That's just one of the examples of the Worst And Saddest Questions sent to Yahoo Answers. From girls with ping pongs stuck up their pussies to steam coming out of one to one wondering whether one might close up if it is not used enough, to one wondering how to get the popular guy at school to get her pregnant, it just gets dumber and dumber.
If I had known my question would have gotten somehow included with this bunch of dumb ass questions, I would never have asked them if a Jedi Light Saber was capable of harming Superman.
Be that as it may, to the woman with the nineteen year old son-if you did catch him in the middle of a love-making session with his best male friend, then I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, yes, he is probably gay.
Hat Tip: Popehat
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Sunday, June 07, 2009
A Bucket Of Blood Is No Place For Guns
Now I'm about as avid a gun-owner's advocate as anyone, and I am and always have been a steadfast supporter of the Second Amendment, but I find this latest bill out of Tennessee very troubling. It grants gun-owners the right to carry guns inside restaurants and-yep, BARS!
Fine, I agree that most bar patrons that would opt to carry a gun in a bar are probably responsible enough to not abuse the right, but what about the few who are not. What about the others who would never dream of taking a gun to a bar without this law, who suddenly find themselves very pissed off-and drunk.
And yeah, I know this sort of person would probably abuse his rights as a gun-owner with or without this legislation, but why add to the probability of disaster? Why make it easy on him. At least if he has to go home to get his gun, he is constrained by the time limits which might afford a cooling off period, and in most cases calm down enough to realize he doesn't want to go there. With this law, its right there in arms reach. There's no chance to think things over rationally, to cool off. It only takes a split second to do something stupid. Acting rational involves a more deliberative process, especially when alcohol is involved.
The worse thing about this bill, is that if it does lead to a disaster, and to a number of deaths and injuries, do you really think the gun-control advocates will stop at reforming this law alone? Of course not. They will take this as an opportunity to further reform the law to where all gun ownership in general will become ever more restrictive. And if they get the opportunity, and the public attitude and outcry against a sudden spurt of gun violence is intense enough, they will strike while the iron is hot, and quickly, out of a perceived feeling of public support.
It was a Democrat who sponsored this bill, which makes me wonder. They know of course, or should, that there are certain bars, a minority of them, which the average person should not patronize, with or without a gun. There is more than a fair chance that, while most people that go to these dives now don't carry guns, or even knives, the percentage of them that do will certainly rise. The problem is, there is no codicil in this law, at least none that I am aware, that does or legally can single out certain establishments for exclusion to this new law, which passed over the veto of the governor of Tennessee. As a result, the various town councils had better be on their toes and look toward the very real necessity that some of these places should be closed down and their liquor license suspended. Otherwise, I see nothing but trouble. While most bars will remain relatively trouble free, it is these few-call them what you will, gun and knife clubs, buckets of blood, etc.-where the violence might and probably will rise exponentially as a result of this new law.
Oh well, at least bar owners can opt to ban guns from their places of businesses if they see fit, which they certainly-and in the case of bars, damn sure understandably-have the right to do.
Fine, I agree that most bar patrons that would opt to carry a gun in a bar are probably responsible enough to not abuse the right, but what about the few who are not. What about the others who would never dream of taking a gun to a bar without this law, who suddenly find themselves very pissed off-and drunk.
And yeah, I know this sort of person would probably abuse his rights as a gun-owner with or without this legislation, but why add to the probability of disaster? Why make it easy on him. At least if he has to go home to get his gun, he is constrained by the time limits which might afford a cooling off period, and in most cases calm down enough to realize he doesn't want to go there. With this law, its right there in arms reach. There's no chance to think things over rationally, to cool off. It only takes a split second to do something stupid. Acting rational involves a more deliberative process, especially when alcohol is involved.
The worse thing about this bill, is that if it does lead to a disaster, and to a number of deaths and injuries, do you really think the gun-control advocates will stop at reforming this law alone? Of course not. They will take this as an opportunity to further reform the law to where all gun ownership in general will become ever more restrictive. And if they get the opportunity, and the public attitude and outcry against a sudden spurt of gun violence is intense enough, they will strike while the iron is hot, and quickly, out of a perceived feeling of public support.
It was a Democrat who sponsored this bill, which makes me wonder. They know of course, or should, that there are certain bars, a minority of them, which the average person should not patronize, with or without a gun. There is more than a fair chance that, while most people that go to these dives now don't carry guns, or even knives, the percentage of them that do will certainly rise. The problem is, there is no codicil in this law, at least none that I am aware, that does or legally can single out certain establishments for exclusion to this new law, which passed over the veto of the governor of Tennessee. As a result, the various town councils had better be on their toes and look toward the very real necessity that some of these places should be closed down and their liquor license suspended. Otherwise, I see nothing but trouble. While most bars will remain relatively trouble free, it is these few-call them what you will, gun and knife clubs, buckets of blood, etc.-where the violence might and probably will rise exponentially as a result of this new law.
Oh well, at least bar owners can opt to ban guns from their places of businesses if they see fit, which they certainly-and in the case of bars, damn sure understandably-have the right to do.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Freak Accidental Discoveries And Deaths
How in the hell did anybody ever discover that you could achieve orgasm through suffocation? I have an idea this came about years before anybody ever understood the biological function of the brain, and how it is dependent on a steady oxygen supply. For that matter, probably way before anybody had a clue what oxygen really was. I have an idea some of the old sex and fertility cults, such as Aphrodite's, would have made considerable use of this discovery. It might have even been used as a kind of baptismal rite, what with the obvious tie-ins of death, sex, and euphoria, probably in many cases accompanied by hallucinatory visions. Ages ago, the idle rich would have paid enormous sums for such a ritual initiation, for this rite of union with the Goddess herself.
I would imagine there were a few people who ended up much like Mr. David Carradine-dead. At some point upon the creeping advances of old age, and all the anxieties it brings, many might well have paid for this final service, the prospect of dying and permanently joining the entourage ofAphrodite, or some similar goddess.
The question would be, why would anybody today even start out doing something like this? Who out there wants to take the chance of ending up like Carradine, dead in a hotel closet, hung by a nylon cord (according to some accounts, a curtain draw-string), with a shoe-string tied around your genitals? I think I'll take a pass on that one.
On the other hand, this is evidently a form of bizarre sexual addiction. I guess once you've been "initiated" once, you find yourself hooked, in a bad way.
Still, the mystery persists in Carradine's case. One coroner declared that he died as a result of asphyxiation during masturbation. He was completely alone. The security cameras of the hotel in which he was staying in Bangkok, Thailand (he was there to film a movie), seems to verify this report. No one was noted entering or leaving Carradine's room, supposedly.
Yet, according to other reports, his hands were tied behind his back. Well, I suppose this is possible. He could have rigged the ropes in such a way as to back into them, inserting his hands through the loop as to maneuver it in such a way as to draw it closed. The question then becomes, why?
The answer might well be that Carradine was by all accounts something of a freak, with evidently little self-control in such matters as his sexual proclivities, or his prodigious spending habits. The same ex-wife who in documented court papers declared years ago that he engaged in sexual habits that were "potentially deadly", also claimed that he had a seemingly on-going incestuous relationship with an unnamed close family member, and refused to stop or seek therapy.
He was a freak, but he seems to have been a happy freak, albeit with somewhat of a violent nature. He once destroyed a hotel door in Canada, and according to the same ex-wife enjoyed the company of individuals of dubious character.
Now, the man that starred in three television series (Shane, Kung Fu, and Kung Fu-The Legend Continues)and over one hundred movies, including recently the Quentin Tarantino series Kill Bill, and who won numerous awards and nominations, a man who came from a an established acting family, and who was himself unarguably the most successful of the entire clan, is dead, for what seems like a pretty stupid reason.
He was seventy-two years old. I have an idea at least one person won a bundle on one of the Hollywood death pools.
He was without a doubt the most famous person known to have perished in this fashion. There was however at least one other, a former member of the band INXS, who is said to have died the same way.
Sexual addiction is a sad state of affairs. I would imagine its killed more than a few people, and certainly contributed to the demise of many. But to die alone, if he really was alone, through an act of what amounts to masturbation, assuming all the reports are accurate-that has got to be unique. Sad, but unique.
I would imagine there were a few people who ended up much like Mr. David Carradine-dead. At some point upon the creeping advances of old age, and all the anxieties it brings, many might well have paid for this final service, the prospect of dying and permanently joining the entourage ofAphrodite, or some similar goddess.
The question would be, why would anybody today even start out doing something like this? Who out there wants to take the chance of ending up like Carradine, dead in a hotel closet, hung by a nylon cord (according to some accounts, a curtain draw-string), with a shoe-string tied around your genitals? I think I'll take a pass on that one.
On the other hand, this is evidently a form of bizarre sexual addiction. I guess once you've been "initiated" once, you find yourself hooked, in a bad way.
Still, the mystery persists in Carradine's case. One coroner declared that he died as a result of asphyxiation during masturbation. He was completely alone. The security cameras of the hotel in which he was staying in Bangkok, Thailand (he was there to film a movie), seems to verify this report. No one was noted entering or leaving Carradine's room, supposedly.
Yet, according to other reports, his hands were tied behind his back. Well, I suppose this is possible. He could have rigged the ropes in such a way as to back into them, inserting his hands through the loop as to maneuver it in such a way as to draw it closed. The question then becomes, why?
The answer might well be that Carradine was by all accounts something of a freak, with evidently little self-control in such matters as his sexual proclivities, or his prodigious spending habits. The same ex-wife who in documented court papers declared years ago that he engaged in sexual habits that were "potentially deadly", also claimed that he had a seemingly on-going incestuous relationship with an unnamed close family member, and refused to stop or seek therapy.
He was a freak, but he seems to have been a happy freak, albeit with somewhat of a violent nature. He once destroyed a hotel door in Canada, and according to the same ex-wife enjoyed the company of individuals of dubious character.
Now, the man that starred in three television series (Shane, Kung Fu, and Kung Fu-The Legend Continues)and over one hundred movies, including recently the Quentin Tarantino series Kill Bill, and who won numerous awards and nominations, a man who came from a an established acting family, and who was himself unarguably the most successful of the entire clan, is dead, for what seems like a pretty stupid reason.
He was seventy-two years old. I have an idea at least one person won a bundle on one of the Hollywood death pools.
He was without a doubt the most famous person known to have perished in this fashion. There was however at least one other, a former member of the band INXS, who is said to have died the same way.
