In a day and age when Iran can grab British Royal Navy sailors out of the Persian gulf with impunity, Nancy Pelosi should be careful where she travels. Her visit to Syrian President Bashar Assad may not amount to a violation of The Logan Act, as I have read, nor might it constitute treason in any other way. On the other hand, she might well be guilty of some violation. I’m not an expert so I’ll reserve judgment one way or another.
I will say one thing though unequivocally. You don’t have to be an expert to see that this was an act of political grandstanding. I’m not really sure what she thought she was going to accomplish, but it looks like a make-believe overture to show her own personal constituents, as well as the overall Democratic voter base, that she, as the head of the Congressional Democrats, second-in-line to the Presidency in her role of Speaker Of The House Of Representatives, is demonstrating that the Democratic Party stands for diplomacy and the hopes and prospects for peace.
The symbolism is obvious. Bush will not talk to Assad. Pelosi will. The Republicans don’t know anything about peace, they are all about belligerence and warfare. The Democrats are all about negotiation and peace. The bumbling misstep when Pelosi informed Assad that the Israelis were wanting to make peace with the Syrians was easily rectified by Prime Minister Ohlmert, who immediately let it be known that any peace deal was dependent on certain conditions that Nancy, being Nancy, neglected to point out.
All of this bothers me, the missteps, the obvious political grandstanding to the Democrats leftist base, the potential violation of The Logan Act or other laws. What some people don’t seem to get by pointing out that some congressional Republicans accompanied Pelosi on this trip, and have indeed made other trips, is that those individuals are not in the position to formulate policy nor are seen as doing so.
Arguably, the office of Speaker Of The House Of Representatives is the second most powerful office in the country, more powerful technically and legally than Vice-President, whose true power is limited to casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate when necessary. Otherwise, none of his duties really constitute any kind of auhority. This may be different in Cheney’s case, true, but I am speaking in historical and legal terms. There have been times when the Speaker was more powerful than certain Presidents. John Tyler, for example. There have been times when there was a complete shutdown of government due to friction between the two offices. Bill Clinton’s Presidency, of course, as well as Andrew Johnsons, were paralyzed by a kind of political civil war waged by an ambitious Congress and/or House Speaker.
Pelosi seems to have wanted this type of power, and foresaw the same kind of political showdown that would get the Democratic base all fired up. When this ended up failing to materialize in the form of the war funding package, to which Pelosi inadvisably attached a troop deadline withdrawal which was slated for a month before the ’08 elections, Pelosi was left with no other option but to back down. Of course, the Democrats are not going to withhold funds from the troops.
Now this, a chance for Pelosi to redeem herself and stick it to the Republicans at the same time. And though Assad, it has been said, preferred to spend his time at a soccer game, he did agree to put aside some time for the strange little woman from San Francisco who appeared before him in the traditional Arab head covering as a sign of respect.
That is what I guess bothers me as much as anything. By appearing with this garment on her head, whether she sees it this way or not, Pelosi was in a very real and symbolic way projecting an image of submission to Assad. And Assad’s Syria, by and large, is arguably the major player in the constant Middle East friction regarding Israel and to the dismay of many observers is primarily responsible for a good deal of the Sunni insurgent violence in Iraq. It is by way of his borders that most of the non-Iraqi Sunni insurgents travel, after all.
Nor are they all Syrians. Many are Saudis, while a good many as well are Jordanians,in fact from all areas of the Middle East and other Muslim nations. Pelosi is not qualified to engage in diplomacy with him in any event, whether or not her trip constitutes any kind of breach or willful violation of US law. But for her to appear under these further conditions is incredible. A San Francisco woman, representing a constituency which is a bedrock of liberalism and feminism, to appear in an attitude of subjugation before the head of a country where the rights of women are held to be secondary at best, is at least surreal.
And it is not even as though Syria is the worse offender in this regard, in fact, a Syrian woman is probably by and large better off than a woman in, say, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or most other Arab or Muslim nations, due to the fact that Syria is after all ruled by a secular regime that does not abide by shariah law. There is a good argument to be made for engaging Assad diplomatically, actually for a variety of reasons, the secular nature of his regime being one of them. Personally, I think the main reason he is lax at his borders has as much to do with wanting these religious radicals out of his country as it does with wanting to cause a problem for the US and the present Iraqi government. If they get killed by us as a result, I doubt he is shedding any tears for them.
But Bush is doggedly determined that the entire Middle East will be democratized, feeling the overall result of this will be peace and economic progress in the region, and long term stability. I think he is wrong, I think it would result in nation after nation adopting a form of shariah law which will then be considered the final word on the matter.
After all, the people will have voted for it, right? That is what they will have said they wanted, correct? End of story. Democracy has spoken, why second guess it every four years or so?
Womens’ rights? Minority rights? Religious rights? Of course they all have rights? There is no need whatsoever in spelling that out in a national constitution. Their legitimate rights have already been spelled out, in the words of the Holy Qu’ran. How could the law of man possibly improve on that?
This is the true irony, the fact that governments like Assads, and yes, Saddams, were in some ways an actual improvement over what would otherwise be the case, and what will in the majority of cases be the reality if Bush and the Neo-Cons get their way in the Middle East.
That is not to say that a constitutional democracy will never take hold in the Middle East. Just that if it does, it is still a hell of a long way off. Three or four lifetimes, at the very least, and very likely longer than that. And yes, very possibly never. People point to the success ultimately in removing communism from the Soviet Union and it’s sphere of influence particularly in Eastern Europe, as proof that it is possible, but there is only minimal comparison between the two.
Communism is unnatural, so much so it could only be maintained through fear and force, even by imprisonment of it’s peoples within it’s borders, by uprooting entire populations in some cases. The difference between communism and Islam is profound in this regard. Islam is, or seems to be, perfectly suited to the nature of it’s adherents. It has had fourteen hundred years to take root in the psyche of the Arab people of the Middle East, and many hundreds of years as well in the cases of other peoples. And it wasn’t that hard to take hold in any event, as it itself was in many cases and in many ways an improvement over what those people had experienced previously.
With Islam, they were given a sense of unity, of cultural identity, of spiritual meaning, of assurance, stability, security. They got all of this without really having to give anything up, for the most part, with the exception of a few ancient idols that were quickly forgotten, and constant intermittent tribal feuds. With Islam, they went from being dessert varmints to an actual civilization to be reckoned with, and everyone was an integral part of that.
Then there is the Qu’ran itself, written in Arabic, one of the worlds great languages, which lends itself easily to poetry, which is what the Qu’ran is, a poetic rendition of what amounts to a mixture of Arab tribal laws and adaptations from various faiths, including Judaism and Christianity, with just enough remaining of the ancient Arabic pagan religion to provide a cultural anchor.
Converts to Islam are encouraged whenever possible to learn Arabic, to travel to the Middle East and study there, especially the language, and I suspect that it is because the Arabic language makes the Qu’ran more particularly compelling to the student who meditates and prayers and recites it on an on-going, regular basis.
You can make the case that it amounts to a form of brainwashing. In this regard it is certainly on a much higher level of efficiency than, say, “Das Capital”. Try reciting that five times a day while bowing towards Moscow. Then you’ll see why Assad and Saddam had to exercise such brutality in the manner in which they kept these people in line. Life is seldom pretty, but when the caliphate fell in the aftermath of World War I, after which came such things as western colonialism on it’s last legs, culminating in the British Mandate, the UN Charter, and finally, Soviet expansionism and the ever growing and constant need for oil, you can begin to understand the pattern that emerges.
All of this used to be pretty much understood, of course. There was never any idea that democracy versus socialism was a viable or winnable ideological contest in the context of the Middle East countries, that is why there were few differences of distinction between Western allies and those nations that fell under the Soviet axis.
The lesson should have been quickly learned when the Afghan mujahadeen fighters repulsed the Soviets with our aid and support. Those same mujahadden to a large extent went on to make up the Taliban. Not exactly a stellar example of freedom on the march, is it? Well, it depends on what your definition of freedom is, I guess. And that is just the problem the West can’t wrap it’s head around. Freedom, in the context of Middle Eastern Arab and Islamic culture, does not seem to equate to democracy and civil rights.
But again, both sides have it wrong. To the Right, the speak softly and when necessary whack ‘em with a big stick approach will work over time, and when the people see the long term benefits of a free market economy, they will gradually change. Yeah, like China. Like Russia. I guess when you stop to think about it, ancient Babylon, the wealthiest nation by far at it’s apex of power, must have been a “free market economy.” But let’s not dwell on that, why disturb the fantasy?
The make nice approach of the left isn’t any better, though in the long term it may also not be any worse when it comes to encouraging democracy and civil rights. Their approach seems to hinge on the threat of imposition of economic sanction, or the promise of removal of same, under the auspices of the UN. In the meantime, a firm diplomatic stance involving aid and international low interest loans and grants will serve best to ease the restrictions on those same peoples rights to vote for or against the imposition of shariah Islam.
The people will vote in their own best interests, and will more likely do so the more they are exposed to the ideals of democracy, freedom, and civil rights. After all, they certainly want to be a part of the world community, no one wants to remain isolated for the sake of some ancient religion, right?
Okay, here’s the problem with both approaches. They are arrived at from the narrow perspective of Western concepts of justice and idealism, and history. Both of these conclusions have been reached from a Western mind-set with little if any regard for the fact that we are dealing here with a society and culture that, to all intents and purposes, has so little in common with our own way of life and philosophy, they might as well be from the far side of Andromeda galaxy.
