Ok i admit, i think i got carried away. When my tag post broke 22 pages, I realized that I think I had begun to write my memoirs instead of play a simple game. For that reason, I'm going to hold off on the life story and just post a few things about myself that you may or may not know. If anyone is interested in the memoirs, well, I guess I could keep working on that and post it too.
First things first. I’m supposed to post some rules.
• I have to post these rules before I give you the facts.
• Each player starts with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
• People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.
• At the end of your blog, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.
¬So here’s my facts:
1) I hate alpha-males and alpha-females
2) I hate blind-compliance and closed minds
3) I hate liars, cheats, and wolves in sheep’s clothing
4) I hate smokescreens and mindgames
5) I hate forced conformity
6) I hate stupid people
7) I hate being sick, which happens to me way too often
8) I hate hating.
Things I like
I love hearing my wife sing or play music
I love a good walk at sunset
I love meditation by a creekbed
I love making my son laugh
I love keeping a promise
I love to drive
I love watching snow fall at night
I love slapstick comedy
I hope this is good enough. If not, oh well. I hope you like bratwurst.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Tagged
I have evidently been tagged. This will be a long post for me. Please bear with me while i write it, those of you who tagged me. It should be up eventually.
:P
:P
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Paris, Revisited
I wanted to add to a comment made on the previous post, but thought it made a great subject for a new topic, so here it is.
"I certainly don't want to be seen as defending Paris Hilton, but while she is incarcerated, droves of non-celebrity inmates will be released do to overcrowding. Also, I have it on good authority from a former CA prosecutor that it is routine to allow inmates to pay for their stay in a swankier facility, an option which Paris was denied. Is Paris a whining, spoiled, talentless brat? Absolutely. Is she being treated fairly? Of that I can't be so sure."
First of all, droves of non-celebrity inmates are being released from prisons due to overcrowding, which is true, but is, as stated, due to overcrowding. They are not released simply because they don't want to be there, or don't like the accomodations. The justice system shouldn't give a damn if you, as in Paris' own words, "I'm claustrophobic, and my cell is really small...I was going a little bit crazy in the beginning. I'm getting used to it now."
Being released because there simply isn't room for you is a bit different than being released because you don't have your bedroom that is most likely the size of an average person's home. We need to keep this in mind.
And the second point, that it is routine for inmates to pay for their stay in better facilities--a right which Paris' was denied--is unfair treatment is the meat of my post. Whether or not the law guarantees this to other persons of means is what I hold in question. Surely, she may be treated unfairly when considering others with means can avoid their sentences, but this is not what is truly unfair. The existence of those with means to even pay for this change of housing is what is unfair. I have no pity for someone being treated unfairly by an unfair provision that is unfair to the remaining 98% of the population.
First of all, I have great respect for California in many ways. I love the town of San Francisco. I love the respect that more liberal ideas have there. But as extreme conservative ideas have a home in the southeastern United States, so too do extreme liberal views infest the state of California. And just as you will find it almost taboo to not hate gays, blacks, athiests, women, or democrats in the southeast, it is almost in some places just as horrific in California to believe that people who don't recycle should not be put to death, that people who don't have tree sanctuaries on their properties aren't heathens, or that people who drive cars that get a little less gas mileage then the prius actually might not wish armageddon onto all wildlife preserves. I will be the first to come out and say that I do not know if this law allowing persons with means to pay for better incarceration is held in other states. I don't know if this is primarily a California law or if is the same in Alabama or Connecticut, but I will say that it is not her being denied this right which is unfair, but this right as a whole, no matter what state holds it as law, which is unfair to the remaining 98% of the population.
Unfair laws exist on the books in every state. It takes hard work to abolish that which the majority thinks is right but is unfair, such as Jim Crow, Poll Taxes, rights against interracial marriage, and selling beer on Sundays. We still have a long way to go, particularly in the direction of marriage equality, abortion, antiprivatization and antiglobalization, and clearly, putting the belief in a caste system to pasture for all time.
Certainly a right to pay to be incarcerated at a more pleasant facility is not the same as paying for someone to serve your mandatory military service in your place on its surface, but at its root, these beliefs are based on the same concept, which is those with means are better than those without.
That is, of course, unless the fee to choose a different facility were based on a percentage of your net worth, instead of a ridiculous amount that any poor black man caught speeding in a white neighborhood could ever hope to pay. And we know this is not the case. If it were, the 63% of our prisoners which are Black and Hispanic would be in other facilities. For the record, Hispanic is not treated as White. Click here for 2000 census data. Lots of fun data there. Hell, if they even could pay for this treatment, then maybe, just maybe, others wouldn't be released due to overcrowding.
It is clear to me that the excessively weathly think they are a better breed than everyone else by thinking they have the right to pay for better prison treatment than the average person gets. What disgusts me is the average person simply accepts this. It's easy to be apathetic, but it is even more obvious in cases where, for example, Paris Hilton's family came to visit her at her prison, push their way through the line of people waiting for hours to see their own incarcerated friends and family, enter the cafeteria area, force it to be evacuated, a procedure I might add set into place by the facility for when high-profile families or visitors show up to see their criminal kin, thereby proving to everyone with eyes and ears that not only do they know they have more rights than you but also the system agrees because they have procedures in place to make the celebrity visitors' experience more pleasant.
To be honest, I'm not against Paris Hilton because I have any grudge against her. I don't hate her, and I don't think any less of her for partying, being loose in the knees or for making a sex tape even. I wouldn't mind if she made another one. We all know that being angry at her for that is the age-old double standard of sexual deviance knocking at our doors again. As far as I'm concerned she is the product of a system that deifies the wealthy. It is tragic for her, in this, I presume, and for that she has my sympathy. Personally, I hope she can grow up and overcome this brainwashing that fame has given her. In the meantime I will continue to take on Hollywood and the religion of Celebrianity, because our ancestors fought a war in 1776 so we could live out from under the thumb of a king and aristocracy, and I have no wish to have to see that conflict waged again in that manner.
By the way, I trademark the term "celebrianity." :P
"I certainly don't want to be seen as defending Paris Hilton, but while she is incarcerated, droves of non-celebrity inmates will be released do to overcrowding. Also, I have it on good authority from a former CA prosecutor that it is routine to allow inmates to pay for their stay in a swankier facility, an option which Paris was denied. Is Paris a whining, spoiled, talentless brat? Absolutely. Is she being treated fairly? Of that I can't be so sure."
First of all, droves of non-celebrity inmates are being released from prisons due to overcrowding, which is true, but is, as stated, due to overcrowding. They are not released simply because they don't want to be there, or don't like the accomodations. The justice system shouldn't give a damn if you, as in Paris' own words, "I'm claustrophobic, and my cell is really small...I was going a little bit crazy in the beginning. I'm getting used to it now."
Being released because there simply isn't room for you is a bit different than being released because you don't have your bedroom that is most likely the size of an average person's home. We need to keep this in mind.
And the second point, that it is routine for inmates to pay for their stay in better facilities--a right which Paris' was denied--is unfair treatment is the meat of my post. Whether or not the law guarantees this to other persons of means is what I hold in question. Surely, she may be treated unfairly when considering others with means can avoid their sentences, but this is not what is truly unfair. The existence of those with means to even pay for this change of housing is what is unfair. I have no pity for someone being treated unfairly by an unfair provision that is unfair to the remaining 98% of the population.
First of all, I have great respect for California in many ways. I love the town of San Francisco. I love the respect that more liberal ideas have there. But as extreme conservative ideas have a home in the southeastern United States, so too do extreme liberal views infest the state of California. And just as you will find it almost taboo to not hate gays, blacks, athiests, women, or democrats in the southeast, it is almost in some places just as horrific in California to believe that people who don't recycle should not be put to death, that people who don't have tree sanctuaries on their properties aren't heathens, or that people who drive cars that get a little less gas mileage then the prius actually might not wish armageddon onto all wildlife preserves. I will be the first to come out and say that I do not know if this law allowing persons with means to pay for better incarceration is held in other states. I don't know if this is primarily a California law or if is the same in Alabama or Connecticut, but I will say that it is not her being denied this right which is unfair, but this right as a whole, no matter what state holds it as law, which is unfair to the remaining 98% of the population.
Unfair laws exist on the books in every state. It takes hard work to abolish that which the majority thinks is right but is unfair, such as Jim Crow, Poll Taxes, rights against interracial marriage, and selling beer on Sundays. We still have a long way to go, particularly in the direction of marriage equality, abortion, antiprivatization and antiglobalization, and clearly, putting the belief in a caste system to pasture for all time.
Certainly a right to pay to be incarcerated at a more pleasant facility is not the same as paying for someone to serve your mandatory military service in your place on its surface, but at its root, these beliefs are based on the same concept, which is those with means are better than those without.
That is, of course, unless the fee to choose a different facility were based on a percentage of your net worth, instead of a ridiculous amount that any poor black man caught speeding in a white neighborhood could ever hope to pay. And we know this is not the case. If it were, the 63% of our prisoners which are Black and Hispanic would be in other facilities. For the record, Hispanic is not treated as White. Click here for 2000 census data. Lots of fun data there. Hell, if they even could pay for this treatment, then maybe, just maybe, others wouldn't be released due to overcrowding.
It is clear to me that the excessively weathly think they are a better breed than everyone else by thinking they have the right to pay for better prison treatment than the average person gets. What disgusts me is the average person simply accepts this. It's easy to be apathetic, but it is even more obvious in cases where, for example, Paris Hilton's family came to visit her at her prison, push their way through the line of people waiting for hours to see their own incarcerated friends and family, enter the cafeteria area, force it to be evacuated, a procedure I might add set into place by the facility for when high-profile families or visitors show up to see their criminal kin, thereby proving to everyone with eyes and ears that not only do they know they have more rights than you but also the system agrees because they have procedures in place to make the celebrity visitors' experience more pleasant.
To be honest, I'm not against Paris Hilton because I have any grudge against her. I don't hate her, and I don't think any less of her for partying, being loose in the knees or for making a sex tape even. I wouldn't mind if she made another one. We all know that being angry at her for that is the age-old double standard of sexual deviance knocking at our doors again. As far as I'm concerned she is the product of a system that deifies the wealthy. It is tragic for her, in this, I presume, and for that she has my sympathy. Personally, I hope she can grow up and overcome this brainwashing that fame has given her. In the meantime I will continue to take on Hollywood and the religion of Celebrianity, because our ancestors fought a war in 1776 so we could live out from under the thumb of a king and aristocracy, and I have no wish to have to see that conflict waged again in that manner.
By the way, I trademark the term "celebrianity." :P
Saturday, June 09, 2007
A Little Sun On The Horizon
Ok so some of my faith in the justice system is restored. Paris Hilton was basically dragged crying and screaming back to jail to serve her sentence. Seems the judge got some confidence and ordered her back, saying he did at no time indicate she could be allowed to be returned home, and that the sheriff who released her was out of line. Oh well, I can't be mad at that, and I won't point fingers at who is responsible for the fiasco. I'm just glad she's going back to jail. And stop whining. My goodness, Paris, it's only 45 days, and probably in the county jail. Sure it isn't as posh a place as you're used to, but please, stop acting like it's San Quentin. I would say think of it like you were grounded, but then I think you have no idea what that's like either.
In the end, Paris, if you survive your own self-centered stubborness, this is probably the best thing that has ever happened to you. Maybe you'll grow up a bit.
In the end, Paris, if you survive your own self-centered stubborness, this is probably the best thing that has ever happened to you. Maybe you'll grow up a bit.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
PARIS DIDN'T LIKE THE HILTON
Oh well Paris Hilton is out of jail five days after she went in. Seems she wasn't eating much of the food this penitentiary was serving her and was released to house arrest for medical reasons. HEAR THAT CONS? All it means is you just need to be a little stubborn and spoiled brat and you just might get out of the joint for "medical reasons." God forbid all you guys and gals in the pen throw ignorant hunger strikes because you don't like your accomodations. Oh yeah, it helps to be a billionaire heiress who is loose in the knees too, I guess.
I thought the American Justice System was better than this.
I thought the American Justice System was better than this.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
TRUTHS AND HALF TRUTHS, AND SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE MY HEAD EXPLODED
Here you go people. Read up. You owe it to yourselves.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
Friday, May 25, 2007
Whiney-Ass Americans
I think my blood pressure has gone up again and this time it is because of people out and about as we approach Memorial Day complaining about the rising cost of gasoline. Listen, people, please, take my advice -- Shut the hell up! At least shut up, or start using that energy for solving the real issues here.
