this one is my one art shot of the first weekend:
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Rogue Festival, Week One, Part Two
the wheel of dad appearing only at the rogue festival:
this one is my one art shot of the first weekend:
this one is my one art shot of the first weekend:
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Rogue 2007, First Saturday
dear journal,
today was my second day of Rogue 2007. this was the first day that i remembered to bring my camera. the previous first day i was a nervous wreck getting ready for my first day as a truly free man who had ended a long relationship over a year before and was now about to see my ex for the first time since that fateful day. naturally, i showered, shaved and applied deoderant even though i knew i had nothing to prove despite the 10 pounds i had gained and the stress acne thqt now dotted my face. i could tell myself that i felt confident seeing my ex in oublic and did a good job of not smelling my pits after the second hour.
it didn't bother me, as well, that a cameraman was following me around and recording my every move. that's how stable i was. of course, i have no idea why i was being followed. unless it shows up on punked or jackass. than i'll understand hindsight, 20/20 and payback's a bitch.
nevertheless, i saw two shows on friday. my parents were in town for the festival (all the way from spokane) and my son was on his way down from san francisco via amtrak.
i began the festival with a group of shakespeare monologues tied together with interim preparatory exhalations. nicely done, inventive, not too shabby for an opemning night. after that, i hung around the same venue for some chart toppers from the year 1349. it was evidently a hell of a year for pop hits if you're into european folk tales told by a roast master. which it tuns out i was.
on saturday i began my true rogu-on with a show about a man who wanted to be a concert organist and settled for alcohol and the church (insert own punchline about man/organ/priest). chuckled, giggled, snarked my ass off to this one. but no pictures. i have a rule about taking photos in theater productions.
than, it was on to the trike shop, which i have pictures for. blake, the gang and his daughter chelsea did their best to convince us we should send them to liverpool. the one question left unanswered was: are we helping to pay for one way or round trip tickets?
next, i went over to dada, but i deleted her pictures and have nothing at the moment. so, i leave you with this shot of the ugliest marmoset i've ever seen:
to be followed by the cutest tyke at the fest so far:
followed by the hottest hootchie mama:
and then some too rapid percussion by stan of poplord (a great duo to check out at veni's):
and then there was me at home in front of the keyboard wondering if the cat i was housesitting would let me get some sleep tonight (as chris would say: overactive pussy CAN be a bad thing).
today was my second day of Rogue 2007. this was the first day that i remembered to bring my camera. the previous first day i was a nervous wreck getting ready for my first day as a truly free man who had ended a long relationship over a year before and was now about to see my ex for the first time since that fateful day. naturally, i showered, shaved and applied deoderant even though i knew i had nothing to prove despite the 10 pounds i had gained and the stress acne thqt now dotted my face. i could tell myself that i felt confident seeing my ex in oublic and did a good job of not smelling my pits after the second hour.
it didn't bother me, as well, that a cameraman was following me around and recording my every move. that's how stable i was. of course, i have no idea why i was being followed. unless it shows up on punked or jackass. than i'll understand hindsight, 20/20 and payback's a bitch.
nevertheless, i saw two shows on friday. my parents were in town for the festival (all the way from spokane) and my son was on his way down from san francisco via amtrak.
i began the festival with a group of shakespeare monologues tied together with interim preparatory exhalations. nicely done, inventive, not too shabby for an opemning night. after that, i hung around the same venue for some chart toppers from the year 1349. it was evidently a hell of a year for pop hits if you're into european folk tales told by a roast master. which it tuns out i was.
on saturday i began my true rogu-on with a show about a man who wanted to be a concert organist and settled for alcohol and the church (insert own punchline about man/organ/priest). chuckled, giggled, snarked my ass off to this one. but no pictures. i have a rule about taking photos in theater productions.
than, it was on to the trike shop, which i have pictures for. blake, the gang and his daughter chelsea did their best to convince us we should send them to liverpool. the one question left unanswered was: are we helping to pay for one way or round trip tickets?
next, i went over to dada, but i deleted her pictures and have nothing at the moment. so, i leave you with this shot of the ugliest marmoset i've ever seen:
to be followed by the cutest tyke at the fest so far:
followed by the hottest hootchie mama:
and then some too rapid percussion by stan of poplord (a great duo to check out at veni's):
and then there was me at home in front of the keyboard wondering if the cat i was housesitting would let me get some sleep tonight (as chris would say: overactive pussy CAN be a bad thing).