Arrogance, is what it amounts to, and on such a remarkable level it is beyond description. And the sad thing is, it is in the long run only going to result in more tragedy, more ruined lives, more wasted resources, and ever more bitterness and hatred. To an extent it might have been unavoidable in any event. But that reality should have been faced squarely.
It’s like telling a fat, profoundly ugly woman that she is the prettiest woman you have ever seen in your life. You might think you are sparring her feelings and might make her feel better about herself. Well, if she has any kind of sense of reality, all you are really going to do is piss her off and make her hate and resent you more than she already might. So the only sensible alternative is to see her for what she is, help her improve her situation to the extent she wants to and can improve, and help her in the meantime to focus on developing her potential by way of what strengths and talents she might actually possess. But you have to do so in a kindly but firmly diplomatic way. Otherwise, you just let her go on and live her life as is. There is only so much, after all, you can do.
All the bombs and military force in the world is not going to change reality. Neither is appearing as a woman in a diplomatically miscalculated pose of subjugation. The only thing that is going to do it, is strength, the kind of strength that realizes the simple fact that all nations, all people, all cultures, are in fact different to a degree, sometimes to the point that there is nothing in a relationship between the two that is redeemable, or workable. Sometimes, unfortunately, you just have to go your separate ways, and live your own lives.
Unfortunately, that requires the setting of firm boundaries, and the promise of the assurance of firm reaction when those boundaries are breached. And that is something that neither culture can tolerate. What puts the West for now at the most severe disadvantage is that here, while neither the left nor the right can stomach it, they are both so divided as to how to deal with it , that neither side can come to grips with any semblance of the reality.
The Islamists are all too aware of this, and play it for all it is worth. And they are by no means divided, at least not when it comes to that.
Showing posts with label Politically Correct Bullshit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politically Correct Bullshit. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
And It's So Easy Even A Caveman Can Do It.
In the Geico commercial, the pundit interviewer is told by an apparent female sociologist that “we are living in a day when individual ego is predominant.”
The opposing viewpoint is delivered by the caveman, who when invited to reply, says, “yes I have a response. Uuuuu-WHAT?”
Point taken. We are living in an age of hive mentality, and this is especially true when it comes to minority culture, it seems. A perceived or real slight at any one member or segment of a particular society is seen as an assault on the dignity of the entire hive, and no one now is learning this lesson better than is Don Imus, the radio talk show host of the CBS show “Imus In The Morning”, which is simulcast on MSNBC in the mornings Monday through Friday from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.
The “nappy headed hoes”, to borrow the offending Imus quote, of the Rutgers University Scarlet Knights Women’s Basketball team, who just lost to Tennessee in the championship NCAA women’s basketball tournament, certainly have a right to take offense and even to demand the firing of Don Imus, and truthfully, Imus has purposely disturbed enough hornets nests to know better by now. He is currently on a two week suspension from both CBS and MSNBC, and could very well end up being fired for this remark, despite the fact that he actually made them with a degree of admiration. In fact, he personally knows one of the players (who has also nevertheless expressed offense at the statement).
He certainly at least owes them an apology. But does he owe an apology to Al Sharpton, whose radio show Imus voluntarily appeared on? He did so doing as he has done non-stop the last several days, apologizing profusely while maintaining that he is a good person. Sharpton was not impressed, and called forth his own daughter. She stepped forward, whereupon Sharpton informed Imus that she, his daughter, was not a “nappy headed hoe.”
So, is the offending words the observation that the girls are “nappy headed”? Or that they are “hoes”? I could see where the first would apply to Sharpton’s daughter, and perhaps she should have a right to feel insulted at this slang. But I don’t see how the second qualifies as an offense to the daughter of Al Sharpton, unless she knows something her father evidently doesn’t. Unless they are implying that Imus meant that if you are nappy headed, then you must be a ho, especially if you are a college woman’s basketball team player with tattoos. Personally, I don’t think the man meant it that way, nor do I think he really meant it as an insult. I tend to think Don Imus just hasn’t caught on to the fact that he isn’t black.
Like I said, the girls have a right to take serious exception to this, and even they might be taking it hard to some extent for the wrong reason. One of them stated that they worked hard to get to where they got, in their underdog status, to rise to the level of playing in the NCAA championship game, and Imus took away from that sense of accomplishment. Yes, I can see that point. Then, unfortunately, one went on to inform us that they are “the future leaders of tomorrow”.
With that, she almost through what sympathy I initially had out the window. No matter how well you do in life, you’re still just like all the rest of us, just another cog in the wheel of life. You are just as deserving of respect, but no more so, than anybody else. That being said, these young women are certainly more deserving of respect than is implied by the term “ho”, nappy headed or otherwise. But that is true of any non-ho from any branch of society. If she or they think otherwise, maybe their egos needed to be brought down a notch or two. But so too does Don Imus, perhaps.
I just wonder how long the Sharpton’s and Jacksons of the world have been laying for him. Perhaps ever since show producer Bernard MacGurk delivered a scathing satirical “poetry” reading supposedly from Maya Angelou, in which the poetess delivered a tribute to her black ancestors, bemoaning the fact that the white man, “took from you your pride, your dignity-your spears.”
Yes, Imus has long been a raw, edgy, at times over the top show that always pushed the envelope, to use all the standard cliches in one line, but now he might soon be gone. After this week, of course, after he has concluded a telethon to raise money for children’s charities. Then, there are plans for Imus to meet with the Rutgers women’s team. Then, soon, the decision will be made. It don’t look good. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are sticking to their guns in demanding that Imus be fired, and in the meantime at least one advertiser has threatened to withhold sponsorship, while at least one more is seriously considering taking the same action.
It would certainly save me the trouble of deciding whether or not to return to expanded cable. If they fire him, that would take away my main reason for paying the extra money for it, and certainly for watching MSNBC. But like I said, he’s pretty much brought this on himself. I could moan here and go on about the First Amendment, but really, the First Amendment cuts both ways. Sponsors have a right to withhold support and station owners and broadcasters have a right to respond to that reality, every bit as much as Imus technically has the right to make an ass of himself. In the grand scheme of things the First Amendment is pretty much worth just about as much as the paper it is reproduced on.
Especially when you consider that he has also seriously damaged his credibility as a host who typically can get major political interviews with politicians and presidential candidates, respected journalists, performers, and newsmakers of all stripes. John Edwards has been a frequent guest in the past, as has John McCain. Both of these and others might well be rethinking the wisdom of such appearances now.
Maybe he should just call it off, and bow out gracefully. There is always Sirius, or XM Satellite. After all, a big part of the current controversy stems from the fact that the public networks are in fact federally regulated, in addition to corporate sponsored. The First Amendment still applies, however, it is a true democracy. Unfortunately, what that amounts to these days is a kind of mob rule that fuels and drives a corporate plutocracy, with the rule of law executed by advertising dollars.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Wackjobs Have Rights Too
I never thought I would ever see the day that I would defend the right of uber-bitch Rosie O'Donnell to be a stupid ass, but that's just what I'm doing here. She has now officially joined the ranks of British historian and holocaust denier David Irving and those two little Nazi muppets Lynx and Lamb Gaede, of Prussian Blue, as permanently enshrined members of The Pagan Temple's Twilight Zone. Why?
Submitted for your approval: Rosie O'Donnell, progressive gay feminist activist and child advocate, comedienne, and all around pain in the ass, has come out publicly on ABC's The View with the opinion that 9/11 might well be an inside job designed to ignite support for the "war on terror".
She has further stated that the current dilemna of the British navy and marines personnel, to wit being held hostage by their Iranian captors for supposedly entering Iranian territorial waters, might actually have been purposely set up by Britain to pave the way for an invasion of Iran by the US. We will invade Iran soon, as planned, she promises.
She has made it clear on her blog and on The View, the ABC morning show of which she is a co-hostess, that she is a stalwart Bush basher and is willing to believe the worse about the administration, even to the point that she is wiling to accuse them of potential complicity in the terrorist attacks that caused the deaths of 3000 Americans in one fell swoop.
I've all but torn my hair out in the past at the ignorance of these ridiculous conspiracy theories, but here I find myself on O'Donnell's side, not because I have suddenly and amazingly come to some mystical revelation that she and her conspiracy theory whackjob adherents are right after all, but-
Enter Bill O'Reilly, of Fox New's "The O'Reilly Factor". According to him, Rosie should be fired for perpetuating these conspiracy theories, for the crimes of supporting the government of Iran and standing against her own country, and for causing pain and suffering to the victims of the attacks and those who lost life and limb in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, their families, etc.
Donald Trump of course chimed in saying he too believed O'Donnell should be fired, for pretty much all these same reasons, and presumably for being a fat ugly slob as well.
My response-Why do you hate America, Mr. Trump? Mr. O'Reilly, why do you hate freedumb?
As repugnant as I consider O'Donnell and many if not most of her views, including these reported here,she has as much a right to promote them as anyone has a right to promote any view. As some of O'Reilly's guests intimated to him on the subject, if O'Donnell is fired, it should be because Rosie's presence is demonstrated to have cost the program viewers. O'Reilly insists that it has, though I have heard other claims to the contrary. Perhaps that is why O'Reilly insists the ABC Network should take the step of firing her for her irresponsible behavior.
