, but was somehow potentially legally defensible like electronic eavesdropping without a warrant (national security trump card) or waterboarding because no international treaty we ever signed actually spelled that one out (although one or more did).
Are we truly being protected by this activity, because foreigners are outstaying their visas or lied on their applications about crimes committed in their home countries? The Saudis who flew planes into the Trade Center Towers didn't lie about past crimes. I don't know if any of them outstayed their visas. But they were doing stuff that should have raised red flags from here to the moon (like wanting to learn to steer a plane but not take off or land) and no one in power paid any attention to the alerts from field agents (FBI). Now, they're taking out anyone who doesn't toe the line to a T. And physically abusing them to boot whether it's warranted or not.
I am not a supporter of the Wall On The Rio. I think it's a waste of money and penalizes those who actually help our economy (keeping produce prices low) and do their best to stay on the right side of the law (minus that little matter of coming into the country illegally) and deflects our attention from more important problems like our economy crumbling because of a certain war in Iraq and a certain dependence on oil and politicians and Big Business stealing as many of our freedoms as they can in as short a time as they can by crying out that more people could fly a plane into a building at any given time and they'd love to tell us how many times they've saved us from this exact scenario since 9/11, but they are constrained by the National Security Act so we just have to take their word for it. How many times have we been told that, by the way? 100? 200?
But back to the Washington Post story. It's been reported many times before over two or three years and now, finally, a big paper is talking about it. Why? Are the big papers just now getting over their fear of Big Government? Or do they know that Bush is a lame duck and is too involved in putting out so many other fires created by his and his advisers' incompetency? Are they now truly pissed off at and shamed by their involvement in this Administration's Covert War On Americans that they feel a need to atone for their sins? I mean, I'll take it for whatever reason even if it's only this one topic. But there is so much more for the big papers and overall media to do before they can make it up to me for the last seven years of lapdog complacency.
But I'll take it.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government has injected hundreds of foreigners it has deported with dangerous psychotropic drugs against their will, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday, citing medical records, internal documents and interviews with people who have been drugged.
The newspaper said it has identified 250 cases in which the government has, without medical reason, given drugs meant to treat serious psychiatric disorders to people it has shipped out of the United States since 2003.
Involuntary chemical restraint of detainees without medical justification is a violation of some international human rights codes, the Post reported.
Records show that the government has routinely ignored its own rules, which allow deportees to be sedated only if they have a mental illness requiring the drugs, or if they are so aggressive that they imperil themselves or people around them.
The Department of Homeland Security's new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) took over deportations in 2003.
ICE has stepped up the arrest and removal of foreigners who are in the United States illegally, who have been turned down for asylum or have been convicted of a crime in the past, the Post reported.
A spokesman for the agency was not immediately available for comment.
But what are we doing here and why? And what message are we sending out? This, obviously, is an action that the administration hoped would never be seen in public print. It is, also, an action that someone in the Administration decided was not only good for our country, but was somehow potentially legally defensible like electronic eavesdropping without a warrant (national security trump card) or waterboarding because no international treaty we ever signed actually spelled that one out (although one or more did).
Are we truly being protected by this activity, because foreigners are outstaying their visas or lied on their applications about crimes committed in their home countries? The Saudis who flew planes into the Trade Center Towers didn't lie about past crimes. I don't know if any of them outstayed their visas. But they were doing stuff that should have raised red flags from here to the moon (like wanting to learn to steer a plane but not take off or land) and no one in power paid any attention to the alerts from field agents (FBI). Now, they're taking out anyone who doesn't toe the line to a T. And physically abusing them to boot whether it's warranted or not.
I am not a supporter of the Wall On The Rio. I think it's a waste of money and penalizes those who actually help our economy (keeping produce prices low) and do their best to stay on the right side of the law (minus that little matter of coming into the country illegally) and deflects our attention from more important problems like our economy crumbling because of a certain war in Iraq and a certain dependence on oil and politicians and Big Business stealing as many of our freedoms as they can in as short a time as they can by crying out that more people could fly a plane into a building at any given time and they'd love to tell us how many times they've saved us from this exact scenario since 9/11, but they are constrained by the National Security Act so we just have to take their word for it. How many times have we been told that, by the way? 100? 200?
But back to the Washington Post story. It's been reported many times before over two or three years and now, finally, a big paper is talking about it. Why? Are the big papers just now getting over their fear of Big Government? Or do they know that Bush is a lame duck and is too involved in putting out so many other fires created by his and his advisers' incompetency? Are they now truly pissed off at and shamed by their involvement in this Administration's Covert War On Americans that they feel a need to atone for their sins? I mean, I'll take it for whatever reason even if it's only this one topic. But there is so much more for the big papers and overall media to do before they can make it up to me for the last seven years of lapdog complacency.
But I'll take it.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government has injected hundreds of foreigners it has deported with dangerous psychotropic drugs against their will, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday, citing medical records, internal documents and interviews with people who have been drugged.
The newspaper said it has identified 250 cases in which the government has, without medical reason, given drugs meant to treat serious psychiatric disorders to people it has shipped out of the United States since 2003.
Involuntary chemical restraint of detainees without medical justification is a violation of some international human rights codes, the Post reported.
Records show that the government has routinely ignored its own rules, which allow deportees to be sedated only if they have a mental illness requiring the drugs, or if they are so aggressive that they imperil themselves or people around them.
The Department of Homeland Security's new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) took over deportations in 2003.
ICE has stepped up the arrest and removal of foreigners who are in the United States illegally, who have been turned down for asylum or have been convicted of a crime in the past, the Post reported.
A spokesman for the agency was not immediately available for comment.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
McCain's Other Ear
"I can't begin to tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam. That we see it for what it really is. In fact...I do not believe that our nation can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam…I know that this statement sounds extreme. But I am not shrinking back from its implications. The fact is that...America was founded in part with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed. And I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we no longer can afford to ignore."
These are the words of Rod Parsley, a so-called Man of God, a Preacher, who is described by John McCain as John McCain's "spiritual guide". McCain refuses to denounce these words or any others uttered by Parsley or reject parsley's endorsement of him for President. I wouldn't normally care, because everyone famous has nutjobs riding their coattails. But, in this instance, McCain has called on Barack Obama to denounce Jeremiah Wright's feiry rhetoric and to reject Wright's endorsement.
And when exactly did our Founding Fathers decide that one of the overriding directives of our new democracy was to wipe out Islam? I don't recall reading that or being told that in school. While we, as a part of Western civilization, have been at odds and intermittent war with Islamic countries for quite some time I don't think that the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution call for the demise of Islam. Colonial monarchy, yes. Islam, not so much. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Please.
Other things Parsley has said:
"I just love to talk about your money. Let me be very clear -- I want your money. I deserve it. This church deserves it."
"Only 1 percent of the homosexual population in America will die of old age. The average life expectancy for a homosexual in the United States of America is 43 years of age. A lesbian can only expect to live to be 45 years of age. Homosexuals represent 2 percent of the population, yet today they're carrying 60 percent of the known cases of syphilis."
Like I said, I don't usually lend much of an ear to those who surround those who seek public office, because some are always going to be extreme in their opinions. But for McCain to publicly embrace Parsley and Hagee and basically tell the nation that these two people will have his ear if he's elected to the highest office in our land is irresponsible, unethical and downright two-faced when he's calling for Obama to completely reject Wright.
These are the words of Rod Parsley, a so-called Man of God, a Preacher, who is described by John McCain as John McCain's "spiritual guide". McCain refuses to denounce these words or any others uttered by Parsley or reject parsley's endorsement of him for President. I wouldn't normally care, because everyone famous has nutjobs riding their coattails. But, in this instance, McCain has called on Barack Obama to denounce Jeremiah Wright's feiry rhetoric and to reject Wright's endorsement.
And when exactly did our Founding Fathers decide that one of the overriding directives of our new democracy was to wipe out Islam? I don't recall reading that or being told that in school. While we, as a part of Western civilization, have been at odds and intermittent war with Islamic countries for quite some time I don't think that the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution call for the demise of Islam. Colonial monarchy, yes. Islam, not so much. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Please.
Other things Parsley has said:
"I just love to talk about your money. Let me be very clear -- I want your money. I deserve it. This church deserves it."
"Only 1 percent of the homosexual population in America will die of old age. The average life expectancy for a homosexual in the United States of America is 43 years of age. A lesbian can only expect to live to be 45 years of age. Homosexuals represent 2 percent of the population, yet today they're carrying 60 percent of the known cases of syphilis."
Like I said, I don't usually lend much of an ear to those who surround those who seek public office, because some are always going to be extreme in their opinions. But for McCain to publicly embrace Parsley and Hagee and basically tell the nation that these two people will have his ear if he's elected to the highest office in our land is irresponsible, unethical and downright two-faced when he's calling for Obama to completely reject Wright.
Full Court Press
U.S. lease of Waterloo fairgrounds raises questions
By WILLIAM PETROSKI • REGISTER STAFF WRITER • May 6, 2008
Federal officials have imposed a news blackout at the National Cattle Congress fairgrounds in Waterloo, where they have leased almost the entire property through May 25.Tim Counts, a Midwest spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, declined to say Monday whether an immigration raid is pending that would use the fairgrounds as a detention center.
"ICE never talks about our investigative activity or possible future enforcement actions," Counts said. "Regarding the exercise in Waterloo, there is currently no publicly releasable information about that, so we aren't releasing any."He declined to say whether the "exercise" involves training or an immigration enforcement operation."We expect that at some point there will be additional information available, but I can't speculate at what point that might be," Counts said.
In December 2006, ICE conducted an immigration raid at the Swift & Co. meatpacking plant in Marshalltown. Many workers were transported to Camp Dodge in Johnston, where military barracks were used as temporary detention facilities. A total of 1,282 Swift workers were arrested in Iowa and five other states in the biggest crackdown in history on immigration violations at one company.The Waterloo Courier on Sunday reported that contractors have installed generators adjacent to many buildings at the fairgrounds.
In addition, windows on many buildings have been covered up, blocking views inside. A number of mobile-home-size trailers have been transported to the privately owned grounds.Doug Miller, general manager of the Cattle Congress, declined Monday to release a copy of his group's rental contract with U.S. General Services Administration. He also indicated he was in the dark about what's happening inside the fairgrounds."I have no idea. They are conducting whatever exercise they are conducting without telling me all the details of it. I don't have any information to share with you, really," Miller said.
Representatives of Gov. Chet Culver and U.S. Sens. Tom Harkin and Charles Grassley said they had no information about what was happening at the Cattle Congress fairgrounds.At Grassley's request, his staff called ICE officials on Monday."During the call, the ICE officials would neither confirm nor deny anything to Senator Grassley's staff," said Beth Pellett Levine, a Grassley aide.Armando Villareal, administrator of the Iowa Division of Latino Affairs, said he hadn't heard any reports about impending immigration raids. But he added that many Latinos in Iowa are feeling tension and fear.
"Folks have resigned themselves that something terrible is going to happen between now and the election. It is more like a resignation that something is going to happen," Villareal said.
Directive 51 (just for us conspiracy theorists):
(from Wikipedia)
The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (National Security Presidential Directive NSPD-51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20, sometimes called simply "Executive Directive 51" for short), signed by United States President George W. Bush on May 4, 2007, is a Presidential Directive which specifies the procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency." Such an emergency is construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." [1]
The unclassified portion of the directive was posted on the White House website on May 9, 2007, without any further announcement or press briefings,[2] although Special Assistant to George W. Bush Gordon Johndroe answered several questions on the matter when asked about it by members of the press in early June 2007.[3]
(The Directive specifies that all three branches of government will work together, but be coordinated by the president even though all three branches are designated as equal in the Constitution and no one branch can dictate the actions of another.)