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
while this is merely a "non-paper" (meaning it lacks legal status) it is interesting and will not likely make the mainstream press in any meaningful way. but the mere fact that israel and syria have been meeting in secret for a few years to negotiate a new territory treaty while those between israel and the palestinians have unraveled repeatedly even before they were announced as dead is of note. if you click on the above link take a look at the map of the proposed parkway...it's huge, the entire golan heights. and it would be accessible to both syrians and israelis. read the article and you will see that, as of now, if all terms are met the syrians would disavow hezbollah (syria is the prime military and political backer of that terrorist organization).
will it actually come to pass? probably not. nothing ever really does in that part of the world. too many extreme factions within all governments that proclude any real attempt at peace. but this one is a new twist between two countries historically turned against one another.
will it actually come to pass? probably not. nothing ever really does in that part of the world. too many extreme factions within all governments that proclude any real attempt at peace. but this one is a new twist between two countries historically turned against one another.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Did the President Declare "Secret War" Against Syria and Iran
Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.
also, KFSO in San Francisco is under attack by a blogger who has been emailing their so-called hate speech to advertisers and asking them whether they really want to continue supporting such language. and mediamatters has their response to KFO's claim that it is behind all of this. while i will not be able to listen in to tomorrow's broadcast it will be interesting to read in the aftermath.
also, KFSO in San Francisco is under attack by a blogger who has been emailing their so-called hate speech to advertisers and asking them whether they really want to continue supporting such language. and mediamatters has their response to KFO's claim that it is behind all of this. while i will not be able to listen in to tomorrow's broadcast it will be interesting to read in the aftermath.
Monday, January 08, 2007
jack and george
from 2003:
...yeah, didn't know him, never met him, don't know what y'all are talking about. i take pitchurs with lotsa peeples. don't mean i never met 'em.
...yeah, didn't know him, never met him, don't know what y'all are talking about. i take pitchurs with lotsa peeples. don't mean i never met 'em.Thursday, January 04, 2007
(from Daily News)
WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.
(from Alternet)
"Casualties" in the military sense is the total number made unavailable for duty from all causes, including deaths and wounds suffered in combat as well as injuries, accidents and illness in a war "theater" such as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (the official Pentagon name for the invasion and occupation). So whether caused by "hostile" (24,965 as of Dec.27) or "non-hostile" (25,406 as of Dec. 2) causes, the Pentagon's own web sites record a toll of more than 50,000 so far in "OIF."
now, for those of you out there who think that saddam hussein's death is "great news" or a "vindication of our reasons for invasion" or "justice served", let me remind you of a few facts.
1) all of the weapons of mass destruction that he purportedly had in stock (which he evidently began dismantling after 1991) were supplied to him by us.
2) while our government has been recently declaring his war against Iran in the 1980's as "barbaric" and "unwarranted", it was supplying him with weapons, logistics and advisors during the actual event.
3) when he gassed the Kurds, mass-killed dissenting Shiites and executed family members our government turned a blind eye, because he was conveniently the enemy of our enemy (Iran).
4) when our government claimed that hussein was not allowing unfettered access to supposed weapons making sites just before our current invasion and had kicked out the UN inspectors, it was lying. the UN had reported in the months prior to the current invasion that hussein had stopped all obstuction and they were making spot checks of anything they wanted without advance notice and previously assigned "bodyguards". the UN inspectors also said that they were told by our government that it could not guarantee their safety when it started the "shock and awe" campaign and told them to get out of Iraq then and there (less than a week prior to the initial bombing).
5) NOT ONE weapon of mass distruction was found when, since and after we invaded this time. not one. the "smoking gun" seems to have been our government's ineptitude. remember that we went from 9/11 connections (that never had a shred of credibility) to WMD and its "mushroom cloud in 40 minutes" capability to "he's a brutal dictator" to "either we fight them over there or we fight them over here" to the spread of democracy (not necessarily in that order).
6) while some Iraqis celebrate his death, many more mourn the fact that it now seems that life was better back then. all they had to do was live their lives quietly and let hussein live out his derangement and everything was acceptable. they had electricity, gas, water, schools, mosques and churches, freedom (somewhat) of the press, women could hold public jobs and walk in the streets without having to wear black from head to toe...all of these things look very good to a country that cannot even send their children to school without bodyguards, cannot open their stores without fear of kidnapping and execution, do not know someone who has fallen prey to the myriad killing squads or US forces, and dare not publicly display their ethnic affliliation.