Sorry, but I consider that the proverbial slippery slope involving one of our most precious freedoms, the First Amendment right to free speech. Granted, it can be abused. You can't or are not supposed to incite violence, purposely engage in slander or libel, or engage in giving aid and comfort to the enemy, for just some examples.
Taken one at a time-in Rosie's surreal world, it is the US and the Bush Administration who is inciting violence, she is trying to do her part to end it.
Slander and libel have to be proven to be purposefully engaged in, otherwise the onus is on Bush and the Administration to disprove the claims.
Actually the true onus is on the American people to recognize bullshit whackjob conspiracy theories when they hear them, but that's a different matter.
As for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, we are technically not at war with a country, but with a radical ideology. Iran may be our enemies in a sense, but not in the legally binding sense of declarations of war. Neither are we at war with Iraq or Afghanistan as those nations are legitimately defined. Until such time as O'Donnell gives verifiable aid and assistance to a specific individual or group of people that are known terrorists, therefore, she is pretty much in the clear.
True, O'Donnell's views might be legitimately viewed as traitorous-but she is not technically a traitor. Some might even hold forth the view that she is a patriot. The point is, when it gets to the point that activists and pundits can demand that a person be removed from their jobs for holding forth views they consider repugnant, where does it end?
Again, I come by this position honestly. I have watched with bemusement and amazement as it has been demanded that people be fired for, for example, stating that blacks are good at certain sports due to the way their ancestors were bred by former slave-owners. Makes sense to me, so why the fuss? Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, does it warrant a person being fired? Nope. Not in my opinion.
Neither should Michael Richards be continuosly tortured for his unfortunate use of "the N word" in a comedy performance. Neither should Mel Gibson be constantly derided for his drunken anti-Semitic tirade every time he is mentioned in public. Neither should an actor from the hit ABC drama "Grey's Anatomy" lose his job over his use of the slang word "faggot" (especially when he used it in the context of denying that he called another performer on the show that derogatory name).
And neither should Rosie O'Donnel be fired,despite the fact that she makes me want to see somebody just slap the living shit out of her sometimes. After all, she would be the first person to take the first opportunity to herself demand that somebody else be punished for saying something that she found offensive.
So yes, it's fine to get some satisfaction out of the prospect of the chickens coming home to roost. But the First Amendment is more important than Rosie O'Donnell,or any of the people I have mentioned in the context of this post.
To me, Rosie O'Donnell is a person with a lot of inner rage that seems to me to approach hatred. Just look at her long enough and you can see what I mean. She might hide it for awhile, but the woman oozes anger and rage all but seeps from her pores. Personally, I think she was molested as a child or teenager by a trusted family member or friend and never came to grips with it. That's one reason why she is so involved with children's issues, and yet, so far as I know, she stays relatively clear of child sex abuse issues. I might be wrong here, if so it would be understandable, as I don't watch Rosie O'Donnell enough to know in great detail what her positions all are. I do know she derided Michael Jackson from time to time, but shit, who hasn't?
Of course the question needs to be asked, why wouldn't she set an example and step forward? Well, remember, Rosie is perhaps most importantly known as a gay activist. For her to step forward and admit to being a victim of incest or some other form of sexual exploitation or molestation would invite questions as to the reasons for her sexuality. And the idea that some people might draw the conclusion that Rosie's lesbianism is based on such a serious psychological trauma as molestation would not be conducive to mainstreaming and acceptance of the gay lifestyle. That would be just too much for her to bear.
As a result, she keeps it hidden within, and the rage builds and builds, until it suddenly erupts, with more and more frequency as the more time passes, it seems. She seems to have a particularly hateful view of authority figures. Or maybe it's just conservative authority figures.
Of course, I could be just as wrong and off base on all this as Rosie is about 9/11, the current Iran hostage crisis, and, well, just about every issue she opens her mouth about. However, I have a right to express my views within reason, and so does she. Yes, I understand that she would probably not be as tolerant of my right to free speech as I am of hers, but what the hell? If ABC fires Rosie it should be solely for the reason that she is causing The Views ratings to go down the tube. No other reason is acceptable, and as such, and until such time, Rosie should stay put, though it would be nice were The View to give equal time to other viewpoints. Again, that's on them too.
So, I guess that's it. To paraphrase the words of the character Jim Halpert from the NBC hit comedy "The Office"-
Congratulations, Universe. You win.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The Politics Of Silence
Barak Obama recently responded to a question about the North Carolina, Duke University, LaCrosse team rape case charges by asserting that Mike Nifong, the prosecutor of the case, should be investigated for a variety of alleged offenses, notably the purposeful withholding of potentially exculpatory evidence in the case. Obama said this in response to a question from the forums of Liestoppers, who have a blog which I have now placed on the blogroll. You can access the forums from the blog.
My question is, where the hell is John Edwards in this? He of all presidential candidates, democrat or republican, should be especially interested in the case developments as, after all, he is from North Carolina. I linked to his web-site and to his issues page here, which is amusingly short-half a screen of blank page.
Well, John, you could easily add to the volume of this page by simply stating that you are for equal justice and rights to legal representation for all Americans, black or white, rich or poor. Wouldn’t that fit in with your usual campaign schpiel about “Two Americas”?
You wouldn’t even have to specifically mention the Duke LaCrosse case. But, really, why wouldn’t you? You made your reputation and considerable wealth as a trial attorney in North Carolina, you grew up there, and you represented the interests of North Carolina-allegedly-in one term as a US Senator. When you ran for Vice-President on the Kerry-Edwards Democratic ticket in 2004, it was as a native son of North Carolina.
How hard can it be to say that Nifong should be investigated and if the charges of prosecutorial misconduct aimed at him turn out to be true, he should be disbarred and face criminal prosecution his own self? Was it perhaps because he was a supporter of yours in the past?
Cool. I want to rob my neighborhood bank. If I promise to donate ten percent of the proceeds to your campaign can I count on your friendship and support? Naw, I didn’t think so. So why don’t you just do the obviously sensible thing and lay your cards on the table? How hard can it be to just do the right thing?
In fact, why don’t any of the Democrats besides Obama speak up? Are they so afraid of losing the monolithic black vote in North Carolina that they are willing to shut up in the face of an obvious attempted miscarriage of justice in the form of an illicit prosecution of a group of innocent men on false charges of rape? After all, isn’t it obvious that Nifong got himself into trouble, when this charge was first made during the course of an election season, by pandering to his black base in Durham? Isn’t it equally obvious that the NAACP and other black activist groups, leaders, and supporters unfairly demanded this persecution of the white students for political reasons? Why pander to the likes of people like that?
Please explain to me, how does this make the Democrats any better than certain corrupt Republicans that always look out for the interests of their crooked (in some cases) rich friends and big business interests, regardless of the potentially harmful consequences and the innate unfairness of it all? No difference that I can tell.
Again, I have to stress that Obama does deserve some credit for his publicly stated stance in this matter. On the other hand, he is a black politician, and it must be considered that, in the bizzarro parallel universe of Democratic party politics, he being a black man is allowed to criticize blacks when they demand en masse the persecution of whites despite the lack of evidence. White politicians are not allowed to do so, in fact, they should either take the oppossite position, or shut the fuck up.
There are many reasons why Democrats on the national level rarely win elections in the South. Some of those reasons are good reasons, some are bad reasons. This would be an example of one of the good reasons. It should be John Edwards as a native North Carolinian who should lead the way here. It’s one thing to exhibit personal fortitude in the face of breast cancer, or political acumen in the removal of bloggers with a decidedly anti-Catholic bias. But those are the kinds of acts of courage that can hardly be considered controversial, they could even arguably be considered self-serving. A true act of courage is one that could conceivably cost support, such as a stand in this matter. But Edwards, like most Democrats, have pandered to their base for so long, perhaps a reversal from normal procedure in a controversy such as this is just too much to hope for.
Hat tip here goes to Sonia Belle, who doesn’t wear a hat, or anything else, with which to tip back. Her original post can be accessed by clicking the link which is in this post's title.
My question is, where the hell is John Edwards in this? He of all presidential candidates, democrat or republican, should be especially interested in the case developments as, after all, he is from North Carolina. I linked to his web-site and to his issues page here, which is amusingly short-half a screen of blank page.
Well, John, you could easily add to the volume of this page by simply stating that you are for equal justice and rights to legal representation for all Americans, black or white, rich or poor. Wouldn’t that fit in with your usual campaign schpiel about “Two Americas”?
You wouldn’t even have to specifically mention the Duke LaCrosse case. But, really, why wouldn’t you? You made your reputation and considerable wealth as a trial attorney in North Carolina, you grew up there, and you represented the interests of North Carolina-allegedly-in one term as a US Senator. When you ran for Vice-President on the Kerry-Edwards Democratic ticket in 2004, it was as a native son of North Carolina.
How hard can it be to say that Nifong should be investigated and if the charges of prosecutorial misconduct aimed at him turn out to be true, he should be disbarred and face criminal prosecution his own self? Was it perhaps because he was a supporter of yours in the past?
Cool. I want to rob my neighborhood bank. If I promise to donate ten percent of the proceeds to your campaign can I count on your friendship and support? Naw, I didn’t think so. So why don’t you just do the obviously sensible thing and lay your cards on the table? How hard can it be to just do the right thing?