By WILLIAM PETROSKI • REGISTER STAFF WRITER • May 6, 2008
Federal officials have imposed a news blackout at the National Cattle Congress fairgrounds in Waterloo, where they have leased almost the entire property through May 25.Tim Counts, a Midwest spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, declined to say Monday whether an immigration raid is pending that would use the fairgrounds as a detention center.
"ICE never talks about our investigative activity or possible future enforcement actions," Counts said. "Regarding the exercise in Waterloo, there is currently no publicly releasable information about that, so we aren't releasing any."He declined to say whether the "exercise" involves training or an immigration enforcement operation."We expect that at some point there will be additional information available, but I can't speculate at what point that might be," Counts said.
In December 2006, ICE conducted an immigration raid at the Swift & Co. meatpacking plant in Marshalltown. Many workers were transported to Camp Dodge in Johnston, where military barracks were used as temporary detention facilities. A total of 1,282 Swift workers were arrested in Iowa and five other states in the biggest crackdown in history on immigration violations at one company.The Waterloo Courier on Sunday reported that contractors have installed generators adjacent to many buildings at the fairgrounds.
In addition, windows on many buildings have been covered up, blocking views inside. A number of mobile-home-size trailers have been transported to the privately owned grounds.Doug Miller, general manager of the Cattle Congress, declined Monday to release a copy of his group's rental contract with U.S. General Services Administration. He also indicated he was in the dark about what's happening inside the fairgrounds."I have no idea. They are conducting whatever exercise they are conducting without telling me all the details of it. I don't have any information to share with you, really," Miller said.
Representatives of Gov. Chet Culver and U.S. Sens. Tom Harkin and Charles Grassley said they had no information about what was happening at the Cattle Congress fairgrounds.At Grassley's request, his staff called ICE officials on Monday."During the call, the ICE officials would neither confirm nor deny anything to Senator Grassley's staff," said Beth Pellett Levine, a Grassley aide.Armando Villareal, administrator of the Iowa Division of Latino Affairs, said he hadn't heard any reports about impending immigration raids. But he added that many Latinos in Iowa are feeling tension and fear.
"Folks have resigned themselves that something terrible is going to happen between now and the election. It is more like a resignation that something is going to happen," Villareal said.
Directive 51 (just for us conspiracy theorists):
(from Wikipedia)
The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (National Security Presidential Directive NSPD-51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20, sometimes called simply "Executive Directive 51" for short), signed by United States President George W. Bush on May 4, 2007, is a Presidential Directive which specifies the procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency." Such an emergency is construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." [1]
The unclassified portion of the directive was posted on the White House website on May 9, 2007, without any further announcement or press briefings,[2] although Special Assistant to George W. Bush Gordon Johndroe answered several questions on the matter when asked about it by members of the press in early June 2007.[3]
(The Directive specifies that all three branches of government will work together, but be coordinated by the president even though all three branches are designated as equal in the Constitution and no one branch can dictate the actions of another.)
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
My Version Of Generik's Lyric Contest (And I Give you Both Answers Right Off)
Which of the following quotes was not spoken by the Rev. John Hagee and which two were spoken by Sen. John McCain. (Hint: McCain's is the very last two)
"The Quran teaches that [all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews]. Yes, it teaches that very clearly."
" I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans...I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that...There was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades...The Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment."
"...the president's support for Israel fulfills a biblical injunction to protect the Jewish state," which "will play a pivotal role in the second coming."
"Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist."
"[T]he feminist movement today is throwing off authority in rebellion against God's pattern for the family."
"The military will have difficulty recruiting healthy and strong heterosexuals for combat purposes. Why? Fighting in combat with a man in your fox hole that has AIDS or is HIV positive is double jeopardy" (blogger's note: doing anything with someone in my "foxhole" would be difficult, so Hagee may actually have a point here)
"It [Gay marriage] will open the door to incest, to polygamy, and every conceivable marriage arrangement demented minds can possibly conceive. If God does not then punish America, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."
"It is impossible to call yourself a Christian and defend homosexuality. There is no justification or acceptance of homosexuality.... Homosexuality means the death of society because homosexuals can recruit, but they cannot reproduce."
"Homosexuality means the death of society because homosexuals can recruit, but they cannot reproduce."
"As millions of people anticipate the release of the latest Harry Potter book and film, we're reminded once again of Satan's ongoing attempt to deceive and destroy. The whole purpose of the Potter books is to desensitize readers and introduce them to the occult."
"Only a Spirit-filled woman can submit to her husband's lead. It is the natural desire of a woman to lead through feminine manipulation of the man. .... Fallen women will try to dominate the marriage. The man has the God-given role to be the loving leader of the home"
On the Antichrist: “He’s going to make a seven-year treaty with Israel and set up his image to be worshiped in Israel. And that is where I’m convinced that a Jewish person who understands who he is shoots him, because the Bible says he’s wounded in the head and recovers wondrously, emulating the death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. At this point in time when he comes back to life he has the personality of a Hitler. He now pursues the Jewish people. The Jewish people then go to Petra, which is a place in Jordan that is a natural fortress. And that God is going to provide for them there protection from him. And as he gets ready to pursue him, the Bible says that he, the Antichrist, hears tidings from the east that disturb him. The tidings from the east is that… the Chinese army is marching up the Euphrates River, 200 million of them, and they’re moving toward the battle of Armageddon, because they want the oil that will make them a superpower.”
On the Israeli-Palestinian peace process: “When the Annapolis Conference was being planned and the topic of dividing Jerusalem came up, one man asked me, ‘Where do you stand on this based on the Bible?’ I responded that ‘the plan of the Antichrist is to divide Jerusalem.’ If America puts pressure on Israel to divide Jerusalem we are following the blueprint of the Prince of Darkness. Amos 3:2 states that any nation that divides the Land of Israel will come under the severe judgment of God.” (blogger's note: there's an Amos in the Bible? Really? Suddenly, Kevin Smith's 13th apostle Rufus has more credence)
“I am very honored by pastor John Hagee’s endorsement.”
“Anyone who worries about how long we’re in Iraq does not understand the military and does not understand war." (blogger's note: evidently, neither do Bush and McCain since they can't decide on how long we're supposed to be there or how long we might be there or why we're actually there or who we're supposed to be fighting or...well, dammit, what the you-know-what is actually going on at any given time)
"The Quran teaches that [all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews]. Yes, it teaches that very clearly."
" I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans...I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that...There was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades...The Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment."
"...the president's support for Israel fulfills a biblical injunction to protect the Jewish state," which "will play a pivotal role in the second coming."
"Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist."
"[T]he feminist movement today is throwing off authority in rebellion against God's pattern for the family."
"The military will have difficulty recruiting healthy and strong heterosexuals for combat purposes. Why? Fighting in combat with a man in your fox hole that has AIDS or is HIV positive is double jeopardy" (blogger's note: doing anything with someone in my "foxhole" would be difficult, so Hagee may actually have a point here)
"It [Gay marriage] will open the door to incest, to polygamy, and every conceivable marriage arrangement demented minds can possibly conceive. If God does not then punish America, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."
"It is impossible to call yourself a Christian and defend homosexuality. There is no justification or acceptance of homosexuality.... Homosexuality means the death of society because homosexuals can recruit, but they cannot reproduce."
"Homosexuality means the death of society because homosexuals can recruit, but they cannot reproduce."
"As millions of people anticipate the release of the latest Harry Potter book and film, we're reminded once again of Satan's ongoing attempt to deceive and destroy. The whole purpose of the Potter books is to desensitize readers and introduce them to the occult."
"Only a Spirit-filled woman can submit to her husband's lead. It is the natural desire of a woman to lead through feminine manipulation of the man. .... Fallen women will try to dominate the marriage. The man has the God-given role to be the loving leader of the home"
On the Antichrist: “He’s going to make a seven-year treaty with Israel and set up his image to be worshiped in Israel. And that is where I’m convinced that a Jewish person who understands who he is shoots him, because the Bible says he’s wounded in the head and recovers wondrously, emulating the death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. At this point in time when he comes back to life he has the personality of a Hitler. He now pursues the Jewish people. The Jewish people then go to Petra, which is a place in Jordan that is a natural fortress. And that God is going to provide for them there protection from him. And as he gets ready to pursue him, the Bible says that he, the Antichrist, hears tidings from the east that disturb him. The tidings from the east is that… the Chinese army is marching up the Euphrates River, 200 million of them, and they’re moving toward the battle of Armageddon, because they want the oil that will make them a superpower.”
On the Israeli-Palestinian peace process: “When the Annapolis Conference was being planned and the topic of dividing Jerusalem came up, one man asked me, ‘Where do you stand on this based on the Bible?’ I responded that ‘the plan of the Antichrist is to divide Jerusalem.’ If America puts pressure on Israel to divide Jerusalem we are following the blueprint of the Prince of Darkness. Amos 3:2 states that any nation that divides the Land of Israel will come under the severe judgment of God.” (blogger's note: there's an Amos in the Bible? Really? Suddenly, Kevin Smith's 13th apostle Rufus has more credence)
“I am very honored by pastor John Hagee’s endorsement.”
“Anyone who worries about how long we’re in Iraq does not understand the military and does not understand war." (blogger's note: evidently, neither do Bush and McCain since they can't decide on how long we're supposed to be there or how long we might be there or why we're actually there or who we're supposed to be fighting or...well, dammit, what the you-know-what is actually going on at any given time)
Friday, April 25, 2008
Your Fingers, Fogeddaboutit!
Um...uh...wow...
QUESTION: Some are raising that the privacy aspects of this thing, you know, sharing of that kind of data, very personal data, among four countries is quite a scary thing.
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, first of all, a fingerprint is hardly personal data because you leave it on glasses and silverware and articles all over the world, they’re like footprints. They’re not particularly private.
Go here for the article.
QUESTION: Some are raising that the privacy aspects of this thing, you know, sharing of that kind of data, very personal data, among four countries is quite a scary thing.
SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, first of all, a fingerprint is hardly personal data because you leave it on glasses and silverware and articles all over the world, they’re like footprints. They’re not particularly private.
Go here for the article.
I'm Just Dreaming: Kill Rush Limbaugh! This is a Joke, In Case the FBI Has Nothing Better To Do Like Prosecute Rush For Advocating Violence On Others
Rush Limbaugh 'Dreaming' Of Riots In Denver
Talk Show Host Wants America To See Actions Of 'Far Left'
DENVER -- Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments that appear to call for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.
He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.
"Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said during Wednesday's radio broadcast. He then went on to say that's the best thing that could happen to the country.
Limbaugh cited Al Sharpton, saying the Barack Obama supporter threatened to superdelegates that "there's going to be trouble" if the presidency is taken from Obama.
Several callers called in to the radio show to denounce Limbaugh's comments, when he later stated, "I am not inspiring or inciting riots, I am dreaming of riots in Denver."
Limbaugh said with massive riots in Denver, which he called part of "Operation Chaos," the people on the far left would look bad.
"There won't be riots at our convention," Limbaugh said of the Republican National Convention. "We don't riot. We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does."
He believes electing Democrats will hurt America's security and economy and appeared to call on his listeners to make sure that doesn't happen.
"We do, hopefully, the right thing for the sake of this country. We're the only one in charge of our affairs. We don't farm out our defense if we elect Democrats ... and riots in Denver, at the Democratic Convention will see to it we don't elect Democrats. And that's the best damn thing that can happen to this country, as far as I can think," Limbaugh said.
Later, Limbaugh downplayed his "dreaming of riots in Denver" statement, and said that he wasn't calling for riots and was referring to warnings of trouble if superdelegates decide the nomination at the Democratic National Convention.