Sexual addiction is a sad state of affairs. I would imagine its killed more than a few people, and certainly contributed to the demise of many. But to die alone, if he really was alone, through an act of what amounts to masturbation, assuming all the reports are accurate-that has got to be unique. Sad, but unique.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Clarification
I guess I haven't made myself clear. Although I am not about to lose one fucking second of sleep over it, I do not condone the murder of late-term abortion provider Doctor George Tiller. Nor, for that matter, am I necessarily either Pro-Abort or Anti-Abort. The plain simple fact of the matter is, I don't care. The issue of abortion, in and of itself, will influence my vote for better or worse every bit as much as the gay marriage issue. Which is to say, it will not influence it one iota.
That being said, if anyone should wish to see George Tiller dead, by all rights it should be those on the left. After all, Tiller proved himself, by his life work, the manifestation of every warning ever uttered by the far-right about what would happen if late-term abortion was legalized under certain conditions. If a woman's health was the deciding factor, there would be any number of abortion providers who would game the system on the grounds that slight depression fit into the category of health concerns. Enter George Tiller, who was a poster child for the concerns of so-called "Pro-Life" activists.
I stand by what I said in my earlier post about Tiller, and I do not apologize for the Sick Joke post I followed it up with. Nevertheless, since I have been viciously attacked as a "bottom-feeding scum" by some self-serving supposed pagan who thinks my religion should be a repository and a sanctum sanctorum for every piece of leftist garbage strewn and shat about the world, I did think it acceptable to offer the following clarification-
As a tried-and-true believer in the Federalist philosophy of government in America, I do not believe that abortion polices, whether pro or con, are the legitimate realm of the federal government. Such laws are for each individual state to decide, however they will. It is no more the place of the US federal government to decide such matters and impose them on the states, than it is the place of the US Federal government to impose its policies on, say, South Africa, or on any other country. It is not their legitimate business.
The Federalist philosophy to which I have become a steadfast subscriber holds that any law not expressly granted the Federal government in the US Constitution is and should remain the purview of the individual states to decide as they will, as exercised by the voters or through their elected state representatives. The right to terminate a life-which some hold to be sacred-is addressed nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and it is a real stretch to claim that this is a matter of some nebulous, so-called right to privacy-which by the way is also questionable at best.
In other words, the Constitution is silent on the issue, just like it is silent on the "right" of gay marriage-and, by the way, like it is also silent on the matter of the right to marry, period.
In other words, if the state of Kentucky decides to outlaw abortion, and the state of Ohio decides to legalize it, this bottom-feeding scum is fine with both decisions. If you live in Ohio and it offends your sensitivities that much, move to Kentucky or some other red state. If you live in Kentucky and want to be able to abort your unborn child should the necessity arise, move to Ohio.
Inconvenient? Too fucking bad. Unfair? Who says life is fucking fair? If you don't like it, you have the option of the Amendment Process by which you can change the Constitution to accommodate you. Good luck with that one.
Now, as for how I personally feel about the matter of abortion-not that it is in the least bit fucking relevant-its actually pretty simple. Like I was discussing with someone earlier, there are all kinds of reasons, good or bad, a woman might decide to get an abortion. They run the gamut from "if I don't do this I might die" to "if I don't do this I might look like crap in a bathing suit."
Now, here's the part where the feeble-minded need to pay very close attention. I don't care what your reason is.
The way I look at it, the more trivial your reason for butchering your unborn baby inside your or your woman's womb, the more likely you are to be a leftist, and to vote for and support leftist causes. Or worse even than an honest to God sincere and open leftist, you might be a liberal Democrat. Should your child live, and you do not abort him or her, the chances are considerably better than not that he or she too will, over time, come to vote for and support leftist causes and policies.
As such, you do not need my permission, I am sure, but you damn sure have my blessing to abort him or her, and thus save the world at least that much further unnecessary grief.
Have at it.
That being said, if anyone should wish to see George Tiller dead, by all rights it should be those on the left. After all, Tiller proved himself, by his life work, the manifestation of every warning ever uttered by the far-right about what would happen if late-term abortion was legalized under certain conditions. If a woman's health was the deciding factor, there would be any number of abortion providers who would game the system on the grounds that slight depression fit into the category of health concerns. Enter George Tiller, who was a poster child for the concerns of so-called "Pro-Life" activists.
I stand by what I said in my earlier post about Tiller, and I do not apologize for the Sick Joke post I followed it up with. Nevertheless, since I have been viciously attacked as a "bottom-feeding scum" by some self-serving supposed pagan who thinks my religion should be a repository and a sanctum sanctorum for every piece of leftist garbage strewn and shat about the world, I did think it acceptable to offer the following clarification-
As a tried-and-true believer in the Federalist philosophy of government in America, I do not believe that abortion polices, whether pro or con, are the legitimate realm of the federal government. Such laws are for each individual state to decide, however they will. It is no more the place of the US federal government to decide such matters and impose them on the states, than it is the place of the US Federal government to impose its policies on, say, South Africa, or on any other country. It is not their legitimate business.
The Federalist philosophy to which I have become a steadfast subscriber holds that any law not expressly granted the Federal government in the US Constitution is and should remain the purview of the individual states to decide as they will, as exercised by the voters or through their elected state representatives. The right to terminate a life-which some hold to be sacred-is addressed nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and it is a real stretch to claim that this is a matter of some nebulous, so-called right to privacy-which by the way is also questionable at best.
In other words, the Constitution is silent on the issue, just like it is silent on the "right" of gay marriage-and, by the way, like it is also silent on the matter of the right to marry, period.
In other words, if the state of Kentucky decides to outlaw abortion, and the state of Ohio decides to legalize it, this bottom-feeding scum is fine with both decisions. If you live in Ohio and it offends your sensitivities that much, move to Kentucky or some other red state. If you live in Kentucky and want to be able to abort your unborn child should the necessity arise, move to Ohio.
Inconvenient? Too fucking bad. Unfair? Who says life is fucking fair? If you don't like it, you have the option of the Amendment Process by which you can change the Constitution to accommodate you. Good luck with that one.
Now, as for how I personally feel about the matter of abortion-not that it is in the least bit fucking relevant-its actually pretty simple. Like I was discussing with someone earlier, there are all kinds of reasons, good or bad, a woman might decide to get an abortion. They run the gamut from "if I don't do this I might die" to "if I don't do this I might look like crap in a bathing suit."
Now, here's the part where the feeble-minded need to pay very close attention. I don't care what your reason is.
The way I look at it, the more trivial your reason for butchering your unborn baby inside your or your woman's womb, the more likely you are to be a leftist, and to vote for and support leftist causes. Or worse even than an honest to God sincere and open leftist, you might be a liberal Democrat. Should your child live, and you do not abort him or her, the chances are considerably better than not that he or she too will, over time, come to vote for and support leftist causes and policies.
As such, you do not need my permission, I am sure, but you damn sure have my blessing to abort him or her, and thus save the world at least that much further unnecessary grief.
Have at it.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Sick Joke Of The Day
What did the late-term fetus say when he heard the news of the murder of abortion provider Doctor George Tiller?
"Well, I can't say it tears me all to pieces."
"Well, I can't say it tears me all to pieces."
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Comfortably Numb
That's pretty much how I feel about the execution of late-term abortion provider Doctor Tiller, who was gunned down early today inside the Reformed Lutheran Church in Wichita, where he served as an usher with his wife watching on while seated in the church choir.
The whole thing leaves me cold. Forgive me if I find it hard to summon what most might consider the proper outrage at such an allegedly brazen act.
It's not because he was an abortion provider, even a late-term abortion provider. It's because he was obviously corrupt. He thought it was beneath him to follow Kansas Law, which states that late-term abortions might only be provided in the case of grave risk to the mothers life, or if the possibility exists the process of childbirth could cause her permanent physical harm. Even at that, Kansas law states plainly there must be a second professional opinion in concurrence with the first, and this must come from an independent source.
Tiller ignored all of this, granting late-term procedures to women who claimed severe depression, a clear-cut violation of Kansas Law, and not on a mere handful of occasions but innumerable times. He found himself brought up on charges for this, and for deriving his required second opinion from a man whom prosecutors charged was little more than a private employee of the doctor. He was cleared of all charges in a trial that was marked more by political maneuvering and demagoguery than the actual pursuit of justice.
Tiller liked to claim he was following his conscience. Well, maybe so, but I have a sneaking idea his was for sale to the highest bidder, and what bruising might have been self-inflicted to his ethical spirit he managed to soothe with the balms of gracious, selfless giving to the coffers of then-Governor Kathleen Sibellius-who it seemed was one of Tiller's staunchest supporters and defenders.
Sibellius is now of course the Director of The Department of Health and Human Services, appointed to that position by Obama, who early in his career as an Illinois state Senator opposed the Infant Born Alive Act, and so who now of course, as President, feigns outrage at the doctor's murder. Well, at least he is ideologically consistent.
There could be more to the story. As of the last time I checked, the name of the gunman, apparently apprehended by police en route by automobile after having escaped the scene of the crime, has not been released. This could be an indication of suspicion of conspiracy.
If it is a conspiracy, as opposed to this one individual acting alone, then it is a remarkable thing that the killing took place inside the Reformed Lutheran Church. It would seem to be more practical foe the killer or killers to wait until the doctor was entering, or exiting, the church. It almost seems like the time and place of the murder was in and of itself some kind of message sent to the congregants, and to the nation, and to the left-wing of the country who support Tiller's work and mission. The killer wanted an audience. Not just any audience, but a gasping gallery of Tiller's friends, associates, and relatives. Especially, his fellow Christian parishioners. It would not be too much of an exaggeration to regard it potentially as an act of terrorism.
Yet, make no mistake, Tiller was no martyr. He was a mercenary, plain and simple. It won't be long, regardless, before he is held up as a martyr for the supposed "reproductive rights of all women".
This could well be a pivotal moment in what could become a prolonged civil war, one that is usually fought with words, from the bench, the legislative chambers, and the streets. Due to the nature of the controversy, a profound debate about the meaning of life, and when it begins, and when it is proper to end it, it seems only natural that it might, from time to time, become violent.
It is a war fought on both sides with prolific amounts of funding. Tiller had massive reservoirs of financial and political supporters, as did those who opposed his practice. There are on both sides always, like in all wars, the supporters, protesters, demagogues, and those who provide the cannon fodder. Oh, yes, and there are the pawns, the nameless soldiers who die on countless battlefields, whom we all so love to eulogize, and whom we then conveniently forget. We never really think that much of those we claim to fight for either. That's because we're not really doing it for them. We are doing it for us.