In fact, why don’t any of the Democrats besides Obama speak up? Are they so afraid of losing the monolithic black vote in North Carolina that they are willing to shut up in the face of an obvious attempted miscarriage of justice in the form of an illicit prosecution of a group of innocent men on false charges of rape? After all, isn’t it obvious that Nifong got himself into trouble, when this charge was first made during the course of an election season, by pandering to his black base in Durham? Isn’t it equally obvious that the NAACP and other black activist groups, leaders, and supporters unfairly demanded this persecution of the white students for political reasons? Why pander to the likes of people like that?
Please explain to me, how does this make the Democrats any better than certain corrupt Republicans that always look out for the interests of their crooked (in some cases) rich friends and big business interests, regardless of the potentially harmful consequences and the innate unfairness of it all? No difference that I can tell.
Again, I have to stress that Obama does deserve some credit for his publicly stated stance in this matter. On the other hand, he is a black politician, and it must be considered that, in the bizzarro parallel universe of Democratic party politics, he being a black man is allowed to criticize blacks when they demand en masse the persecution of whites despite the lack of evidence. White politicians are not allowed to do so, in fact, they should either take the oppossite position, or shut the fuck up.
There are many reasons why Democrats on the national level rarely win elections in the South. Some of those reasons are good reasons, some are bad reasons. This would be an example of one of the good reasons. It should be John Edwards as a native North Carolinian who should lead the way here. It’s one thing to exhibit personal fortitude in the face of breast cancer, or political acumen in the removal of bloggers with a decidedly anti-Catholic bias. But those are the kinds of acts of courage that can hardly be considered controversial, they could even arguably be considered self-serving. A true act of courage is one that could conceivably cost support, such as a stand in this matter. But Edwards, like most Democrats, have pandered to their base for so long, perhaps a reversal from normal procedure in a controversy such as this is just too much to hope for.
Hat tip here goes to Sonia Belle, who doesn’t wear a hat, or anything else, with which to tip back. Her original post can be accessed by clicking the link which is in this post's title.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
The Pope And The Witch (And The Bitch)
I think I’ve come up with a master plan to achieve literary success, and it’s almost sure-fire. Just write a movie script, tv script, novel or play that is offensive-the more offensive the better-to Bill Donahue, the head of the Catholic Leaque. He’s sure to go on all the major news networks caterwauling like a little bitch, and you’ve got more publicity than you could possibly have imagined, for not one red dime.
That’s the way it seems, anyway. Just a couple of months ago, he went after little Dakota Fanning, of all people, for portraying a character who becomes a rape victim in a movie. He must not have raked in much in the way of contributions from that controversy, as it seemed to die out relatively quick. Now, he’s found another target-a school play, of all things (you would think catholic leaders would know better than to harass child stars and school play performances, but I guess some people just don’t have a sense of irony), called “The Pope And The Witch”.
Here is a very brief synopses of the play. The Pope in question is in a state of anxiety over an impending visit of a hundred thousand children from the third world. No, you wags, not because he doesn’t know possibly how he can ever secretly pick out the most attractive from such a large number in the middle of what will be a media circus. It’s because he thinks it’s all part of a leftist plot to embarrass the Catholic Church over it’s doctrinaire stance on birth control. These children are all from impoverished regions, and families, and they are soon to arrive in Saint Peter’s Square for an audience.
Sometime during the play, the Pope engages in a dialoque with an African shaman (the “witch” of the title), with whom I imagine he engages in a narrative exchange pertaining to wisdom, righteousness, and the responsibilities and consequences of power.
Yeah, it sounds kind of cheesy to me too, and if I had to wager money, I would be willing to bet the play is indeed somewhat anti-Catholic. Does that give Donahue the right to complain about the school’s production? Yes. Does it give him the right to issue a response? Yes.
Did it give him the right to demand the school stop production of the play, which was scheduled to be performed from March 1-9 at the University of Minnesota? No, in my opinion. Luckily, in what Donahue calls a "collapse of leadership" the school decided to go ahead with this example of what Donahue called "hate speech".
What Donahue and his cartel of supporters were attempting, obviously, was the censorship of a work of art that didn't meet their approval. And, thankfully, censorship lost, this time.
And I come at this position honestly as one who is totally opposed to all forms of censorship, save in the following cases- is the work in question slanderous/libelous? Does it encourage incitement to violence? Does it contain child pornography?
In the case of the play in question, the answers would seem to be no, no, and no. So there’s your answer, Bill Donahue-no dice.
So, how about my ideas?
BURN- A drama in which a group of early Christians plan out the burning of Rome in the days of Nero, and carry it out, resulting in the entire movement being persecuted.
So, would this be slanderous? A case could be made for that, I guess, but on the other hand, this is theoretically within the realm of possibility. In point of fact, this is actually what I honestly believe happened. Also, there are no living people that could be directly impacted by the accusation, of course, so no one would be unfairly maligned by such a theory( involving fictional characters), which again, is a most reasonable assumption to make. So, let Billy bitch, about this one and others, such as-
THE PROMISED LAND-A comedy in which a Catholic Priest, whose parish is in danger of shutting down, becomes involved with coyotes smuggling illegal immigrants into his parish in order to increase his flock, which becomes filled with drug smugglers and prostitutes, and gang members. His parish prospers due to the influx of illegal money but his conscience takes a hit-especially when he is investigated by the authorities-though he is encouraged by many of his superiors.
FATAL CHOICE-Yet another Catholic Priest, one involved in the Pro-Life movement, undergoes a crises of faith when he learns the Anti-Christ is soon to be born. He comes to suspect that the mother is a woman in his parish who is-yes, seeking an abortion.
And, finally-
CUTE-
Guess what this one is about? If you need a clue, put it this way: I have to be careful that it doesn’t cross over the line into the realm of matching my third criterion for acceptable censorship.
On the other hand, I’ll probably never write this one, or in fact any of these, I’ve got too many irons in the fire as it is. But just in case I change my mind, I will be counting on Billy Bud, Wailer, for all the publicity I need to make the debut of whichever one I might choose a resounding success.
Hat Tip To Renegade Eye, my cool communist friend who, if communism ever does take over, I hope is put in charge of all the Gulags.
That’s the way it seems, anyway. Just a couple of months ago, he went after little Dakota Fanning, of all people, for portraying a character who becomes a rape victim in a movie. He must not have raked in much in the way of contributions from that controversy, as it seemed to die out relatively quick. Now, he’s found another target-a school play, of all things (you would think catholic leaders would know better than to harass child stars and school play performances, but I guess some people just don’t have a sense of irony), called “The Pope And The Witch”.
Here is a very brief synopses of the play. The Pope in question is in a state of anxiety over an impending visit of a hundred thousand children from the third world. No, you wags, not because he doesn’t know possibly how he can ever secretly pick out the most attractive from such a large number in the middle of what will be a media circus. It’s because he thinks it’s all part of a leftist plot to embarrass the Catholic Church over it’s doctrinaire stance on birth control. These children are all from impoverished regions, and families, and they are soon to arrive in Saint Peter’s Square for an audience.
Sometime during the play, the Pope engages in a dialoque with an African shaman (the “witch” of the title), with whom I imagine he engages in a narrative exchange pertaining to wisdom, righteousness, and the responsibilities and consequences of power.
Yeah, it sounds kind of cheesy to me too, and if I had to wager money, I would be willing to bet the play is indeed somewhat anti-Catholic. Does that give Donahue the right to complain about the school’s production? Yes. Does it give him the right to issue a response? Yes.
Did it give him the right to demand the school stop production of the play, which was scheduled to be performed from March 1-9 at the University of Minnesota? No, in my opinion. Luckily, in what Donahue calls a "collapse of leadership" the school decided to go ahead with this example of what Donahue called "hate speech".
What Donahue and his cartel of supporters were attempting, obviously, was the censorship of a work of art that didn't meet their approval. And, thankfully, censorship lost, this time.
And I come at this position honestly as one who is totally opposed to all forms of censorship, save in the following cases- is the work in question slanderous/libelous? Does it encourage incitement to violence? Does it contain child pornography?
In the case of the play in question, the answers would seem to be no, no, and no. So there’s your answer, Bill Donahue-no dice.
So, how about my ideas?
BURN- A drama in which a group of early Christians plan out the burning of Rome in the days of Nero, and carry it out, resulting in the entire movement being persecuted.
So, would this be slanderous? A case could be made for that, I guess, but on the other hand, this is theoretically within the realm of possibility. In point of fact, this is actually what I honestly believe happened. Also, there are no living people that could be directly impacted by the accusation, of course, so no one would be unfairly maligned by such a theory( involving fictional characters), which again, is a most reasonable assumption to make. So, let Billy bitch, about this one and others, such as-
THE PROMISED LAND-A comedy in which a Catholic Priest, whose parish is in danger of shutting down, becomes involved with coyotes smuggling illegal immigrants into his parish in order to increase his flock, which becomes filled with drug smugglers and prostitutes, and gang members. His parish prospers due to the influx of illegal money but his conscience takes a hit-especially when he is investigated by the authorities-though he is encouraged by many of his superiors.
FATAL CHOICE-Yet another Catholic Priest, one involved in the Pro-Life movement, undergoes a crises of faith when he learns the Anti-Christ is soon to be born. He comes to suspect that the mother is a woman in his parish who is-yes, seeking an abortion.
And, finally-
CUTE-
Guess what this one is about? If you need a clue, put it this way: I have to be careful that it doesn’t cross over the line into the realm of matching my third criterion for acceptable censorship.