Limbaugh's comments prompted Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper to say, "Anyone who would call for riots in an American city has clearly lost their bearings."
Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar also responded to Limbaugh's comments Friday, asking Lee Larsen, senior vice president of Clear Channel Radio Rocky Mountain Region to reprimand Limbaugh.
"As I read Mr. Limbaugh's comments about riots at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, they appear to me to be a clear exhortation that those riots are exactly what he wants to happen," Salazar said in a letter to Larsen.
Denver will host the DNC on Aug. 25 to Aug. 28.
You want to know what I'm dreaming of? Riots outside Limbaugh's studio ala Fallujah and the contractors who were killed, quartered and strung up on a bridge. Not that I would ever call for or advocate it. That would be wrong. Right? And in no way should I ever be held responsible if the millions of people who listen to my treasonous tripe should act upon it. Because I'm just dreaming here. Pure fantasy, afternoon woodie stuff that reflects nothing other than my own moral turptitude and the fact that I have a huge johnson for the days of segregation and White is Right and my Daddy telling me that "this is our little secret". It's just me, folks, having a bit of fun. Just because I named it "Operation Kill Limbaugh" means nothing. What's in a name after all? Nothing. So, if any of you who read this decide to act on it, just remember that I'm joking. I don't want Limbaugh dead. No! And I don't seriously want him hacked apart and strung up. No! No! Even though he represents everything I find deplorable and amoral and dehumanizing and pettyminded and vindictive and anti-American and unpatriotic (whatever that means) and downright inbred and cowardly. Even though all of that. No! Don't go out and riot in front of his station or home and kill him and take machetes to him and hang him from the highest streetlight. No! That would be wrong. And it would be stooping to his level (if such a level could be stooped to without the minutest of calipers to judge the measurement). And I don't want that.
I'm just dreaming, after all.
Talk Show Host Wants America To See Actions Of 'Far Left'
DENVER -- Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments that appear to call for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.
He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.
"Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said during Wednesday's radio broadcast. He then went on to say that's the best thing that could happen to the country.
Limbaugh cited Al Sharpton, saying the Barack Obama supporter threatened to superdelegates that "there's going to be trouble" if the presidency is taken from Obama.
Several callers called in to the radio show to denounce Limbaugh's comments, when he later stated, "I am not inspiring or inciting riots, I am dreaming of riots in Denver."
Limbaugh said with massive riots in Denver, which he called part of "Operation Chaos," the people on the far left would look bad.
"There won't be riots at our convention," Limbaugh said of the Republican National Convention. "We don't riot. We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does."
He believes electing Democrats will hurt America's security and economy and appeared to call on his listeners to make sure that doesn't happen.
"We do, hopefully, the right thing for the sake of this country. We're the only one in charge of our affairs. We don't farm out our defense if we elect Democrats ... and riots in Denver, at the Democratic Convention will see to it we don't elect Democrats. And that's the best damn thing that can happen to this country, as far as I can think," Limbaugh said.
Later, Limbaugh downplayed his "dreaming of riots in Denver" statement, and said that he wasn't calling for riots and was referring to warnings of trouble if superdelegates decide the nomination at the Democratic National Convention.
Limbaugh's comments prompted Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper to say, "Anyone who would call for riots in an American city has clearly lost their bearings."
Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar also responded to Limbaugh's comments Friday, asking Lee Larsen, senior vice president of Clear Channel Radio Rocky Mountain Region to reprimand Limbaugh.
"As I read Mr. Limbaugh's comments about riots at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, they appear to me to be a clear exhortation that those riots are exactly what he wants to happen," Salazar said in a letter to Larsen.
Denver will host the DNC on Aug. 25 to Aug. 28.
You want to know what I'm dreaming of? Riots outside Limbaugh's studio ala Fallujah and the contractors who were killed, quartered and strung up on a bridge. Not that I would ever call for or advocate it. That would be wrong. Right? And in no way should I ever be held responsible if the millions of people who listen to my treasonous tripe should act upon it. Because I'm just dreaming here. Pure fantasy, afternoon woodie stuff that reflects nothing other than my own moral turptitude and the fact that I have a huge johnson for the days of segregation and White is Right and my Daddy telling me that "this is our little secret". It's just me, folks, having a bit of fun. Just because I named it "Operation Kill Limbaugh" means nothing. What's in a name after all? Nothing. So, if any of you who read this decide to act on it, just remember that I'm joking. I don't want Limbaugh dead. No! And I don't seriously want him hacked apart and strung up. No! No! Even though he represents everything I find deplorable and amoral and dehumanizing and pettyminded and vindictive and anti-American and unpatriotic (whatever that means) and downright inbred and cowardly. Even though all of that. No! Don't go out and riot in front of his station or home and kill him and take machetes to him and hang him from the highest streetlight. No! That would be wrong. And it would be stooping to his level (if such a level could be stooped to without the minutest of calipers to judge the measurement). And I don't want that.
I'm just dreaming, after all.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Daily Kos Hits One Out Of The Park
Sometimes I just gotta love the Daily Kos:
(excerpted from her latest blog)
ME: First off, Mr. Ashcroft, I'd like to apologize for the rudeness of some of my fellow students. It was uncalled for--we can disagree civilly, we don't need that. (round of applause from the audience, and Ashcroft smiles) I have here in my hand two documents. One of them, you know, is the text of the United Nations Convention against Torture, which, point of interest, says nothing about "lasting physical damage"...
ASHCROFT: (interrupting) Do you have the Senate reservations to it? ME: No, I don't. Do you happen to know what they are?
ASHCROFT: (angrily) I don't have them memorized, no. I don't have time to go around memorizing random legal facts. I just don't want these people in the audience to go away saying, "He was wrong, she had the proof right in her hand!" Because that's not true. It's a lie. If you don't have the reservations, you don't have anything. Now, if you want to bring them another time, we can talk, but...
ME: Actually, Mr. Ashcroft, my question was about this other document. (laughter and applause) This other document is a section from the judgment of the Tokyo War Tribunal. After WWII, the Tokyo Tribunal was basically the Nuremberg Trials for Japan. Many Japanese leaders were put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture. And among the tortures listed was the "water treatment," which we nowadays call waterboarding...
ASHCROFT: (interrupting) This is a speech, not a question. I don't mind, but it's not a question.
ME: It will be, sir, just give me a moment. The judgment describes this water treatment, and I quote, "the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach." One man, Yukio Asano, was sentenced to fifteen years hard labor by the allies for waterboarding American troops to obtain information. Since Yukio Asano was trying to get information to help defend his country--exactly what you, Mr. Ashcroft, say is acceptible for Americans to do--do you believe that his sentence was unjust? (boisterous applause and shouts of "Good question!") ASHCROFT: (angrily) Now, listen here. You're comparing apples and oranges, apples and oranges. We don't do anything like what you described.
ME: I'm sorry, I was under the impression that we still use the method of putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water down their throat...
ASHCROFT: (interrupting, red-faced, shouting) Pouring! Pouring! Did you hear what she said? "Putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water on them." That's not what you said before! Read that again, what you said before!
ME: Sir, other reports of the time say...
ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read what you said before! (cries of "Answer her fucking question!" from the audience) Read it!
ME: (firmly) Mr. Ashcroft, please answer the question.
ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read it back!
ME: "The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach."
ASHCROFT: (shouting) You hear that? You hear it? "Forced!" If you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring...does this college have an anatomy class? If you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring...
ME: (firmly and loudly) Mr. Ashcroft, do you believe that Yukio Asano's sentence was unjust? Answer the question. (pause)
ASHCROFT: (more restrained) It's not a fair question; there's no comparison. Next question! (loud chorus of boos from the audience)
(excerpted from her latest blog)
ME: First off, Mr. Ashcroft, I'd like to apologize for the rudeness of some of my fellow students. It was uncalled for--we can disagree civilly, we don't need that. (round of applause from the audience, and Ashcroft smiles) I have here in my hand two documents. One of them, you know, is the text of the United Nations Convention against Torture, which, point of interest, says nothing about "lasting physical damage"...
ASHCROFT: (interrupting) Do you have the Senate reservations to it? ME: No, I don't. Do you happen to know what they are?
ASHCROFT: (angrily) I don't have them memorized, no. I don't have time to go around memorizing random legal facts. I just don't want these people in the audience to go away saying, "He was wrong, she had the proof right in her hand!" Because that's not true. It's a lie. If you don't have the reservations, you don't have anything. Now, if you want to bring them another time, we can talk, but...
ME: Actually, Mr. Ashcroft, my question was about this other document. (laughter and applause) This other document is a section from the judgment of the Tokyo War Tribunal. After WWII, the Tokyo Tribunal was basically the Nuremberg Trials for Japan. Many Japanese leaders were put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture. And among the tortures listed was the "water treatment," which we nowadays call waterboarding...
ASHCROFT: (interrupting) This is a speech, not a question. I don't mind, but it's not a question.
ME: It will be, sir, just give me a moment. The judgment describes this water treatment, and I quote, "the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach." One man, Yukio Asano, was sentenced to fifteen years hard labor by the allies for waterboarding American troops to obtain information. Since Yukio Asano was trying to get information to help defend his country--exactly what you, Mr. Ashcroft, say is acceptible for Americans to do--do you believe that his sentence was unjust? (boisterous applause and shouts of "Good question!") ASHCROFT: (angrily) Now, listen here. You're comparing apples and oranges, apples and oranges. We don't do anything like what you described.
ME: I'm sorry, I was under the impression that we still use the method of putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water down their throat...
ASHCROFT: (interrupting, red-faced, shouting) Pouring! Pouring! Did you hear what she said? "Putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water on them." That's not what you said before! Read that again, what you said before!
ME: Sir, other reports of the time say...
ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read what you said before! (cries of "Answer her fucking question!" from the audience) Read it!
ME: (firmly) Mr. Ashcroft, please answer the question.
ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read it back!
ME: "The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach."
ASHCROFT: (shouting) You hear that? You hear it? "Forced!" If you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring...does this college have an anatomy class? If you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring...
ME: (firmly and loudly) Mr. Ashcroft, do you believe that Yukio Asano's sentence was unjust? Answer the question. (pause)
ASHCROFT: (more restrained) It's not a fair question; there's no comparison. Next question! (loud chorus of boos from the audience)
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Give Me liberty Or Give Me Gingrich!
What unmitigated gall! What chutzpah! What vanity! What a donkey's ass! That we would give up ALL of our liberties and freedoms to ensure protection from any unidentified and nebulous threats. We have been giving up our liberties for about 8 years now based on unjustified threats. And for what? So an illegally seated president and his cabal could line the pockets of Big Business. And foreign governments. Not that any other president hasn't taken advantage of uncertainty to reward loyal investors, but this one has taken the practice beyond the pale. And to have a disgraced politician (one who had divorce papers served on his wife while she was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment) pushes it even further. To have this...this...this chihuahua of a man, this land piranha tell me that I would give up all of my most profound beliefs because hesays I would without even asking me is the epitome of arrogance.
But don't believe me. Please read:
Contradicting His Hero Ben Franklin, Gingrich Says Americans ‘Will Give Up All Their Liberties’ For Safety»
Yesterday, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich visited Drew University in New Jersey, where he took questions from 20 political science majors there. When one asked him how the government could justify stripping rights from Americans in such pieces of legislation as the Patriot Act, Gingrich said that the government has a “right to defend society,” and when under threat, “people will give up all their liberties“:
“If there’s a threat, you have a right to defend society,” Gingrich said. “People will give up all their liberties to avoid that level of threat.“
Gingrich is directly contradicted by Benjamin Franklin, who rejected the notion that one should give up one’s liberties out of fear:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
This disagreement is significant, because Gingrich considers Franklin one of his heroes. He prides himself on his Pennsylvania upbringing, where he says “it was easy…to imbue a deep sense of the freedom that is at the heart of the American tradition,” and he frequently invokes Franklin to buttress his conservative claims about individual responsibility and religion in public life:
“Only Franklin personified the striving, ambitious, rising system of individual achievement, hard work, thrift and optimism found at the heart of the American spirit. Only Franklin worked his way up in the worlds of business and organized political power in both colonial and national periods. Only Franklin was a…creator of the American mythos of the common man.”