7) a somewhat popular argument for toppling hussein is that "we created him, we were reponsible for taking him out". this is given by war hawks to those of us who mention that we did indeed (while not creating him) back, arm and enforce his rule for many years. but this argument is fellacious an dissembling. the only reason he turned on the USA is because, after the Iran/Iraq war, our government encountered much criticism by foreign leaders for arming him in the first place with weapons of bacteriological and viral nature. because of this assault we stopped. when we stopped he retaliated through hyperbole and condemned us. instead of coming clean and admitting our mistake, we began a long war of detraction. and when Iraq invaded Kuwait we found our "out" as it were. we were much better friends with Kuwait at the time than we were with Iraq.
8) although it has not been completely verified or completely dismissed, the argument remains that iraq invaded Kuwait (in 1990?), because Kuwait was slantdrilling for oil into Iraqi soil. to make it simple, the argument goes that kuwait began the drilling on their territory, but drilled at a 45 degree angle (or so) to tap oil preserves in Iraq. simple to do, hard to detect without seismic stations (which all mideast nations have for this very reason and for oil reserve exploration). if it's true, we have a secular mideast nation attacking an islamic nation based on theft.
9) secular. our government wants "democracy" to spread and shine throughout the world. while it's only a 231 year old experiment many of us can agree that it seems to be working somewhat. but we just kicked the shit out of one of the only secular governments in the mideast. and secular is what we want. so long as a country is ruled by islamic law or sharia law we will make no inroads. they will accept our help in whichever avenue, but we cannot infringe on their holy writ for that is ultimate law. for example, Saudi Arabia: we supply them with military hardware and they send us terrorists to blow up our buildings and kill our citizens. but we still have no beef with them. then there's Pakistan. we supply them with military hardware and the ability to make a nuclear bomb, they declare they're on our side in the War On Terror, but harbor the Taliban and al-quaeda. and we claim we can't invade that sovereign nation in order to attack terrorists when we had invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for that very reason. and Iraq and Afghanistan were sovereign nations. and we have no beef with Pakistan. Somalia is in the midst of an Islamic takeover and we stand back, even though the citizens don't want Islam and are being mass killed for it. do we have any sense of balance? or are we letting our government become just like the militias and sects that dominate all of these other countries? the one thing that will destroy us as a nation and idea is sectarian difference. and there's no better way to achieve this than to polarize the people, which is what has been happening for the last 20 years. you're either pro-abortion or you're not. you're either pro-handgun or you're not. you're either faith-based or you're not. you're either democrat or you're fascist. you're either republican or you're a terrorist sympathiser.
which may or may not get me to my point. killing saddam hussein was a stupid idea by our government. we paid for the trial and we knew how it would be decided. there was never a question of his guilt based on the accusations. and the fact that he was an asshole. but every country is ruled by an asshole. it's the nature of the beast. you want power, you will do whatever you have to do to achieve it. any country, every country. and the very act of killing hussein has made him a martyr. while the USA could not carry out the actual execution, its "we're not involved and this decision is that of the Iraqis alone" defense is seen as so much bullshit by the world and by most of the US citizens themselves. we caused this and we allowed it to happen. and, even as we claim to want to reach out to all Iraqis, we let the Shiite government lynch this man. he wore no hood and his executioners did (in Iraq and other countries the wearing of a hood or mask while killing another is seen as an act of cowardice). he was taunted by his executioners, which is also not allowed. he was killed on a holy day, which is not allowed. the current Iraqi government displayed complete and utter disregard for the rules and tenets that they claim adherence to every time they enter a mosque to pray. which makes them the same as our rulers.
at work i heard one fellow say that saddam hussein's death was "great news". i asked him why. he said "it's great. he deserved to die". i asked him how this affected his daily life and why he should be so glad. he replied "i don't know. i'm just happy that he's dead after all the people he killed". i asked him if, based on that, it would be okay for me to come into work with a smile on my face if our President Bush was assassinated, because of the 3000 soldiers and between 50,000 and 600,000 Iraqis that had died because of his decision to attack. he laughed and said it WAS okayso long as i didn't get happy if the lead singer of Slayer died.
and that's when i knew i still liked living in America. we can disagree on just about everything, but not when it comes to rock and roll.
WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.