It always gets our attention, though, when one of the high-ranking brass takes the hit, because its such a rarity. Well, Tiller was a high-ranking official of sorts, one of the ones who called the shots and set the pace and the agenda. No pawn, he. Perspective is then warranted.
After all, some might point out that, for all the flaming rhetoric, this is not a war that has cost many lives. On the other hand, some might claim it has indeed cost several hundreds of millions of the lives of those who were helpless to prevent their fate, who had no say in the ultimate decisions Tiller arrived at by whatever process.
One can only hope his heart was in the right place when he did so. Right about now, a lot of Kansas churches, like those across America, are doubtless doing something maybe most of them rarely do-a considerable amount of soul-searching.
The whole thing leaves me cold. Forgive me if I find it hard to summon what most might consider the proper outrage at such an allegedly brazen act.
It's not because he was an abortion provider, even a late-term abortion provider. It's because he was obviously corrupt. He thought it was beneath him to follow Kansas Law, which states that late-term abortions might only be provided in the case of grave risk to the mothers life, or if the possibility exists the process of childbirth could cause her permanent physical harm. Even at that, Kansas law states plainly there must be a second professional opinion in concurrence with the first, and this must come from an independent source.
Tiller ignored all of this, granting late-term procedures to women who claimed severe depression, a clear-cut violation of Kansas Law, and not on a mere handful of occasions but innumerable times. He found himself brought up on charges for this, and for deriving his required second opinion from a man whom prosecutors charged was little more than a private employee of the doctor. He was cleared of all charges in a trial that was marked more by political maneuvering and demagoguery than the actual pursuit of justice.
Tiller liked to claim he was following his conscience. Well, maybe so, but I have a sneaking idea his was for sale to the highest bidder, and what bruising might have been self-inflicted to his ethical spirit he managed to soothe with the balms of gracious, selfless giving to the coffers of then-Governor Kathleen Sibellius-who it seemed was one of Tiller's staunchest supporters and defenders.
Sibellius is now of course the Director of The Department of Health and Human Services, appointed to that position by Obama, who early in his career as an Illinois state Senator opposed the Infant Born Alive Act, and so who now of course, as President, feigns outrage at the doctor's murder. Well, at least he is ideologically consistent.
There could be more to the story. As of the last time I checked, the name of the gunman, apparently apprehended by police en route by automobile after having escaped the scene of the crime, has not been released. This could be an indication of suspicion of conspiracy.
If it is a conspiracy, as opposed to this one individual acting alone, then it is a remarkable thing that the killing took place inside the Reformed Lutheran Church. It would seem to be more practical foe the killer or killers to wait until the doctor was entering, or exiting, the church. It almost seems like the time and place of the murder was in and of itself some kind of message sent to the congregants, and to the nation, and to the left-wing of the country who support Tiller's work and mission. The killer wanted an audience. Not just any audience, but a gasping gallery of Tiller's friends, associates, and relatives. Especially, his fellow Christian parishioners. It would not be too much of an exaggeration to regard it potentially as an act of terrorism.
Yet, make no mistake, Tiller was no martyr. He was a mercenary, plain and simple. It won't be long, regardless, before he is held up as a martyr for the supposed "reproductive rights of all women".
This could well be a pivotal moment in what could become a prolonged civil war, one that is usually fought with words, from the bench, the legislative chambers, and the streets. Due to the nature of the controversy, a profound debate about the meaning of life, and when it begins, and when it is proper to end it, it seems only natural that it might, from time to time, become violent.
It is a war fought on both sides with prolific amounts of funding. Tiller had massive reservoirs of financial and political supporters, as did those who opposed his practice. There are on both sides always, like in all wars, the supporters, protesters, demagogues, and those who provide the cannon fodder. Oh, yes, and there are the pawns, the nameless soldiers who die on countless battlefields, whom we all so love to eulogize, and whom we then conveniently forget. We never really think that much of those we claim to fight for either. That's because we're not really doing it for them. We are doing it for us.
It always gets our attention, though, when one of the high-ranking brass takes the hit, because its such a rarity. Well, Tiller was a high-ranking official of sorts, one of the ones who called the shots and set the pace and the agenda. No pawn, he. Perspective is then warranted.
After all, some might point out that, for all the flaming rhetoric, this is not a war that has cost many lives. On the other hand, some might claim it has indeed cost several hundreds of millions of the lives of those who were helpless to prevent their fate, who had no say in the ultimate decisions Tiller arrived at by whatever process.
One can only hope his heart was in the right place when he did so. Right about now, a lot of Kansas churches, like those across America, are doubtless doing something maybe most of them rarely do-a considerable amount of soul-searching.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Laughing Matters And Crying Shames
Many of you are familiar with the insane radical Islamic cleric Omar Bhakri, whose rantings are to me akin to a bizarre comedy routine. If somebody was to do his schtick word for word at a comedy club, it would doubtless inspire as many charges of racism as laughter. Yet, he seems to purposely live his life as a character in a dark comedy movie, Borat with maybe a dash of Cohen Brothers thrown in for good measure.
Now, the same man who left Britain in the wake of that country's spate of terror attacks, the man who referred to the 9/11 hijackers as the "Magnificent Seventeen", and who some claim was the mastermind behind the riotous demonstrations over the Danish Mohammad cartoons, has now, it would seem, branched out into sci-fi. He just recently issued a proclamation that the galaxy itself should be converted to Islam, that those living on all worlds, in our solar system and beyond, should bow their knee to their creator Allah, and disavow any "man-made" system. Instead, he proclaims, they should embrace not just Islam, but his own malignant brand of it.
Seeing as how this guy has just been tried, in absentia, for terrorist activities and sentenced to death-in Lebanon of all places, where he has lived since his forced ouster from the UK-you would think he would have other things on his mind besides whether some alleged, theoretical alien races might be swayed to adopt Islam. Hell, he is unlikely to sway people in his own adopted country to spare him the rope-and its a hotbed of terrorism. Evidently, somebody forgot to clue this guy in on the difference between Shia's and Sunni's.
In the meantime, in between ranting and planning terrorist training camps, he has divorced his wife and married a woman younger than his daughter, while engaging in a diet for the purpose of fathering as many new children as possible-like the world really does need more of this guy. His first wife evidently had enough of him, electing to return to Britain, where she could at least wear make-up and feminine clothes in private, and leave home without a male escort.
His daughter as well seems to have had all she can stand of him, but at least managed to get enough money from him to get herself a boob job, ostensibly for the purpose of, to paraphrase, feel more like a mother while nursing her children. He went along with this, I am going to guess for the purpose of enhancing her prospects for attracting a man who would give him grandchildren. She and her Turkish husband had recently separated.
Instead, to the old man's horror, and eventual denial (claiming the story was a scurrilous attack on Islam), she landed a job as an exotic dancer, and sometime stripper.
You read it right, the daughter of one of the most radical Islamic Imams in the world today is a pole dancer.
Here is the pictorial page to a squatter's site in her name.
In the meantime, she, like her father before her, lives off of British welfare, according to one report to the tune of 300,000 pounds a year.
That's just the thing. It's easy to rant and rave about Islamic radicals and their rhetoric, which is all too often backed up by the blood-thirsty actions of low-level pawns who they themselves only encourage from a safe distance. Bhakri once even begged for re-admittance to Britain during the recent Israeli onslaught of Lebanon. Had he been granted a reprieve and allowed to return, is there any doubt he would have quickly resumed his old activities?
Yet, all too many like him are allowed not only to live amongst us, but are even subsidized to do so. It's the darkest of all comedy routines.
Now, the same man who left Britain in the wake of that country's spate of terror attacks, the man who referred to the 9/11 hijackers as the "Magnificent Seventeen", and who some claim was the mastermind behind the riotous demonstrations over the Danish Mohammad cartoons, has now, it would seem, branched out into sci-fi. He just recently issued a proclamation that the galaxy itself should be converted to Islam, that those living on all worlds, in our solar system and beyond, should bow their knee to their creator Allah, and disavow any "man-made" system. Instead, he proclaims, they should embrace not just Islam, but his own malignant brand of it.
Seeing as how this guy has just been tried, in absentia, for terrorist activities and sentenced to death-in Lebanon of all places, where he has lived since his forced ouster from the UK-you would think he would have other things on his mind besides whether some alleged, theoretical alien races might be swayed to adopt Islam. Hell, he is unlikely to sway people in his own adopted country to spare him the rope-and its a hotbed of terrorism. Evidently, somebody forgot to clue this guy in on the difference between Shia's and Sunni's.
In the meantime, in between ranting and planning terrorist training camps, he has divorced his wife and married a woman younger than his daughter, while engaging in a diet for the purpose of fathering as many new children as possible-like the world really does need more of this guy. His first wife evidently had enough of him, electing to return to Britain, where she could at least wear make-up and feminine clothes in private, and leave home without a male escort.
His daughter as well seems to have had all she can stand of him, but at least managed to get enough money from him to get herself a boob job, ostensibly for the purpose of, to paraphrase, feel more like a mother while nursing her children. He went along with this, I am going to guess for the purpose of enhancing her prospects for attracting a man who would give him grandchildren. She and her Turkish husband had recently separated.
Instead, to the old man's horror, and eventual denial (claiming the story was a scurrilous attack on Islam), she landed a job as an exotic dancer, and sometime stripper.
You read it right, the daughter of one of the most radical Islamic Imams in the world today is a pole dancer.
Here is the pictorial page to a squatter's site in her name.
In the meantime, she, like her father before her, lives off of British welfare, according to one report to the tune of 300,000 pounds a year.
That's just the thing. It's easy to rant and rave about Islamic radicals and their rhetoric, which is all too often backed up by the blood-thirsty actions of low-level pawns who they themselves only encourage from a safe distance. Bhakri once even begged for re-admittance to Britain during the recent Israeli onslaught of Lebanon. Had he been granted a reprieve and allowed to return, is there any doubt he would have quickly resumed his old activities?
Yet, all too many like him are allowed not only to live amongst us, but are even subsidized to do so. It's the darkest of all comedy routines.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Burning Bridges And Bibles-Like We Really Needed Something Like This Now
A story making the rounds lately is flying pretty much under the radar outside the purview of the blogosphere. The network news seems strangely silent on this topic of the Pentagon seizing and burning Bibles distributed to American soldiers in Afghanistan and printed in at least two Afghan languages.