“During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin (often considered one of the least religious of the Founding Fathers) proposed that the Convention begin each day with a prayer. … [T]he Founding Fathers, from the very birth of the United States, saw God as central to defining America.”
“Franklin, who was quite old and had been relatively quiet for the entire Convention, suddenly stood up and was angry, and he said: I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men, and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?”
Gingrich accuses “the secular Left” of trying to rid religion from public life, thereby “distorting the Constitution to achieve a goal that the Founding Fathers would have found to be a fundamental threat to liberty.” Yet it his own cavalier subordination of civil liberties in the name of national security that would truly offend the Founders.
But don't believe me. Please read:
Contradicting His Hero Ben Franklin, Gingrich Says Americans ‘Will Give Up All Their Liberties’ For Safety»
Yesterday, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich visited Drew University in New Jersey, where he took questions from 20 political science majors there. When one asked him how the government could justify stripping rights from Americans in such pieces of legislation as the Patriot Act, Gingrich said that the government has a “right to defend society,” and when under threat, “people will give up all their liberties“:
“If there’s a threat, you have a right to defend society,” Gingrich said. “People will give up all their liberties to avoid that level of threat.“
Gingrich is directly contradicted by Benjamin Franklin, who rejected the notion that one should give up one’s liberties out of fear:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
This disagreement is significant, because Gingrich considers Franklin one of his heroes. He prides himself on his Pennsylvania upbringing, where he says “it was easy…to imbue a deep sense of the freedom that is at the heart of the American tradition,” and he frequently invokes Franklin to buttress his conservative claims about individual responsibility and religion in public life:
“Only Franklin personified the striving, ambitious, rising system of individual achievement, hard work, thrift and optimism found at the heart of the American spirit. Only Franklin worked his way up in the worlds of business and organized political power in both colonial and national periods. Only Franklin was a…creator of the American mythos of the common man.”
“During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin (often considered one of the least religious of the Founding Fathers) proposed that the Convention begin each day with a prayer. … [T]he Founding Fathers, from the very birth of the United States, saw God as central to defining America.”
“Franklin, who was quite old and had been relatively quiet for the entire Convention, suddenly stood up and was angry, and he said: I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men, and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?”
Gingrich accuses “the secular Left” of trying to rid religion from public life, thereby “distorting the Constitution to achieve a goal that the Founding Fathers would have found to be a fundamental threat to liberty.” Yet it his own cavalier subordination of civil liberties in the name of national security that would truly offend the Founders.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Oh Goodness. Really. "Patriotic Zeal".
Mood turns ugly in Beijing
Posted: Friday, April 18, 2008 2:16 PMFiled Under: Beijing, China
By Adrienne Mong, NBC News producer
What a difference a couple of months can make.
As people returned to work following the end of the Chinese New Year holidays in February, there was a palpable sense of anticipation for the Olympic Summer Games. The intense winter cold snap lasted longer than the holidays, but there was a spring in everyone’s step.
Friends working in professions as diverse as business and the arts spoke of an accelerated rate of activity; people seemed to be jetting back and forth from the United States and Europe in a frenzy to meet deadlines on special projects before the Games begin August 8.
AP
Chinese youths protest outside a Carrefour supermarket, a French owned company, in Qingdao in east China's Shandong province on April 18.
My e-mail inbox was getting clogged on a more regular basis with press conference notices from the Beijing Olympic authorities, BOCOG. And I was fielding dozens of requests from far-flung friends to crash on the floor of my apartment in the months leading up to August.
It was as though Beijing had become the center of the world and everyone wanted to be here.
And then, the protests and violence in Tibet and surrounding regions happened.
In response to international condemnation of its policies in Tibet, the Chinese government has taken a hard line against critics. At the same time, Chinese people have become more upset over what they perceive as Western media bias against their nation.
Targeting the Western press CNN has been the target of intense criticism and threats for allegedly biased coverage of the protests in Tibet, and particularly for remarks made by commentator Jack Cafferty, who referred to China’s leaders – not the Chinese people – as a "bunch of goons and thugs."
On Thursday, CNN’s bureau chief in Beijing was summoned to China’s Foreign Ministry, where officials demanded an apology and a retraction of Cafferty’s comments.
CNN has apologized for any offence, and Cafferty clarified on air earlier in the week that his comments were referring specifically to the government and "not to Chinese people or to Chinese-Americans."
But even before this latest incident, we had heard from CNN staff that non-essential personnel had been asked to stay away from the CNN Beijing office because threats from angry Chinese activists were growing serious.
A Chinese friend who once worked for CNN learned Friday that his name and personal information had been posted on one of the more virulent anti-Western media Web sites in China. He said he was shocked by the coarse language people used to accuse him of being a traitor.
Not just CNNAn acquaintance at a top-selling U.S. newsmagazine described an incident in which someone rang the doorbell of her home and tried to set off a fire extinguisher in her face when she opened the front door.
NBC News hasn’t been subject to the same level of harassment as some other media outlets, but for several weeks now in the late evenings our bureau has received prank phone calls from Chinese people asking whether we are CNN or just randomly cursing all Western media.
The anxiety isn’t confined to journalists.
Chinese furious over how the Olympic torch was received in Paris on April 7 are planning a demonstration Saturday in front of a branch of the French supermarket, Carrefour. And a more widespread boycott of all Carrefour branches planned for May 1 is gathering steam.
A friend with French relatives coming to visit Beijing next week is anxious about how they might be treated and is reluctant to leave them on their own to explore the capital.
In a way, however, this French family is lucky they can even be here.
Crackdown on visitors and residents Chinese authorities are cracking down on entry visas. Reports are circulating among U.S. businessmen that many companies are starting to suffer from a restriction on business visas for legitimate employees.
Every foreign freelancer or independent contractor I know here is looking for a sponsor, as they’ve been warned their current – and legitimate – business visas are not likely to be renewed. Even a college student whom NBC agreed to take on for the summer has had to cut short his internship, because he won’t be allowed to extend his student visa beyond August 1; extending a visa was previously a common practice.
It’s believed that the visa restrictions are to prevent foreign activists from entering China ahead of the Olympics and staying through the games.
One of our local staffers told me that five security people showed up at her home at 9:30 p.m. Wednesday, pounding on her front door and demanding to see her local residency permit. They were rude, she said, and they examined parts of her apartment without her consent.
"They wanted to know if I was the only one living here," she said.
Of course, some of this might appear trivial compared to the domestic political housecleaning taking place across China. Many dissidents or potential noisemakers have been rounded up since December.
In the wake of these incidents, one can only wonder if this is the image China’s government and its people really want to present to the outside world as they prepare to host an Olympics bearing the banner "One World One Dream."
Perhaps not. A commentary posted on the state-run Xinhua news agency Web site Friday urges the Chinese people to contain their "patriotic zeal."
Hee. Hee hee. Oh, the similarities between our two countries. Other than they make things for really, really cheap and sell their girl-children into slavery or something like that. Patriotic zeal, indeed. Sounds more like what we were doing to Muslims and all other dark-skinned folk after 9/11. Not to mention the attacks on those Cheese Eating Surrender (Hey Hey We're The) Monkeys, I mean Le French.
So, those of you who claim that we and the Chinks have nothing in common and they are just damn dirty Commies, think again. They are becoming more and more like us. Or us like them. Not sure. Hmmm....Either way, power do corrupt, do it not? And unchecked power, it do make for strange phrases. Patriotic zeal...ah crap, that's funny.
Posted: Friday, April 18, 2008 2:16 PMFiled Under: Beijing, China
By Adrienne Mong, NBC News producer
What a difference a couple of months can make.
As people returned to work following the end of the Chinese New Year holidays in February, there was a palpable sense of anticipation for the Olympic Summer Games. The intense winter cold snap lasted longer than the holidays, but there was a spring in everyone’s step.
Friends working in professions as diverse as business and the arts spoke of an accelerated rate of activity; people seemed to be jetting back and forth from the United States and Europe in a frenzy to meet deadlines on special projects before the Games begin August 8.
AP
Chinese youths protest outside a Carrefour supermarket, a French owned company, in Qingdao in east China's Shandong province on April 18.
My e-mail inbox was getting clogged on a more regular basis with press conference notices from the Beijing Olympic authorities, BOCOG. And I was fielding dozens of requests from far-flung friends to crash on the floor of my apartment in the months leading up to August.
It was as though Beijing had become the center of the world and everyone wanted to be here.
And then, the protests and violence in Tibet and surrounding regions happened.
In response to international condemnation of its policies in Tibet, the Chinese government has taken a hard line against critics. At the same time, Chinese people have become more upset over what they perceive as Western media bias against their nation.
Targeting the Western press CNN has been the target of intense criticism and threats for allegedly biased coverage of the protests in Tibet, and particularly for remarks made by commentator Jack Cafferty, who referred to China’s leaders – not the Chinese people – as a "bunch of goons and thugs."
On Thursday, CNN’s bureau chief in Beijing was summoned to China’s Foreign Ministry, where officials demanded an apology and a retraction of Cafferty’s comments.
CNN has apologized for any offence, and Cafferty clarified on air earlier in the week that his comments were referring specifically to the government and "not to Chinese people or to Chinese-Americans."
But even before this latest incident, we had heard from CNN staff that non-essential personnel had been asked to stay away from the CNN Beijing office because threats from angry Chinese activists were growing serious.
A Chinese friend who once worked for CNN learned Friday that his name and personal information had been posted on one of the more virulent anti-Western media Web sites in China. He said he was shocked by the coarse language people used to accuse him of being a traitor.
Not just CNNAn acquaintance at a top-selling U.S. newsmagazine described an incident in which someone rang the doorbell of her home and tried to set off a fire extinguisher in her face when she opened the front door.
NBC News hasn’t been subject to the same level of harassment as some other media outlets, but for several weeks now in the late evenings our bureau has received prank phone calls from Chinese people asking whether we are CNN or just randomly cursing all Western media.
The anxiety isn’t confined to journalists.
Chinese furious over how the Olympic torch was received in Paris on April 7 are planning a demonstration Saturday in front of a branch of the French supermarket, Carrefour. And a more widespread boycott of all Carrefour branches planned for May 1 is gathering steam.
A friend with French relatives coming to visit Beijing next week is anxious about how they might be treated and is reluctant to leave them on their own to explore the capital.
In a way, however, this French family is lucky they can even be here.
Crackdown on visitors and residents Chinese authorities are cracking down on entry visas. Reports are circulating among U.S. businessmen that many companies are starting to suffer from a restriction on business visas for legitimate employees.
Every foreign freelancer or independent contractor I know here is looking for a sponsor, as they’ve been warned their current – and legitimate – business visas are not likely to be renewed. Even a college student whom NBC agreed to take on for the summer has had to cut short his internship, because he won’t be allowed to extend his student visa beyond August 1; extending a visa was previously a common practice.
It’s believed that the visa restrictions are to prevent foreign activists from entering China ahead of the Olympics and staying through the games.
One of our local staffers told me that five security people showed up at her home at 9:30 p.m. Wednesday, pounding on her front door and demanding to see her local residency permit. They were rude, she said, and they examined parts of her apartment without her consent.