On the other hand, I’ll probably never write this one, or in fact any of these, I’ve got too many irons in the fire as it is. But just in case I change my mind, I will be counting on Billy Bud, Wailer, for all the publicity I need to make the debut of whichever one I might choose a resounding success.
Hat Tip To Renegade Eye, my cool communist friend who, if communism ever does take over, I hope is put in charge of all the Gulags.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Defending The Patriarchy
Alas, I am a troll, and my comments have been banned from a certain site due to their excessive trollishness. No, I won’t say who they are, however if you care to memorize the contents of this sites blogroll, you might be able to figure out who they are once they have been deleted from the list. Hurry though, it won’t be there much longer. Truthfully, this will hurt me much more than it will hurt them, judging from the relative larger number of comments per average post on their site than mine, but on the other hand, they never bothered to reciprocate my linkage, so maybe not. At least I got their attention momentarily.
So what is all this about? Well, they insist that the evil patriarchy should be demolished. I disagree. I think it should be reformed from within, assumming it needs to be reformed at all..
I also dare to hold that patriarchy has it’s beneficial components as well as it’s most obvious negative ones, and further that a “feminarchy” would (gasp) hold a comparable ratio of positive to negative aspects. As such, being male, I would remain entrenched in said patriarchy, other than working to reform it from within, though this would not be, as they wrongly assummed, from a privileged position.
And, selfish human being that I am, yes, I demand credit and appreciation for my efforts. This really gets to them for some reason, they seem to hold the position that you should do something because it is right, and expect no appreciation for that. Oh, I take that back, they modified that position. It depends on the quantity of work you do (are you willing to engage in unquestioning drone labor) or the quality (can you demagogue and lead said mindless drones to the new paradise of feminist domination, errrr, equality).
Otherwise, just being for something, donating a little time, money, and say, voting for the appropriate political candidate, such minor details as living by example, gets you not so much as a smidgen of respect. Yeah, try selling that to a skeptical to begin with public.
Anyway, I’m a troll, i.e., someone who doesn’t agree one hundred per cent with the party line and dares to question the validity of it’s observations and conclusions.
Well, ok, and also I guess because I related that “my bitch” had best not stand in the way of the tv screen when the game is on. Just bring on the cold cuts. Can I help it that I’ve got an edgy sense of humor? Actually, while I do have that, in reality I do not have a “bitch”.
I also don’t have a lot to do with the patriarchy. I have not personally benefited from it. According to them, you see, all males pretty much have benefited from it by just the obviousness of their male-ishness, though they later modified this position as well to denote that many men have not.
The patriarchy has been with us for some time, though. It was invented by the United States founding fathers, by way of their purposefully malicious bending of the words of the Bible, and then enshrined into the constitution. George Bush recently unveiled plans for a new cabinet department, the Department of Patriarchal Security.
I’m kidding. Actually patriarchy predates not only the US, it also predates Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Neo-Pagan/Wiccan mythology to the contrary, the ancient pagan cultures were patriarchal, for the most part. Their goddess cults pretty much not only defended it, they promoted it. Their goddesses were all good little girls who did what Daddy Zeus told them, unless they were shrewish bitches like wife Hera, or out and out sluts like Aphrodite. This example of course is the Graeco-Roman one, but all pagan cults pretty much toed the patriarchal line.
Women were bartered by their fathers as young girls to the proper mate (a scion of the wealthiest family the woman could be arranged to be married into). Women had no say, were considered their husband’s property, could be divorced at will, while men had the ultimate last word in all matters of both major and minor importance. Women may have ruled their children in some respects, but even here the man had the final say. Women could own no property, could not hold public office. While there have been notable examples of exceptions to these rules, by and large this was the reality of the ancient world. Women were chattel. Their lives and the quality thereof were dependant solely on first their fathers, and then their husbands, and finally, their sons if they were fortunate enough-or unfortunate enough-to survive their spouses.
And of course men have ruled since the days of recorded history, and so far as any available evidence attests, well before then.
Thing shave gotten better, though. There is a social evolution as well as any other kind, and patriarchy has fallen under the sway of mother nature as much as anything. And it will continue to do so. Thus the feminazis can continue to rail against it, will probably even make minor temporary progress from time to time, but for the most part theirs is an impotent rage with no real point.
Just, “look at me. I’m against the patriarchy, so I’m great and wise. If you are not against it you are a part of the problem so you are scum. But if you change your mind and are against it you still don’t get to be great and wise like I am.”
Oh, and of course, I almost forgot their other typical stance-
“Don’t criticize Muslims, you racist.”
Still, change will come in time, but it won’t be rushed, because it just won’t take if it is. And when it gets to the point that women are truly the equal of men in all things, women will probably still be bitching about their lot in life. And so will men. That is probably one thing that’s never gong to change on either side of the equation.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
What Would Gandhi Do?
I’m always hearing about how the left wing anti-war movement is always holding up Gandhi as an example of how the world should enact foreign policy, and how they themselves should set an example of how to protest against other policies that are not to their liking.
Evidently, to these people there is no set of problems anywhere, no matter how profound, grave, or complicated, that can’t be solved by peaceful protest. Gandhi himself seems to have felt this way. I have recently read that he even criticized the Allied nations for resisting Hitler in World War II. Worse, he even suggested that the Jews should not have tried to fight him, nor even should they have attempted to escape his atrocities. They should have just peacefully acquiesced to the savagery of the butcher’s gas chambers and ovens, and all the other horrors visited upon them by the Nazi regime.
If this was truly his position, that is most remarkable. What can you say? Try as I might, words fail me in providing a sufficient response to such profound naivety.
But I can still try. In fact, appropriately enough, I just can’t resist sharing with you a few-
GANDHI RIDDLES
How many Gandhis does it take to change a light?
A: One Gandhi can change a light, so long as it’s a dim bulb.
How many dicks does Gandhi have?
A: Gandhi only has one dick however he somehow manages to stick it in millions of asses at once.
How many peaceniks does it take to change Gandhis diaper?
A: Gandi can change his own diaper and you can kiss his ass.
How many Gandis does it take to fill a gas tank?
A: One Gandi can fill one gas tank of a medium sized car however it might take two for an SUV.
Why does Gandhi always smile so serenely?”
A: Because he’s a fucking idiot.
If Gandhi were to watch American Idol who would he vote for?
A: Who gives a shit?
How many Gandhis would it take to bring about permanent world peace?
A: Oh, as of right now, somewhere between seven and eight billion.
But wouldn’t the world be better off if a lot more people followed Gandhi’s example?
A: Yep, it would be especially great for the ones of us who don’t.
I have heard it said that Gandhi might be an avatar of some great Hindu god, like Vishnu. What do you think?
A: I think you’re fucking stupid.
I think you are just a mean, angry person. Why are you so hateful, why don’t you try to be more like Gandhi?
A: Gandhi this dick.
You are disgusting. If I make love to a man it will be a kind and considerate man like Gandhi. They are out there you know.
A: You got that right. They certainly are “out there”.
So would you consider learning more about Gandhi? Maybe you will see the light if you try.
A: Ok you win. I’m like Gandhi. Let’s fuck.
HaHa very funny. Do you think I’m a complete idiot?
A: Yes.
Well, you’re not so smart yourself mister. Gandhi won his country’s independence from the British through his policies of non-violent peaceful resistance. What do you think of that? Doesn’t that prove his way is right?
A: No, it just proves the British had turned into a bunch of wusses. Of course, they also pulled all their investments out after which India slid into abject poverty, but what the hell, who needs food and clothing and shelter?
But don’t you think there are more important things in the world than material things, things like love and compassion and tolerance?
A: Nope. Not when I’m starving to death anyway.
Did you know that Dr. Martin Luther King is an example of a person that followed Gandhi’s example?
A: Nobody’s perfect.
But it worked, didn’t it?
A: Peaceful protest and striking against your own countries improper policies is one thing. That formula is unworkable in the arena of international relations, especially in cases of war. Taken to it’s logical extreme, if the country were invaded and everyone were to do nothing about it but “peacefully protest”, it would probably amount to national enslavement-or suicide.
But if people everywhere were to peacefully protest against the Iraq war, don’t you think it would work?
A: Yep, I think the Iraqi Sunni insurgents and Shi’ite death squads would be so fucking impressed they would lay down their arms tomorrow and make peace and want to help us all establish a worldwide international movement of peace and love.
Then if you know that why don’t you join the movement? Will you join us in protesting this evil war?
A: No thanks. I would prefer to agitate for a sensible long term solution. But it has to be a comprehensive, common sense solution, none of this pie in the sky wishful thinking.
But don’t you see that we are just fueling the insurgency by our presence. Don’t you think we should get out and make amends? War and fighting never accomplishes anything. Just ask yourself, WHAT WOULD GANDHI DO?
A: Oh, I don’t know. Establish, arm, and try to fund the Indian military, perhaps?
So are you saying Gandhi was a hypocrit? India is a democracy, you know. Maybe the Indian parliament did that and he couldn’t stop it, just like he couldn’t prevent the partition of India. It’s not his fault the people wouldn’t listen to him. But don’t you know an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?
A: Maybe in some cases, but it’s always nice to have that cure available regardless, just in case.
So, I see. You are a conservative wingnut, aren’t you?
A: Not at all. I might vote Republican the next election, however.