Nevertheless, some among the right are running with the story, and demanding answers to this seeming assault on the religious liberties of uniformed service men and women. Nor are all factions of the left ignoring it. Some atheists are demanding an investigation as to how American soldiers ever became a seeming tool of religious fundamentalists to begin with. Aside from them, however, it would seem the Obama Administration is eager to downplay the story, for obvious reasons.
Yet, there is a legitimate cause for some concern here. It seems like there has been a cadre of Christian evangelicals at work in the military engaged in proselytization efforts, with not only the tacit permission, but in some cases the active support and encouragement of an officer corps who seem to have formed what might legitimately be described as a conservative Christian cabal.
There is even a story that Rumsfeld, in his heyday as head of the Defense Department, submitted reports and memos to President Bush notated and captioned with Biblical scriptural references. In some of these reports, there would be pictures of American soldiers at prayer, or presumably sharing the gospel with an Afghan civilian. Here from GQ is a slideshow of many of these "memos".
Is the latest move by the new Administration merely an effort at housecleaning, or is something far more sinister at work here?
Some might say it all depends on how you define "sinister". Well, I don't see much in the way of a gray area here.
In my opinion, this is a so-called "conservative" cause in search of a controversy. American soldiers are not sent overseas to engage in religious proselytization. I don't for one second condone the seizing and burning of religious texts-that was going way overboard. A simple warning, and if appropriate in individual cases a reprimand, would have been sufficient. Soldiers are in the pay of the military and the government, and have no business engaging in these sorts of activities.
They are actually creating problems for other soldiers, and for the Afghan civilians they come in contact with who might accept some of these Bibles out of a misguided sense of graciousness and hospitality, which is a big deal in their culture.
If allowed to go on unchecked, it might get to the point where other Afghan civilians might well shut off contact with our soldiers out of a fear of attention brought upon them by radicals, who would gladly snatch their children up and kill them, maybe even rape the young girls, in front of their eyes, just to make a point. They take a big enough chance associating with our soldiers as it is, if it is seen they are accepting such gifts as Bibles, it would be like pouring gasoline on the fire. They would become pariahs in their own community, not only amongst radicals.
This story has already become the subject of a documentary produced by Al-Jazeera. Here is a video from Al-Jazeera's James Bays that seems to detail the proselytizing efforts of one group of soldiers.
That makes this a deadly serious issue. Indeed, others have followed up on Al-Jazeera's accusations, as illustrated by this rant from the pages of American Muslim.
You have to exercise common sense in affairs such as this. The perceived need of a handful of Christian conservative activists to "save souls" (and now, it would seem, to score political points) should not be allowed to endanger the overall mission at hand, especially when, by the way, those who do so are actually handing their enemies what amounts to a slam dunk in the way of a propaganda victory.
Once the mission is accomplished, hopefully won, and the nation is secure and prosperous, and we have normal diplomatic relations, that would be the time to make such inroads. Then, if a private citizen visits the country as a tourist and engages in proselytizing or winning converts for Christ, then they can do so on their on initiative and at their own personal risk.
Now is just not the time for that. It is never the time for a representative of the American government to do it, under the best of conditions, let alone in the case of American soldiers conducting a war with the purpose of rooting out religious fundamentalists determined to impose the darkest of possible visions-one in which this kind of proselytization is seen not only as an affront to the dignity of Islam (such as it is) but a validation of the accusations that Americans are engaged in a modern-day renewal of the Crusades.
Some might respond that there is not only a perceived spiritual need, but an expressed desire amongst some within the Afghan population for this kind of religious outreach. If so, all the more reason why they should be encouraged to provide us the aid we need to make this mission a successful one, so that they might then pursue their legitimate religious yearnings freely, without the fear of recrimination.
Granted, that time is doubtless a long way off, if indeed it ever arrives. Until such time, the only sacred duty the American soldier has is to defend our nation and do the assigned job at hand. It is their job, when it comes to Afghanistan, to clear away the obstacles to progress. It will then be up to the Afghans, with our guidance and assistance, to build the road to their future destinies, not only their material future, but their spiritual ones as well, hopefully as free individuals in a nation guided by the rule of law.
It is not helping when a small minority of well-meaning though misguided individuals engage in activities that could result in serious repercussions, not only to the mission at hand and the real lives of Afghan civilians, but perhaps even to the cause of the God who, in their religious zeal, they mean to serve.
Nevertheless, some among the right are running with the story, and demanding answers to this seeming assault on the religious liberties of uniformed service men and women. Nor are all factions of the left ignoring it. Some atheists are demanding an investigation as to how American soldiers ever became a seeming tool of religious fundamentalists to begin with. Aside from them, however, it would seem the Obama Administration is eager to downplay the story, for obvious reasons.
Yet, there is a legitimate cause for some concern here. It seems like there has been a cadre of Christian evangelicals at work in the military engaged in proselytization efforts, with not only the tacit permission, but in some cases the active support and encouragement of an officer corps who seem to have formed what might legitimately be described as a conservative Christian cabal.
There is even a story that Rumsfeld, in his heyday as head of the Defense Department, submitted reports and memos to President Bush notated and captioned with Biblical scriptural references. In some of these reports, there would be pictures of American soldiers at prayer, or presumably sharing the gospel with an Afghan civilian. Here from GQ is a slideshow of many of these "memos".
Is the latest move by the new Administration merely an effort at housecleaning, or is something far more sinister at work here?
Some might say it all depends on how you define "sinister". Well, I don't see much in the way of a gray area here.
In my opinion, this is a so-called "conservative" cause in search of a controversy. American soldiers are not sent overseas to engage in religious proselytization. I don't for one second condone the seizing and burning of religious texts-that was going way overboard. A simple warning, and if appropriate in individual cases a reprimand, would have been sufficient. Soldiers are in the pay of the military and the government, and have no business engaging in these sorts of activities.
They are actually creating problems for other soldiers, and for the Afghan civilians they come in contact with who might accept some of these Bibles out of a misguided sense of graciousness and hospitality, which is a big deal in their culture.
If allowed to go on unchecked, it might get to the point where other Afghan civilians might well shut off contact with our soldiers out of a fear of attention brought upon them by radicals, who would gladly snatch their children up and kill them, maybe even rape the young girls, in front of their eyes, just to make a point. They take a big enough chance associating with our soldiers as it is, if it is seen they are accepting such gifts as Bibles, it would be like pouring gasoline on the fire. They would become pariahs in their own community, not only amongst radicals.
This story has already become the subject of a documentary produced by Al-Jazeera. Here is a video from Al-Jazeera's James Bays that seems to detail the proselytizing efforts of one group of soldiers.
That makes this a deadly serious issue. Indeed, others have followed up on Al-Jazeera's accusations, as illustrated by this rant from the pages of American Muslim.
You have to exercise common sense in affairs such as this. The perceived need of a handful of Christian conservative activists to "save souls" (and now, it would seem, to score political points) should not be allowed to endanger the overall mission at hand, especially when, by the way, those who do so are actually handing their enemies what amounts to a slam dunk in the way of a propaganda victory.
Once the mission is accomplished, hopefully won, and the nation is secure and prosperous, and we have normal diplomatic relations, that would be the time to make such inroads. Then, if a private citizen visits the country as a tourist and engages in proselytizing or winning converts for Christ, then they can do so on their on initiative and at their own personal risk.
Now is just not the time for that. It is never the time for a representative of the American government to do it, under the best of conditions, let alone in the case of American soldiers conducting a war with the purpose of rooting out religious fundamentalists determined to impose the darkest of possible visions-one in which this kind of proselytization is seen not only as an affront to the dignity of Islam (such as it is) but a validation of the accusations that Americans are engaged in a modern-day renewal of the Crusades.
Some might respond that there is not only a perceived spiritual need, but an expressed desire amongst some within the Afghan population for this kind of religious outreach. If so, all the more reason why they should be encouraged to provide us the aid we need to make this mission a successful one, so that they might then pursue their legitimate religious yearnings freely, without the fear of recrimination.
Granted, that time is doubtless a long way off, if indeed it ever arrives. Until such time, the only sacred duty the American soldier has is to defend our nation and do the assigned job at hand. It is their job, when it comes to Afghanistan, to clear away the obstacles to progress. It will then be up to the Afghans, with our guidance and assistance, to build the road to their future destinies, not only their material future, but their spiritual ones as well, hopefully as free individuals in a nation guided by the rule of law.
It is not helping when a small minority of well-meaning though misguided individuals engage in activities that could result in serious repercussions, not only to the mission at hand and the real lives of Afghan civilians, but perhaps even to the cause of the God who, in their religious zeal, they mean to serve.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Hitler's Little Helper
I'm staying the hell away from political blogs for a while, maybe permanently. They seem filled with the moronic type of people that think they have a God-given right to insult you, then get their panties in a wad when you respond in kind. I've had it. It's getting to the point now where I've descended to the level of telling a person of Jewish descent that, instead of going back in time to kill Hitler to prevent the Holocaust, I might be inclined to tell him "hey bud you missed a spot."
This is not to be construed as an apology to the person in question. This is for me and me alone. My nerves have been on edge over a lot of personal issues, and I don't need any further stressers, especially from the likes of these sorts of "people".
This started when I related as to why some rightists-wrongly in my opinion-judge Hitler as a socialist. Instead of accepting that I was merely pointing out that two people were arguing apples and oranges, I was accused of calling Hitler a socialist myself, and called stupid-by some dumb motherfucker that evidently doesn't know how to read plain English.
As if that weren't enough, I related stories from the Over-The-Rhine neighborhood of Cincinnati in which I lived several years ago, stories from my own personal experience, as a way of demonstrating how life in the inner-city really is, and how some social welfare programs have enabled and even encouraged an atmosphere and culture of decay, dependence and despair.
I was promptly called a racist.
It's like banging your head against a brick wall and thinking you'll knock it down. Keep it up and all you'll get is a severe concussion. The wall will stand. News flash-I could write stories about homelessness and the inner-city and it would over time possibly be considered work of Dickensian proportions. But I just can't deal with it. It's too painful, frankly. I'd rather have fun writing, and let the monsters manifest in a form that might reach into a reader's psyche and give them a good punch in the kidney when they least expect it. Instead of doing even that much, I waste my time arguing with imbeciles. And blogging.
I'm thinking of giving up on blogging all together. I've evolved significantly since I first started this blog. I used to be firmly left-of-center. In another time-travel scenario, if I could go back in time and meet face to face with myself ten years earlier, my old self would be quite shaken.
"What the fuck happened to us?" he/I might ask.
"It already happened," I might answer me. "You just haven't figured it out yet. Don't worry, as you can see, you will."