"They wanted to know if I was the only one living here," she said.
Of course, some of this might appear trivial compared to the domestic political housecleaning taking place across China. Many dissidents or potential noisemakers have been rounded up since December.
In the wake of these incidents, one can only wonder if this is the image China’s government and its people really want to present to the outside world as they prepare to host an Olympics bearing the banner "One World One Dream."
Perhaps not. A commentary posted on the state-run Xinhua news agency Web site Friday urges the Chinese people to contain their "patriotic zeal."
Hee. Hee hee. Oh, the similarities between our two countries. Other than they make things for really, really cheap and sell their girl-children into slavery or something like that. Patriotic zeal, indeed. Sounds more like what we were doing to Muslims and all other dark-skinned folk after 9/11. Not to mention the attacks on those Cheese Eating Surrender (Hey Hey We're The) Monkeys, I mean Le French.
So, those of you who claim that we and the Chinks have nothing in common and they are just damn dirty Commies, think again. They are becoming more and more like us. Or us like them. Not sure. Hmmm....Either way, power do corrupt, do it not? And unchecked power, it do make for strange phrases. Patriotic zeal...ah crap, that's funny.
Friday, March 14, 2008
An Argument (in a way) For Eliot Spitzer
The Fed announced a $200,000,000 bailout to the unfortunate banking dildos caught up short by the current housing foreclosure/subprime mess. Immediately following, the Stock Market took a shit (again). Greg Palast has a very good article about this , much better written and researched than a lowly nyuck like me could do (and that is why he gets paid for what he does, though often ignored by the mainstream press). But isn't it coincidental that Eliot Spitzer gets nabbed in a prostitution ring sting right before the Fed pulls off this megapayoff at the expense of...US! That $200 Billion wasn't private money. It was ours. We, in effect, paid off the very banks and lenders that instigated this type of predatory loaning and flexible APR. Countrywide is now "under investigation" by the "Justice Department" for its immoral and (not quite yet) illegal actions. Countrywide is now, also, owned by Bank Of America.
Spitzer was the main man in charge of attacking these greedy bastards and stopping them from raping those of us who, through ignorance or lack of any other opportunity, agreed to what we thought was a fair and above-board deal. He was hated by the lenders, the banks and George Bush. He stood in the way (not very well, actually) of those entities and Saudi Arabia of making hundreds of Billions individually and walking away with none noticing.
Most of what Greg Palast writes in his newest missive I knew about in general. I did NOT know that B of A had bought Countrywide.
I DID know that Congressman Greg Vitters ( a Republican, by the way) had been caught in the same kind of sting and was being treated with kid gloves by the Feds. In fact, they tried to keep his name silent. He still hasn't been convicted as far as I know of whatever it is that Johns get convicted of. And he was using public money to get his rocks off. Unlike Spitzer who paid out of his own pocket.
What was my first thought when I read that Spitzer had been connected to a call girl ring?
Answer: What a dumbass dickhead!
Unlike the so-called "moral" morons who sprinkle this country with their holier-than-thou attitudes and "I read it in the Bible, so it must be true" tripe, I don't care what a man or woman does on their own time so long as no one is injured by it (and by "no one" I mean "other than themselves", and by "injured" I mean neither physically, financially or empirically). You might say "But Fishstick, his wife and children WERE injured".
To that I reply: yes, but so what? He is as human as human gets. More so in one sense of the word. Those who do not fuck up are, in my eyes, less than human, so caught up as they are about being better than everyone else and closer to "perfection".
Spitzer fucked up. But his true sin (if there is such a thing) was to do it as a Public Figure dedicated to rooting out crime and corruption. He committed crime and it showed us the perception of corruption. He let down so many of the wage earners who believed that he was "better" than them and those he was after. He disappointed all of the blue collars hoping for justice against all those who benefited from deceptive legal practices and the protection of the government. He had stood up to the powers that be and spit in their eyes as a mouthpiece for us.
And, because of that, he was watched. And he knew that. And, still, he partook of pleasures forbidden by law and the Puritans who have ruled our country for too long. Puritans who, in turn, break these very laws and expect to get away with it. Who know they will get away with it so long as they have the proper walls and buffers in place. Spitzer forgot that rule: when you run afoul of those making the money, you will be crushed on the reefs of their power.
And it's a shame. He was doing good for us the taxpayers. He was shining a spotlight on the greed still espoused by the same small cabal for so many, many years.
Did he succumb to the pressures of the job? Did his homelife suffer from the demands of his calling? Probably yes to both. Did he use good judgement while hiring a prostitute? Definitively NO. The corrupt and immoral can get away with this type of activity much easier than the torch bearers for they have set the groudrules.
And the ground rules are simple: those who speak out against unlawful or unethical or immoral actions will be the first to get caught in these actions, because that is part of the ground rules set forth by those who have the money and power to engage in them. Those who speak out against must held to a tighter leash by the very ones who are for.
Spitzer gets caught for being a John and the Bush government then allows the Fed to ship $200 million of our money to banks and lenders who raped us. An action Spitzer was trying to point out and not allow.
And yet. Does Spitzer deserve a rebuke for being a dumbshit? Yes. Does he deserve to feel the wrath of his wife and family? Yes. Did he do well to admit he let down the people he claimed to represent? Yes. Did he take the higher moral road in quitting his office? Yes.
And yet. Was he caught with thousands of bribe dollars in his freezer and then claim immunity (Jefferson)? Did he claim that he would wait until all the facts were in before saying that he was being taken out of context just because he had a "meeting" with a known hooker and still manage to serve more time in Congress (Vitter)? Did he plead guilty and then try to retract his plea, because of a misunderstanding about public bathroom behavior (Craig)?
Also, why was Spitzer outted so quickly? Vitter wasn't. Craig wasn't. The press had to actually dig for those. Spitzer was handed to the press immediately on a silver platter. By whom? The only enemies he had were those in the banking business and the Bush administration. So who blew the whistle? Who had access to an undercover federal sting operation? Well, that would be the Feds, wouldn't it? And why would they want to blow the whistle on a major player?
Sort of smells like a Don Seigelman whitewash. And I want to know who the other major players are who the Feds have names for in this sting. So far, only Spitzer, even though the UK papers are saying that member of the Queen's family is involved (but if he had relations with a female hooker, then they are probably breathing a huge sigh of relief).
So, who else? Or is Spitzer enough for the Feds? Or is Spitzer the only one they wanted? I don't defend him, because he's a Democrat. I don't defend him at all. It's been a long time since I really differentiated the two parties when it comes to corruption and personal lust for power at the expense of all others (see Clinton v. Obama v. McCain). What I want to know is how many others of notable repute were caught up in this web? And why are they not being trotted before the fawning press corps? I will not believe he is the only one who should come tumbling down. This was a very discreet (so they thought) and expensive prostitution ring spanning two continents and numerable countries. So, where are the others?
And why are we not screaming for their heads as we did when we found out about Eliot Spitzer?
Spitzer was the main man in charge of attacking these greedy bastards and stopping them from raping those of us who, through ignorance or lack of any other opportunity, agreed to what we thought was a fair and above-board deal. He was hated by the lenders, the banks and George Bush. He stood in the way (not very well, actually) of those entities and Saudi Arabia of making hundreds of Billions individually and walking away with none noticing.
Most of what Greg Palast writes in his newest missive I knew about in general. I did NOT know that B of A had bought Countrywide.
I DID know that Congressman Greg Vitters ( a Republican, by the way) had been caught in the same kind of sting and was being treated with kid gloves by the Feds. In fact, they tried to keep his name silent. He still hasn't been convicted as far as I know of whatever it is that Johns get convicted of. And he was using public money to get his rocks off. Unlike Spitzer who paid out of his own pocket.
What was my first thought when I read that Spitzer had been connected to a call girl ring?
Answer: What a dumbass dickhead!
Unlike the so-called "moral" morons who sprinkle this country with their holier-than-thou attitudes and "I read it in the Bible, so it must be true" tripe, I don't care what a man or woman does on their own time so long as no one is injured by it (and by "no one" I mean "other than themselves", and by "injured" I mean neither physically, financially or empirically). You might say "But Fishstick, his wife and children WERE injured".
To that I reply: yes, but so what? He is as human as human gets. More so in one sense of the word. Those who do not fuck up are, in my eyes, less than human, so caught up as they are about being better than everyone else and closer to "perfection".
Spitzer fucked up. But his true sin (if there is such a thing) was to do it as a Public Figure dedicated to rooting out crime and corruption. He committed crime and it showed us the perception of corruption. He let down so many of the wage earners who believed that he was "better" than them and those he was after. He disappointed all of the blue collars hoping for justice against all those who benefited from deceptive legal practices and the protection of the government. He had stood up to the powers that be and spit in their eyes as a mouthpiece for us.
And, because of that, he was watched. And he knew that. And, still, he partook of pleasures forbidden by law and the Puritans who have ruled our country for too long. Puritans who, in turn, break these very laws and expect to get away with it. Who know they will get away with it so long as they have the proper walls and buffers in place. Spitzer forgot that rule: when you run afoul of those making the money, you will be crushed on the reefs of their power.
And it's a shame. He was doing good for us the taxpayers. He was shining a spotlight on the greed still espoused by the same small cabal for so many, many years.
Did he succumb to the pressures of the job? Did his homelife suffer from the demands of his calling? Probably yes to both. Did he use good judgement while hiring a prostitute? Definitively NO. The corrupt and immoral can get away with this type of activity much easier than the torch bearers for they have set the groudrules.
And the ground rules are simple: those who speak out against unlawful or unethical or immoral actions will be the first to get caught in these actions, because that is part of the ground rules set forth by those who have the money and power to engage in them. Those who speak out against must held to a tighter leash by the very ones who are for.
Spitzer gets caught for being a John and the Bush government then allows the Fed to ship $200 million of our money to banks and lenders who raped us. An action Spitzer was trying to point out and not allow.
And yet. Does Spitzer deserve a rebuke for being a dumbshit? Yes. Does he deserve to feel the wrath of his wife and family? Yes. Did he do well to admit he let down the people he claimed to represent? Yes. Did he take the higher moral road in quitting his office? Yes.
And yet. Was he caught with thousands of bribe dollars in his freezer and then claim immunity (Jefferson)? Did he claim that he would wait until all the facts were in before saying that he was being taken out of context just because he had a "meeting" with a known hooker and still manage to serve more time in Congress (Vitter)? Did he plead guilty and then try to retract his plea, because of a misunderstanding about public bathroom behavior (Craig)?
Also, why was Spitzer outted so quickly? Vitter wasn't. Craig wasn't. The press had to actually dig for those. Spitzer was handed to the press immediately on a silver platter. By whom? The only enemies he had were those in the banking business and the Bush administration. So who blew the whistle? Who had access to an undercover federal sting operation? Well, that would be the Feds, wouldn't it? And why would they want to blow the whistle on a major player?
Sort of smells like a Don Seigelman whitewash. And I want to know who the other major players are who the Feds have names for in this sting. So far, only Spitzer, even though the UK papers are saying that member of the Queen's family is involved (but if he had relations with a female hooker, then they are probably breathing a huge sigh of relief).
So, who else? Or is Spitzer enough for the Feds? Or is Spitzer the only one they wanted? I don't defend him, because he's a Democrat. I don't defend him at all. It's been a long time since I really differentiated the two parties when it comes to corruption and personal lust for power at the expense of all others (see Clinton v. Obama v. McCain). What I want to know is how many others of notable repute were caught up in this web? And why are they not being trotted before the fawning press corps? I will not believe he is the only one who should come tumbling down. This was a very discreet (so they thought) and expensive prostitution ring spanning two continents and numerable countries. So, where are the others?