(from Alternet)
"Casualties" in the military sense is the total number made unavailable for duty from all causes, including deaths and wounds suffered in combat as well as injuries, accidents and illness in a war "theater" such as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (the official Pentagon name for the invasion and occupation). So whether caused by "hostile" (24,965 as of Dec.27) or "non-hostile" (25,406 as of Dec. 2) causes, the Pentagon's own web sites record a toll of more than 50,000 so far in "OIF."
now, for those of you out there who think that saddam hussein's death is "great news" or a "vindication of our reasons for invasion" or "justice served", let me remind you of a few facts.
1) all of the weapons of mass destruction that he purportedly had in stock (which he evidently began dismantling after 1991) were supplied to him by us.
2) while our government has been recently declaring his war against Iran in the 1980's as "barbaric" and "unwarranted", it was supplying him with weapons, logistics and advisors during the actual event.
3) when he gassed the Kurds, mass-killed dissenting Shiites and executed family members our government turned a blind eye, because he was conveniently the enemy of our enemy (Iran).
4) when our government claimed that hussein was not allowing unfettered access to supposed weapons making sites just before our current invasion and had kicked out the UN inspectors, it was lying. the UN had reported in the months prior to the current invasion that hussein had stopped all obstuction and they were making spot checks of anything they wanted without advance notice and previously assigned "bodyguards". the UN inspectors also said that they were told by our government that it could not guarantee their safety when it started the "shock and awe" campaign and told them to get out of Iraq then and there (less than a week prior to the initial bombing).
5) NOT ONE weapon of mass distruction was found when, since and after we invaded this time. not one. the "smoking gun" seems to have been our government's ineptitude. remember that we went from 9/11 connections (that never had a shred of credibility) to WMD and its "mushroom cloud in 40 minutes" capability to "he's a brutal dictator" to "either we fight them over there or we fight them over here" to the spread of democracy (not necessarily in that order).
6) while some Iraqis celebrate his death, many more mourn the fact that it now seems that life was better back then. all they had to do was live their lives quietly and let hussein live out his derangement and everything was acceptable. they had electricity, gas, water, schools, mosques and churches, freedom (somewhat) of the press, women could hold public jobs and walk in the streets without having to wear black from head to toe...all of these things look very good to a country that cannot even send their children to school without bodyguards, cannot open their stores without fear of kidnapping and execution, do not know someone who has fallen prey to the myriad killing squads or US forces, and dare not publicly display their ethnic affliliation.
7) a somewhat popular argument for toppling hussein is that "we created him, we were reponsible for taking him out". this is given by war hawks to those of us who mention that we did indeed (while not creating him) back, arm and enforce his rule for many years. but this argument is fellacious an dissembling. the only reason he turned on the USA is because, after the Iran/Iraq war, our government encountered much criticism by foreign leaders for arming him in the first place with weapons of bacteriological and viral nature. because of this assault we stopped. when we stopped he retaliated through hyperbole and condemned us. instead of coming clean and admitting our mistake, we began a long war of detraction. and when Iraq invaded Kuwait we found our "out" as it were. we were much better friends with Kuwait at the time than we were with Iraq.
8) although it has not been completely verified or completely dismissed, the argument remains that iraq invaded Kuwait (in 1990?), because Kuwait was slantdrilling for oil into Iraqi soil. to make it simple, the argument goes that kuwait began the drilling on their territory, but drilled at a 45 degree angle (or so) to tap oil preserves in Iraq. simple to do, hard to detect without seismic stations (which all mideast nations have for this very reason and for oil reserve exploration). if it's true, we have a secular mideast nation attacking an islamic nation based on theft.
9) secular. our government wants "democracy" to spread and shine throughout the world. while it's only a 231 year old experiment many of us can agree that it seems to be working somewhat. but we just kicked the shit out of one of the only secular governments in the mideast. and secular is what we want. so long as a country is ruled by islamic law or sharia law we will make no inroads. they will accept our help in whichever avenue, but we cannot infringe on their holy writ for that is ultimate law. for example, Saudi Arabia: we supply them with military hardware and they send us terrorists to blow up our buildings and kill our citizens. but we still have no beef with them. then there's Pakistan. we supply them with military hardware and the ability to make a nuclear bomb, they declare they're on our side in the War On Terror, but harbor the Taliban and al-quaeda. and we claim we can't invade that sovereign nation in order to attack terrorists when we had invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for that very reason. and Iraq and Afghanistan were sovereign nations. and we have no beef with Pakistan. Somalia is in the midst of an Islamic takeover and we stand back, even though the citizens don't want Islam and are being mass killed for it. do we have any sense of balance? or are we letting our government become just like the militias and sects that dominate all of these other countries? the one thing that will destroy us as a nation and idea is sectarian difference. and there's no better way to achieve this than to polarize the people, which is what has been happening for the last 20 years. you're either pro-abortion or you're not. you're either pro-handgun or you're not. you're either faith-based or you're not. you're either democrat or you're fascist. you're either republican or you're a terrorist sympathiser.