KER-SLAP!!!
A: Hey, that hurt!!!
Evidently, to these people there is no set of problems anywhere, no matter how profound, grave, or complicated, that can’t be solved by peaceful protest. Gandhi himself seems to have felt this way. I have recently read that he even criticized the Allied nations for resisting Hitler in World War II. Worse, he even suggested that the Jews should not have tried to fight him, nor even should they have attempted to escape his atrocities. They should have just peacefully acquiesced to the savagery of the butcher’s gas chambers and ovens, and all the other horrors visited upon them by the Nazi regime.
If this was truly his position, that is most remarkable. What can you say? Try as I might, words fail me in providing a sufficient response to such profound naivety.
But I can still try. In fact, appropriately enough, I just can’t resist sharing with you a few-
GANDHI RIDDLES
How many Gandhis does it take to change a light?
A: One Gandhi can change a light, so long as it’s a dim bulb.
How many dicks does Gandhi have?
A: Gandhi only has one dick however he somehow manages to stick it in millions of asses at once.
How many peaceniks does it take to change Gandhis diaper?
A: Gandi can change his own diaper and you can kiss his ass.
How many Gandis does it take to fill a gas tank?
A: One Gandi can fill one gas tank of a medium sized car however it might take two for an SUV.
Why does Gandhi always smile so serenely?”
A: Because he’s a fucking idiot.
If Gandhi were to watch American Idol who would he vote for?
A: Who gives a shit?
How many Gandhis would it take to bring about permanent world peace?
A: Oh, as of right now, somewhere between seven and eight billion.
But wouldn’t the world be better off if a lot more people followed Gandhi’s example?
A: Yep, it would be especially great for the ones of us who don’t.
I have heard it said that Gandhi might be an avatar of some great Hindu god, like Vishnu. What do you think?
A: I think you’re fucking stupid.
I think you are just a mean, angry person. Why are you so hateful, why don’t you try to be more like Gandhi?
A: Gandhi this dick.
You are disgusting. If I make love to a man it will be a kind and considerate man like Gandhi. They are out there you know.
A: You got that right. They certainly are “out there”.
So would you consider learning more about Gandhi? Maybe you will see the light if you try.
A: Ok you win. I’m like Gandhi. Let’s fuck.
HaHa very funny. Do you think I’m a complete idiot?
A: Yes.
Well, you’re not so smart yourself mister. Gandhi won his country’s independence from the British through his policies of non-violent peaceful resistance. What do you think of that? Doesn’t that prove his way is right?
A: No, it just proves the British had turned into a bunch of wusses. Of course, they also pulled all their investments out after which India slid into abject poverty, but what the hell, who needs food and clothing and shelter?
But don’t you think there are more important things in the world than material things, things like love and compassion and tolerance?
A: Nope. Not when I’m starving to death anyway.
Did you know that Dr. Martin Luther King is an example of a person that followed Gandhi’s example?
A: Nobody’s perfect.
But it worked, didn’t it?
A: Peaceful protest and striking against your own countries improper policies is one thing. That formula is unworkable in the arena of international relations, especially in cases of war. Taken to it’s logical extreme, if the country were invaded and everyone were to do nothing about it but “peacefully protest”, it would probably amount to national enslavement-or suicide.
But if people everywhere were to peacefully protest against the Iraq war, don’t you think it would work?
A: Yep, I think the Iraqi Sunni insurgents and Shi’ite death squads would be so fucking impressed they would lay down their arms tomorrow and make peace and want to help us all establish a worldwide international movement of peace and love.
Then if you know that why don’t you join the movement? Will you join us in protesting this evil war?
A: No thanks. I would prefer to agitate for a sensible long term solution. But it has to be a comprehensive, common sense solution, none of this pie in the sky wishful thinking.
But don’t you see that we are just fueling the insurgency by our presence. Don’t you think we should get out and make amends? War and fighting never accomplishes anything. Just ask yourself, WHAT WOULD GANDHI DO?
A: Oh, I don’t know. Establish, arm, and try to fund the Indian military, perhaps?
So are you saying Gandhi was a hypocrit? India is a democracy, you know. Maybe the Indian parliament did that and he couldn’t stop it, just like he couldn’t prevent the partition of India. It’s not his fault the people wouldn’t listen to him. But don’t you know an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?
A: Maybe in some cases, but it’s always nice to have that cure available regardless, just in case.
So, I see. You are a conservative wingnut, aren’t you?
A: Not at all. I might vote Republican the next election, however.
KER-SLAP!!!
A: Hey, that hurt!!!
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Begging Your Pardon, Mr. President
The pardon the agents petition that is the subject of this post can be accessed by clicking on the post title, which contains the link to the site which is promoting the petition, which can be likewise accessed by a link at the upper right hand of that page. Also, a hat tip to Lemuel Calhoun of Hillbilly White Trash, who kindly posted the link on his blog at my request, as well as this one here which also goes into some detail as to the chain of events which lead to this controversy.
If you want a job where you are treated with respect, it seems the last thing you might want to consider is the life of a government employee, in at least some cases. And the lower you go down the totem pole, the worse off you are. You get about as much respect in some cases if you’re a burger flipper or 7/11 clerk. Of course, to see the idiot smiles on the faces of actors portraying clerks in tv commercials, you would think they live the life of reilly. Yeah, what do you want your daughter to bring home from Pizza Hut? A supreme with extra cheese and breadsticks, maybe, but certainly not the clerk, if she does that you’ll probably send her back.
Now, you might think you’d be proud if your daughter brought home a government employee, but you might want to rethink that a bit.
Military enlistees are, technically speaking, “government employees”, and they get little respect. Oh, sure, we all “support the troops”, some would even go so far as to say they “love” them, but where does the lip service end and the reality begin? You can leave all that love and respect right outside the door of the Walter Reed Outpatient Treatment Center, thank you very much, it might damage the decorative mold.
Or, if your daughter brings home a US Attorney, you might consider wondering just what you did wrong. Can’t your daughter find a decent tort attorney with a real job?
But it seems these days like if you really want to scrape the bottom of the barrel, you might come out with an INS border security guard. Talk about getting no respect. Here are these two guys that went out of their way to apprehend an illegal Mexican alien who was smuggling some 74 pounds or so of marijuana across the border, whom the two guards thought was armed, and when he tried to escape they shot him in the ass.
They were then tried and convicted of numerous trumped up charges, including civil rights violations.
Now, after this trial, at which three of the jurors involved later claimed they were coerced into delivering a guilty verdict, (the prosecutor, incidentally, is under investigation for prosecutorial misconduct due to his part in the trial) they have been sentenced to twelve and thirteen years in prison, where one of them was recently brutally beaten by Mexican inmates who demanded “death to the border guards.”
They were convicted in part due to the testimony of the illegal alien drug smuggler, who was granted immunity in return for his testimony. But why the hell were they even charged and tried to begin with? According to some reports, this was done at the instigation of the Mexican government itself. Now, I don’t know if that is true or not, though I certainly believe they at least encouraged it, along with the other usual suspects, the pro open borders and amnesty crowds and open immigration factions among the liberal left and the various other immigrant advocacy groups.
In the meantime, these men have gotten little in the way of support from among the conservative forces that would ordinarily be up in arms about these kinds of shenanigans. Of course, as usual, both parties for the most part care more about kowtowing to the far left (in the case of Democrats), or to the business oriented open borders, free trade neo-cons (in the case of Republicans), while both are trolling for as many Hispanic votes as they can muster. It’s fucking shameful. Out of all the members of Congress, only twelve-all Republicans-have gone on record as actively opposing this shameful sham of a trial and demanding that the border agents be granted a presidential pardon.
It is not looking good, however. Although he could definitely grant the men a pardon at a drop of a sombrero, Bush seems to be hiding behind the excuse that pardons are typically granted only after time has been served. Of course, there are numerous instances where this was not the case. Clinton’s pardon of billionaire tax cheat and fugitive from justice Mark Rich comes to mind. Granted, these two men don’t have wealthy wives who can contribute hefty sums of money to a presidential library. Nor are they former high ranking cabinet officials, as in the case of former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, pardoned for his role in Iran-Contra by President George Herbert Walker Bush. Nor are they former Presidents, such as Richard M. Nixon, pardoned by Gerald Ford before he was ever even tried.
They are however men who were merely doing their jobs, maybe not perfectly, but still putting their lives on the line for little in the way of appreciation, renumeration, and respect. Now, they may be compelled to spend the best remaining years of their lives in a federal prison.
If you feel the way I do about this shit, you can click on this link, which will take you to a page where you can donate money to keep the cause alive or, at least as good and maybe even better, in the upper right hand corner of the page you will see a link to a page where you can sign a petition to President Bush encouraging him to grant these men the pardon I honestly feel they should receive as quickly as possible.
I also personally feel they should be granted a public apology, and back pay, in addition to a hefty amount of money for their pain and sufferring. In addition, they should receive an extra amount for whatever harassment they received while in prison, and the warden should be fired for not insuring their safety.
Yes, prison is rough, but all prisoners who are deemed to be potential targets are typically afforded some degree of protective custody, and this would obviously have been the appropriate precaution in the case of these two men.
You see, these two men are both Hispanics, and so in addition to the “crime” of being border agents, to the Hispanic street trash thugs who threatened them and attacked one on at least this one occasion, they are also doubtless viewed as “race traitors”.