And why are we not screaming for their heads as we did when we found out about Eliot Spitzer?
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Smoke and Mirrors
Clinton Wins Texas!!!
Clinton Wins Texas!!!
Or did she?
What many, including me, didn't know about is the "Texas Two Step", which involves Texas holding its primary and its caucus votes on the same day. If you vote in the primary you can then vote in the caucus of your district (or the other way around; it's a weird dance). So, Clinton wins the primary garnering her X number delegates, but the caucuses control delegates as well. And the caucus numbers are looking like Obama will win that majority giving him a total of four more delegates for the entire state when the primary and caucus delegates are totaled up.
So, Obama actually wins, just like Gore in Florida in 2000 (though that wasn't known until over a year later when all legal ballots were recounted as a sort of academic exercise). But the public at large will be left with a mental picture like the one at top and think that Clinton pulled off the sweep she and her husband said she had to. And the media blares out that she is on the comeback trail, because of her impressive wins in Texas and Ohio and Rhode Island (she did actually win the last two). And her husband's statement that she must win both Ohio and Texas to stay in the race are obscured in the dust raised by the stomping and backslapping of her campaign in the wake of the primary vote.
Perception is everything, is it not?
Clinton Wins Texas!!!Or did she?
What many, including me, didn't know about is the "Texas Two Step", which involves Texas holding its primary and its caucus votes on the same day. If you vote in the primary you can then vote in the caucus of your district (or the other way around; it's a weird dance). So, Clinton wins the primary garnering her X number delegates, but the caucuses control delegates as well. And the caucus numbers are looking like Obama will win that majority giving him a total of four more delegates for the entire state when the primary and caucus delegates are totaled up.
So, Obama actually wins, just like Gore in Florida in 2000 (though that wasn't known until over a year later when all legal ballots were recounted as a sort of academic exercise). But the public at large will be left with a mental picture like the one at top and think that Clinton pulled off the sweep she and her husband said she had to. And the media blares out that she is on the comeback trail, because of her impressive wins in Texas and Ohio and Rhode Island (she did actually win the last two). And her husband's statement that she must win both Ohio and Texas to stay in the race are obscured in the dust raised by the stomping and backslapping of her campaign in the wake of the primary vote.
Perception is everything, is it not?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Not In My Name
It seems to me that no people ever like to admit shame or culpability concerning atrocities committed by their government in their name in times of war. To do so, to be willing to step back and view the carnage and say aloud that it is not acceptable for a civilised people to knowingly engage in acts that target innocent bystanders (especially as a form of intimidation to the survivors and neighboring areas) would be seen as unpatriotic and sympathetic to the enemy. As we all know by now, you can't win a war no one likes. You can't win a war that turns a populace's stomach.
It's been said in many quarters that one of the primary reasons we did not leave victoriously from Viet Nam is because of the international TV coverage carried out on the front lines with the grunts in which the international audience saw the realities of war. Specifically, the US audience saw what what was being done in its name to and by its military and government.
Therefor, it comes as no surprise to most that in the ensuing wars/conflicts/police actions the US engaged in a program of embedding journalists as a counter to a free and unfettered public through the media lens. By embedding journalists with certain divisions or brigades, the government could more effectively control the dissemination of information to the public.
War is not pretty (as someone once said). And certain things done in the name of freedom are better left unseen (as someone probably never said). However, certain things done "in the name of freedom" during the Viet Nam war were condemned and it was agreed they should never be repeated. I refer at this time to Napalm.
The immediate effects of Napalm were seen repeatedly by US citizens and it turned them off to what was being done "in our name". The number of innocent casualties greatly outweighed those of certified enemies. And the pain inflicted by it, the utter physical agony it thrust on a victim was abhorrent by all standards. And so it was that the USA eventually signed international agreements to never use it again in times of war/conflict/police actions on any populace in any manner (one might argue that the agreements contain the word "indiscriminate", but it is universally held that Napalm cannot be use "discriminately"). And, so far as I can find, our government has fairly managed to uphold its end of the bargain.
Until recently.
While perusing and following threads and links on my usual list of political news sites I came across this and this.
According to a major UK newspaper, the US lied to the UK in 2005 about use of a chemical weapon called MK 77. While it is not Napalm exactly in its makeup it evidently brings the same results---a chemical which attacks flesh, air and water, causing them to ignite. It bypasses clothing for the most part, but it burns to the bone. In one sense, it is more discriminate than Napalm. Napalm burned clothing as well. MK 77 is a respecter of fashion.
The site to which I travelled in order to find the above links has a documentary that speaks directly to the use of a Napalm-like chemical on the city of Fallujah when US forces attacked it. On the documentary are interviews with two US soldiers (one of whom confirms the use of white phosphorus as well, which is another chemical that burns through flesh on contact), two Italian journalists, an Iraqi journalist and a former UK parliamentarian. It runs 27 minutes and should be viewed only by those with strong stomachs. Perhaps the most chilling video clip is that which arrives at the very end of the piece as we watch US snipers take out three suspected terrorists and their trucks. And the most chilling audio is that of the soldier stating that all of the soldiers were told that anything moving in Fallujah was to be considered a target. Anything and anyone.
But there is ample video evidence that Napalm or something like it was dispersed at large over the population of Fallujah. And the US's denials that no civilians were killed during this "operation" can now be seen to be utterly without merit and, indeed, a bald faced lie.
War is, indeed, not pretty. No one should ever live under the delusion that combat can be anything other than uncivil. In war, soldiers do things that we civilians would find repugnant, but they are mostly responding to any given hostile situation with the only means they have: weapons and adrenaline. They respond to deadly force with equally deadly or dominant force. It is their urge to survive that creates what we sometimes see in hindsight as unnecessary mayhem.
But to use Napalm or anything akin or white phosphorus defines premeditation. It signifies that our government and our military commanders authorized its use. Otherwise, it would not have been included in the arsenal taken to that city.
War is not pretty, it is Hell (as someone, again, once said).
But, while war is not pretty and should never be illused as such, even more horrendous and barbaric and without conscience or any semblance of moral defense is a "civilised" country's indifference to the welfare of those it is claiming to protect as it carries out mass murder in order to intimidate those who watch.
It's been said in many quarters that one of the primary reasons we did not leave victoriously from Viet Nam is because of the international TV coverage carried out on the front lines with the grunts in which the international audience saw the realities of war. Specifically, the US audience saw what what was being done in its name to and by its military and government.
Therefor, it comes as no surprise to most that in the ensuing wars/conflicts/police actions the US engaged in a program of embedding journalists as a counter to a free and unfettered public through the media lens. By embedding journalists with certain divisions or brigades, the government could more effectively control the dissemination of information to the public.
War is not pretty (as someone once said). And certain things done in the name of freedom are better left unseen (as someone probably never said). However, certain things done "in the name of freedom" during the Viet Nam war were condemned and it was agreed they should never be repeated. I refer at this time to Napalm.
The immediate effects of Napalm were seen repeatedly by US citizens and it turned them off to what was being done "in our name". The number of innocent casualties greatly outweighed those of certified enemies. And the pain inflicted by it, the utter physical agony it thrust on a victim was abhorrent by all standards. And so it was that the USA eventually signed international agreements to never use it again in times of war/conflict/police actions on any populace in any manner (one might argue that the agreements contain the word "indiscriminate", but it is universally held that Napalm cannot be use "discriminately"). And, so far as I can find, our government has fairly managed to uphold its end of the bargain.
Until recently.
While perusing and following threads and links on my usual list of political news sites I came across this and this.
According to a major UK newspaper, the US lied to the UK in 2005 about use of a chemical weapon called MK 77. While it is not Napalm exactly in its makeup it evidently brings the same results---a chemical which attacks flesh, air and water, causing them to ignite. It bypasses clothing for the most part, but it burns to the bone. In one sense, it is more discriminate than Napalm. Napalm burned clothing as well. MK 77 is a respecter of fashion.
The site to which I travelled in order to find the above links has a documentary that speaks directly to the use of a Napalm-like chemical on the city of Fallujah when US forces attacked it. On the documentary are interviews with two US soldiers (one of whom confirms the use of white phosphorus as well, which is another chemical that burns through flesh on contact), two Italian journalists, an Iraqi journalist and a former UK parliamentarian. It runs 27 minutes and should be viewed only by those with strong stomachs. Perhaps the most chilling video clip is that which arrives at the very end of the piece as we watch US snipers take out three suspected terrorists and their trucks. And the most chilling audio is that of the soldier stating that all of the soldiers were told that anything moving in Fallujah was to be considered a target. Anything and anyone.
But there is ample video evidence that Napalm or something like it was dispersed at large over the population of Fallujah. And the US's denials that no civilians were killed during this "operation" can now be seen to be utterly without merit and, indeed, a bald faced lie.
War is, indeed, not pretty. No one should ever live under the delusion that combat can be anything other than uncivil. In war, soldiers do things that we civilians would find repugnant, but they are mostly responding to any given hostile situation with the only means they have: weapons and adrenaline. They respond to deadly force with equally deadly or dominant force. It is their urge to survive that creates what we sometimes see in hindsight as unnecessary mayhem.
But to use Napalm or anything akin or white phosphorus defines premeditation. It signifies that our government and our military commanders authorized its use. Otherwise, it would not have been included in the arsenal taken to that city.
War is not pretty, it is Hell (as someone, again, once said).
But, while war is not pretty and should never be illused as such, even more horrendous and barbaric and without conscience or any semblance of moral defense is a "civilised" country's indifference to the welfare of those it is claiming to protect as it carries out mass murder in order to intimidate those who watch.
Monday, February 25, 2008
60 Minutes Blacks Out Part of Its Story
Interesting. Part of 60 Minutes' broadcast was blacked out in a couple areas of Alabama last Sunday night. But only the parts dealing with the story about Don Siegelman were affected. Don Seigelman, as you may not know, is the former governor of Alabama who was imprisoned for bribery and conspiracy. There are allegations of vote count changing during his failed bid to retain the governorship in 2006 as well as allegations that Karl Rove (you know, Turd Blossom) was at the heart of the vote count change that may or may have not occured at a very late hour of that voting night and at the heart of the campaign by the Justice Department to convict Siegelman of whatever it could (at the very least, to tarnish his name enough so that his bid to get back into the Alabama State House would fail).
A Republican operative/lawyer involved in some of Rove's crimes (I mean shenanigans) even came forward to present evidence to Congress about the attacks made on Siegelman. Subsequently, her house burned down in a fire and she was run off the road by an unknown driver (I say subsequently, but both of these events happened in the weeks leading up to her testimony).
But I must ask WTF!?! is up with 60 Minutes? Only Alabama was affected by the blackouts? And 60 Minutes' parent company (CBS) is located in New York? How does a technical gaffe in New York only affect those in the very state being discussed and only during that particular segment? Someone find me a statistical dweeb and get me the odds on that. Because I think it would be in the area of Not Possible:1.
CBS's 60 Minutes story is here and I would urge you to read it.
P.S. For an update, this article from Harper's Magazine states that it was the local CBS affiliate that blacked out the story and told viewers it was New York's fault. According to New York, they had no transmission difficulties. Plus, the story is written by someone who was interviewed multiple times for the story itself so he has inside knowledge of a lot.
A Republican operative/lawyer involved in some of Rove's crimes (I mean shenanigans) even came forward to present evidence to Congress about the attacks made on Siegelman. Subsequently, her house burned down in a fire and she was run off the road by an unknown driver (I say subsequently, but both of these events happened in the weeks leading up to her testimony).