What got me going was a quote I read on CNN in their article Fed Up Station Owner Shuts Off Gas Pumps that can be found here . In this article Maria McClory stated that she drove over 100 miles a day for work in her SUV. This one got me going. The kicker occured later when John Schwartz indicated that he could not "fill up his SUV at that price" (previously stated at $3.49/gallon). He later indicated, per the article, that "...if it keeps going like this, my kids will never be able to drive."
Give me a damn break. As a citizen of the United States of America, it sickens me when my fellow citizens gripe, bitch, whine, and complain when they are forced to step up to do something that the rest of the world has been doing for quite some time. This sense of entitlement that many Americans have is ridiculous. And don't give me that "we're entitled to it because our soldiers pay in blood when no one else fights" B.S., because I will smack you down with the unnecessary-war bat so hard you'll go running to mommy crying for bandaids and a lollipop.
The rising cost of gasoline is NOT the problem -- it is the MILEAGE we get. What we pay for gas is still not what the rest of the world pays for its gas. If you don't believe me, go drive around Europe for a while. When you realize you are paying four and a half bucks a gallon for gas, then you'll understand.
But four and a half bucks a gallon isn't bad if you can get 40 or more miles on it, right? Maybe 50? But Fatbody, we can't have these cars. Fatbody, our government and our president and our car manufacturers are telling us that they are working diligently to solve this for us. Fatbody, if we are lucky, we may see cars on our roads that get 40 mpg in ten years. Unless we buy hybrids, or hydrogen cars.
STOP BEING AN IDIOT! The technology for better gas mileage exists. If you don't believe me, check out the New Ford Mondeo, manufactured by (yes you guessed it) the American Motor Company we know as FORD. This is one company we have that says they are FRANTICALLY WORKING TO IMPROVE YOUR GAS MILEAGE ABOVE 25mpg. This is one company that George W. Bush is pushing to "develop new technology" so that we can have cars with higher gas mileage on our roads sometime in the future. The Ford Mondeo 2.0TDCi LX (115ps) 5d, on sale in Europe TODAY, gets 50 miles per gallon! 50! FIF-TY! Why the hell can't I buy this car in the United States? It's made by FORD for goodness sake! Want to see more cars? Click here . What you will see is a list of all cars sold in Great Britain and their results on governmental mileage tests. If you want more mpg, go to diesel, but for now, I'm arguing petrol (gasoline).
One thing to note is that their gallons are 8 pints of 20 fluid ounces each, ours are 8 pints of 16 fluid ounces each. This is a 20% difference, which takes the 50mpg down to 40mpg. Hell America, I'd SETTLE FOR FORTY MPG. And if the fact that they are selling these cars in Europe without giving the United States consumer the option to purchase doesn't piss you off, listen to this.
If you want a better comparison, Ford sells the Focus in both the United States and in Great Britain. According to the U.S. Government Fuel Economy information database the 2007 Ford Focus 2.0L 4-cyl. 5 Speed Manual gets 27mpg (New EPA) 31mpg (old EPA). In Great Britain, according to their standards the most similar Focus, the Ford Focus C-Max 2.0 Duratec 2.0L 5 Speed Manual Petrol (gas) engine gets a whopping 38.7mpg. With the above fluid ounce conversion that meets the above old EPA of 31 mpg, which was amended to be 27mpg because it was deemed innacurate. These are combined numbers that bring up problems in their calculations, relative to the standards of the country computing the statistic. So let's compare highway mileages. Not highway and city mile averages. The U.S. Gov't states the Focus gets 33mpg highway, and in Great Britain, the Duratec gets 50mpg. Did I say that right? You're damn right I did. FIFTY miles per gallon. FIFTY POINT FOUR (50.4) to be exact. And again, after the fluid ounce conversion, that's approximately 40mpg!
Didn't I say something about selling myself on a street corner for forty mpg?
If you feel you are entitled, Americans, then drop your cheetos and get your butts off your couches and pitch a tent on you congressman's lawn and GET THESE CARS INTO THE UNITED STATES.
GM produced twenty five years ago the car known as the GM TPC. It got 75 miles per gallon! And believe it or not, this same company produced the GM Lean Machine in 1982 that reached 80 miles per gallon! And beyond that, the GM Aero series and GM Ultralite in 1992 are proven to reach 100 miles per gallon!
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?
Do you get this? In 1992, GM could manufacture a car that achieved 100mpg, but continued to sell cars to the public that only achieved 20mpg.
WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?
Why can't we work forward from what we already know and increase our fuel efficiency, instead of continuing to undermine our populace by telling us we can't do what we've already done?
WHY?
WHY? WHY? WHY?
WHERE IS MY 50 MPG CAR? I'm entitled to it, after all.
What got me going was a quote I read on CNN in their article Fed Up Station Owner Shuts Off Gas Pumps that can be found here . In this article Maria McClory stated that she drove over 100 miles a day for work in her SUV. This one got me going. The kicker occured later when John Schwartz indicated that he could not "fill up his SUV at that price" (previously stated at $3.49/gallon). He later indicated, per the article, that "...if it keeps going like this, my kids will never be able to drive."
Give me a damn break. As a citizen of the United States of America, it sickens me when my fellow citizens gripe, bitch, whine, and complain when they are forced to step up to do something that the rest of the world has been doing for quite some time. This sense of entitlement that many Americans have is ridiculous. And don't give me that "we're entitled to it because our soldiers pay in blood when no one else fights" B.S., because I will smack you down with the unnecessary-war bat so hard you'll go running to mommy crying for bandaids and a lollipop.
The rising cost of gasoline is NOT the problem -- it is the MILEAGE we get. What we pay for gas is still not what the rest of the world pays for its gas. If you don't believe me, go drive around Europe for a while. When you realize you are paying four and a half bucks a gallon for gas, then you'll understand.
But four and a half bucks a gallon isn't bad if you can get 40 or more miles on it, right? Maybe 50? But Fatbody, we can't have these cars. Fatbody, our government and our president and our car manufacturers are telling us that they are working diligently to solve this for us. Fatbody, if we are lucky, we may see cars on our roads that get 40 mpg in ten years. Unless we buy hybrids, or hydrogen cars.
STOP BEING AN IDIOT! The technology for better gas mileage exists. If you don't believe me, check out the New Ford Mondeo, manufactured by (yes you guessed it) the American Motor Company we know as FORD. This is one company we have that says they are FRANTICALLY WORKING TO IMPROVE YOUR GAS MILEAGE ABOVE 25mpg. This is one company that George W. Bush is pushing to "develop new technology" so that we can have cars with higher gas mileage on our roads sometime in the future. The Ford Mondeo 2.0TDCi LX (115ps) 5d, on sale in Europe TODAY, gets 50 miles per gallon! 50! FIF-TY! Why the hell can't I buy this car in the United States? It's made by FORD for goodness sake! Want to see more cars? Click here . What you will see is a list of all cars sold in Great Britain and their results on governmental mileage tests. If you want more mpg, go to diesel, but for now, I'm arguing petrol (gasoline).
One thing to note is that their gallons are 8 pints of 20 fluid ounces each, ours are 8 pints of 16 fluid ounces each. This is a 20% difference, which takes the 50mpg down to 40mpg. Hell America, I'd SETTLE FOR FORTY MPG. And if the fact that they are selling these cars in Europe without giving the United States consumer the option to purchase doesn't piss you off, listen to this.
If you want a better comparison, Ford sells the Focus in both the United States and in Great Britain. According to the U.S. Government Fuel Economy information database the 2007 Ford Focus 2.0L 4-cyl. 5 Speed Manual gets 27mpg (New EPA) 31mpg (old EPA). In Great Britain, according to their standards the most similar Focus, the Ford Focus C-Max 2.0 Duratec 2.0L 5 Speed Manual Petrol (gas) engine gets a whopping 38.7mpg. With the above fluid ounce conversion that meets the above old EPA of 31 mpg, which was amended to be 27mpg because it was deemed innacurate. These are combined numbers that bring up problems in their calculations, relative to the standards of the country computing the statistic. So let's compare highway mileages. Not highway and city mile averages. The U.S. Gov't states the Focus gets 33mpg highway, and in Great Britain, the Duratec gets 50mpg. Did I say that right? You're damn right I did. FIFTY miles per gallon. FIFTY POINT FOUR (50.4) to be exact. And again, after the fluid ounce conversion, that's approximately 40mpg!
Didn't I say something about selling myself on a street corner for forty mpg?
If you feel you are entitled, Americans, then drop your cheetos and get your butts off your couches and pitch a tent on you congressman's lawn and GET THESE CARS INTO THE UNITED STATES.
GM produced twenty five years ago the car known as the GM TPC. It got 75 miles per gallon! And believe it or not, this same company produced the GM Lean Machine in 1982 that reached 80 miles per gallon! And beyond that, the GM Aero series and GM Ultralite in 1992 are proven to reach 100 miles per gallon!
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?
Do you get this? In 1992, GM could manufacture a car that achieved 100mpg, but continued to sell cars to the public that only achieved 20mpg.
WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?
Why can't we work forward from what we already know and increase our fuel efficiency, instead of continuing to undermine our populace by telling us we can't do what we've already done?
WHY?
WHY? WHY? WHY?
WHERE IS MY 50 MPG CAR? I'm entitled to it, after all.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The Pro-Life Conundrum
Every day that passes seems to bring with it a battle between pro-lifers (usually conservatives) and pro-abortionists (usually liberals) about what rights a woman has over a fetus and how far she can go to terminate a pregnancy. This issue seems to be one of the most prevalent issues among Christians today, and the moral majority has waged war against this right since Roe Vs. Wade was won.
Maybe it's because I try so hard to hover around the middle, or maybe it's just because I'm an arrogant asshat, but I think I see this issue with a broader perspective than most pundits give justice.
What I mean is this issue goes FAR beyond declaring whether or not a fetus is human life.
Life is life, regardless of how you view it. Whether that life is incapable of experiencing happiness, joy, or reality is up for interpretation. But the fact remains, life is life. And if you value life, you should value it in all respects.
Life is a blessing, whether it is given from a Creator, or the miraculous result of evolution, and/or [ACK] intelligent design.
Now either you view life as I have indicated, that it is something to be preserved, or you don't. That's your choice. People, however, need to stop cherry-picking the issue to further their agendas.
If I were to believe that a human blastocyst, no matter its age, is human life and should be protected, no matter the cost, what am I valuing? Am I honoring cells that will potentially develop into a human given good conditions, or am I honoring the fact that life was created? If I am thinking abortion should be illegal, what am I really thinking? Is it that the tiny fertilized egg is taking the shape of an innocent baby in my mind? Or does that mess of quickly dividing cells have a soul?
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But again, this is your choice, and you are entitled to it.
What bothers me is the belief that somehow, for some reason, when an adult commits a heinous act, his life is forfeit.
What bothers me is somehow, for some reason, a mess of cells no bigger than the head of a pin should be revered, but yet somehow, for some reason, a thinking human being with (hopefully) developed social skills who can be helped or rehabilitated or somehow given some other use is hanged, gassed, electrocuted, shot, put to sleep, or destroyed in a myriad of ways.
I don't see how someone can be against abortion and simultaneously be for the death penalty.
Life is life, regardless of how you view it.
Personally, I am against abortion. I do however believe it should be used in certain medical scenarios, e.g. when the life of the mother is proven to be in danger, and the fetus will or will not survive the birth in this case as it stands. I make this consideration because I, as a believer in Life, believe it to be protected, yet I, understanding that I have a right and need to defend my family with deadly force, which is perfectly legal in most states, draw a parallel to the case of a mother in danger, wherein a fetus would be aborted in defense of her life.
Because I am against abortion I also am personally against the death penalty, in all its forms, principally because when one is put to death it is in a controlled situation, where no person's body is in direct danger. I respect the death penalty due to its legality, yet I do not support it.
I understand that states have control over the death penalty, and I understand that many of these states have abolished the practice. However, as long as I have a right to kill someone in defense of myself or my family, I believe a mother has the right to kill her fetus if her health is in danger, or better put, in defense of her life and health.
Abortion used simply as a method of birth control is, in my strongest opinion, a grave sin, and should be outlawed, no matter the age of the developing baby. I am arguing the legitimate uses of abortion, the baby's health notwithstanding, in cases where the mother's health is in danger.
Life is life, regardless of how you view it.