Still, for the time being, let’s concentrate on getting them freed. Copy and paste the link and send it to as many people as you can think of to sign and forward to the President.
Like I told Lemuel Calhoun, of Hillbilly White Trash, who was kind enough to post these links on his blog at my request, if Bush would actually do the right thing in this regard, it might go a long way toward demonstrating evidence of this stiffened spine and backbone he allegedly has that we are always hearing so much about.
And I might add one other thing. I know that some that might peruse these links might have a knee jerk reaction to one of these sites, WorldNet Daily, but please try to think outside the box. You don’t have to agree with them on everything, or even on most things. I know I don’t. But when you're right, you’re right. If you agree with me that this is one of the times when they are right, not wrong-and there is little if any gray area here, in my opinion-then get over your initial objections to the site and support this petition drive.
And do more than that. Forward these links to your House Representatives and Senators. I think it’s a disgrace that no Democratic Congressmen or Senators have supported these two men. But that should be considered more a reflection of the Democratic leadership than on the individuals. After all, committee assignments might be in danger if they were to engage in an activity that goes beyond the accepted parameters of the House and Senate leadership as it currently stands. To say nothing of endangering funding of congressional projects and support for sponsored bills. Still, you would think at least one would have the balls (or ovaries) to stand up for what’s right. In all fairness, as I said, only twelve Republicans have done so, as of the writing of the petition.
The drug smuggler in question, by the way, has sued the US government for five million dollars. Like they say-only in America.
If you want a job where you are treated with respect, it seems the last thing you might want to consider is the life of a government employee, in at least some cases. And the lower you go down the totem pole, the worse off you are. You get about as much respect in some cases if you’re a burger flipper or 7/11 clerk. Of course, to see the idiot smiles on the faces of actors portraying clerks in tv commercials, you would think they live the life of reilly. Yeah, what do you want your daughter to bring home from Pizza Hut? A supreme with extra cheese and breadsticks, maybe, but certainly not the clerk, if she does that you’ll probably send her back.
Now, you might think you’d be proud if your daughter brought home a government employee, but you might want to rethink that a bit.
Military enlistees are, technically speaking, “government employees”, and they get little respect. Oh, sure, we all “support the troops”, some would even go so far as to say they “love” them, but where does the lip service end and the reality begin? You can leave all that love and respect right outside the door of the Walter Reed Outpatient Treatment Center, thank you very much, it might damage the decorative mold.
Or, if your daughter brings home a US Attorney, you might consider wondering just what you did wrong. Can’t your daughter find a decent tort attorney with a real job?
But it seems these days like if you really want to scrape the bottom of the barrel, you might come out with an INS border security guard. Talk about getting no respect. Here are these two guys that went out of their way to apprehend an illegal Mexican alien who was smuggling some 74 pounds or so of marijuana across the border, whom the two guards thought was armed, and when he tried to escape they shot him in the ass.
They were then tried and convicted of numerous trumped up charges, including civil rights violations.
Now, after this trial, at which three of the jurors involved later claimed they were coerced into delivering a guilty verdict, (the prosecutor, incidentally, is under investigation for prosecutorial misconduct due to his part in the trial) they have been sentenced to twelve and thirteen years in prison, where one of them was recently brutally beaten by Mexican inmates who demanded “death to the border guards.”
They were convicted in part due to the testimony of the illegal alien drug smuggler, who was granted immunity in return for his testimony. But why the hell were they even charged and tried to begin with? According to some reports, this was done at the instigation of the Mexican government itself. Now, I don’t know if that is true or not, though I certainly believe they at least encouraged it, along with the other usual suspects, the pro open borders and amnesty crowds and open immigration factions among the liberal left and the various other immigrant advocacy groups.
In the meantime, these men have gotten little in the way of support from among the conservative forces that would ordinarily be up in arms about these kinds of shenanigans. Of course, as usual, both parties for the most part care more about kowtowing to the far left (in the case of Democrats), or to the business oriented open borders, free trade neo-cons (in the case of Republicans), while both are trolling for as many Hispanic votes as they can muster. It’s fucking shameful. Out of all the members of Congress, only twelve-all Republicans-have gone on record as actively opposing this shameful sham of a trial and demanding that the border agents be granted a presidential pardon.
It is not looking good, however. Although he could definitely grant the men a pardon at a drop of a sombrero, Bush seems to be hiding behind the excuse that pardons are typically granted only after time has been served. Of course, there are numerous instances where this was not the case. Clinton’s pardon of billionaire tax cheat and fugitive from justice Mark Rich comes to mind. Granted, these two men don’t have wealthy wives who can contribute hefty sums of money to a presidential library. Nor are they former high ranking cabinet officials, as in the case of former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, pardoned for his role in Iran-Contra by President George Herbert Walker Bush. Nor are they former Presidents, such as Richard M. Nixon, pardoned by Gerald Ford before he was ever even tried.
They are however men who were merely doing their jobs, maybe not perfectly, but still putting their lives on the line for little in the way of appreciation, renumeration, and respect. Now, they may be compelled to spend the best remaining years of their lives in a federal prison.
If you feel the way I do about this shit, you can click on this link, which will take you to a page where you can donate money to keep the cause alive or, at least as good and maybe even better, in the upper right hand corner of the page you will see a link to a page where you can sign a petition to President Bush encouraging him to grant these men the pardon I honestly feel they should receive as quickly as possible.
I also personally feel they should be granted a public apology, and back pay, in addition to a hefty amount of money for their pain and sufferring. In addition, they should receive an extra amount for whatever harassment they received while in prison, and the warden should be fired for not insuring their safety.
Yes, prison is rough, but all prisoners who are deemed to be potential targets are typically afforded some degree of protective custody, and this would obviously have been the appropriate precaution in the case of these two men.
You see, these two men are both Hispanics, and so in addition to the “crime” of being border agents, to the Hispanic street trash thugs who threatened them and attacked one on at least this one occasion, they are also doubtless viewed as “race traitors”.
Still, for the time being, let’s concentrate on getting them freed. Copy and paste the link and send it to as many people as you can think of to sign and forward to the President.
Like I told Lemuel Calhoun, of Hillbilly White Trash, who was kind enough to post these links on his blog at my request, if Bush would actually do the right thing in this regard, it might go a long way toward demonstrating evidence of this stiffened spine and backbone he allegedly has that we are always hearing so much about.
And I might add one other thing. I know that some that might peruse these links might have a knee jerk reaction to one of these sites, WorldNet Daily, but please try to think outside the box. You don’t have to agree with them on everything, or even on most things. I know I don’t. But when you're right, you’re right. If you agree with me that this is one of the times when they are right, not wrong-and there is little if any gray area here, in my opinion-then get over your initial objections to the site and support this petition drive.
And do more than that. Forward these links to your House Representatives and Senators. I think it’s a disgrace that no Democratic Congressmen or Senators have supported these two men. But that should be considered more a reflection of the Democratic leadership than on the individuals. After all, committee assignments might be in danger if they were to engage in an activity that goes beyond the accepted parameters of the House and Senate leadership as it currently stands. To say nothing of endangering funding of congressional projects and support for sponsored bills. Still, you would think at least one would have the balls (or ovaries) to stand up for what’s right. In all fairness, as I said, only twelve Republicans have done so, as of the writing of the petition.
The drug smuggler in question, by the way, has sued the US government for five million dollars. Like they say-only in America.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Mascot Madness
In the annals of sports, there are few things more maddening than the manufactured controversy over team mascots, with the NCAA going the extra mile of denying post season playoff berths to schools who utilize mascots that are deemed inappropriate, insulting, or denigrating to a special interest group. The most obvious example here would be the use of Indian mascots, as reported by the good folks at American Legends, the post for which you can find linked to in the title of this post.
Actually, if this post is widely read enough, I will probably be sentenced to death in
some quarters for refusing to refer to them as “Native American”, which I used to do, but no longer. I’m spiteful that way.
In fact, I want to take the time here to extend kudos to the Seminole tribe of Florida, who in fact has supported the use of their name and image by the Florida State Seminoles, an act that probably has the NCAA officials secretly all but tearing their hair out, and considering presenting the tribe a gift of smallpox infested blankets addressed from the Florida State Alumni Association.
I contend that most Indians, in fact, could care less about this issue, and what ones do care are probably in favor of it, much like most Irish Americans look with self-deprecating humor on the image of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish mascot. The minority that are opposed I put down to the level of-well, renegades on the warpath.
Of course, when it comes to the NCAA and others who suffer from the infestation of political correctness, it would appear they are in denial of their own bigotry. To their way of thinking, only white people are of a superior enough intellect and emotional maturity to be able to appreciate one of their cultural images being utilized in such a humorous fashion. Indians, blacks, etc., are doubtless genetically inferior, so it is wrong to “make fun” of them. After all, they obviously, as members of a lesser race, have not evolved enough to appreciate this subtlety, therefore we should go out of our way to shelter them. After all, this should make us feel better, by showing these poor unfortunate inferior people that we really care about their feelings.
Well, I disagree with this assessment, and I believe that all cultures and races should be integrated into the great American melting pot, and what better way to do this than by mercilessly making sport of them and their cultures, the way the gods intended. I propose that school names and mascots are the best way to begin this great new American experiment.