Even when I look at this blog and think about what the name implies, I wonder about it. How do I possibly begin to fit in with a movement that is more leftist politically than it is any kind of a spiritual path? If you don't believe me, go to any pagan blog you see, and on the average for every pagan or spiritual, occult, magical, etc post you see you will see an overtly political post-usually though not necessarily always of a leftist persuasion. When it is not mainly political, politics more often than not creeps into it, to the extent that you feel like you are not a part of the group if you don't subscribe to their political beliefs. How can you be a modern pagan and not be, for example, a liberal environmentalist or feminist, or this-or-that?
Oh it's fine to be a conservative, as a liberal might define what they might call a "sincere" conservative, at least up to a point-but how can you support the likes of Sarah Palin? How can you defend conservative causes? If you want to be a conservative, be a good conservative, help us figure out a way we can have all this good shit in a way we don't have to be taxed to death for it. Otherwise, keep your mouth shut. We don't want to hear about freedom and independence, we want to make government work for us-and give us everything we want. Maybe if you turn against the rich and work with us, it will work out. The rich need no protection, they need to contribute more-like say ninety nine percent.
By all means, let's encourage an inter-faith dialogue with Christians-as long as they're liberal Christians, that is. The conservative ones are too hung up on that Bible of theirs. They have this funny idea it actually means what it says.
Duh! Isn't that the point of dialogue, to try to breach the walls of divisions and arrive at understanding and acceptance? Who says you have to agree on everything? Why should you even want that?
What it all boils down to is most people aren't looking to foster dialogue and understanding through communication. They are looking for political and social allies. They're not wanting to simply carve out their own niche in society and protect their rights and gain understanding. They want to form a brigade and mount a siege on the perceived fortress of conservative Christendom.
This should not be construed as an attack on liberal pagans, who aren't all bad, or wrong on all things, nor for that matter is this even a defense of conservative Christians, who certainly have their faults as well. It's a matter of communication. I've almost come to the conclusion its a fucking waste of time.
The point is, people carve out their own little niches, and for all their bullshit about communication and dialogue, its mostly a ruse. They want validation above and beyond anything else, and if they do look for dialogue with an opposing viewpoint, more often than not its a search for a strawman to knock down and abuse.
In response to this, I find my own self and this blog centered mainly on politics from a conservative perspective, though I like to consider myself independent, by no means a red=state Kool-Aid drinker. The point is, its hard to get away from it. I try to focus on other aspects, with entertainment and celebrity posts, or the all-too rare pagan oriented post, maybe a true crime story once in a while. But then sooner or later something political comes along that grabs my attention. To paraphrase a line from Godfather III, I want to get away, but they just keep dragging me back in. I have become the ass hole I rant about, and the war of words will inevitably begin, at some point or another. Maybe its just time for me to take the initiative and break this vicious cycle.
It might sound childish, but I think I'm going to take my marbles and play by myself for a while. I have one friend and one friend only. That reminds me, I think I need to clean her litter box. The other animals, those of the human variety, can fend for themselves, and we'll see how it all works out. I am not hopeful.
This is not to be construed as an apology to the person in question. This is for me and me alone. My nerves have been on edge over a lot of personal issues, and I don't need any further stressers, especially from the likes of these sorts of "people".
This started when I related as to why some rightists-wrongly in my opinion-judge Hitler as a socialist. Instead of accepting that I was merely pointing out that two people were arguing apples and oranges, I was accused of calling Hitler a socialist myself, and called stupid-by some dumb motherfucker that evidently doesn't know how to read plain English.
As if that weren't enough, I related stories from the Over-The-Rhine neighborhood of Cincinnati in which I lived several years ago, stories from my own personal experience, as a way of demonstrating how life in the inner-city really is, and how some social welfare programs have enabled and even encouraged an atmosphere and culture of decay, dependence and despair.
I was promptly called a racist.
It's like banging your head against a brick wall and thinking you'll knock it down. Keep it up and all you'll get is a severe concussion. The wall will stand. News flash-I could write stories about homelessness and the inner-city and it would over time possibly be considered work of Dickensian proportions. But I just can't deal with it. It's too painful, frankly. I'd rather have fun writing, and let the monsters manifest in a form that might reach into a reader's psyche and give them a good punch in the kidney when they least expect it. Instead of doing even that much, I waste my time arguing with imbeciles. And blogging.
I'm thinking of giving up on blogging all together. I've evolved significantly since I first started this blog. I used to be firmly left-of-center. In another time-travel scenario, if I could go back in time and meet face to face with myself ten years earlier, my old self would be quite shaken.
"What the fuck happened to us?" he/I might ask.
"It already happened," I might answer me. "You just haven't figured it out yet. Don't worry, as you can see, you will."
Even when I look at this blog and think about what the name implies, I wonder about it. How do I possibly begin to fit in with a movement that is more leftist politically than it is any kind of a spiritual path? If you don't believe me, go to any pagan blog you see, and on the average for every pagan or spiritual, occult, magical, etc post you see you will see an overtly political post-usually though not necessarily always of a leftist persuasion. When it is not mainly political, politics more often than not creeps into it, to the extent that you feel like you are not a part of the group if you don't subscribe to their political beliefs. How can you be a modern pagan and not be, for example, a liberal environmentalist or feminist, or this-or-that?
Oh it's fine to be a conservative, as a liberal might define what they might call a "sincere" conservative, at least up to a point-but how can you support the likes of Sarah Palin? How can you defend conservative causes? If you want to be a conservative, be a good conservative, help us figure out a way we can have all this good shit in a way we don't have to be taxed to death for it. Otherwise, keep your mouth shut. We don't want to hear about freedom and independence, we want to make government work for us-and give us everything we want. Maybe if you turn against the rich and work with us, it will work out. The rich need no protection, they need to contribute more-like say ninety nine percent.
By all means, let's encourage an inter-faith dialogue with Christians-as long as they're liberal Christians, that is. The conservative ones are too hung up on that Bible of theirs. They have this funny idea it actually means what it says.
Duh! Isn't that the point of dialogue, to try to breach the walls of divisions and arrive at understanding and acceptance? Who says you have to agree on everything? Why should you even want that?
What it all boils down to is most people aren't looking to foster dialogue and understanding through communication. They are looking for political and social allies. They're not wanting to simply carve out their own niche in society and protect their rights and gain understanding. They want to form a brigade and mount a siege on the perceived fortress of conservative Christendom.
This should not be construed as an attack on liberal pagans, who aren't all bad, or wrong on all things, nor for that matter is this even a defense of conservative Christians, who certainly have their faults as well. It's a matter of communication. I've almost come to the conclusion its a fucking waste of time.
The point is, people carve out their own little niches, and for all their bullshit about communication and dialogue, its mostly a ruse. They want validation above and beyond anything else, and if they do look for dialogue with an opposing viewpoint, more often than not its a search for a strawman to knock down and abuse.
In response to this, I find my own self and this blog centered mainly on politics from a conservative perspective, though I like to consider myself independent, by no means a red=state Kool-Aid drinker. The point is, its hard to get away from it. I try to focus on other aspects, with entertainment and celebrity posts, or the all-too rare pagan oriented post, maybe a true crime story once in a while. But then sooner or later something political comes along that grabs my attention. To paraphrase a line from Godfather III, I want to get away, but they just keep dragging me back in. I have become the ass hole I rant about, and the war of words will inevitably begin, at some point or another. Maybe its just time for me to take the initiative and break this vicious cycle.
It might sound childish, but I think I'm going to take my marbles and play by myself for a while. I have one friend and one friend only. That reminds me, I think I need to clean her litter box. The other animals, those of the human variety, can fend for themselves, and we'll see how it all works out. I am not hopeful.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Presence Of The Lord
As I expected, there is a great deal of controversy over the upset victory of Christian Arkansas native Kris Allen over Goth rocker Adam Lambert on this season's American Idol.
A great many of the more vocal Lambert fans angrily blame the Allen victory on right-wing fundamentalist Christian homophobia, while a lot of Allen's fans assert that Allen's victory is a victory for conservative Christian values and morality.
Who knows, maybe they are both right. Maybe that hateful, spiteful, homo-hating, self-centered and jealous God of the Old Testament has manifested through American Idol.
That is, if God is an eleven year old girl with a cell phone and unlimited minutes.
Or really cool parents.
Which would explain quite a lot of things, actually.
A great many of the more vocal Lambert fans angrily blame the Allen victory on right-wing fundamentalist Christian homophobia, while a lot of Allen's fans assert that Allen's victory is a victory for conservative Christian values and morality.
Who knows, maybe they are both right. Maybe that hateful, spiteful, homo-hating, self-centered and jealous God of the Old Testament has manifested through American Idol.
That is, if God is an eleven year old girl with a cell phone and unlimited minutes.Or really cool parents.
Which would explain quite a lot of things, actually.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The True Nature Of Socialism
I posted this originally as a comment on the blog of Trotskyist Renegade Eye, but realized it would make a good blog post in its own right. I would be very interested in seeing what others think about it.
To put it in perspective, Ren had a post concerning the nature of Maoism versus Trotskyism, and this led to a very lengthy comment thread between he and the Maoist CelticFire and some others, notably a conservative Brit known as The Sentinel. Ren ended his remarks by declaring that The People's Republic of China, in creating an industrial working class, had sewn the seeds of its own inevitable destruction, much like the feudalistic system did by creating the capitalist class, which itself has sewn the seeds of its own inevitable destruction by creating the working class.
The following is my response to the thread-
Wow. You just jolted me with something you said about China, and its like a fog lifted. You should be able to see it for yourself. Socialists, I think, for the most part assume that time and history moves in a linear fashion. I think it moves in more of a circular fashion, like the universe itself. But there are disruptions, due to the chaotic nature of the universe. Because of this, time and history, if charted on a graph, would have sharp peaks followed by drops, followed by more peaks.
That's why no system will last forever, without interruption. It is simply unsustainable on a permanent basis. There will always be periods of chaotic upheaval, followed by periods of adjustments. We tend to refer to them as "Dark Ages".
Nothing lasts forever, but it always reaches out and drags you right back in, eventually. There was never a more capitalist system than ancient Babylon at its absolute height. It, like Britain, was a nation of shopkeepers.
Also, I think socialism, not in theory but in practice has much, much more in common with feudalism than it might be comfortable for socialists to acknowledge. That seems to be the history, and it fits it well, only without the veneer of a titled nobility. Even at that, it is not too far removed.
So when you say that China is creating the seeds that might eventually destroy it by creating an "industrial working class", it is just following the formula of feudalism creating capitalism. So the good news for capitalists is, we can pretty much look forward to that being the case with Cuba, and Venezuela, etc.