If a developing fetus is so important, then for God's sake a thinking human being should be just as important. If a developing fetus is so important, then for God's sake lets do what we can to help the mother after the baby is born, instead of forgetting her. If a developing fetus is so important, then for God's sake please can we stop killing people in our prisions and hospitals simply because we have judged them and their lives as useless to us.
Maybe it's because I try so hard to hover around the middle, or maybe it's just because I'm an arrogant asshat, but I think I see this issue with a broader perspective than most pundits give justice.
What I mean is this issue goes FAR beyond declaring whether or not a fetus is human life.
Life is life, regardless of how you view it. Whether that life is incapable of experiencing happiness, joy, or reality is up for interpretation. But the fact remains, life is life. And if you value life, you should value it in all respects.
Life is a blessing, whether it is given from a Creator, or the miraculous result of evolution, and/or [ACK] intelligent design.
Now either you view life as I have indicated, that it is something to be preserved, or you don't. That's your choice. People, however, need to stop cherry-picking the issue to further their agendas.
If I were to believe that a human blastocyst, no matter its age, is human life and should be protected, no matter the cost, what am I valuing? Am I honoring cells that will potentially develop into a human given good conditions, or am I honoring the fact that life was created? If I am thinking abortion should be illegal, what am I really thinking? Is it that the tiny fertilized egg is taking the shape of an innocent baby in my mind? Or does that mess of quickly dividing cells have a soul?
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But again, this is your choice, and you are entitled to it.
What bothers me is the belief that somehow, for some reason, when an adult commits a heinous act, his life is forfeit.
What bothers me is somehow, for some reason, a mess of cells no bigger than the head of a pin should be revered, but yet somehow, for some reason, a thinking human being with (hopefully) developed social skills who can be helped or rehabilitated or somehow given some other use is hanged, gassed, electrocuted, shot, put to sleep, or destroyed in a myriad of ways.
I don't see how someone can be against abortion and simultaneously be for the death penalty.
Life is life, regardless of how you view it.
Personally, I am against abortion. I do however believe it should be used in certain medical scenarios, e.g. when the life of the mother is proven to be in danger, and the fetus will or will not survive the birth in this case as it stands. I make this consideration because I, as a believer in Life, believe it to be protected, yet I, understanding that I have a right and need to defend my family with deadly force, which is perfectly legal in most states, draw a parallel to the case of a mother in danger, wherein a fetus would be aborted in defense of her life.
Because I am against abortion I also am personally against the death penalty, in all its forms, principally because when one is put to death it is in a controlled situation, where no person's body is in direct danger. I respect the death penalty due to its legality, yet I do not support it.
I understand that states have control over the death penalty, and I understand that many of these states have abolished the practice. However, as long as I have a right to kill someone in defense of myself or my family, I believe a mother has the right to kill her fetus if her health is in danger, or better put, in defense of her life and health.
Abortion used simply as a method of birth control is, in my strongest opinion, a grave sin, and should be outlawed, no matter the age of the developing baby. I am arguing the legitimate uses of abortion, the baby's health notwithstanding, in cases where the mother's health is in danger.
Life is life, regardless of how you view it.
If a developing fetus is so important, then for God's sake a thinking human being should be just as important. If a developing fetus is so important, then for God's sake lets do what we can to help the mother after the baby is born, instead of forgetting her. If a developing fetus is so important, then for God's sake please can we stop killing people in our prisions and hospitals simply because we have judged them and their lives as useless to us.
Mixed Up And Desperate
I have just a quick gripe here. Let me set the situation for you. There is controversy in Texas going on right now, and it centers around whether a hospital is doing the ethical thing in seeking removing a 17 month old child with a terminal illness from a ventilator.
I am not going to argue whether it is right or wrong to do so. I'm not going to even argue the facts of the case, beyond state the child has Leigh's disease, a rare disorder with no cure that results in death. The child can't see, speak, eat, or breathe on his own.
The hospital says he is in excruciating pain and wants to remove him from the ventilator. The mother says he is not in pain, smiles when he "looks" at her, and wants to keep him on the ventilator.
I am not going to argue for either of these points. What burns me up is the mother said she was fighting to keep her son on the ventilator so he will die (and I quote directly) "naturally, the way God intended."
I understand one may say strange things or believe the unbelievable when placed under duress, especially the fear, pain, and grief caused when one's child is in the hospital (I know this from personal experience, unfortunately). However, I think stating that keeping your child on a ventilator so he can die as God intended is over the line.
Take the kid off the ventilator. Let him die with dignity, AS GOD INTENDED. Let his soul go home. Keeping him here is selfish. The ventilator is keeping the child alive. The doctors say he would die in a matter of hours once it is removed. This is the NATURAL way.
There is nothing natural about a clicking and beeping machine prolonging the inevitable. I feel sorry for the mother and respect the pain that she feels, but I believe the real problem here is her inability to let go and to give her son back to God.
So she makes excuses.
And selfishly on my part, I have to pay for it.
And truthfully I wouldn't mind doing so, if she wanted to keep the boy alive for other reasons.
I am not going to argue whether it is right or wrong to do so. I'm not going to even argue the facts of the case, beyond state the child has Leigh's disease, a rare disorder with no cure that results in death. The child can't see, speak, eat, or breathe on his own.
The hospital says he is in excruciating pain and wants to remove him from the ventilator. The mother says he is not in pain, smiles when he "looks" at her, and wants to keep him on the ventilator.
I am not going to argue for either of these points. What burns me up is the mother said she was fighting to keep her son on the ventilator so he will die (and I quote directly) "naturally, the way God intended."
I understand one may say strange things or believe the unbelievable when placed under duress, especially the fear, pain, and grief caused when one's child is in the hospital (I know this from personal experience, unfortunately). However, I think stating that keeping your child on a ventilator so he can die as God intended is over the line.
Take the kid off the ventilator. Let him die with dignity, AS GOD INTENDED. Let his soul go home. Keeping him here is selfish. The ventilator is keeping the child alive. The doctors say he would die in a matter of hours once it is removed. This is the NATURAL way.
There is nothing natural about a clicking and beeping machine prolonging the inevitable. I feel sorry for the mother and respect the pain that she feels, but I believe the real problem here is her inability to let go and to give her son back to God.
So she makes excuses.
And selfishly on my part, I have to pay for it.
And truthfully I wouldn't mind doing so, if she wanted to keep the boy alive for other reasons.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
I AIN'T 'FRAID O' NO GHOST!
Give me a break. It seems to me that the renaissance of new age mumbo jumbo bullshit is in high swing. When our TV is on it is usually on comedy central (our most dependable channel for cable news), yet sometimes when everyone is in bed i decide to brave the thick of idiocy on the other channels. At least comedy central is supposed to be funny. I mean there are some things on the producers of which believe to be taken seriously, and if these shows didn't anger me as much as they did, I'd nominate them for the best-new-comedy-show academy award.
For example I think every channel on basic (non-hbo/skinemax/showtime cable) has some sort of stupid show or other about searching for ghosts. It seems to be some past-time for most people, I guess, to somehow form links with long dead people in order to:
a) prove to themselves there is an afterlife,
b) prove to themselves there is an afterlife that is different from what is accepted by convential, dominant spirituality,
c) prove to themselves there is an afterlife that is different from what is accepted by conventional, dominant spirituality so that they can feel better about themselves after being excommunicated by church, friends, and family for being a stupid moron.
And there is so much proof out there that you'd be an idiot not to believe the way they do. I mean that's how they make their shows. How else could they get away with snubbing conventional faith?
Granted, conventional faiths have addressed the existence of spirits since their origin. I don't deny that. But these shows on TV today take the approach that all the knowledge gained from milennia of soul-searching is wrong. This is the common theme. Christians are wrong. Muslims are wrong. Catholics (yes I know they are Christian too but they are separate here because they are one of the only ones I know who have ritualized processes relating to the exorcism of evil spirits) are wrong.
These shows proclaim (sometimes with subtlety, others with brazen defiance) that only "earthy" faiths truly understand the afterlife. The plight of native americans is usually addressed and glorified, and many times some half-drunk native american desperate for money or attention comes onto the screen discussing the relationships between spirits, our ancestors, and nature. Again if it weren't as shameful as it were, I'd laugh.
So after sitting through these shows (which normally last an hour or so and are chock full of nightvision video, shots of balls of dust floating around that they claim are spirits of the dead, silly girls in women's bodies who pretend to be scared and giggle and scream a lot, weird tapping noises that sound surprisingly like expanding/contracting wood during normal night settling, mysterious EVPs of voices saying "OOOOSSSSSHBBIIIXOSSSHHHHMMMMMMCALLLLLLLSHHHHH [static]" (which says something like "hey i'm dead, it's cold, i'm lonely, get out of my house, get me a jelly donut" or whatever ridiculous thing people say they say) and my favorite the EMF fluctuations that "JUST DON'T HAPPEN IN NATURE AND PROVE THAT SINCE GHOSTS ARE ENERGY AND ENERGY IS ELECTROMAGNETISM THEN WHEN YOUR METER JUMPS 10 OR MORE UNITS (again never explained exactly *what* they think is being measured) A GHOST IS HERE! ) <---BIGTIME RUNON ...
So after sitting through these shows I decided to study how they do it.
READY RAGGY? NEED A SCOOBY SNACK?
Why is it that it is always the smart kids with bright futures who get gunned down at universities? Can't for once the people in these shows burst into flames for our sensationalist enjoyment?
Or would the news even tell us? Probably not.
Anyway while I watched about the blueumpteenthmillion of these ridiculous shows I think I figured out the racket. So, if anyone out there wants to become famous and make lots of money, I offer you now my crash course in being a ghost buster, all for the wonderful price of a pile of dog crap and bucket of unsearched south american emeralds from ebay.
STEP 1 GET A VIDEO CAMERA THAT HAS NIGHT VISION
This is important. If for any other reason, you need this so the eyes of everyone you film has that neat cat's-eye reflective thing effect going on. It's also important for filming in the dark. See step 10.
STEP 2 HIRE A NAÏVE WOMAN WHO GIGGLES AND SCREAMS LIKE A GIRL AND IS AFRAID OF HER OWN SHADOW
Not only will this girl inspire innocence when the viewer sees her, but also she will serve to disarm the viewer's skeptical walls with her sheer beauty. As offensive as calling a grown woman a girl is, I use the term accurately, seeing that I am not judging her physical age, but her mental age, which, to be successful, needs to be similar to that of a day-old turd.
STEP 3 FIND A DARK PLACE
I don't care where this is. It could be an old abandoned hospital. An elementary school after a PTA meeting. Your basement. It doesn't matter. Hell it's going to be dark anyway.
STEP 4 TELL THE PERSON WITH THE CAMERA AND THE GIGGLY LITTLE GIRL/WOMAN THAT THE PLACE IS HAUNTED
Make shit up. Make it good. Tell them something like young boys ate the livers of black cats, got possessed, kidnapped people from Kansas and sacrificed them to Kegger, an ancient, forgotten Sumerian god of partying. After that, they drank the blood of their parents.
STEP 5 ADD THE "AND THESE DAYS" OR THE "PEOPLE SAY" STATEMENT
People say these days that when the moon is out and it's dark and you can't see anything for what it really is, you just might get carried away and imagine seeing little boys with black eyes riding war-pigs across the floor, searching for victims to oink to death. Get the idea?
STEP 6 GET A REALLY DUSTY RUG
Put this rug in the room where the ghosts most frequent. Be sure to tell the idiots so they spend time here walking around, stirring up dust. Orbs anyone?
STEP 7 MAKE SURE THERE ARE EXPOSED LEAD, STEEL, OR IRON WATER PIPES IN THE ROOM
This does wonders for EMF readings. Trust me. The result will be quite humorous.
STEP 8 MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE ACTIVE WALL OUTLETS IN THE ROOM
Watch as the idiots take the EMF detector to the walls above the outlets and "detect the presence of a vortex or spirit."
STEP 9 REMOVE INSULATION AND CARPET
How else will we feel cold spots?
STEP 10 TURN THE GIGGLY IDIOT GIRL AND SCARED SHITLESS CAMERAPERSON LOOSE INTO THE DARK HAUNTED ROOM
Watch the fireworks. Be SURE you got the girl so scared that every rat, every flying insect, every draft, every tap and step is definite proof of the existence of spirits. It's even better if you can get her to the point of screaming, and better yet, crying.
And with the night vision (because as we all know, you can only see ghosts in the dark, and they are too weak to manifest in bright daylight) her eyes will be big and shiny, and she'll not be able to see her hand in front of her face, and when the cameraman gropes her butt it will be explained away quite easily.