which may or may not get me to my point. killing saddam hussein was a stupid idea by our government. we paid for the trial and we knew how it would be decided. there was never a question of his guilt based on the accusations. and the fact that he was an asshole. but every country is ruled by an asshole. it's the nature of the beast. you want power, you will do whatever you have to do to achieve it. any country, every country. and the very act of killing hussein has made him a martyr. while the USA could not carry out the actual execution, its "we're not involved and this decision is that of the Iraqis alone" defense is seen as so much bullshit by the world and by most of the US citizens themselves. we caused this and we allowed it to happen. and, even as we claim to want to reach out to all Iraqis, we let the Shiite government lynch this man. he wore no hood and his executioners did (in Iraq and other countries the wearing of a hood or mask while killing another is seen as an act of cowardice). he was taunted by his executioners, which is also not allowed. he was killed on a holy day, which is not allowed. the current Iraqi government displayed complete and utter disregard for the rules and tenets that they claim adherence to every time they enter a mosque to pray. which makes them the same as our rulers.
at work i heard one fellow say that saddam hussein's death was "great news". i asked him why. he said "it's great. he deserved to die". i asked him how this affected his daily life and why he should be so glad. he replied "i don't know. i'm just happy that he's dead after all the people he killed". i asked him if, based on that, it would be okay for me to come into work with a smile on my face if our President Bush was assassinated, because of the 3000 soldiers and between 50,000 and 600,000 Iraqis that had died because of his decision to attack. he laughed and said it WAS okayso long as i didn't get happy if the lead singer of Slayer died.
and that's when i knew i still liked living in America. we can disagree on just about everything, but not when it comes to rock and roll.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Cannon Fodder?
WASHINGTON -- The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks -- including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they volunteer -- according to Pentagon officials.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
left a comment with a blogger friend today that made me think about my blog and just why i still cling to it. and i can't come up with a validating reason. i don't write for you. never did. i started this to write for myself and vent my political unhappiness. but that doesn't work anymore. and i don't feel a need to tell you little details about my daily life. so, i think i'll make a new move with this blog and let it ride for a while. honestly, it's gotten to be boring and almost obligatory in that i must blog in order to increase my total number of posts. and that's just stupid and masturbatory.
i'll be back. probably sooner than later and all four or five of you can then revel in the unmitigated orgasmal ecstasy i used to provide on a regular basis.
until then, (in the immortal words of snoop dogg) lick me.
i'll be back. probably sooner than later and all four or five of you can then revel in the unmitigated orgasmal ecstasy i used to provide on a regular basis.
until then, (in the immortal words of snoop dogg) lick me.
Friday, December 01, 2006
from the news today:
Iraq's Interior Ministry said Thursday it had formed a special unit to monitor news coverage and vowed to take legal action against journalists who failed to correct stories the ministry deemed to be incorrect.
Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, spokesman for the ministry, said the purpose of the special monitoring unit was to find "fabricated and false news that hurts and gives the Iraqis a wrong picture that the security situation is very bad, when the facts are totally different."
He said offenders would be notified and asked to "correct these false reports on their main news programs. But if they do not change those lying, false stories, then we will seek legal action against them."
well, welcome to Democracy 101, funded and backed by our very own government. do you know how many bodies are found each day in Iraq dead due to torture? dozens. do you know the most popular tool for torture in Iraq? the common drill gun. evidently there was no need for the Iraqi government to cover up those stories. but now that six men were pulled from a mosque and burned alive, well that's just too much. the lying by AP journalists must stop!!!
i like that stories "deemed" incorrect part. and "lying, false stories". yum.
Iraq's Interior Ministry said Thursday it had formed a special unit to monitor news coverage and vowed to take legal action against journalists who failed to correct stories the ministry deemed to be incorrect.
Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, spokesman for the ministry, said the purpose of the special monitoring unit was to find "fabricated and false news that hurts and gives the Iraqis a wrong picture that the security situation is very bad, when the facts are totally different."
He said offenders would be notified and asked to "correct these false reports on their main news programs. But if they do not change those lying, false stories, then we will seek legal action against them."
well, welcome to Democracy 101, funded and backed by our very own government. do you know how many bodies are found each day in Iraq dead due to torture? dozens. do you know the most popular tool for torture in Iraq? the common drill gun. evidently there was no need for the Iraqi government to cover up those stories. but now that six men were pulled from a mosque and burned alive, well that's just too much. the lying by AP journalists must stop!!!
i like that stories "deemed" incorrect part. and "lying, false stories". yum.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
i went to las vegas recently. i had been seduced by a nymph goddess patting among the water lilies somewhere down in the tower district on a tuesday in the afternoon sometime back in july as i walked from one drinking establishment to the next.
i told her at the time that i did not favor las vegas, because it was a den of iniquity, bed of sin, city of slots (umlaut over the "o").
she replied that the "(b)light in the desert" had changed and was now family friendly. roller coasters, aquariums, tiger and lion shows, atriums, covered titties and whatnot...
...so i went with her.
to her credit, i saw not one uncovered tittie...except... 
...and i saw families. families i saw. saw i families. i...families...saw. big and small. black and white. yellow and swarthy. two legged and, uh, more legged. how to put this...
...las vegas is now so inclusive that families of all kinds, stripes and genuses are flocking to the Strip:
this hot momma was so protective of her children she actually sauntered while we stared. like she didn't care that she was dressed all in black and leatherish looking stuff. she was very protective and shiny. my nymph seductress was very pukish and not shiny at all even though she was the one who pointed this out.
and that's all you need to know about what happened on my vacation.
Friday, November 17, 2006
for a chilling video of a UCLA student being tasered by campus cops for not leaving the library fast enough, go here. the video is handheld and probably some kind of camera phone, so there is more audio than there is video. plus, you get to hear other students being threatened with tasering for asking for badges and names. it runs about 5 minutes.
added: the student is now claiming through his lawyer that he felt he was being racially profiled (because he is of Iranian descent) and refused to show his student i.d. for that reason. at UCLA, the cops (who are LAPD, not campus) do random sweeps at night through the library to ensure that only students are using the library. non-students are told to leave. he evidently was told to leave when he wouldn't show i.d, but didn't immediately. when the cops came back by he was on his feet and walking towards the exit. the resulting confrontation began when one of the cops touched him in some manner and he yelled for the cop to not touch him.
two questions:
1) why didn't he just show his i.d. in the first place?
2) why did the cops feel the need to become violent so quickly?
looking through the comments and blogs written by people present it seems that the cops are claiming the student provoked them by resisting and was trying to get the other students to help him. the students present are writing that this was absolutely not the case. they feel he yelled in order to draw attention to what was happening, but not to incite anything.
some people are claiming that is an act of civil disobedience, but i am going to wait until all of the facts are in before assessing any kind of blame or noble act here.
one thing i do know for sure based on the audio is that, if the cops didn't tase him and only "stunned" him, the only difference between tasing and stunning is stunning allows you to scream like crazy (in the movies, people who are tased just freeze up and fall to the ground).
third question:
does anyone besides me feel that the police in general are becoming less like the "thin blue line" and more like the "thick steel curtain" in terms of living within a siege state?
i mean, what prompts a cop to tase a student 7 or more times in a campus library in front of numerous students for no more reason that the feeling that the student was passively resisting arrest?
p.s. on a sidenote, the UC Davis campus police have decided to place decoy backpacks around the campus and keep them under surveillence in order to arrest people who might take them. does this sound like entrapment? this info was in a memo sent out by the campus police (on their website, i believe). are they having a surge in backpack thefts? or are they looking for people to arrest? anyone with information on this, let me know.
i have to say that i've been less than thrilled with the tactics of the Fresno police for some years now. i think that, in general, they do a fine job under heavy scrutiny, but the couple of friends i have on the force do tell me that the cops here have an "us against them" attitude. and "them" includes all civilians. and when jerry dyer opens his fat gob and tells the press that he expects his cops to be ambushed and shot at by gang members they are trying to weed out, i feel he is trying to justify a shoot first mentality.