After all, were those nations themselves ever truly capitalists, or were they feudal in nature?
More to the point, could socialism and it's bratty, obnoxious little brother communism be viewed more accurately as the natural phase between feudalism and capitalism?
I say yes. I'm sure of it. Look at it this way. Socialism is a method to phase over between feudalism and capitalism, and can go in either direction, from or to feudalism from or to capitalism.
Communism, the obnoxious, bratty little brother of socialism, is a temper tantrum thrown as a means of keeping to or returning to the feudal state.
Well, nuff said. Socialists will of course virulently disagree with this assessment, and they are welcome to make their case here as to why I do not deserve the Nobel Prize for this piece of brilliance.
To put it in perspective, Ren had a post concerning the nature of Maoism versus Trotskyism, and this led to a very lengthy comment thread between he and the Maoist CelticFire and some others, notably a conservative Brit known as The Sentinel. Ren ended his remarks by declaring that The People's Republic of China, in creating an industrial working class, had sewn the seeds of its own inevitable destruction, much like the feudalistic system did by creating the capitalist class, which itself has sewn the seeds of its own inevitable destruction by creating the working class.
The following is my response to the thread-
Wow. You just jolted me with something you said about China, and its like a fog lifted. You should be able to see it for yourself. Socialists, I think, for the most part assume that time and history moves in a linear fashion. I think it moves in more of a circular fashion, like the universe itself. But there are disruptions, due to the chaotic nature of the universe. Because of this, time and history, if charted on a graph, would have sharp peaks followed by drops, followed by more peaks.
That's why no system will last forever, without interruption. It is simply unsustainable on a permanent basis. There will always be periods of chaotic upheaval, followed by periods of adjustments. We tend to refer to them as "Dark Ages".
Nothing lasts forever, but it always reaches out and drags you right back in, eventually. There was never a more capitalist system than ancient Babylon at its absolute height. It, like Britain, was a nation of shopkeepers.
Also, I think socialism, not in theory but in practice has much, much more in common with feudalism than it might be comfortable for socialists to acknowledge. That seems to be the history, and it fits it well, only without the veneer of a titled nobility. Even at that, it is not too far removed.
So when you say that China is creating the seeds that might eventually destroy it by creating an "industrial working class", it is just following the formula of feudalism creating capitalism. So the good news for capitalists is, we can pretty much look forward to that being the case with Cuba, and Venezuela, etc.
After all, were those nations themselves ever truly capitalists, or were they feudal in nature?
More to the point, could socialism and it's bratty, obnoxious little brother communism be viewed more accurately as the natural phase between feudalism and capitalism?
I say yes. I'm sure of it. Look at it this way. Socialism is a method to phase over between feudalism and capitalism, and can go in either direction, from or to feudalism from or to capitalism.
Communism, the obnoxious, bratty little brother of socialism, is a temper tantrum thrown as a means of keeping to or returning to the feudal state.
Well, nuff said. Socialists will of course virulently disagree with this assessment, and they are welcome to make their case here as to why I do not deserve the Nobel Prize for this piece of brilliance.
Friday, May 15, 2009
My Homophobic Post Of The Month
Adam Lambert deserves to win American Idol based on his talent, but he will either win it, or lose it, because he is gay. After all, if talent was the main criterion, then Allison Irahito would have shared the stage with Lambert for the final two. Instead, we have the imminently forgettable Chris Allen, a mediocre at best talent though pleasant enough.
To be clear, Lambert is a bona-fide celebrity in waiting, whether he wins Idol or not. His rendition of Steppenwolf's Born To Be Wild made a believer out of me. It had something of the hallmark of a kick-ass Jefferson Starship performance on blotter acid.
Make no mistake, Lambert is good. Really, really good. Still, I have to say, whether he ultimately wins or not depends on two factors.
1. Fans of the last Idol voted off, Danny Dokey, who is openly Christian, might cast their votes for Allen. Lambert loses.
2. Lambert wins because, after all, while only ten percent of America is gay, they probably make up close to eighty percent of the Idol male audience.
It just occurred to me, I plugged this as a homophobic post. Okay then-
Why was Simon Cowell so badly hoping for a final contest between Danny and Adam?
Answer-he sucks big Dokey dicks.
American Idol. Gay.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Socialist Manifestos And Manifestations
When Chrysler is finally restructured according to the Obama Administrations directives, the workers will control the means of production. Well, fifty-five percent of it, with the US and Canadian governments getting ten percent each in lieu of loan repayments, while Fiat gets 35%.
What do the owners get? Evidently nothing. What do the creditors get? Fifty cents on the dollar, if they're lucky. If they refuse to play ball, maybe one third, or less, or nothing. Does this all sound vaguely familiar to anyone? The word expropriation comes to mind, for some odd reason.
Oh, and the poor Chrysler customer gets stuck with whatever rotten auto he might have been unfortunate enough to purchase. The different state lemon laws are now null-and-void. I dare somebody to make an obvious joke about making lemonade. Yeah, tell it to the dealers whose businesses are being abolished by the corporate decisions that will effectively close down one third of them. Tell it to their employees while you're at it.
Luckily, some dealers will get their own bail-out, subject to the terms of the bankruptcy proceedings, so its not all gloom and doom. That the company had to get permission to get the financing it needed from a separate financial institution after its own financial branch refused to do so is somewhat galling, but it looks as if somebody in Washington at least is awake enough to figure out you're not going to sell many cars without dealers.
There are other factors involved here. For one thing, this deal is only good until 2015, after which it will be renegotiated, probably in the Unions favor to avoid a general strike of some duration. By then, of course, depending on which Democratic Party members of Congress end up exercising the most influence over the next few years, the company might well be run into the ground, or off a cliff-or maybe even to the bottom of a tidal pond for all we know. If it is not, it will probably be thanks to the influence of Fiat, not the government.
The UAW looks to be the gift that keeps on giving, so obviously it would seem their new stake in the company is based on much more than the reputed worth of their health care insurance as determined by the terms of their past contracts. After all, GM is headed possibly in the same direction, but since their creditors have a much higher claim than did Chrysler's, the UAW only stands to gain 35% of that company. Greed was the undoing of the Chrysler creditors. Evidently, they just didn't have enough of it.
So now that the UAW are now apparently to become high-stakes owners of two companies, the majority owners of one of them, will anything rein in their own excesses? Doubtful.
After all, why bite the hand that hands over the campaign contributions? Where once these donations to the Democratic Party politicians came from the confiscated dues of the rank-and-file workers, now they will also come from the hoped-for profits of the company-otherwise known as anybody dumb enough to be a Chrysler from here on out-and also, by the way, the American taxpayer.
This then might well be the sign that people have long warned about, the dangers of the incremental implementation of socialism, with workers controlling the means of production while businesses are gradually expropriated owing to or based on the pretext of some pressing need or emergency.
It is quite telling that Marx's Das Kapital has seen a resurgence in popularity, becoming on the best-selling economic and business books in recent times.
No, of course its by no means proof that America is headed for a socialist path from which there is no hope of return. It just looks that way for now. But as bad as it does look, we can take some comfort in that, while there might be a problem stocking the showrooms with Chrysler vehicles, there is not likely to be long lines queuing outside the doors in desperation for one.
Does anybody really think Chrysler, utilizing the Fiat model, can produce a fuel efficient quality automobile at a reasonable price-under UAW control, and government oversight? It sounds like a losing proposition to me, and I'm not hopeful that the urge towards self-preservation in the long-term is going to overcome the greed that comes naturally along with government bureaucracy, money, and influence.
After all, as we all now pretty well know, even in the old Soviet Union, the workers never really controlled the means of production, did they?
UPDATE!!!
The deed is done! One-fourth of the dealerships are now officially eliminated, and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in the process. One silver lining-you can probably buy a new Chrysler for about what you might pay for a big flat-screen television set, and a decent used one for about what you might put out for a decent ten-speed. Good luck finding a place for parts and repairs. My advice-stick with the ten-speed.
BRAIN FART ALERT!!!
Unless there's such thing as one-hundred ten-percent, The US and Canadian governments share of Chrysler is a combined ten percent total, not ten percent each. I hate to admit it, but when I tell people to "do the math" I'm not relaying helpful information, I'm asking for advice.
What do the owners get? Evidently nothing. What do the creditors get? Fifty cents on the dollar, if they're lucky. If they refuse to play ball, maybe one third, or less, or nothing. Does this all sound vaguely familiar to anyone? The word expropriation comes to mind, for some odd reason.
Oh, and the poor Chrysler customer gets stuck with whatever rotten auto he might have been unfortunate enough to purchase. The different state lemon laws are now null-and-void. I dare somebody to make an obvious joke about making lemonade. Yeah, tell it to the dealers whose businesses are being abolished by the corporate decisions that will effectively close down one third of them. Tell it to their employees while you're at it.
Luckily, some dealers will get their own bail-out, subject to the terms of the bankruptcy proceedings, so its not all gloom and doom. That the company had to get permission to get the financing it needed from a separate financial institution after its own financial branch refused to do so is somewhat galling, but it looks as if somebody in Washington at least is awake enough to figure out you're not going to sell many cars without dealers.
There are other factors involved here. For one thing, this deal is only good until 2015, after which it will be renegotiated, probably in the Unions favor to avoid a general strike of some duration. By then, of course, depending on which Democratic Party members of Congress end up exercising the most influence over the next few years, the company might well be run into the ground, or off a cliff-or maybe even to the bottom of a tidal pond for all we know. If it is not, it will probably be thanks to the influence of Fiat, not the government.
The UAW looks to be the gift that keeps on giving, so obviously it would seem their new stake in the company is based on much more than the reputed worth of their health care insurance as determined by the terms of their past contracts. After all, GM is headed possibly in the same direction, but since their creditors have a much higher claim than did Chrysler's, the UAW only stands to gain 35% of that company. Greed was the undoing of the Chrysler creditors. Evidently, they just didn't have enough of it.
So now that the UAW are now apparently to become high-stakes owners of two companies, the majority owners of one of them, will anything rein in their own excesses? Doubtful.
After all, why bite the hand that hands over the campaign contributions? Where once these donations to the Democratic Party politicians came from the confiscated dues of the rank-and-file workers, now they will also come from the hoped-for profits of the company-otherwise known as anybody dumb enough to be a Chrysler from here on out-and also, by the way, the American taxpayer.