The rest writes itself.
VOILA. A ghost hunter show fit for any of the networks.
I could go on and on about this, so please, if anyone wants to support these shows in comments, be my guest. Don't expect an answer though, because it's pointless. I know I'm right, and I know you're stupid. That's that.
I enjoy watching those guys on TAPS though. They do their best to disprove things, and some things have happened on their shows that is difficult to explain. What I like about them is they say "yeah we think ghosts are real" without putting that stupid new agey mumbo jumbo let's-get-back-to-our-ancestors-because-the-earth-is-crying crap the others do.
Go TAPS. I think you're doing your best to do it right.
For example I think every channel on basic (non-hbo/skinemax/showtime cable) has some sort of stupid show or other about searching for ghosts. It seems to be some past-time for most people, I guess, to somehow form links with long dead people in order to:
a) prove to themselves there is an afterlife,
b) prove to themselves there is an afterlife that is different from what is accepted by convential, dominant spirituality,
c) prove to themselves there is an afterlife that is different from what is accepted by conventional, dominant spirituality so that they can feel better about themselves after being excommunicated by church, friends, and family for being a stupid moron.
And there is so much proof out there that you'd be an idiot not to believe the way they do. I mean that's how they make their shows. How else could they get away with snubbing conventional faith?
Granted, conventional faiths have addressed the existence of spirits since their origin. I don't deny that. But these shows on TV today take the approach that all the knowledge gained from milennia of soul-searching is wrong. This is the common theme. Christians are wrong. Muslims are wrong. Catholics (yes I know they are Christian too but they are separate here because they are one of the only ones I know who have ritualized processes relating to the exorcism of evil spirits) are wrong.
These shows proclaim (sometimes with subtlety, others with brazen defiance) that only "earthy" faiths truly understand the afterlife. The plight of native americans is usually addressed and glorified, and many times some half-drunk native american desperate for money or attention comes onto the screen discussing the relationships between spirits, our ancestors, and nature. Again if it weren't as shameful as it were, I'd laugh.
So after sitting through these shows (which normally last an hour or so and are chock full of nightvision video, shots of balls of dust floating around that they claim are spirits of the dead, silly girls in women's bodies who pretend to be scared and giggle and scream a lot, weird tapping noises that sound surprisingly like expanding/contracting wood during normal night settling, mysterious EVPs of voices saying "OOOOSSSSSHBBIIIXOSSSHHHHMMMMMMCALLLLLLLSHHHHH [static]" (which says something like "hey i'm dead, it's cold, i'm lonely, get out of my house, get me a jelly donut" or whatever ridiculous thing people say they say) and my favorite the EMF fluctuations that "JUST DON'T HAPPEN IN NATURE AND PROVE THAT SINCE GHOSTS ARE ENERGY AND ENERGY IS ELECTROMAGNETISM THEN WHEN YOUR METER JUMPS 10 OR MORE UNITS (again never explained exactly *what* they think is being measured) A GHOST IS HERE! ) <---BIGTIME RUNON ...
So after sitting through these shows I decided to study how they do it.
READY RAGGY? NEED A SCOOBY SNACK?
Why is it that it is always the smart kids with bright futures who get gunned down at universities? Can't for once the people in these shows burst into flames for our sensationalist enjoyment?
Or would the news even tell us? Probably not.
Anyway while I watched about the blueumpteenthmillion of these ridiculous shows I think I figured out the racket. So, if anyone out there wants to become famous and make lots of money, I offer you now my crash course in being a ghost buster, all for the wonderful price of a pile of dog crap and bucket of unsearched south american emeralds from ebay.
STEP 1 GET A VIDEO CAMERA THAT HAS NIGHT VISION
This is important. If for any other reason, you need this so the eyes of everyone you film has that neat cat's-eye reflective thing effect going on. It's also important for filming in the dark. See step 10.
STEP 2 HIRE A NAÏVE WOMAN WHO GIGGLES AND SCREAMS LIKE A GIRL AND IS AFRAID OF HER OWN SHADOW
Not only will this girl inspire innocence when the viewer sees her, but also she will serve to disarm the viewer's skeptical walls with her sheer beauty. As offensive as calling a grown woman a girl is, I use the term accurately, seeing that I am not judging her physical age, but her mental age, which, to be successful, needs to be similar to that of a day-old turd.
STEP 3 FIND A DARK PLACE
I don't care where this is. It could be an old abandoned hospital. An elementary school after a PTA meeting. Your basement. It doesn't matter. Hell it's going to be dark anyway.
STEP 4 TELL THE PERSON WITH THE CAMERA AND THE GIGGLY LITTLE GIRL/WOMAN THAT THE PLACE IS HAUNTED
Make shit up. Make it good. Tell them something like young boys ate the livers of black cats, got possessed, kidnapped people from Kansas and sacrificed them to Kegger, an ancient, forgotten Sumerian god of partying. After that, they drank the blood of their parents.
STEP 5 ADD THE "AND THESE DAYS" OR THE "PEOPLE SAY" STATEMENT
People say these days that when the moon is out and it's dark and you can't see anything for what it really is, you just might get carried away and imagine seeing little boys with black eyes riding war-pigs across the floor, searching for victims to oink to death. Get the idea?
STEP 6 GET A REALLY DUSTY RUG
Put this rug in the room where the ghosts most frequent. Be sure to tell the idiots so they spend time here walking around, stirring up dust. Orbs anyone?
STEP 7 MAKE SURE THERE ARE EXPOSED LEAD, STEEL, OR IRON WATER PIPES IN THE ROOM
This does wonders for EMF readings. Trust me. The result will be quite humorous.
STEP 8 MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE ACTIVE WALL OUTLETS IN THE ROOM
Watch as the idiots take the EMF detector to the walls above the outlets and "detect the presence of a vortex or spirit."
STEP 9 REMOVE INSULATION AND CARPET
How else will we feel cold spots?
STEP 10 TURN THE GIGGLY IDIOT GIRL AND SCARED SHITLESS CAMERAPERSON LOOSE INTO THE DARK HAUNTED ROOM
Watch the fireworks. Be SURE you got the girl so scared that every rat, every flying insect, every draft, every tap and step is definite proof of the existence of spirits. It's even better if you can get her to the point of screaming, and better yet, crying.
And with the night vision (because as we all know, you can only see ghosts in the dark, and they are too weak to manifest in bright daylight) her eyes will be big and shiny, and she'll not be able to see her hand in front of her face, and when the cameraman gropes her butt it will be explained away quite easily.
The rest writes itself.
VOILA. A ghost hunter show fit for any of the networks.
I could go on and on about this, so please, if anyone wants to support these shows in comments, be my guest. Don't expect an answer though, because it's pointless. I know I'm right, and I know you're stupid. That's that.
I enjoy watching those guys on TAPS though. They do their best to disprove things, and some things have happened on their shows that is difficult to explain. What I like about them is they say "yeah we think ghosts are real" without putting that stupid new agey mumbo jumbo let's-get-back-to-our-ancestors-because-the-earth-is-crying crap the others do.
Go TAPS. I think you're doing your best to do it right.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Apples And Oranges
Friends, family, and strangers ask me every so often how I can claim to be religious and shack up with a self-proclaimed Atheist. Doesn’t this cause problems in your marriage, they ask? How will you raise your children? How do you ever agree on anything?
What you people asking these questions do not understand is how similar our moralities are. Here, let me explain:
In the year 1969, while on a trip bestowed by that wonderful mind-altering agent LSD, the great prophet Shantal decreed that the state of the Christian church at that time was defunct. Angels visited Shantal and instructed him on the method by which he could restructure the church so that it could successfully reach out to people and solve their problems. Thus, the Directive for Understanding Multiple Beliefs And Social Structures was given.
The great prophet Shantal gave the name of the directive to our church, thus fulfilling an ancient Mayan prophecy that a D.U.M.B.A.S.S. prophet and a bunch of D.U.M.B.A.S.S. “Christians” would bring the new gospel to the planet Earth. The people were given their mission – do whatever you can to secularize society so that the true church can find its place contemporary society.
D.U.M.B.A.S.S.es worked for years to bring this mission to fruition. I joined the church in the 1990s after being introduced to it by a member of its executive council, the group known as AFJ, the Atheists For Jesus. I was taken aback by this – I couldn’t understand how an Atheist and a D.U.M.B.A.S.S. could ever reconcile life choices, let alone get along in everyday life. I soon saw the error of my ways. Since both of our organizations valued hedonistic sex, we hit it off quite quickly and ended up marrying each other. It was a beautiful ceremony: the moon was full, the leaves had begun to fall onto the graves, and the statue of the Baphomet and the great prophet Shantal in a circle-jerk ring shone from atop the altar of rubber tires greased with Crisco. Our marital bliss began that day at the climax of our ceremony when they brought out Shantal, now reincarnated into the Chihuahua Bubbles. We copulated atop the rubber tire altar with Bubbles, insuring that our life of morality would never end.
My D.U.M.B.A.S.S. life improved day by day. My wife, being a member of AFJ, the executive order of D.U.M.B.A.S.S., introduced me to the secret societies within D.U.M.B.A.S.S. and their agendas. The hardest thing for me to understand was the similarities between Jesus and Bubbles. Although my mind is finite and I will never understand fully this great virtue, I trust my wife when she tells me they are the same and different. Because we were so similar in other ways she gave me the opportunity to join her cause. From that day on I swore I would not rest until:
1) Prayer was removed from schools
2) “In God We Trust” is removed from our money
3) “God” is taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance
4) Any woman is allowed to abort her baby so we can drink its blood
5) Gays – being the sacred judiciary of D.U.M.B.A.S.S., are given the right to marry so they too could receive tax breaks for having dirty sex, lighting the way for all of us in the true pleasures of hedonism.
6) Murder, rape, and drug use are made legal.
7) Telling the truth is not only not necessary but is also frowned upon.
8) Anyone can walk around naked if they want to.
9) Jews around the world are rewarded for what they did, since the true prophet is in fact Bubbles the Chihuahua, the reincarnated LSD using great prophet Shantal.
10) The black helicopters are painted pink.
11) Freemasons are given their 30 acres and a bucket of cement, as promised so many years ago.
12) We can not only burn our flag, but also use it as an adult diaper if there is no other cloth around.
13) We admit to evolution. Listen people, coming from monkeys is an improvement.
14) We allow the terrorists to win. After all, who needs freedom of religion and speech?
What you people asking these questions do not understand is how similar our moralities are. Here, let me explain:
In the year 1969, while on a trip bestowed by that wonderful mind-altering agent LSD, the great prophet Shantal decreed that the state of the Christian church at that time was defunct. Angels visited Shantal and instructed him on the method by which he could restructure the church so that it could successfully reach out to people and solve their problems. Thus, the Directive for Understanding Multiple Beliefs And Social Structures was given.
The great prophet Shantal gave the name of the directive to our church, thus fulfilling an ancient Mayan prophecy that a D.U.M.B.A.S.S. prophet and a bunch of D.U.M.B.A.S.S. “Christians” would bring the new gospel to the planet Earth. The people were given their mission – do whatever you can to secularize society so that the true church can find its place contemporary society.
D.U.M.B.A.S.S.es worked for years to bring this mission to fruition. I joined the church in the 1990s after being introduced to it by a member of its executive council, the group known as AFJ, the Atheists For Jesus. I was taken aback by this – I couldn’t understand how an Atheist and a D.U.M.B.A.S.S. could ever reconcile life choices, let alone get along in everyday life. I soon saw the error of my ways. Since both of our organizations valued hedonistic sex, we hit it off quite quickly and ended up marrying each other. It was a beautiful ceremony: the moon was full, the leaves had begun to fall onto the graves, and the statue of the Baphomet and the great prophet Shantal in a circle-jerk ring shone from atop the altar of rubber tires greased with Crisco. Our marital bliss began that day at the climax of our ceremony when they brought out Shantal, now reincarnated into the Chihuahua Bubbles. We copulated atop the rubber tire altar with Bubbles, insuring that our life of morality would never end.
My D.U.M.B.A.S.S. life improved day by day. My wife, being a member of AFJ, the executive order of D.U.M.B.A.S.S., introduced me to the secret societies within D.U.M.B.A.S.S. and their agendas. The hardest thing for me to understand was the similarities between Jesus and Bubbles. Although my mind is finite and I will never understand fully this great virtue, I trust my wife when she tells me they are the same and different. Because we were so similar in other ways she gave me the opportunity to join her cause. From that day on I swore I would not rest until:
1) Prayer was removed from schools
2) “In God We Trust” is removed from our money
3) “God” is taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance
4) Any woman is allowed to abort her baby so we can drink its blood
5) Gays – being the sacred judiciary of D.U.M.B.A.S.S., are given the right to marry so they too could receive tax breaks for having dirty sex, lighting the way for all of us in the true pleasures of hedonism.