finally, email Sony and let them know what you think of it releasing a very limited number of new playstations, knowing full well that lines would be blocks long and violence would ensue. while you're at it, call up our local BestBuy and chew them out for knowing they only had 35 of the sets and let the lines grow too long to control. what fucking idiots all the way down the line on this.
added: the student is now claiming through his lawyer that he felt he was being racially profiled (because he is of Iranian descent) and refused to show his student i.d. for that reason. at UCLA, the cops (who are LAPD, not campus) do random sweeps at night through the library to ensure that only students are using the library. non-students are told to leave. he evidently was told to leave when he wouldn't show i.d, but didn't immediately. when the cops came back by he was on his feet and walking towards the exit. the resulting confrontation began when one of the cops touched him in some manner and he yelled for the cop to not touch him.
two questions:
1) why didn't he just show his i.d. in the first place?
2) why did the cops feel the need to become violent so quickly?
looking through the comments and blogs written by people present it seems that the cops are claiming the student provoked them by resisting and was trying to get the other students to help him. the students present are writing that this was absolutely not the case. they feel he yelled in order to draw attention to what was happening, but not to incite anything.
some people are claiming that is an act of civil disobedience, but i am going to wait until all of the facts are in before assessing any kind of blame or noble act here.
one thing i do know for sure based on the audio is that, if the cops didn't tase him and only "stunned" him, the only difference between tasing and stunning is stunning allows you to scream like crazy (in the movies, people who are tased just freeze up and fall to the ground).
third question:
does anyone besides me feel that the police in general are becoming less like the "thin blue line" and more like the "thick steel curtain" in terms of living within a siege state?
i mean, what prompts a cop to tase a student 7 or more times in a campus library in front of numerous students for no more reason that the feeling that the student was passively resisting arrest?
p.s. on a sidenote, the UC Davis campus police have decided to place decoy backpacks around the campus and keep them under surveillence in order to arrest people who might take them. does this sound like entrapment? this info was in a memo sent out by the campus police (on their website, i believe). are they having a surge in backpack thefts? or are they looking for people to arrest? anyone with information on this, let me know.
i have to say that i've been less than thrilled with the tactics of the Fresno police for some years now. i think that, in general, they do a fine job under heavy scrutiny, but the couple of friends i have on the force do tell me that the cops here have an "us against them" attitude. and "them" includes all civilians. and when jerry dyer opens his fat gob and tells the press that he expects his cops to be ambushed and shot at by gang members they are trying to weed out, i feel he is trying to justify a shoot first mentality.
finally, email Sony and let them know what you think of it releasing a very limited number of new playstations, knowing full well that lines would be blocks long and violence would ensue. while you're at it, call up our local BestBuy and chew them out for knowing they only had 35 of the sets and let the lines grow too long to control. what fucking idiots all the way down the line on this.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
wow. voter turnout nationally was 40%. and they're saying this is the highest since 1982. sheesh.
it's been reported that "high voter turnout" increases the odds of democrats winning vs. republicans. so, what's "low voter turnout"? 5%?
6 out of ten adult americans chose not to vote. or does this only count registered voters? in that case it gets worse.
it's been reported that "high voter turnout" increases the odds of democrats winning vs. republicans. so, what's "low voter turnout"? 5%?
6 out of ten adult americans chose not to vote. or does this only count registered voters? in that case it gets worse.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
From Nancy Pelosi came this statement either this morning or last night:
“Democrats intend to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history.”
Those of us who voted Democrat need to make sure she and our Party live up to that or this election will have meant nothing. Actually, worse than nothing. A failure to live out those words will put Democrats and government at large into an even deeper hole than it already is. So, no more hiding perverts, money launderers, liars or thiefs.
Of course, that could mean that Dick Cheney has to step in to break a Senate vote tied at one to one.
“Democrats intend to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history.”
Those of us who voted Democrat need to make sure she and our Party live up to that or this election will have meant nothing. Actually, worse than nothing. A failure to live out those words will put Democrats and government at large into an even deeper hole than it already is. So, no more hiding perverts, money launderers, liars or thiefs.