This then might well be the sign that people have long warned about, the dangers of the incremental implementation of socialism, with workers controlling the means of production while businesses are gradually expropriated owing to or based on the pretext of some pressing need or emergency.
It is quite telling that Marx's Das Kapital has seen a resurgence in popularity, becoming on the best-selling economic and business books in recent times.
No, of course its by no means proof that America is headed for a socialist path from which there is no hope of return. It just looks that way for now. But as bad as it does look, we can take some comfort in that, while there might be a problem stocking the showrooms with Chrysler vehicles, there is not likely to be long lines queuing outside the doors in desperation for one.
Does anybody really think Chrysler, utilizing the Fiat model, can produce a fuel efficient quality automobile at a reasonable price-under UAW control, and government oversight? It sounds like a losing proposition to me, and I'm not hopeful that the urge towards self-preservation in the long-term is going to overcome the greed that comes naturally along with government bureaucracy, money, and influence.
After all, as we all now pretty well know, even in the old Soviet Union, the workers never really controlled the means of production, did they?
UPDATE!!!
The deed is done! One-fourth of the dealerships are now officially eliminated, and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in the process. One silver lining-you can probably buy a new Chrysler for about what you might pay for a big flat-screen television set, and a decent used one for about what you might put out for a decent ten-speed. Good luck finding a place for parts and repairs. My advice-stick with the ten-speed.
BRAIN FART ALERT!!!
Unless there's such thing as one-hundred ten-percent, The US and Canadian governments share of Chrysler is a combined ten percent total, not ten percent each. I hate to admit it, but when I tell people to "do the math" I'm not relaying helpful information, I'm asking for advice.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Who Should Replace Souter-The Supreme Court Riddle
Now that Justice David Souter has announced his imminent retirement from the Supreme Court, it looks like President Obama will get a chance to make good on one of his major campaign promises, which is to appoint a Supreme Court Justice who is not only a brilliant legal mind, but one who has empathy with the needs and concerns of Americans, particularly those who are all too often left out in the cold.
Already various special interest groups are pushing for specific appointments. Some of course want another woman, or another African American, or the first Latino, or some weird combination of two, or all three, or some other minority.
While I understand their desires, I think it is incumbent on Obama to put aside racial quotas and other such considerations and concentrate on picking the type of man or woman, from whatever race or ethnic background, who will best do the job at hand. If that turns out to be an old white man, so be it.
For that matter, why pick a judge at all? If you really want someone who is empathetic to the needs of average Americans, as Obama has expressed, maybe this would be a good opportunity to think outside the box, as in fact many others have indeed also suggested.
My own personal pick for Souter's replacement would be tailor made for the job at hand given the current set of economic conditions, and would be perfect for a position in Obama's hand-picked judiciary. He understands economic matters, and has a keen interest in helping people in their desires to receive much needed help from their government.
I originally had him pegged as a sure thing for a cabinet post in Obama's Treasury Department, maybe even in the post of Treasury Secretary. But since that post has now been filled by the hapless Timothy Geitner, there is no need in letting this mans's knowledge, raw talent, and empathetic understanding of the economic concerns of the American people go unused and unsung.
Naturally, he will need judical training, but on a personal level, in the face of the inevitable onslaughts of court challenges as to the constitutionality and practicality of many of the Obama Administrations far-reaching economic proposals, who better to answer on behalf of the American people than-
In searching for the properly qualified individual to promote or look after his economic policies, be it in the judiciary or elsewhere, this president could not possibly pick a more appropriate individual than Mr. Matthew Lesko.
I have heard, unfortunately, that going to his web-site might lead to one's computer being infected with spy-ware, so I will refrain from linking to him. This is unfortunate, but as this is a man whose counsel and expert economic advice is sought after by such a large number of average Americans, perhaps it is understandable.
Already various special interest groups are pushing for specific appointments. Some of course want another woman, or another African American, or the first Latino, or some weird combination of two, or all three, or some other minority.
While I understand their desires, I think it is incumbent on Obama to put aside racial quotas and other such considerations and concentrate on picking the type of man or woman, from whatever race or ethnic background, who will best do the job at hand. If that turns out to be an old white man, so be it.
For that matter, why pick a judge at all? If you really want someone who is empathetic to the needs of average Americans, as Obama has expressed, maybe this would be a good opportunity to think outside the box, as in fact many others have indeed also suggested.
My own personal pick for Souter's replacement would be tailor made for the job at hand given the current set of economic conditions, and would be perfect for a position in Obama's hand-picked judiciary. He understands economic matters, and has a keen interest in helping people in their desires to receive much needed help from their government.
I originally had him pegged as a sure thing for a cabinet post in Obama's Treasury Department, maybe even in the post of Treasury Secretary. But since that post has now been filled by the hapless Timothy Geitner, there is no need in letting this mans's knowledge, raw talent, and empathetic understanding of the economic concerns of the American people go unused and unsung.
Naturally, he will need judical training, but on a personal level, in the face of the inevitable onslaughts of court challenges as to the constitutionality and practicality of many of the Obama Administrations far-reaching economic proposals, who better to answer on behalf of the American people than-
In searching for the properly qualified individual to promote or look after his economic policies, be it in the judiciary or elsewhere, this president could not possibly pick a more appropriate individual than Mr. Matthew Lesko.
I have heard, unfortunately, that going to his web-site might lead to one's computer being infected with spy-ware, so I will refrain from linking to him. This is unfortunate, but as this is a man whose counsel and expert economic advice is sought after by such a large number of average Americans, perhaps it is understandable.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
One Day, People Will See Him For What He Really Was
Not much to blog about lately, and I've been too busy to do much anyway, but in the meantime, I thought I might let my readers in on a few little nuggets of information that have come my way from what I would consider not just a viable source, but a very reliable one. Actually, to be more accurate, several sources are involved.
Suppose I told you some little known facts about former President George W. Bush, things that, if they were to ever be brought out in the open, would probably assure he would be eventually prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and spend even the rest of his life in prison.
Chew on these items-
George W. Bush initiated what turned into failed assassination attempts on two world leaders. One of them was Hugo Chavez. The second was Mahmoud Ahmadinajahd.
But he wasn't always a "miserable failure" when it came to assassination schemes aimed at world leaders. Get ready for it-
He got lucky when he successfully initiated the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
Pretty awful, huh? Or are you of the opinion that if Bush really did do these things, he was only acting in America's best interests against dictatorial leaders who are our nation's sworn enemies?
Wait, that's not all-not by a long shot.
What if I told you that George W. Bush forcibly kidnapped and detained a certain radical Islamic imam, one living recently in the US on a forged birth certificate, a man who also had allegedly illegitimate papers naming him a citizen of the Central American nation of Guatemala. What would you say if George W. Bush detained this man and, without even so much as giving the man a hearing, without giving him so much as time to pack a suitcase, had him flown to the middle of the Guatemalan jungle and left there with nothing but the clothes on his back and the money in his wallet?
Is your blood boiling yet? Are you ready to demand that George W. Bush be fully prosecuted and punished for such despicable crimes? Or are you of the opinion that since this alleged radical Imam was probably involved with Al-Queda or some other terrorist group, Bush acted appropriately?
Hold on. There's more.
What if you were to learn that George W. Bush, the supposed loving Christian family man and devoted husband and father, had a illicit love affair with a certain Hollywood star, who was later found dead from an apparent "suicide". Or was it an "accident"?
Or was it murder?
Even if Bush was innocent of ending the life of this former late star, the fact remains that he violated his marriage vows by engaging in a relationship with her. Or does that really matter?
Do any of you think that, if these facts were to ever finally come out, those Republicans and social conservatives who still admire Bush so greatly would still honor him as such a great family man, Christian, role model, public servant, and President?
Would it really surprise anybody that a President who would lend his authority to the prosecution of American citizens for supposed disloyalty could do such things as I have listed? After all, this is a man who actually encouraged and condoned spying on American citizens, including, according to somewhat recently released accounts, civil rights leaders. He did this in an attempt to gather information information about not only their business and civic careers, but in some cases their personal lives-anything that might be used against them, in the hopes of finding anything that might be manipulated to show proof of treason or disloyalty. Or failing all that, just to embarrass them publicly.
Could any honest, sincere person possibly justify such actions?
I'm curious to know what you all think of this, because there is a very good chance, in fact, that all of these allegations are true. Well, let me put it another way-
They are all, every single one of them, at least partially true. It just hasn't been seen yet for what it is, thanks to the apologists who are determined to justify this sorry record, what part of it can't be hidden. Who knows how much evidence has been destroyed or buried, never again to see the light of day.
But in time, it will be.
If anybody would like to weigh in about this matter, please feel free to do so.
Whatever should we do about these despicable alleged actions of one former President George W. Bush, in the event that are finally out in the open, and proven to be the truth? Or, for that matter, how should we view anybody that might have done such despicable things? How should history regard such an individual?
Should we view him as a sincere if perhaps sometimes overzealous public servant who loves his country and sometimes went too far in protecting its interests and the lives of its citizens?
Or should we see him as the spoiled heir of a rich family-a ruthless and arrogant punk to whom the exercise of power is seen as a birthright, and who will willingly ruin and destroy anyone who stands in his way, a man to whom the ends always justifies the means, even when those ends are to his benefit alone.
Consider this an open invitation to give your opinions on this matter, as I'm sure we can all agree, that if George W. Bush did do these things as has been alleged-as with anyone else-he should be roundly denounced, condemned, and ultimately prosecuted.
However, if you are unsure as to the veracity of these allegations, or feel they are in some regards partially or wholly justified, please feel free to express that opinion as well. At some future date, I will update this post with links pointing to the alleged evidence of the wrongdoing I have listed. Until such time, I will be looking forward to hearing your opinions on this matter, one way or another.
Suppose I told you some little known facts about former President George W. Bush, things that, if they were to ever be brought out in the open, would probably assure he would be eventually prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and spend even the rest of his life in prison.
Chew on these items-
George W. Bush initiated what turned into failed assassination attempts on two world leaders. One of them was Hugo Chavez. The second was Mahmoud Ahmadinajahd.
But he wasn't always a "miserable failure" when it came to assassination schemes aimed at world leaders. Get ready for it-
He got lucky when he successfully initiated the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
Pretty awful, huh? Or are you of the opinion that if Bush really did do these things, he was only acting in America's best interests against dictatorial leaders who are our nation's sworn enemies?
Wait, that's not all-not by a long shot.