6) Murder, rape, and drug use are made legal.
7) Telling the truth is not only not necessary but is also frowned upon.
8) Anyone can walk around naked if they want to.
9) Jews around the world are rewarded for what they did, since the true prophet is in fact Bubbles the Chihuahua, the reincarnated LSD using great prophet Shantal.
10) The black helicopters are painted pink.
11) Freemasons are given their 30 acres and a bucket of cement, as promised so many years ago.
12) We can not only burn our flag, but also use it as an adult diaper if there is no other cloth around.
13) We admit to evolution. Listen people, coming from monkeys is an improvement.
14) We allow the terrorists to win. After all, who needs freedom of religion and speech?
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Imagine That
Not one day after the mid-term election and gas prices have already risen 10 cents per gallon (after suddenly mysteriously going down 5 cents per gallon a few days before). Wife says that somehow, despite Bush's many orders contrary to the house previously, that this will be blamed on democrats. I think she's right.
Episode V: The Ranter Strikes Back
People have often wondered why I had stopped ranting on this website as of late. To be honest, I have a new baby in the house, and I have worked diligently to be as happy as I could; to live as free from anger and frustration as I possibly could; to appreciate the softer, more subtle treasures of life and not focus so much on what puts people in the grave early.
Unfortunately like roaches coming out of the walls during a dinner party it seems there is no lack of idiots coming forward during times of an election. These rats will stop at nothing to lie or manipulate your vote out from under you. Things happen that we don’t like, for sure. Progress and change sometimes take time. That is a fact.
But on Tuesday, 81 percent of Tennessee voters approved a constitutional amendment that legally defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Now people please, no bullshit smokescreens here. Let’s put this out on the table for what it really is.
This is a religious argument that has forced its way into civil government. I’m not going to waste my time screaming separation of church and state here. I just want people to own up to what they believe and just admit what this issue really means. This is an issue of control.
Marriage is a civil union, not a religious one. Sure, most people get married in a church, and a minister may be the one who signs the papers, but everyone knows that it is a legal document, a legal contract, in fact one in which the signers are entitled some legal benefits, primarily in taxes, medical decisions, and occupational medical insurance. There is no religious benefit to getting married whatsoever. Keep this in mind.
The primary campaign against homosexual marriage that I have seen in Tennessee has centered on “protection of our holier than thou snow white pristine pure sacrosanct union of marital bliss.” There have been countless fliers, banners, billboards, TV spots, radio spots, and political streetwalking whores going door to door trying to convince us that by letting homosexuals marry somehow we are destroying traditional family values.
Family values, in fact, that are so traditional that it is perfectly reasonable to violate them if you happen to be hetero. I mean why else would the United States census report in 2001 that the rates of marriages ending in divorce have more than doubled in 50 years? Is it fear of homosexuals at the gate, waiting to charge in like Huns and destroy the holiness of marriage? Are the divorcing heteros simply accepting the inevitable fate of marriage if we allow these disgusting, drooling perverts to marry?
Or does it have something to do with the fact that heteros bring more problems into marriage, soiling the white linen, so to speak, than gays ever could hope to bring?
This somehow makes me think back to the issue of control. Since it is obviously fine for heteros to walk all over the traditional values of the holy union there must be some other, darker reason why we can’t let homosexuals marry. Maybe we should ask Representative Mark Foley. Maybe we should ask the Reverend Ted Haggard. Jimmy Swaggart? Bill Clinton? Is there ever a season that goes by where people in power or the public eye, frantically waiving the “save the values” flag, are involved in one sex scandal or another?
The simple answer is this is a religious issue. Many Christians think they somehow have the right to keep people who sin from having the same secular rights that they have. Maybe they think that if they prohibit gay marriage that somehow they will help rehabilitate gays? I have no idea. I can say that it is obvious that there is no legal reason why gays shouldn’t marry. And if they aren’t soiling the institution of marriage any more than heterosexuals already are, why keep it from them?
If the fact that this being a religious argument forcing its way into secular politics doesn’t table this entire issue in favor of allowing gays the right to marry, how about this?
Why would we allow for religious pundits to dictate our laws in the first place? Has anyone out there who wants to institutionalize their flavor of Christianity ever thought about what that actually means?
What the hell. Let’s do it. Let’s make Christianity the state religion of the United States and designate what rights we give to Christians and what rights we take away from heathens, especially the ones who sin most terribly. By the way, has anyone decided what type of Christianity we would implement? Do we want Mormons or Catholics or Presbyterians or Southern Baptists teaching our children their creation stories? Maybe we want Christian Scientists in our hospitals? How about as the elementary school nurse? I guess it doesn’t matter really. Christians get along. There wont be any problems with who gets what rights and privileges. Christians understand who is a heathen and who is not. They’ll be able to decide on the best government for all of us. After all, with so many denominations, hasn’t it been proven that they all can come to agree?
Now Christians, hear me out. I am not trashing you or your religion. I am only saying stay out of politics. Please stop trying to force people to your beliefs. Live your lives well. Free yourselves from scandal. Be happy. Bring people to you and your way of life through modeling. People, when seeing your happiness, will want to be like you. They will listen, and they will follow. But if you continually say “you must stop this now or be damned,” no one will listen.
And get rid of the Ted Haggards. They really REALLY make you look bad.
Unfortunately like roaches coming out of the walls during a dinner party it seems there is no lack of idiots coming forward during times of an election. These rats will stop at nothing to lie or manipulate your vote out from under you. Things happen that we don’t like, for sure. Progress and change sometimes take time. That is a fact.
But on Tuesday, 81 percent of Tennessee voters approved a constitutional amendment that legally defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Now people please, no bullshit smokescreens here. Let’s put this out on the table for what it really is.
This is a religious argument that has forced its way into civil government. I’m not going to waste my time screaming separation of church and state here. I just want people to own up to what they believe and just admit what this issue really means. This is an issue of control.
Marriage is a civil union, not a religious one. Sure, most people get married in a church, and a minister may be the one who signs the papers, but everyone knows that it is a legal document, a legal contract, in fact one in which the signers are entitled some legal benefits, primarily in taxes, medical decisions, and occupational medical insurance. There is no religious benefit to getting married whatsoever. Keep this in mind.
The primary campaign against homosexual marriage that I have seen in Tennessee has centered on “protection of our holier than thou snow white pristine pure sacrosanct union of marital bliss.” There have been countless fliers, banners, billboards, TV spots, radio spots, and political streetwalking whores going door to door trying to convince us that by letting homosexuals marry somehow we are destroying traditional family values.
Family values, in fact, that are so traditional that it is perfectly reasonable to violate them if you happen to be hetero. I mean why else would the United States census report in 2001 that the rates of marriages ending in divorce have more than doubled in 50 years? Is it fear of homosexuals at the gate, waiting to charge in like Huns and destroy the holiness of marriage? Are the divorcing heteros simply accepting the inevitable fate of marriage if we allow these disgusting, drooling perverts to marry?
Or does it have something to do with the fact that heteros bring more problems into marriage, soiling the white linen, so to speak, than gays ever could hope to bring?
This somehow makes me think back to the issue of control. Since it is obviously fine for heteros to walk all over the traditional values of the holy union there must be some other, darker reason why we can’t let homosexuals marry. Maybe we should ask Representative Mark Foley. Maybe we should ask the Reverend Ted Haggard. Jimmy Swaggart? Bill Clinton? Is there ever a season that goes by where people in power or the public eye, frantically waiving the “save the values” flag, are involved in one sex scandal or another?
The simple answer is this is a religious issue. Many Christians think they somehow have the right to keep people who sin from having the same secular rights that they have. Maybe they think that if they prohibit gay marriage that somehow they will help rehabilitate gays? I have no idea. I can say that it is obvious that there is no legal reason why gays shouldn’t marry. And if they aren’t soiling the institution of marriage any more than heterosexuals already are, why keep it from them?
If the fact that this being a religious argument forcing its way into secular politics doesn’t table this entire issue in favor of allowing gays the right to marry, how about this?
Why would we allow for religious pundits to dictate our laws in the first place? Has anyone out there who wants to institutionalize their flavor of Christianity ever thought about what that actually means?
What the hell. Let’s do it. Let’s make Christianity the state religion of the United States and designate what rights we give to Christians and what rights we take away from heathens, especially the ones who sin most terribly. By the way, has anyone decided what type of Christianity we would implement? Do we want Mormons or Catholics or Presbyterians or Southern Baptists teaching our children their creation stories? Maybe we want Christian Scientists in our hospitals? How about as the elementary school nurse? I guess it doesn’t matter really. Christians get along. There wont be any problems with who gets what rights and privileges. Christians understand who is a heathen and who is not. They’ll be able to decide on the best government for all of us. After all, with so many denominations, hasn’t it been proven that they all can come to agree?
Now Christians, hear me out. I am not trashing you or your religion. I am only saying stay out of politics. Please stop trying to force people to your beliefs. Live your lives well. Free yourselves from scandal. Be happy. Bring people to you and your way of life through modeling. People, when seeing your happiness, will want to be like you. They will listen, and they will follow. But if you continually say “you must stop this now or be damned,” no one will listen.
And get rid of the Ted Haggards. They really REALLY make you look bad.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
A Blast From The Past
Ok, Today we have a funny post. I decided to repost something my brother sent me back in the year 2000. I was working for a well-known telecommunications giant in customer service at the time, and had shared personal stories with him. He located these stories on the internet and sent them to me. I do not know the authors of these tales, but based on what I know from personal experience, the believability of all of these stories is very firm.
If anyone knows any author information, please let me know.
-------------------
TRUE STORIES OF STUPID PEOPLE
1) I am a medical student currently doing a rotation in toxicology at the poison control center. Today, this woman called in very upset because she caught her daughter eating ants. I quickly reassured her that the ants are not harmful and there would be no need to bring her daughter into the hospital. She calmed down, and at the end of the conversation happened to mention that she gave her daughter some ant poison to eat in order to kill the ants. I told her that she better bring her daughter in to the emergency room right away.
2) Seems that a year ago, some Boeing employees on the field decided to steal a life raft from one of the 747s. They were successful in getting it out of the plane and home. When they took it for a float on the river, they were quite surprised by a Coast Guard helicopter coming toward them. It turned out that the chopper was homing in on the emergency locator that is activated when the raft is inflated. They are no longer are employed by Boeing.
3) A true story out of San Francisco: A man, wanting to rob a downtown Bank of America, walked into the branch and wrote on a deposit slip "this iz a stikkup. Put all your muny in this bag." While standing in line, waiting to give his note to the teller, he began to worry that someone had seen him write the note and might call the police before he reached the teller window. So he left the Bank of America and crossed the street to the Wells Fargo bank. After waiting a few minutes in line, he handed his note to the Wells Fargo teller. She read it and, surmising from his spelling errors that he was not the brightest light in the harbor, told him that she could not accept this stickup note because it was written on a Bank of America deposit slip and that he would either have to fill out a Wells Fargo deposit slip or go back to Bank of America. Looking somewhat defeated, the man said "ok" and left. The Wells Fargo teller then called the police who arrested the man a few minutes later as he was waiting in line at the Bank of America.
4) A woman was reporting her car as stolen, and mentioned that there was a car phone in it. The policeman taking the report called the phone and told the guy that answered that he had read the ad in the newspaper and wanted to buy the car. They arranged to meet and the thief was arrested.
5) Drug Possession defendant Christopher Jansen, on trial in March in Pontiac, Michigan, said he had been searched without a warrant. The prosecutor said the officer didn't need a warrant because a "bulge" in Christopher's jacket could have been a gun. Nonsense, sad Christopher, who happened to be wearing the same jacket in court that day. He handed it over so the judge could see it. The judge discovered a packet of cocaine in the pocket and laughed so hard he required a five minute recess to compose himself.
6) Guy walked into a little corner store with a shotgun and demanded all the cash from the cash drawer. After the cashier put the cash in a bag, the robber saw a bottle of scotch that he wanted behind the counter on the shelf. He told the cashier to put it in the bag as well, but the cashier refused and said "Because I don't believe you are over 21." The robber said he was but the clerk still refused to give it to him because he didn't believe him. At this point the robber took his driver's license out of his wallet and gave it to the clerk. The clerk looked it over, agreed that the man was in fact over 21 and put the scotch into the bag. The robber then ran from the store with his loot. The cashier promptly called the police and gave the name and address of the robber that he got off the license. The robber was arrested two hours later.