But I must ask WTF!?! is up with 60 Minutes? Only Alabama was affected by the blackouts? And 60 Minutes' parent company (CBS) is located in New York? How does a technical gaffe in New York only affect those in the very state being discussed and only during that particular segment? Someone find me a statistical dweeb and get me the odds on that. Because I think it would be in the area of Not Possible:1.
CBS's 60 Minutes story is here and I would urge you to read it.
P.S. For an update, this article from Harper's Magazine states that it was the local CBS affiliate that blacked out the story and told viewers it was New York's fault. According to New York, they had no transmission difficulties. Plus, the story is written by someone who was interviewed multiple times for the story itself so he has inside knowledge of a lot.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Who Says the Arab World Won't Learn From Democracy?
(apologies to those who feel it unamerican to visit al jazeera's website [or are afraid they'll be put on someone's terrorist watch list], but i doubt we'll be seeing this bit of news in any american newspaper)
"Al Jazeera has said a code adopted by Arab states to govern satellite broadcasting could shackle freedom of expression.
Arab information ministers meeting on Tuesday in Cairo endorsed the charter, which allows host countries to annul or suspend the licence of any broadcaster found in violation of the rules it sets...
...The Cairo document stipulates that satellite channels "should not damage social harmony, national unity, public order or traditional values".
Anas al-Fiqi, the Egyptian information minister, said his country would be the first to implement the charter.
"Some satellite channels have strayed from the correct path," he said...
...The Cairo charter stipulates that channels should " refrain from broadcasting anything which calls into question God, the monotheistic religions, the prophets, sects or symbols of the various religious communities".
sweet, the 22 Arab League members are actually very american (just like jesus) in their irrational fears about outsiders and infidels. this could be the New Coalition of the Willing To Kill All Who Disagree.
We should have a summit (by "we" i mean Bush), cut some brush, shoot someone in the face and attack Iran.
i mean, we should sit down, discuss our differences and how to reconcile them since we seem to agree on the "outside agitators" thing, then attack iran.
no, i mean, we should let them redress our women with their eyes, become our AA sponsors, butt into our need to Butt Out From Smoking, then attack iran.
um, i mean, we should fuse our two gods, destroy Tibet and Nepal, eat a cow for christ and asparagus for allah, ban the obese, the unwashed and those who wear bowties, bow to the East (which works for me, because washington, d.c. is in that general direction from where i sit), and then attack iran.
wait, i mean, we should destroy all gods but the true god (and east or west, we all know which one that is, right?), spread social hegemony, refrain from "bombasting anything which calls into question Cod, the mannishbeastic digestions, the poppets, sex or cymbals of nefarious incisions", then (finally) attack iran.
okay, i think i've got it right. yeah. let's do it!
"Al Jazeera has said a code adopted by Arab states to govern satellite broadcasting could shackle freedom of expression.
Arab information ministers meeting on Tuesday in Cairo endorsed the charter, which allows host countries to annul or suspend the licence of any broadcaster found in violation of the rules it sets...
...The Cairo document stipulates that satellite channels "should not damage social harmony, national unity, public order or traditional values".
Anas al-Fiqi, the Egyptian information minister, said his country would be the first to implement the charter.
"Some satellite channels have strayed from the correct path," he said...
...The Cairo charter stipulates that channels should " refrain from broadcasting anything which calls into question God, the monotheistic religions, the prophets, sects or symbols of the various religious communities".
sweet, the 22 Arab League members are actually very american (just like jesus) in their irrational fears about outsiders and infidels. this could be the New Coalition of the Willing To Kill All Who Disagree.
We should have a summit (by "we" i mean Bush), cut some brush, shoot someone in the face and attack Iran.
i mean, we should sit down, discuss our differences and how to reconcile them since we seem to agree on the "outside agitators" thing, then attack iran.
no, i mean, we should let them redress our women with their eyes, become our AA sponsors, butt into our need to Butt Out From Smoking, then attack iran.
um, i mean, we should fuse our two gods, destroy Tibet and Nepal, eat a cow for christ and asparagus for allah, ban the obese, the unwashed and those who wear bowties, bow to the East (which works for me, because washington, d.c. is in that general direction from where i sit), and then attack iran.
wait, i mean, we should destroy all gods but the true god (and east or west, we all know which one that is, right?), spread social hegemony, refrain from "bombasting anything which calls into question Cod, the mannishbeastic digestions, the poppets, sex or cymbals of nefarious incisions", then (finally) attack iran.
okay, i think i've got it right. yeah. let's do it!
No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition!
hee. hee hee. hoo hoo. snork! oh, my sides. my ribs. can't breathe. oh, the hilarity. oh, oh, oh...bwaaahaaahaaa!!!...sniffle, snark, snark...
The CIA's use of waterboarding was legal and not torture, a Justice Deparment official argued this morning, because it was a "procedure subject to strict limitations and safeguards" that made it substantially different from historical uses of the technique by the Japanese and the Spanish Inquisition.
Steven Bradbury, the Justice Department official who heads up the Office of Legal Counsel, is testifying before a House Judiciary subcommittee this morning. And he made an unexpected argument when Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) asked him whether waterboarding violated the law against torture.
It did not, he said. And he argued that what the CIA did bears "no resemblance" to what torturers in time past have done. "There's been a lot of discussion in the public about historical uses of waterboarding," he said. But the "only thing in common is the use of water," he said.
The Spanish and Japanese use of "water torture," he said, "involved the forced consumption of a mass amount of water." Asked by a Republican whether Bradbury was aware of any "modern use" of waterboarding that involved the "lungs filling with water," Bradbury said no.
The Japanese forced the ingestion of so much water that it was "beyond the capacity of the victim's stomach." Weight or pressure was then applied by standing or jumping on the stomach of the victim, sometimes leading to "blood coming of the victim's mouth." The Spanish Inquisition would use the technique to the point of "agony or death."
But the CIA wasn't doing that, he argued. "Strict time limits" were involved -- presumably governing the length of time that interrogators could induce the sensation of drowning. There were "safeguards" and "restrictions" that made it a much more controlled procedure. Because of that, he said, the technique did not amount to torture.
But Bradbury said that subsequent laws and Supreme Court decisions passed in 2005 and 2006 had changed his office's analysis, and in 2006 the CIA removed waterboarding from its authorized battery of interrogation techniques.
oh man, i think i just crapped my pants! that's good stuff there. i guess the writer's strike really is over. woof!
p.s. this next one sounds like a great idea (as oppsed to signing a petition), especially the "going back to bed" part since i'm not getting Presidents' Day off:
Veterans For Peace today kicked off its March 19, 2008 “Sick Of It Day” campaign to end the war in Iraq.
March 19 is the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and the campaign is designed to give every person sick of the corruption, the lies and the war an opportunity to join with others in the classic civil resistance tactic of “withdrawing consent” from the system.
Based on the principle taken from the Declaration of Independence that government requires the consent of the governed, everyone who joins Sick Of It Day will be actively withdrawing their consent, one by one, until the collective economic impact reverberates through Washington and politicians are faced with a choice: end the war or have an ungovernable country. (Read more about this powerful form of civil resistance…)
Giving his personal reason why he is “sick of it,” campaign originator and member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Adam Kokesh said, “I am sick of seeing America in denial about how much we have been lied to.”
Veterans For Peace member and campaign organizer, Mike Ferner, explained “I’ve seen the pain on the faces of the people of Iraq and the soldiers who come back from war. It’s something I can’t get out of my mind and there are days when it really does make me sick.”
People who call in sick on March 19 can choose from a wide variety of other things to do that day – from contacting Congress and going back to bed, to more ambitious ideas like helping quarantine military shipments in U.S. ports. Campaigners are invited to come up with their own “Sick Of It Day” activity and post it to the site.
Sick Of It Day web designer, Scott Blackburn, said “We’ve made the site easy to use and easy to pass along to others. The success of Sick Of It Day depends on the idea going viral on the internet. With so many people sick of this war, we think there’s a good chance it will.”
unlike petitions to impeach the pResident, this will truly hurt them where they live. i don't know how just yet (i don't even know who "them" truly is), but i will by the time i turn off my alarm, call in to work with my most indignant, pissed off and (just in case) flu-ridden voice to announce my unavailability for work that day and that my bosses need to do something about ending the war in Iraq and the lack of Paydays in the snack machine in the break room. mmmm, i do love me a good Payday. so nutty and nugatty.
The CIA's use of waterboarding was legal and not torture, a Justice Deparment official argued this morning, because it was a "procedure subject to strict limitations and safeguards" that made it substantially different from historical uses of the technique by the Japanese and the Spanish Inquisition.
Steven Bradbury, the Justice Department official who heads up the Office of Legal Counsel, is testifying before a House Judiciary subcommittee this morning. And he made an unexpected argument when Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) asked him whether waterboarding violated the law against torture.
It did not, he said. And he argued that what the CIA did bears "no resemblance" to what torturers in time past have done. "There's been a lot of discussion in the public about historical uses of waterboarding," he said. But the "only thing in common is the use of water," he said.
The Spanish and Japanese use of "water torture," he said, "involved the forced consumption of a mass amount of water." Asked by a Republican whether Bradbury was aware of any "modern use" of waterboarding that involved the "lungs filling with water," Bradbury said no.
The Japanese forced the ingestion of so much water that it was "beyond the capacity of the victim's stomach." Weight or pressure was then applied by standing or jumping on the stomach of the victim, sometimes leading to "blood coming of the victim's mouth." The Spanish Inquisition would use the technique to the point of "agony or death."
But the CIA wasn't doing that, he argued. "Strict time limits" were involved -- presumably governing the length of time that interrogators could induce the sensation of drowning. There were "safeguards" and "restrictions" that made it a much more controlled procedure. Because of that, he said, the technique did not amount to torture.
But Bradbury said that subsequent laws and Supreme Court decisions passed in 2005 and 2006 had changed his office's analysis, and in 2006 the CIA removed waterboarding from its authorized battery of interrogation techniques.
oh man, i think i just crapped my pants! that's good stuff there. i guess the writer's strike really is over. woof!
p.s. this next one sounds like a great idea (as oppsed to signing a petition), especially the "going back to bed" part since i'm not getting Presidents' Day off:
Veterans For Peace today kicked off its March 19, 2008 “Sick Of It Day” campaign to end the war in Iraq.
March 19 is the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and the campaign is designed to give every person sick of the corruption, the lies and the war an opportunity to join with others in the classic civil resistance tactic of “withdrawing consent” from the system.
Based on the principle taken from the Declaration of Independence that government requires the consent of the governed, everyone who joins Sick Of It Day will be actively withdrawing their consent, one by one, until the collective economic impact reverberates through Washington and politicians are faced with a choice: end the war or have an ungovernable country. (Read more about this powerful form of civil resistance…)
Giving his personal reason why he is “sick of it,” campaign originator and member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Adam Kokesh said, “I am sick of seeing America in denial about how much we have been lied to.”
Veterans For Peace member and campaign organizer, Mike Ferner, explained “I’ve seen the pain on the faces of the people of Iraq and the soldiers who come back from war. It’s something I can’t get out of my mind and there are days when it really does make me sick.”
People who call in sick on March 19 can choose from a wide variety of other things to do that day – from contacting Congress and going back to bed, to more ambitious ideas like helping quarantine military shipments in U.S. ports. Campaigners are invited to come up with their own “Sick Of It Day” activity and post it to the site.
Sick Of It Day web designer, Scott Blackburn, said “We’ve made the site easy to use and easy to pass along to others. The success of Sick Of It Day depends on the idea going viral on the internet. With so many people sick of this war, we think there’s a good chance it will.”
unlike petitions to impeach the pResident, this will truly hurt them where they live. i don't know how just yet (i don't even know who "them" truly is), but i will by the time i turn off my alarm, call in to work with my most indignant, pissed off and (just in case) flu-ridden voice to announce my unavailability for work that day and that my bosses need to do something about ending the war in Iraq and the lack of Paydays in the snack machine in the break room. mmmm, i do love me a good Payday. so nutty and nugatty.