What if I told you that George W. Bush forcibly kidnapped and detained a certain radical Islamic imam, one living recently in the US on a forged birth certificate, a man who also had allegedly illegitimate papers naming him a citizen of the Central American nation of Guatemala. What would you say if George W. Bush detained this man and, without even so much as giving the man a hearing, without giving him so much as time to pack a suitcase, had him flown to the middle of the Guatemalan jungle and left there with nothing but the clothes on his back and the money in his wallet?
Is your blood boiling yet? Are you ready to demand that George W. Bush be fully prosecuted and punished for such despicable crimes? Or are you of the opinion that since this alleged radical Imam was probably involved with Al-Queda or some other terrorist group, Bush acted appropriately?
Hold on. There's more.
What if you were to learn that George W. Bush, the supposed loving Christian family man and devoted husband and father, had a illicit love affair with a certain Hollywood star, who was later found dead from an apparent "suicide". Or was it an "accident"?
Or was it murder?
Even if Bush was innocent of ending the life of this former late star, the fact remains that he violated his marriage vows by engaging in a relationship with her. Or does that really matter?
Do any of you think that, if these facts were to ever finally come out, those Republicans and social conservatives who still admire Bush so greatly would still honor him as such a great family man, Christian, role model, public servant, and President?
Would it really surprise anybody that a President who would lend his authority to the prosecution of American citizens for supposed disloyalty could do such things as I have listed? After all, this is a man who actually encouraged and condoned spying on American citizens, including, according to somewhat recently released accounts, civil rights leaders. He did this in an attempt to gather information information about not only their business and civic careers, but in some cases their personal lives-anything that might be used against them, in the hopes of finding anything that might be manipulated to show proof of treason or disloyalty. Or failing all that, just to embarrass them publicly.
Could any honest, sincere person possibly justify such actions?
I'm curious to know what you all think of this, because there is a very good chance, in fact, that all of these allegations are true. Well, let me put it another way-
They are all, every single one of them, at least partially true. It just hasn't been seen yet for what it is, thanks to the apologists who are determined to justify this sorry record, what part of it can't be hidden. Who knows how much evidence has been destroyed or buried, never again to see the light of day.
But in time, it will be.
If anybody would like to weigh in about this matter, please feel free to do so.
Whatever should we do about these despicable alleged actions of one former President George W. Bush, in the event that are finally out in the open, and proven to be the truth? Or, for that matter, how should we view anybody that might have done such despicable things? How should history regard such an individual?
Should we view him as a sincere if perhaps sometimes overzealous public servant who loves his country and sometimes went too far in protecting its interests and the lives of its citizens?
Or should we see him as the spoiled heir of a rich family-a ruthless and arrogant punk to whom the exercise of power is seen as a birthright, and who will willingly ruin and destroy anyone who stands in his way, a man to whom the ends always justifies the means, even when those ends are to his benefit alone.
Consider this an open invitation to give your opinions on this matter, as I'm sure we can all agree, that if George W. Bush did do these things as has been alleged-as with anyone else-he should be roundly denounced, condemned, and ultimately prosecuted.
However, if you are unsure as to the veracity of these allegations, or feel they are in some regards partially or wholly justified, please feel free to express that opinion as well. At some future date, I will update this post with links pointing to the alleged evidence of the wrongdoing I have listed. Until such time, I will be looking forward to hearing your opinions on this matter, one way or another.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
If Texas Secedes From The Union-Some Heartfelt Advice
There has been a lot of talk lately about secession, but the most surprising example of this came during a tea party rally in Texas not too long ago, from the mouth of none other than Texas governor Rick Perry. Although he stopped short of actually calling for Texas to secede from the United States of America, he nevertheless lit something of a firestorm by saying it might in time become a more popular and even viable notion.
Naturally he has been the recipient of a great deal of criticism, as well as outright support for his statements. Nevertheless, I would have to suggest that if any single state would have a chance of success as a nation in its own right, Texas would have to be one of them. With a wealth of natural resources, agricultural land and facilities, and coastal territory, it might well become a wealthy, prosperous, powerful nation in it's own right.
The true test, however, would be in it's overall success in the long term. The major problem they would have to face would of course be resistance from both within and without to the act of secession. Though they might well weather that storm, however, there is one other that might eventually destroy them.
I am talking here about the prospects for increased illegal immigration. Unless Texas were able and willing to secure their border, they would be doomed in a relatively short period of time by an influx of aliens who would fill their schools, jails, clinics, and hospitals, drain their social services, and flood the job market, all while proving an unbearable tax burden. Crime would of course skyrocket in many, in fact probably in most areas.
I am sympathetic to those in Texas who wish to secede, and feel it might well be a worthwhile experiment. However, unless Texas has the will, determination, courage, and ability to adequately secure their borders, they would soon find themselves flooded with a horde of illegal immigrants who would quickly turn their new nation into the same kind of third world hell hole as the cursed nation from which they came.
Also, by the way, Texas might want to seriously consider closing its border with Mexico as well.
Naturally he has been the recipient of a great deal of criticism, as well as outright support for his statements. Nevertheless, I would have to suggest that if any single state would have a chance of success as a nation in its own right, Texas would have to be one of them. With a wealth of natural resources, agricultural land and facilities, and coastal territory, it might well become a wealthy, prosperous, powerful nation in it's own right.
The true test, however, would be in it's overall success in the long term. The major problem they would have to face would of course be resistance from both within and without to the act of secession. Though they might well weather that storm, however, there is one other that might eventually destroy them.
I am talking here about the prospects for increased illegal immigration. Unless Texas were able and willing to secure their border, they would be doomed in a relatively short period of time by an influx of aliens who would fill their schools, jails, clinics, and hospitals, drain their social services, and flood the job market, all while proving an unbearable tax burden. Crime would of course skyrocket in many, in fact probably in most areas.
I am sympathetic to those in Texas who wish to secede, and feel it might well be a worthwhile experiment. However, unless Texas has the will, determination, courage, and ability to adequately secure their borders, they would soon find themselves flooded with a horde of illegal immigrants who would quickly turn their new nation into the same kind of third world hell hole as the cursed nation from which they came.
Also, by the way, Texas might want to seriously consider closing its border with Mexico as well.
Friday, May 01, 2009
The Middle
Hope everyone had a good Beltane, and hope you have a good May Day. Beltane is the symbolic marriage of the goddess and the god in some paths. May you find the goddess or the god of your heart, and may the path you walk together take you to new lives of prosperity and happiness, and all that good shit. Let nothing stand between you and nothing tear you apart. Well, unless you just decide to call it quits for whatever reason, but that's a different story all together.
Hope you like the song. It seems to fit with the Sabbat in an odd sort of way. Remember, we are all social animals, but we're also individuals as well. Running with the crowd is only good to a point. After a while it smells like dead moose.
Hope you like the song. It seems to fit with the Sabbat in an odd sort of way. Remember, we are all social animals, but we're also individuals as well. Running with the crowd is only good to a point. After a while it smells like dead moose.
Shivaree
Wow, there sure was a dearth of astrological aspects in line for this year's Beltane. The only one of any real significance was around midnight of the 29th, on into the early hours of the 30th when you had the moon in Cancer roughly in sextile with the Sun in Taurus. There were some minor aspects, of course, but they almost aren't worth mentioning, so I won't.
In the context of the Sabbat, I would describe it as a shivaree. The goddess and god are looking forward to their up-coming marriage, and aren't sure of the future, though they are hopeful and optimistic. Then all of a sudden what should appear but a gaggle of friends, knocking on the door where the two are engaged in making their plans for their oh so official nuptials. The god answers the door, whereupon he is immediately snatched up and out on the shoulders of his friends, some of whom also grab hold of the wife. Carrying them out on their shoulders, they carry them to a distant field, where loud music is playing in raucous celebration.
They are dumped on the ground in the mud and get all dirty and stuff, as the friends light the bonfire and pass around the brewskis. They all laugh, the god and goddess look stupid, and they're actually just a little pissed off. But they know they deserve it. After all, what kind of fools get married in this kind of economy. The god is particularly dumb. Doesn't he know if the goddess decides to leave him some liberal judge is going to make sure she gets his shirt, his car, his home, and maybe even his fucking dog to boot?
But for the time being they are happy, and they take the shivaree in good fun. And, being gods, they fuck right there in the field while the bonfire blazes and the kids dance around the Maypole. Well, they were dancing around the Maypole up until then anyway.
That should be a lesson to them all. When two lovers are together on a night before their wedding, it might not be the best of luck, and it might not be the best time to snatch them up for a shivaree. Especially if the god just slipped an aphrodisiac in the goddesses wine.
In the context of the Sabbat, I would describe it as a shivaree. The goddess and god are looking forward to their up-coming marriage, and aren't sure of the future, though they are hopeful and optimistic. Then all of a sudden what should appear but a gaggle of friends, knocking on the door where the two are engaged in making their plans for their oh so official nuptials. The god answers the door, whereupon he is immediately snatched up and out on the shoulders of his friends, some of whom also grab hold of the wife. Carrying them out on their shoulders, they carry them to a distant field, where loud music is playing in raucous celebration.
They are dumped on the ground in the mud and get all dirty and stuff, as the friends light the bonfire and pass around the brewskis. They all laugh, the god and goddess look stupid, and they're actually just a little pissed off. But they know they deserve it. After all, what kind of fools get married in this kind of economy. The god is particularly dumb. Doesn't he know if the goddess decides to leave him some liberal judge is going to make sure she gets his shirt, his car, his home, and maybe even his fucking dog to boot?
But for the time being they are happy, and they take the shivaree in good fun. And, being gods, they fuck right there in the field while the bonfire blazes and the kids dance around the Maypole. Well, they were dancing around the Maypole up until then anyway.
That should be a lesson to them all. When two lovers are together on a night before their wedding, it might not be the best of luck, and it might not be the best time to snatch them up for a shivaree. Especially if the god just slipped an aphrodisiac in the goddesses wine.
Comin' Home
Who better to represent the more positive aspects of the marriage of the goddess and the god at Beltane than two drug-addled and addicted musicians like Delaney And Bonnie, here complete with friends such as George Harrison and Eric Clapton. Seriously, this is some good stuff here. Enjoy. Happy Beltane. And don't do as we do, just do what we fucking tell you, of course.
A Goddess And God In Their Own Minds
Archaeologists may have discovered the burial site of Cleopatra and Marcus Antonius, living would-be deities of their time, somewhere near or under an old temple of Isis. Cool. What better thing to ring in Beltane with than with the news of the finding of the mummies of a couple of disgraced, lecherous, power-hungry idiots who pretty much helped turned the world into an even bigger hell-hole than it already was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)