7) A pair of Michigan robbers entered a record shop nervously waiving revolvers. The first one shouted, "Nobody Move!" When his partner moved, the startled first bandit unloaded his revolver into his accomplice.
If anyone knows any author information, please let me know.
-------------------
TRUE STORIES OF STUPID PEOPLE
1) I am a medical student currently doing a rotation in toxicology at the poison control center. Today, this woman called in very upset because she caught her daughter eating ants. I quickly reassured her that the ants are not harmful and there would be no need to bring her daughter into the hospital. She calmed down, and at the end of the conversation happened to mention that she gave her daughter some ant poison to eat in order to kill the ants. I told her that she better bring her daughter in to the emergency room right away.
2) Seems that a year ago, some Boeing employees on the field decided to steal a life raft from one of the 747s. They were successful in getting it out of the plane and home. When they took it for a float on the river, they were quite surprised by a Coast Guard helicopter coming toward them. It turned out that the chopper was homing in on the emergency locator that is activated when the raft is inflated. They are no longer are employed by Boeing.
3) A true story out of San Francisco: A man, wanting to rob a downtown Bank of America, walked into the branch and wrote on a deposit slip "this iz a stikkup. Put all your muny in this bag." While standing in line, waiting to give his note to the teller, he began to worry that someone had seen him write the note and might call the police before he reached the teller window. So he left the Bank of America and crossed the street to the Wells Fargo bank. After waiting a few minutes in line, he handed his note to the Wells Fargo teller. She read it and, surmising from his spelling errors that he was not the brightest light in the harbor, told him that she could not accept this stickup note because it was written on a Bank of America deposit slip and that he would either have to fill out a Wells Fargo deposit slip or go back to Bank of America. Looking somewhat defeated, the man said "ok" and left. The Wells Fargo teller then called the police who arrested the man a few minutes later as he was waiting in line at the Bank of America.
4) A woman was reporting her car as stolen, and mentioned that there was a car phone in it. The policeman taking the report called the phone and told the guy that answered that he had read the ad in the newspaper and wanted to buy the car. They arranged to meet and the thief was arrested.
5) Drug Possession defendant Christopher Jansen, on trial in March in Pontiac, Michigan, said he had been searched without a warrant. The prosecutor said the officer didn't need a warrant because a "bulge" in Christopher's jacket could have been a gun. Nonsense, sad Christopher, who happened to be wearing the same jacket in court that day. He handed it over so the judge could see it. The judge discovered a packet of cocaine in the pocket and laughed so hard he required a five minute recess to compose himself.
6) Guy walked into a little corner store with a shotgun and demanded all the cash from the cash drawer. After the cashier put the cash in a bag, the robber saw a bottle of scotch that he wanted behind the counter on the shelf. He told the cashier to put it in the bag as well, but the cashier refused and said "Because I don't believe you are over 21." The robber said he was but the clerk still refused to give it to him because he didn't believe him. At this point the robber took his driver's license out of his wallet and gave it to the clerk. The clerk looked it over, agreed that the man was in fact over 21 and put the scotch into the bag. The robber then ran from the store with his loot. The cashier promptly called the police and gave the name and address of the robber that he got off the license. The robber was arrested two hours later.
7) A pair of Michigan robbers entered a record shop nervously waiving revolvers. The first one shouted, "Nobody Move!" When his partner moved, the startled first bandit unloaded his revolver into his accomplice.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
A Little Bird Told Me....
I am allowing a guest rant here today. My wife told me to check out this guy's rant, and I did, and as she expected, it expresses one of the opinions of terrorism to which I ascribe. I have censored out most of the obscenities because I feel in this case the words do not do the argument justice. There is real meat on these bones, and it would behoove everyone to listen.
The actual entry in its entirety, uncensored, can be found at: http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/08/wait-arent-you-scared.html.
Otherwise, I am giving you his rant as he published it, without his permission. If he doesn't like the free publicity, well... not everyone is ready for NASA I guess.
I enjoyed his FDR reference. Where's our backbone today?
----------------------------------
Friday, August 11, 2006
KUNG FU MONKEY
John Rogers
"Wait, Aren't You Scared?"
Errr, no. And if you are, you frankly should be a little $^&%# embarrassed.
No false bravado and it's not that I don't take terrorism seriously. I do, which I why I voted for the guy who believed in securing our ports and fighting terrorism with criminal investigation methods -- which is, if we may remind everybody, how this particular plot was busted.
I am just not going to wet my pants every time some guys get arrested in a terror plot. I will do my best to stay informed. I will support the necessary law enforcement agencies. I will take whatever reasonable precautions seem, um, reasonable. But I will not be terrorized. I assume that the terror-ists would like me to be terror-ized, as that is what is says on their nametag, rather than, say, wanting me to surrender to ennui or negative body image, and they're just coming the long way around.
Osama Bin Laden got everything on his Christmas list after 9/11 -- US out of Saudi Arabia; the greatest military in the world over-extended, pinned down and distracted; the greatest proponent of democracy suddenly alienated from its allies; a US culture verily eager to destroy freedoms that little scum&*(% could never even dream to touch himself -- I would like to deny him the last little check on the clipboard, i.e. constant terror. I panic, they win. To coin a phrase, Osama Bin Laden can suck my insouciance.
I am absolutely buffaloed by the people who insist I man up and take it in the teeth for the great Clash of Civilizations -- "Come ON, people, this is the EPIC LAST WAR!! You just don't have the stones to face that fact head-on!" -- who at the whiff of an actual terror plot will, with no apparent sense of irony, transform and run around shrieking, eyes rolling and Hello Kitty panties flashing like Japanese schoolgirls who have just realized that the call is coming from inside the house!
I may have shared too much there.
To be honest, it's not like I'm a brave man. I'm not. At all. It just, well, it doesn't take that much strength of will not to be scared. Who the hell am I supposed to be scared of? Joseph Padilla, dirty bomber who didn't actually know how to build a bomb, had no allies or supplies, and against whom the government case is so weak they're now shuffling him from court to court to avoid the public embarassment of a trial? The &$^%wits who were going to take down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches? Richard Reid, the Zeppo of suicide bombers? The great Canadian plot that had organized over the internet, was penetrated by the Mounties on day one, and we were told had a TRUCK FULL OF EXPLOSIVES ... which they had bought from the Mounties in a sting operation but hey let's skip right over that. Or how about the "compound" of Christian cultists in Florida who were planning on blowing up the Sears Tower with ... kung fu?
And now these guys. As the initial "OH SWEET MOTHER OF GOD THEY CAN BLOW US UP WITH SNAPPLE BOTTLES!!" hysteria subsides, we discover that these guys had been under surveillance, completely penetrated, by no less than three major intelligence agencies. That they were planning on cell phones, and some of them openly travelled to Pakistan (way to keep the cover, Reilly, Ace of Spies). Hell, Chertoff knew about this two weeks ago, and the only reason that some people can scream this headline:
"The London Bombers were within DAYS of trying a dry run!!!"
-- was because MI-5, MI-6, and Scotland Yard let them get that close, so they could suck in the largest number of contacts (again, very spiffy police work). The fact that these wingnuts could have been rolled up, at will, at any time, seems to have competely escaped the media buzz.
This is terrorism's A-game? Sack up, people.
Again, this is not to do anything less than marvel as cool, well-trained, ruthless law-enforcement professionals -- who spent decades honing their craft chasing my IRA cousins -- execute their job magnificently. Should we take this seriously? DAMN STRAIGHT we take this seriously. Left unchecked, these terror-fanboy bastards would have gone down in history. These cretins' intent was monstrous; they should, and will, all go to jail for a very long time. This is the part where we all breathe a sigh of relief that there are some actual professionals working the job in some countries.
But God gave me a brain, and a modicum of spine. Taking something seriously, and panicking over it are two different things. I do not assign all dangers and risks equal value. Tight little freelance squads with leak-proof operational discipline, like the 7/7 guys, -- those I worry about. A nuke coming in through one of ridiculously open ports -- I am concerned. Not bio-terror so much, because it's a shitty delivery mechanism. That the Muslim population of England seems to be becoming radicalized enough to sprout up these plots, that's not a good thing to consider. al-Queda involvement -- good if true because this means their recruiting is shitty: bad if true because this means they're back in business: bad if false because it means al-Queda has indeed become a "brand": but good if false because it reinforces the idea that they're operationally crippled (and if Zwahari is involved, I personally would like a word with whatever idiot nation took their eyes of the ball and let him escape ...)
... You get the point. There are a million factors in this New World of Terror. You weigh 'em, you process, and then you move on.
You move on, building a better international society so that luddite fundamentalist criminal gangs/cults of personality are further and further marginalized.
Or, if you don't understand 4th Generation Warfare at all, you move on, bombing the shit out of nation-states and handing your opponents massive PR victories. Either way, you move the &%^$ on.
Maybe it's just, I cast my eyes back on the last century ...
FDR: Oh, I'm sorry, was wiping out our entire Pacific fleet supposed to intimidate us? We have nothing to fear but fear itself, and right now we're coming to kick your ass with brand new destroyers riveted by waitresses. How's that going to feel?
CHURCHILL: Yeah, you keep bombing us. We'll be in the pub, flipping you off. I'm slapping Rolls-Royce engines into untested flying coffins to knock you out of the skies, and then I'm sending angry Welshmen to burn your country from the Rhine to the Polish border.
US. NOW: BE AFRAID!! Oh God, the Brown Bad people could strike any moment! They could strike ... NOW!! AHHHH. Okay, how about .. NOW!! AAGAGAHAHAHHAG! Quick, do whatever we tell you, and believe whatever we tell you, or YOU WILL BE KILLED BY BROWN PEOPLE!! PUT DOWN THAT SIPPY CUP!!
... and I'm just a little tired of being on the wrong side of that historical arc.
This is it, folks. This is the world, from now on. Even assuming the War on Terror is a not just a bad metaphor and there is an actual measurable winning point*, the short 4GW struggles last fifty years or so. We're going to be stopping one or two of these bastard mass-murder plots a year, minimum, for the rest of our lives. Hell, the way terror tactics and tech evolve, five years from now we're going to be pining for the dudes with the flammable juice boxes.
It's now part of our life. Let's try not to hop like the trained monkeys every time it happens.
I'm just pleased that for once, nobody --
"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances."
-- ahhhh. Never mind
The actual entry in its entirety, uncensored, can be found at: http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/08/wait-arent-you-scared.html.
Otherwise, I am giving you his rant as he published it, without his permission. If he doesn't like the free publicity, well... not everyone is ready for NASA I guess.
I enjoyed his FDR reference. Where's our backbone today?
----------------------------------
Friday, August 11, 2006
KUNG FU MONKEY
John Rogers
"Wait, Aren't You Scared?"
Errr, no. And if you are, you frankly should be a little $^&%# embarrassed.
No false bravado and it's not that I don't take terrorism seriously. I do, which I why I voted for the guy who believed in securing our ports and fighting terrorism with criminal investigation methods -- which is, if we may remind everybody, how this particular plot was busted.
I am just not going to wet my pants every time some guys get arrested in a terror plot. I will do my best to stay informed. I will support the necessary law enforcement agencies. I will take whatever reasonable precautions seem, um, reasonable. But I will not be terrorized. I assume that the terror-ists would like me to be terror-ized, as that is what is says on their nametag, rather than, say, wanting me to surrender to ennui or negative body image, and they're just coming the long way around.
Osama Bin Laden got everything on his Christmas list after 9/11 -- US out of Saudi Arabia; the greatest military in the world over-extended, pinned down and distracted; the greatest proponent of democracy suddenly alienated from its allies; a US culture verily eager to destroy freedoms that little scum&*(% could never even dream to touch himself -- I would like to deny him the last little check on the clipboard, i.e. constant terror. I panic, they win. To coin a phrase, Osama Bin Laden can suck my insouciance.
I am absolutely buffaloed by the people who insist I man up and take it in the teeth for the great Clash of Civilizations -- "Come ON, people, this is the EPIC LAST WAR!! You just don't have the stones to face that fact head-on!" -- who at the whiff of an actual terror plot will, with no apparent sense of irony, transform and run around shrieking, eyes rolling and Hello Kitty panties flashing like Japanese schoolgirls who have just realized that the call is coming from inside the house!