Monday, February 11, 2008
www.votetoImpeach.org
yeah, it's a site's address i stole from the gentelman who will not be named.. it wants you to sign on to their petition to impeach Bush.
wow. what a drive. put your name on a petition that will go nowhere, because the Dems in Congress have repeatedly stated they will do no such thing, because it would be detrimental to our society.
hey, a blow job was worth an impeachment vote for republicans and some democrats, but crimes against humanity aren't.
so, save your breath and your internet time. concentrate instead on the important matters, like a $600 rebate to stave off the impending recession. or forcing fat people out of restauarants in mississippi. or shoving ethanol down the throats of a gullible populace. or an announcement to push for the death penalty for foreigners "involved" in the 9/11 bombings. or supporting the death penalty for chinese guys trying to steal nuclear secrets for china.
and make sure to get out and vote those people back into power the next time they come up for review. because they truly have our interest at heart.
as do the petitioners who rake in the signatures that do nothing. i mean, wow. "let's make it a million signatures" and this will force the government to listen.
really? not even the opposition is listening. so, what do you do now? get those million signers to jump and down all at the same time and cause an earthquake?
you're preaching to the choir when you start a movement like this. all of the signers are sheep who hope that the repository will do something for them. and the repository tends to do nothing but send in the signatures and then wait for a non-response so they can say that the government is non-responsive and afriad of the power of the people.
bullshit. the government knows that the people's power couldn't accelerate one hybrid car past the speed of stall.
all we seem to do is spit and stare.
wow. what a drive. put your name on a petition that will go nowhere, because the Dems in Congress have repeatedly stated they will do no such thing, because it would be detrimental to our society.
hey, a blow job was worth an impeachment vote for republicans and some democrats, but crimes against humanity aren't.
so, save your breath and your internet time. concentrate instead on the important matters, like a $600 rebate to stave off the impending recession. or forcing fat people out of restauarants in mississippi. or shoving ethanol down the throats of a gullible populace. or an announcement to push for the death penalty for foreigners "involved" in the 9/11 bombings. or supporting the death penalty for chinese guys trying to steal nuclear secrets for china.
and make sure to get out and vote those people back into power the next time they come up for review. because they truly have our interest at heart.
as do the petitioners who rake in the signatures that do nothing. i mean, wow. "let's make it a million signatures" and this will force the government to listen.
really? not even the opposition is listening. so, what do you do now? get those million signers to jump and down all at the same time and cause an earthquake?
you're preaching to the choir when you start a movement like this. all of the signers are sheep who hope that the repository will do something for them. and the repository tends to do nothing but send in the signatures and then wait for a non-response so they can say that the government is non-responsive and afriad of the power of the people.
bullshit. the government knows that the people's power couldn't accelerate one hybrid car past the speed of stall.
all we seem to do is spit and stare.
It Takes A village To Raze A Nation
HOUSE BILL NO. 282
An act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the state department of health; to direct the department to prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments; to direct the department to monitor the food establishments for compliance with the provisions of this act; and for related purposes. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Mississippi:
SECTION 1.
(1) The provisions of this section shall apply to any food establishment that is required to obtain a permit from the State Department of Health under Section 41-3-15(4)(f), that operates primarily in an enclosed facility and that has five (5) or more seats for customers.
(2) Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.
(3) The State Department of Health shall monitor the food establishments to which this section applies for compliance with the provisions of this section, and may revoke the permit of any food establishment that repeatedly violates the provisions of this section.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2008.
really, i shouldn't even bother to comment. the mississipians' legally elected have done more than enough with this one. but i just can't help myself. i see the food and i gotta snarf at the trough.
so, no fatties at the public table. okay.
let's start with the obvious.
how do they define obesity? ah yes, it will defined as "per criteria" provided by a state based group after consultation with another group (not so state based). well, let's hope they don't include any of the national diet and/or weight loss organizations that want you and me to buy their products. a few years ago i was privy to nutrasystem's chart to determine obesity and i was three pounds under the limit for my height. 5' 8" and 185 pounds, mostly rugged marbled fat and muscle. overweight? yes. to a dangerous and possibly fatal point? not by a long shot in anyone's eyes.
next. will there be scales at the entrance to each and every restaurant and a government employee present to check for noncompliance? or will they rely on fit patrons to call in to a special hotline and "out" the offending patrons/restaurateurs?
and are 7-11's and AM/PM's and the like included? these establishments are notorious for selling absolute crap to anyone who trundles it to the checkout counter. they even provide carry carts for those too weak to bear the weight of processed food and sugar laden heart attacks.
while the state government is at it, why not go after obese restaurant employees who get a free meal after each shift?
so, what's next for the wonderful state of mississippi? ban bars from serving "known" alcoholics? restrict tobacco sales to those who smoke less than a pack a day? force fiancees to disclose any and all previous sexual encounters?
hey, here's an idea: how about it gets its state out of the lowest tier for income? how about it tries its damndest to push its education scores out of the gutter? how about it cleans up its river so the fish can swom and the fishermen can make a living again? how about it reads mark twain again and his rantings about state government?
obesity is a terrible disease, whether genetic or environmental. but to regulate who can and cannot eat at a public establishment is a callous slap in the face to those who suffer from it. if you are not willing to treat the disease as opposed to punishing it, then you will only paint yourself further into a corner of being perceived as stupid, ignorant, biased, redneck, zealotrous, phobic, narrow-minded and backwards.
i, for one, cringe at the children i see in the supermarket. grossly overweight, coddled by parents, throwing what they want into the cart and getting away with it. i find it hard to make eye contact with obese adults, because i am afraid they will see the pity and revulsion i know i can't quite hide. maybe it is a bleeding heart liberal thing to wince inwardly at the excesses perpetuated by our society, but not speak outright to those indulging in them. but i don't see the other side doing it either. i see them passing laws to punish those who don't fit in to their narrow view on life. i see them expelling those who don't fit. i hear them saying "bless her heart" behind scented handkerchiefs and then passing judgement.
what i don't see from any of us is a willingness to work with them. we give money to charities and then call it a day. we pass laws to protect and then don't follow up to make sure the law is doing what it said it would. we turn a blind eye to those in need and then chastise them for being who they are.
do i have the right to go up to a mother at savemart and tell her she's killing her obese child by buying it insta-meals and pop tarts? yes. it's a free country and speech is protected. it may be rude and self-serving, but it is a right.
do i have the right to regulate where and when families or individuals can eat on a night out? no. or, rather, i should not. but even in our nation of citizens' rights i find that those who do not fit within any majority group's predetermined list of rules can be forced out or into subjugation.
we are a nation of laws, but we seem more and more willing to let a select few write and enforce those laws. and as long as we are satisfied to concentrate on our individual ills we will continue to allow the city and the state and the national governments to pass any and all laws without our consent.
you know the saying:
"it takes a village to raise a child".
historians may look back on America and say "it took a village to raze a nation".
or it took a populace afraid of speaking out to acede to domination. we are, indeed, a global village. every nation, no matter their politics, looks to us as the compass. we have become THE empire for the 20th and 21st centuries. whether they agree with us or not, all fate is tied to ours.
and if the best we can give them is to ban obese people from dining out, then we are truly fucked.
An act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the state department of health; to direct the department to prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments; to direct the department to monitor the food establishments for compliance with the provisions of this act; and for related purposes. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Mississippi:
SECTION 1.
(1) The provisions of this section shall apply to any food establishment that is required to obtain a permit from the State Department of Health under Section 41-3-15(4)(f), that operates primarily in an enclosed facility and that has five (5) or more seats for customers.
(2) Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.
(3) The State Department of Health shall monitor the food establishments to which this section applies for compliance with the provisions of this section, and may revoke the permit of any food establishment that repeatedly violates the provisions of this section.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2008.
really, i shouldn't even bother to comment. the mississipians' legally elected have done more than enough with this one. but i just can't help myself. i see the food and i gotta snarf at the trough.
so, no fatties at the public table. okay.
let's start with the obvious.
how do they define obesity? ah yes, it will defined as "per criteria" provided by a state based group after consultation with another group (not so state based). well, let's hope they don't include any of the national diet and/or weight loss organizations that want you and me to buy their products. a few years ago i was privy to nutrasystem's chart to determine obesity and i was three pounds under the limit for my height. 5' 8" and 185 pounds, mostly rugged marbled fat and muscle. overweight? yes. to a dangerous and possibly fatal point? not by a long shot in anyone's eyes.
next. will there be scales at the entrance to each and every restaurant and a government employee present to check for noncompliance? or will they rely on fit patrons to call in to a special hotline and "out" the offending patrons/restaurateurs?
and are 7-11's and AM/PM's and the like included? these establishments are notorious for selling absolute crap to anyone who trundles it to the checkout counter. they even provide carry carts for those too weak to bear the weight of processed food and sugar laden heart attacks.
while the state government is at it, why not go after obese restaurant employees who get a free meal after each shift?
so, what's next for the wonderful state of mississippi? ban bars from serving "known" alcoholics? restrict tobacco sales to those who smoke less than a pack a day? force fiancees to disclose any and all previous sexual encounters?
hey, here's an idea: how about it gets its state out of the lowest tier for income? how about it tries its damndest to push its education scores out of the gutter? how about it cleans up its river so the fish can swom and the fishermen can make a living again? how about it reads mark twain again and his rantings about state government?
obesity is a terrible disease, whether genetic or environmental. but to regulate who can and cannot eat at a public establishment is a callous slap in the face to those who suffer from it. if you are not willing to treat the disease as opposed to punishing it, then you will only paint yourself further into a corner of being perceived as stupid, ignorant, biased, redneck, zealotrous, phobic, narrow-minded and backwards.
i, for one, cringe at the children i see in the supermarket. grossly overweight, coddled by parents, throwing what they want into the cart and getting away with it. i find it hard to make eye contact with obese adults, because i am afraid they will see the pity and revulsion i know i can't quite hide. maybe it is a bleeding heart liberal thing to wince inwardly at the excesses perpetuated by our society, but not speak outright to those indulging in them. but i don't see the other side doing it either. i see them passing laws to punish those who don't fit in to their narrow view on life. i see them expelling those who don't fit. i hear them saying "bless her heart" behind scented handkerchiefs and then passing judgement.
what i don't see from any of us is a willingness to work with them. we give money to charities and then call it a day. we pass laws to protect and then don't follow up to make sure the law is doing what it said it would. we turn a blind eye to those in need and then chastise them for being who they are.
do i have the right to go up to a mother at savemart and tell her she's killing her obese child by buying it insta-meals and pop tarts? yes. it's a free country and speech is protected. it may be rude and self-serving, but it is a right.
do i have the right to regulate where and when families or individuals can eat on a night out? no. or, rather, i should not. but even in our nation of citizens' rights i find that those who do not fit within any majority group's predetermined list of rules can be forced out or into subjugation.
we are a nation of laws, but we seem more and more willing to let a select few write and enforce those laws. and as long as we are satisfied to concentrate on our individual ills we will continue to allow the city and the state and the national governments to pass any and all laws without our consent.
you know the saying:
"it takes a village to raise a child".
historians may look back on America and say "it took a village to raze a nation".
or it took a populace afraid of speaking out to acede to domination. we are, indeed, a global village. every nation, no matter their politics, looks to us as the compass. we have become THE empire for the 20th and 21st centuries. whether they agree with us or not, all fate is tied to ours.
and if the best we can give them is to ban obese people from dining out, then we are truly fucked.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