Of course, that could mean that Dick Cheney has to step in to break a Senate vote tied at one to one.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
while there are still some fallings out from the last post i did that i am not bothering to address (because i no longer give a shit) and i had flirted with the idea of not posting again for a while (because certain among us make it not nearly as much fun as it used to be before the warring was determined to be worth gerrymandering), i have just one thing to say:
does saddam hussein's surprise guilty verdict (i know i was on the edge of my seat) in any way influence the manner in which you will vote this week? i mean, what a whopper. who knew after a 12 month trial financially sponsored almost entirely by our government that saddam would be found guilty in a matter of nanoseconds? and who knew that it would happen right before an american election that decides the fate of a "war president" and his ideology that we are in the "end times"?
do you think that republicans involved in crimes (legal and ethical and moral) at a rate not ever seen before deserve punishment?
do you think that wimpy democrats with no unified message can be trusted to take over both Houses?
does ted haggard represent the entire conservative community when it comes to denying one's own urges in order to maintain political power?
will bill o'reilly lose his job on foxnews if the democrats win the house and senate? will he lose his job anyway if the democrats win either, because the conservatives see him as a divider in a time when they realize that division is a losing proposition even though they totally believe in division if they're in charge?
will the neocons maintain any semblance of credibility given that they were the primary architects of our current foreign and domestic policies?
if there is a swing in majority parties, will the gays and lesbians get any more arrogant (if possible)?
what will happen within the black community if kenneth blackwell loses in ohio and condoleeza rice watches as her administration becomes worse than a lame duck? and obama barack's star continues to rise as a possible 2008 presidential candidate?
just thoughts of mine before these next couple of days unfold.
by the way (and i'm breaking my above promise to not editorialize):
did you ever wonder what the definition of common courtesy was? so did i. it turns out to be whatever the person calling for it deems it to be. common courtesy has no real definition (other than the overarching societal one), because it must always be placed within the context of the situation. at a dinner party, a thrown and shattered glass on the head of another goer could be considered improper...unless the party givers were members of Capital Punishment. so, it seems to me that instructing people on internet hygeine is as useful and educational as the pope leading a seminar on proper penis/vagina insertion with or without a condom.
each of us has a manner in which we approach our use of the internet. and the rest of us have another.
all of which leads me back to my last post...and so i must say "fuck all of this" if no one can keep their egos and angst to themselves. not that i will either, because it's so damn fun to piss people off in any way that i can...and angst sometimes must be put out there for examination by others in order to get a committee's look at an internal problem.
ego, on the other hand, should get in line with porn and slap itself on the sidelines.
does saddam hussein's surprise guilty verdict (i know i was on the edge of my seat) in any way influence the manner in which you will vote this week? i mean, what a whopper. who knew after a 12 month trial financially sponsored almost entirely by our government that saddam would be found guilty in a matter of nanoseconds? and who knew that it would happen right before an american election that decides the fate of a "war president" and his ideology that we are in the "end times"?
do you think that republicans involved in crimes (legal and ethical and moral) at a rate not ever seen before deserve punishment?
do you think that wimpy democrats with no unified message can be trusted to take over both Houses?
does ted haggard represent the entire conservative community when it comes to denying one's own urges in order to maintain political power?
will bill o'reilly lose his job on foxnews if the democrats win the house and senate? will he lose his job anyway if the democrats win either, because the conservatives see him as a divider in a time when they realize that division is a losing proposition even though they totally believe in division if they're in charge?
will the neocons maintain any semblance of credibility given that they were the primary architects of our current foreign and domestic policies?
if there is a swing in majority parties, will the gays and lesbians get any more arrogant (if possible)?
what will happen within the black community if kenneth blackwell loses in ohio and condoleeza rice watches as her administration becomes worse than a lame duck? and obama barack's star continues to rise as a possible 2008 presidential candidate?
just thoughts of mine before these next couple of days unfold.
by the way (and i'm breaking my above promise to not editorialize):
did you ever wonder what the definition of common courtesy was? so did i. it turns out to be whatever the person calling for it deems it to be. common courtesy has no real definition (other than the overarching societal one), because it must always be placed within the context of the situation. at a dinner party, a thrown and shattered glass on the head of another goer could be considered improper...unless the party givers were members of Capital Punishment. so, it seems to me that instructing people on internet hygeine is as useful and educational as the pope leading a seminar on proper penis/vagina insertion with or without a condom.
each of us has a manner in which we approach our use of the internet. and the rest of us have another.
all of which leads me back to my last post...and so i must say "fuck all of this" if no one can keep their egos and angst to themselves. not that i will either, because it's so damn fun to piss people off in any way that i can...and angst sometimes must be put out there for examination by others in order to get a committee's look at an internal problem.
ego, on the other hand, should get in line with porn and slap itself on the sidelines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