I may have shared too much there.
To be honest, it's not like I'm a brave man. I'm not. At all. It just, well, it doesn't take that much strength of will not to be scared. Who the hell am I supposed to be scared of? Joseph Padilla, dirty bomber who didn't actually know how to build a bomb, had no allies or supplies, and against whom the government case is so weak they're now shuffling him from court to court to avoid the public embarassment of a trial? The &$^%wits who were going to take down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches? Richard Reid, the Zeppo of suicide bombers? The great Canadian plot that had organized over the internet, was penetrated by the Mounties on day one, and we were told had a TRUCK FULL OF EXPLOSIVES ... which they had bought from the Mounties in a sting operation but hey let's skip right over that. Or how about the "compound" of Christian cultists in Florida who were planning on blowing up the Sears Tower with ... kung fu?
And now these guys. As the initial "OH SWEET MOTHER OF GOD THEY CAN BLOW US UP WITH SNAPPLE BOTTLES!!" hysteria subsides, we discover that these guys had been under surveillance, completely penetrated, by no less than three major intelligence agencies. That they were planning on cell phones, and some of them openly travelled to Pakistan (way to keep the cover, Reilly, Ace of Spies). Hell, Chertoff knew about this two weeks ago, and the only reason that some people can scream this headline:
"The London Bombers were within DAYS of trying a dry run!!!"
-- was because MI-5, MI-6, and Scotland Yard let them get that close, so they could suck in the largest number of contacts (again, very spiffy police work). The fact that these wingnuts could have been rolled up, at will, at any time, seems to have competely escaped the media buzz.
This is terrorism's A-game? Sack up, people.
Again, this is not to do anything less than marvel as cool, well-trained, ruthless law-enforcement professionals -- who spent decades honing their craft chasing my IRA cousins -- execute their job magnificently. Should we take this seriously? DAMN STRAIGHT we take this seriously. Left unchecked, these terror-fanboy bastards would have gone down in history. These cretins' intent was monstrous; they should, and will, all go to jail for a very long time. This is the part where we all breathe a sigh of relief that there are some actual professionals working the job in some countries.
But God gave me a brain, and a modicum of spine. Taking something seriously, and panicking over it are two different things. I do not assign all dangers and risks equal value. Tight little freelance squads with leak-proof operational discipline, like the 7/7 guys, -- those I worry about. A nuke coming in through one of ridiculously open ports -- I am concerned. Not bio-terror so much, because it's a shitty delivery mechanism. That the Muslim population of England seems to be becoming radicalized enough to sprout up these plots, that's not a good thing to consider. al-Queda involvement -- good if true because this means their recruiting is shitty: bad if true because this means they're back in business: bad if false because it means al-Queda has indeed become a "brand": but good if false because it reinforces the idea that they're operationally crippled (and if Zwahari is involved, I personally would like a word with whatever idiot nation took their eyes of the ball and let him escape ...)
... You get the point. There are a million factors in this New World of Terror. You weigh 'em, you process, and then you move on.
You move on, building a better international society so that luddite fundamentalist criminal gangs/cults of personality are further and further marginalized.
Or, if you don't understand 4th Generation Warfare at all, you move on, bombing the shit out of nation-states and handing your opponents massive PR victories. Either way, you move the &%^$ on.
Maybe it's just, I cast my eyes back on the last century ...
FDR: Oh, I'm sorry, was wiping out our entire Pacific fleet supposed to intimidate us? We have nothing to fear but fear itself, and right now we're coming to kick your ass with brand new destroyers riveted by waitresses. How's that going to feel?
CHURCHILL: Yeah, you keep bombing us. We'll be in the pub, flipping you off. I'm slapping Rolls-Royce engines into untested flying coffins to knock you out of the skies, and then I'm sending angry Welshmen to burn your country from the Rhine to the Polish border.
US. NOW: BE AFRAID!! Oh God, the Brown Bad people could strike any moment! They could strike ... NOW!! AHHHH. Okay, how about .. NOW!! AAGAGAHAHAHHAG! Quick, do whatever we tell you, and believe whatever we tell you, or YOU WILL BE KILLED BY BROWN PEOPLE!! PUT DOWN THAT SIPPY CUP!!
... and I'm just a little tired of being on the wrong side of that historical arc.
This is it, folks. This is the world, from now on. Even assuming the War on Terror is a not just a bad metaphor and there is an actual measurable winning point*, the short 4GW struggles last fifty years or so. We're going to be stopping one or two of these bastard mass-murder plots a year, minimum, for the rest of our lives. Hell, the way terror tactics and tech evolve, five years from now we're going to be pining for the dudes with the flammable juice boxes.
It's now part of our life. Let's try not to hop like the trained monkeys every time it happens.
I'm just pleased that for once, nobody --
"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances."
-- ahhhh. Never mind
Friday, July 28, 2006
Prudes And Shrewds Everywhere, And Not A Way To Escape
I have one quick rant to put before you. Frankly, I think all of you women out there who think breastfeeding should not be allowed in public areas are, quite frankly, idiots. Now don't get me wrong, I still respect you, but I think you are being ridiculous. Here's why:
I'm sure you think the breast is a sexual object, even though it's primary design is to allow a newborn to eat. So you want to cover it. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is, why are you so damn concerned about the sexuality of a breast during feeding, when you hardly see the nipple, and only see the "fat" of the breast? If this is such a problem, why can I
1) step outside my door onto the street on any day of the week and see hordes of scantily clad women showing meat of breast, meat of butt cheek, legs, stomachs, thighs, or any other type of sexually provocative clothing
2) turn on my tv or open any magazine and see anything and everything from "100 ways to please your man" to hot and heavy lingerie adds
3) see the population supporting en mass celebrities who promote hedonism
4) Oh I don't know, just see lots of women practicing the "if you got it flaunt it" mentality.
Now I'm going to give credit where credit is due. You are right when you assume that men, seeing women breastfeeding in public, may begin to drool uncontrollably and start humping tree trunks and parking meters like some crazed rabbit or dog. But what you fail to realize is breasts are not the only thing that does this to men. You've got the breasts, but also hips, thighs, legs, ankles, feet, arms, hands, collarbones, necks, hair, eyes, and practically anything else on your body will get us going. These all will entice men.
So, If you're really wanting to protect yourself from the prying eyes of lusting men, please, by all means, start wearing a birka. Anything else would be inconsistent. Think that is a bit ridiculous? So is thinking women breastfeeding in public is disgusting.
It wouldn't work anyway. We men can still see your eyes when you wear a birka, and that's probably enough to send us into uncontrollable heat.
I'm sure you think the breast is a sexual object, even though it's primary design is to allow a newborn to eat. So you want to cover it. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is, why are you so damn concerned about the sexuality of a breast during feeding, when you hardly see the nipple, and only see the "fat" of the breast? If this is such a problem, why can I
1) step outside my door onto the street on any day of the week and see hordes of scantily clad women showing meat of breast, meat of butt cheek, legs, stomachs, thighs, or any other type of sexually provocative clothing
2) turn on my tv or open any magazine and see anything and everything from "100 ways to please your man" to hot and heavy lingerie adds
3) see the population supporting en mass celebrities who promote hedonism
4) Oh I don't know, just see lots of women practicing the "if you got it flaunt it" mentality.
Now I'm going to give credit where credit is due. You are right when you assume that men, seeing women breastfeeding in public, may begin to drool uncontrollably and start humping tree trunks and parking meters like some crazed rabbit or dog. But what you fail to realize is breasts are not the only thing that does this to men. You've got the breasts, but also hips, thighs, legs, ankles, feet, arms, hands, collarbones, necks, hair, eyes, and practically anything else on your body will get us going. These all will entice men.
So, If you're really wanting to protect yourself from the prying eyes of lusting men, please, by all means, start wearing a birka. Anything else would be inconsistent. Think that is a bit ridiculous? So is thinking women breastfeeding in public is disgusting.
It wouldn't work anyway. We men can still see your eyes when you wear a birka, and that's probably enough to send us into uncontrollable heat.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Bats In The Belfry
I’m going to complain about two things at once in this article, seemingly independent but related on fundamental ground. So bear with me ☺
People oftentimes ask me what I think about “illegal immigrants” coming to the United States, wrecking our system of labor, increasing the burden on our tax paying citizens, and causing all-around chaos and havoc. “We are losing our language,” I hear. “We are losing our culture.” “These Mexicans need to learn English.” The list goes on and on. Well, hatemongers, here is my answer to you.
First of all, since I live in a free society that respects a person’s right to choose his or her destiny, to own property, and to follow his or her own path to happiness, I don’t think that ANY immigration is illegal. I think it is the burden of the society to deal with increased immigration, without closing its borders, much like your local movie theater will have more employees on hand during a holiday or UPS or FedEx hires more employees during the winter months to handle demand. The immigration exists as a symptom reflecting the very state of the country that conservatives hold with reverence – that this country is great and mighty, and is the most desirable place on earth to live, where one can find opportunity and freedom.
How ironic it is that a nation so self-absorbed in the concept of freedom would close its doors to those most desperately seeking it.
I never wanted the job of serving you at Denny’s, cleaning your toilets at the hotel, or picking your soybeans and tobacco anyway. So much for taking jobs of Americans.
And since so many people out there believe the United States of America is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, I have one thing to say to you:
From the New International Version of the Holy Bible, Gospel of Luke, Chapter 10, verses 25 – 37, from (www.bible.com):
25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d]"
28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
30In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.
31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.
32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.
34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him.
35The next day he took out two silver coins[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
36"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
37The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
If we were a Christian nation we wouldn’t leave immigrants outside our borders to die, but would give the shirts off our backs to help them get on their feet and make a better life for themselves.
Another thought comes to mind concerning the fear that many Americans have concerning “losing our country to the immigrants.” Again, from the Holy Bible NIV, Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 26, verses 51-52:
51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”
We reap what we sow. Mexicans and other immigrants flocking to our country, bringing to themselves a better life, bringing their language, their culture, their own system of supply and demand, and soon their currency and way of life, is not a new concept. After all, this is precisely what Europeans and Americans did to the Native Americans.
But I see something else at work here. This is the Theory of Evolution at its best. Our country is evolving at much the same way as a human would do, in a macroscopic sense. Don’t know what macroscopic means? Try reading a book instead of burning it.
After our country found its independence, we were a new life, with bright shining eyes, a smile of innocence, and a resolve to explore, to find good in the world, and do what is right.
As we aged we became the schoolyard bully, pushing and hitting the weaker kids around, making our own mark, declaring our own place during phys-ed or recess. "Mess with the the best, die like the rest." During this time, we hurt other kids, and we know it. We hurt the ones that stood up against us even more.
And now our country is a teenager. We are realizing the pain and suffering in the world, and we want to do good but an overwhelming sense of dissonance and angst distract us from what is sensible and right. We fear everything we do not understand, and feel since we are in charge of our own destinies, we are the only ones who know what is best for us. Since it is best for us, we know beyond doubt it is best for other people.
But guess what ladies and gentlemen, the evolution will continue. Soon, our country will be an adult, and after that, a wise elder. I hope I live to see these times, for when this happens, the force of will known as American Determination will support true freedom for everyone on this planet, whether or not he or she lives within our borders, supports our policies, or agrees with our general outlook. These are the times of acceptance and tolerance that will truly lead us to a more peaceful and safer world, and I pray to God every day that it comes to pass. And soon.
People oftentimes ask me what I think about “illegal immigrants” coming to the United States, wrecking our system of labor, increasing the burden on our tax paying citizens, and causing all-around chaos and havoc. “We are losing our language,” I hear. “We are losing our culture.” “These Mexicans need to learn English.” The list goes on and on. Well, hatemongers, here is my answer to you.
First of all, since I live in a free society that respects a person’s right to choose his or her destiny, to own property, and to follow his or her own path to happiness, I don’t think that ANY immigration is illegal. I think it is the burden of the society to deal with increased immigration, without closing its borders, much like your local movie theater will have more employees on hand during a holiday or UPS or FedEx hires more employees during the winter months to handle demand. The immigration exists as a symptom reflecting the very state of the country that conservatives hold with reverence – that this country is great and mighty, and is the most desirable place on earth to live, where one can find opportunity and freedom.
How ironic it is that a nation so self-absorbed in the concept of freedom would close its doors to those most desperately seeking it.
I never wanted the job of serving you at Denny’s, cleaning your toilets at the hotel, or picking your soybeans and tobacco anyway. So much for taking jobs of Americans.
And since so many people out there believe the United States of America is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, I have one thing to say to you:
From the New International Version of the Holy Bible, Gospel of Luke, Chapter 10, verses 25 – 37, from (www.bible.com):
25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d]"
28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
30In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.
31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.
32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.
34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him.
35The next day he took out two silver coins[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
36"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
37The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
If we were a Christian nation we wouldn’t leave immigrants outside our borders to die, but would give the shirts off our backs to help them get on their feet and make a better life for themselves.
Another thought comes to mind concerning the fear that many Americans have concerning “losing our country to the immigrants.” Again, from the Holy Bible NIV, Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 26, verses 51-52:
51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”
We reap what we sow. Mexicans and other immigrants flocking to our country, bringing to themselves a better life, bringing their language, their culture, their own system of supply and demand, and soon their currency and way of life, is not a new concept. After all, this is precisely what Europeans and Americans did to the Native Americans.
But I see something else at work here. This is the Theory of Evolution at its best. Our country is evolving at much the same way as a human would do, in a macroscopic sense. Don’t know what macroscopic means? Try reading a book instead of burning it.
After our country found its independence, we were a new life, with bright shining eyes, a smile of innocence, and a resolve to explore, to find good in the world, and do what is right.
As we aged we became the schoolyard bully, pushing and hitting the weaker kids around, making our own mark, declaring our own place during phys-ed or recess. "Mess with the the best, die like the rest." During this time, we hurt other kids, and we know it. We hurt the ones that stood up against us even more.
And now our country is a teenager. We are realizing the pain and suffering in the world, and we want to do good but an overwhelming sense of dissonance and angst distract us from what is sensible and right. We fear everything we do not understand, and feel since we are in charge of our own destinies, we are the only ones who know what is best for us. Since it is best for us, we know beyond doubt it is best for other people.
But guess what ladies and gentlemen, the evolution will continue. Soon, our country will be an adult, and after that, a wise elder. I hope I live to see these times, for when this happens, the force of will known as American Determination will support true freedom for everyone on this planet, whether or not he or she lives within our borders, supports our policies, or agrees with our general outlook. These are the times of acceptance and tolerance that will truly lead us to a more peaceful and safer world, and I pray to God every day that it comes to pass. And soon.
What Color Are You?
A relative of mine recently discussed on her blog the characteristics of living in a red state as opposed to living in a blue state. The message I believe was that all of us, no matter what political affiliation we claimed we had, had characteristics of both conservatives and democrats. For those who are unaware, a “red” state voted Republican in the last U.S. election, and a “blue” state voted Democrat. Republicans are often referred to as “conservative,” while Democrats are often called “liberal.”
Before I go further into my personal characteristics (following up on the “things that make fatbody tick” theme), I would like to gripe about the characterizations of conservative and liberal.
The Oxford English dictionary, online edition (www.askoxford.com) defines “conservative” as:
• adjective 1 averse to change and holding traditional values. 2 (in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas. 3 (Conservative) relating to a Conservative Party. 4 (of an estimate) purposely low for the sake of caution.
• noun 1 a conservative person. 2 (Conservative) a supporter or member of a Conservative Party.
The same dictionary defines “liberal” as:
• adjective 1 willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own. 2 (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. 3 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform. 4 (Liberal) (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party. 5 (especially of an interpretation of a law) not strictly literal. 6 given, used, or giving in generous amounts. 7 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.
• noun 1 a person of liberal views. 2 (Liberal) (in the UK) a Liberal Democrat.
— ORIGIN originally meaning “suitable for a free man”: from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free man’.
My gripe is that I see the United States of America as the flagship country of the world in the cause of freedom. Isn’t that what we hear every day on the news from our President? “Freedom” will not be defeated. You can’t deny “freedom.” When the people of X country experience the “freedom” to make their own decisions, there will be peace.
The introductions to two pesky documents come to mind:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Now if you know the documents these quotes come from, congratulations, you are smarter than 75% + of the US population who could not identify these quotations.
From my point of view, if you follow what is said in these quotations, you must understand there is a message of tolerance and respect therein. The word “liberty” is mentioned twice, and before anyone tries to split hairs or put spin on this:
The Oxford English Dictionary online edition defines liberty as:
• noun (pl. liberties) 1 the state of being free from oppression or imprisonment. 2 a right or privilege. 3 the power or scope to act as one pleases. 4 informal a presumptuous remark or action.
— PHRASES take liberties 1 behave in an unduly familiar manner towards a person. 2 treat something freely, without strict faithfulness to the facts or to an original. take the liberty do something without first asking permission.
— ORIGIN Latin libertas, from liber ‘free’.
So it seems to me that the entire U.S political way of free thought is based on liberalism, the act of believing in liberty, and taking the liberty to do things (like to be conservative and buy SUVs and declare liberals traitors). I would think that if you opposed the liberal way of thinking by clinging to some “conservative tradition” that isn’t well defined in argument that you, at the heart of the matter, don’t believe in a “free political state.”
That is, of course, contrasted with Tyranny, which the Oxford English Dictionary, Online Edition defines as:
• noun (pl. tyrannies) 1 cruel and oppressive government or rule. 2 a state under such rule. 3 cruel and arbitrary exercise of power or control.
— DERIVATIVES tyrannous adjective.
But a tyrannous nation would be a nation that forces its philosophical will upon everyone, like telling them they can or can’t do trivial things; telling them they have to believe the things the majority believe or be held treasonous; telling them they must support troops and a president without dissent or be declared NOT a patriot; denying them rights given to all “normal” Americans (e.g. the right to marry, the right to assemble in protest, and most importantly, the right to disagree).
What I just hinted at is that conservatives can argue against liberals until they are “blue in the face” but really, if you think about it, they are all liberals. How many times can you turn on Faux News and see frat boys claiming that they should be allowed to drive oil guzzling machines if they so choose; that they can hoard money and not subsidize the poor; that they have the right to choose where their children go to school; that they should be able to accept corporate campaign contributions; that they should be able to do what they want when they want if they can afford to do so. These, like it or not, are liberties, and a belief that one has these choices, like it or not, is liberalism.
That is of course unless archaeologists have found the troupe of Hummers the founding fathers drove around as they mapped their new country.
Ok well back to the point. Now that I’ve griped that conservative and liberal don’t really fit as extremes of the same political spectrum, I will go ahead and give you my characteristics that make me agreeable to a “red state,” as well as my characteristics that make me agreeable to a “blue state.”
RED STATE CHARACTERISTICS
- I believe in a strong central governement.
- I believe in a national ID that all citizens should carry at all times.
- I believe in having prayer or spiritual “meditation” time in public schools.
- I believe in anti-desecration legislation against symbols of our society.
- I believe in the right to own firearms.
- I believe abortion should be illegal.
- I believe that people should not be taxed according to income.
BLUE STATE CHARACTERISTICS
- I believe in the socialization of medicine and health insurance.
- I do not believe in the privatization of social security and welfare programs.
- I believe the death penalty should be abolished.
- I believe in the institution of gun-owners insurance.
- I believe we should respect our environment; that we should curb our contribution to global warming, conserve oil and other resources, and protect endangered species.
- I believe in nuclear non-proliferation.
- I believe in the separation of chuch and state.
- I believe the words "under God" should be removed from The Pledge of Allegiance
- I believe the act of "swearing on the Bible" when testifying to a court or when taking public office should be abolished
- I believe in the freedom of religion.
Now, you get extra points if you realized that having the choices to have these rights and the beliefs stated above, whether in blue states or red states, is liberalism, then you get a pat on the back and a “hooray” from me.
Before I go further into my personal characteristics (following up on the “things that make fatbody tick” theme), I would like to gripe about the characterizations of conservative and liberal.
The Oxford English dictionary, online edition (www.askoxford.com) defines “conservative” as:
• adjective 1 averse to change and holding traditional values. 2 (in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas. 3 (Conservative) relating to a Conservative Party. 4 (of an estimate) purposely low for the sake of caution.
• noun 1 a conservative person. 2 (Conservative) a supporter or member of a Conservative Party.
The same dictionary defines “liberal” as:
• adjective 1 willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own. 2 (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. 3 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform. 4 (Liberal) (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party. 5 (especially of an interpretation of a law) not strictly literal. 6 given, used, or giving in generous amounts. 7 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.
• noun 1 a person of liberal views. 2 (Liberal) (in the UK) a Liberal Democrat.
— ORIGIN originally meaning “suitable for a free man”: from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free man’.
My gripe is that I see the United States of America as the flagship country of the world in the cause of freedom. Isn’t that what we hear every day on the news from our President? “Freedom” will not be defeated. You can’t deny “freedom.” When the people of X country experience the “freedom” to make their own decisions, there will be peace.
The introductions to two pesky documents come to mind:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Now if you know the documents these quotes come from, congratulations, you are smarter than 75% + of the US population who could not identify these quotations.
From my point of view, if you follow what is said in these quotations, you must understand there is a message of tolerance and respect therein. The word “liberty” is mentioned twice, and before anyone tries to split hairs or put spin on this:
The Oxford English Dictionary online edition defines liberty as:
• noun (pl. liberties) 1 the state of being free from oppression or imprisonment. 2 a right or privilege. 3 the power or scope to act as one pleases. 4 informal a presumptuous remark or action.
— PHRASES take liberties 1 behave in an unduly familiar manner towards a person. 2 treat something freely, without strict faithfulness to the facts or to an original. take the liberty do something without first asking permission.
— ORIGIN Latin libertas, from liber ‘free’.
So it seems to me that the entire U.S political way of free thought is based on liberalism, the act of believing in liberty, and taking the liberty to do things (like to be conservative and buy SUVs and declare liberals traitors). I would think that if you opposed the liberal way of thinking by clinging to some “conservative tradition” that isn’t well defined in argument that you, at the heart of the matter, don’t believe in a “free political state.”
That is, of course, contrasted with Tyranny, which the Oxford English Dictionary, Online Edition defines as:
• noun (pl. tyrannies) 1 cruel and oppressive government or rule. 2 a state under such rule. 3 cruel and arbitrary exercise of power or control.
— DERIVATIVES tyrannous adjective.
But a tyrannous nation would be a nation that forces its philosophical will upon everyone, like telling them they can or can’t do trivial things; telling them they have to believe the things the majority believe or be held treasonous; telling them they must support troops and a president without dissent or be declared NOT a patriot; denying them rights given to all “normal” Americans (e.g. the right to marry, the right to assemble in protest, and most importantly, the right to disagree).
What I just hinted at is that conservatives can argue against liberals until they are “blue in the face” but really, if you think about it, they are all liberals. How many times can you turn on Faux News and see frat boys claiming that they should be allowed to drive oil guzzling machines if they so choose; that they can hoard money and not subsidize the poor; that they have the right to choose where their children go to school; that they should be able to accept corporate campaign contributions; that they should be able to do what they want when they want if they can afford to do so. These, like it or not, are liberties, and a belief that one has these choices, like it or not, is liberalism.
That is of course unless archaeologists have found the troupe of Hummers the founding fathers drove around as they mapped their new country.
Ok well back to the point. Now that I’ve griped that conservative and liberal don’t really fit as extremes of the same political spectrum, I will go ahead and give you my characteristics that make me agreeable to a “red state,” as well as my characteristics that make me agreeable to a “blue state.”
RED STATE CHARACTERISTICS
- I believe in a strong central governement.
- I believe in a national ID that all citizens should carry at all times.
- I believe in having prayer or spiritual “meditation” time in public schools.
- I believe in anti-desecration legislation against symbols of our society.
- I believe in the right to own firearms.
- I believe abortion should be illegal.
- I believe that people should not be taxed according to income.
BLUE STATE CHARACTERISTICS
- I believe in the socialization of medicine and health insurance.
- I do not believe in the privatization of social security and welfare programs.
- I believe the death penalty should be abolished.
- I believe in the institution of gun-owners insurance.
- I believe we should respect our environment; that we should curb our contribution to global warming, conserve oil and other resources, and protect endangered species.
- I believe in nuclear non-proliferation.
- I believe in the separation of chuch and state.
- I believe the words "under God" should be removed from The Pledge of Allegiance
- I believe the act of "swearing on the Bible" when testifying to a court or when taking public office should be abolished
- I believe in the freedom of religion.
Now, you get extra points if you realized that having the choices to have these rights and the beliefs stated above, whether in blue states or red states, is liberalism, then you get a pat on the back and a “hooray” from me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