Let’s start with the mentally retarded. Let’s face it, nothing is funnier than a retardo trying to act smart, or clever, or gods help us, sexy. Admit it, haven’t you ever laughed at least once at a retarded person? You just can’t help it at one time or another, let’s face it, they were meant to be laughed at, otherwise, well, you wouldn’t have laughed at that little mongoloid chick in school that was constantly sticking her finger up her butt and smelling it when she thought nobody was looking. Or the boy that just couldn’t keep his eyes off the best looking girl in school, and couldn’t help breathing like a maniac if she got so close to him. If you were that girl, and you were a little on the cruel side, you might have flirted with him just enough to get him to admit with a glaze over his eyes, “I wuv oo”.
About the only thing that isn’t funny about them is, well, when they try to be funny. Then you finally see them for what they are-stupid. Then you feel sorry for them. But is that any better? Hell no. Let’s bring them fully integrated into America. They are off to a good start with the Special Olympics, but let’s really honor them by naming a bona fide real sports team after them. For example-
THE RHODE ISLAND RETARDOS
MASCOT-
BUGSIE BOOGEREATER
Once that goes over like a lead balloon, and it’s obvious that most people just aren’t comfortable with making fun of the “mentally challenged” (realspeak translation-idiots), then we have to persevere by bringing in other minorities. Here is where the negro can make a contribution. Oh, excuse me, I forgot, it’s not negroes anymore, it’s Afro Americans. No, shit, that’s wrong too, it’s blacks. Wait a minute, man, I’m still way back in the past, it’s “people of color”. Oh wait,though, I forgot, that was decided to be too broad to apply to people of African heritage, so let’s make sure we call them “African Americans”. Well, for the rest of this decade, at least.
To hell with it, I have the perfect team name and mascot for our Negro/Afro-American/Black/People of Color/African American/Whatever’s Next You Damn Well Better Learn To Say It Quick brothers and sisters.
THE NEW JERSEY JIGGABOOS
MASCOT-
CHIEF SPEARCHUCKER
All during the game, his cheerleading squad will be charged with shouting out incendiary racial rhetoric. After losing a game, they will lead the crowd in looting and burning down the stadium and vandalizing all the cars in the parking lot. After winning a game, they will lead the crowd in looting and burning down the stadium and vandalizing all the cars in the parking lot.
Now, of course, some people might think we should make some exceptions, for example, when it comes to Arab/Muslim Americans. After all, these folks feel overly maligned due to association with Islamic terrorists. It just wouldn’t be right to add to their degradation by appropriating their cultural images in a humorous way for a sports team and mascot, would it?
Perhaps you will not be shocked to learn that I disagree with this opinion, and in fact the opposite might well be the case. In fact, what better way to relieve the stress and tension due to this serious issue than be dedicating a university or perhaps a professional sports team specifically to this misunderstood and yet intriqing culture. In fact, since there are so many Arabs and Muslims in the great state of Michigan, might I suggest-
THE DETROIT DIAPERHEADS
MASCOT-
MUHAMMED BEHEDR
Now, there will be a problem here with his cheerleading squad. Of course, they will be required to dress in such a manner so that no parts of their bodies will be shown, so they can’t take the chance of jumping up and down and risk showing an ankle or calve, so they will have to be relegated to waving posters and placards that say cool things like “Death To The Infidel Team” while Muhammed Behedr runs up to the oppossing teams' cheerleaders and throws acid in their faces.
Since they can’t be seen, it would be necessary for them to mingle with the crowd during halftime in a friendly way, while passing out team pictures in envelopes that also contain powdered anthrax.
The teams lawyers might also want to consider filing a lawsuit to lift the restrictions on airspace flights over the stadium during game time. At least during away games.
Another issue that is a great cause for concern is the problem of illegal immigration, particularly that of migrant workers from Mexico. These fine folks go out of their way to “do jobs Americans won’t do”, and are so concerned about the quality of work available to American farmers and businesses, they go out of their way to insure that inferior workers from Nicaraqua and Honduras are blocked at their own country’s southern border from entering the US. I think we owe them a debt of thanks, and what better way to repay them than by honoring them with a sports team and mascot of their own. Nor does it have to be limited to a team from the American Southwest. Not any more. Now, they are all over the country, even the east and midwest. In recognition of their “contribution”, therefore, I suggest-
THE WEST VIRGINIA WETBACKS
MASCOT-
THE WELFARE BANDITO
The whole team can be driven out into the field in the back of eighteen wheelers hidden under ears of loose corn and lettuce. This will probably be one of the poorest teams, of course, to all appearances, but they can make all kinds of extra money under the table by selling good quality Mexican blow and smack to the crowd. They won’t have to worry about the border agents arresting them. Even if they try to do that, all they have to do is shoot them. Who would complain about a thing like that? The government? Hah!
Of course, not all teams have to have an ethnic or racial orientation. Some might even have a religious orientation, as well as an ethnic one. To this end, what better team for white Christian folks to rally behind than-
THE ALABAMA BIBLE THUMPERS
MASCOT-
WHITEY HOOD
Can’t you just see him now taking the field and leading cheers with a crack of the whip?
Of course, he will lead the team in a rousing prayer before every game, shout out the Ten Commandments all throughout the game, and after every home game, he will lead them in burning a cross. After every victory that is, after every defeat they lynch an opponent of the visiting team. Just one though, then they tell the rest to go back where they came from.
Or, a team can have a solidly religious structure. After all, all Christians aren’t white, nor are they all protestant. They are, however, vital members of American society. As such, I am sure that catholics, for example, would appreciate a team such as-
THE PHILADELPHIA PRIEST PEDOPHILES
MASCOT-
FATHER PHIL BUTZ
Of course, this particular team will also require a special kind of cheerleading squad to accompany the good priest as he goes about his business of blessing the game, the crowd, the players, etc. A good solid squad of about fifty pre-teen children, one girl for every ten boys, should do the trick nicely. Half the team can masturbate during halftime while they perform, while the other half of the team looks the other way. It will be Father Phil’s job as team mascot to make sure all is forgiven.
Of course, it has been often stated that not all victims of sex crimes are legitimate, some are even making false accusations. Is this possible? Would a teenager lie about being molested, why what ever for? Surely their mothers or fathers wouldn’t put them up to that. In the case of runaways, is it true, as I have recently heard, that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM are unwilling victims of the sex slave industry? Especially the girls, I have heard, who just want a Prince Charming in a romantic fantasy kind of way. None of these girls actually ENJOY sex. How disgusting to even consider such a thing as that! Why, it’s impossible for a teenage girl to enjoy sex with a teenage boy, let alone a grown man, isn’t it?.
For that matter, would a grown woman lie about being raped? Why, you would have to think there are vengeful women on this earth to believe something like that. What other reason would they have to make up something so horrid, surely not MONEY?
This is where education can play a large role in teaching people the truth and bridging the sexual divide that causes these misunderstandings, and what better educational tool than in the realm of sports? Therefore, in order to show how ridiculous these beliefs are, I propose-
THE CALIFORNIA CUNTSLUTS
MASCOT-
PRUDENCE PRICKTEASER
She should be a real Amazon, of questionable sexual orientation, while her squad of cheerleaders should be women of all races, ages, and looks, ranging from drop-dead-gorgeous-and-knows-it, to god-awful-fucking-ugly, to downright trashy. When a ruling on the field goes against them, they all scream RAPE with a flashy, ear to ear grin of dubious sincerity, alternating with cries of mock anger and disgust if the offending rule stands. No matter the ruling, they threaten a lawsuit. No matter how the game ends, they are always ready, willing, and eager for the next one.
Finally, although I could name many more such examples, I would be remiss if I didn’t end this post with a recommendation to our leaders in Washington to set an example. They are always wanting a sports team, and amazingly, they have already led the way with The Washington Redskins, a team which has always come under much criticism due to the derogatory nature of this supposedly racist name. Yet, the Redskins play on, while the DC crowd prattles on, with the encouragement of the many special interest groups that demand special rights,considerations, and even privileges.
In honor of them all, what better team to grace the landscape of our nations capital than-
THE DC PC PRICKTARDS
MASCOT-
Of course, there would be many worthy candidates to hold the position of this particular mascot. Who knows what the future might hold?
Actually, if this post is widely read enough, I will probably be sentenced to death in
some quarters for refusing to refer to them as “Native American”, which I used to do, but no longer. I’m spiteful that way.
In fact, I want to take the time here to extend kudos to the Seminole tribe of Florida, who in fact has supported the use of their name and image by the Florida State Seminoles, an act that probably has the NCAA officials secretly all but tearing their hair out, and considering presenting the tribe a gift of smallpox infested blankets addressed from the Florida State Alumni Association.
I contend that most Indians, in fact, could care less about this issue, and what ones do care are probably in favor of it, much like most Irish Americans look with self-deprecating humor on the image of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish mascot. The minority that are opposed I put down to the level of-well, renegades on the warpath.
Of course, when it comes to the NCAA and others who suffer from the infestation of political correctness, it would appear they are in denial of their own bigotry. To their way of thinking, only white people are of a superior enough intellect and emotional maturity to be able to appreciate one of their cultural images being utilized in such a humorous fashion. Indians, blacks, etc., are doubtless genetically inferior, so it is wrong to “make fun” of them. After all, they obviously, as members of a lesser race, have not evolved enough to appreciate this subtlety, therefore we should go out of our way to shelter them. After all, this should make us feel better, by showing these poor unfortunate inferior people that we really care about their feelings.
Well, I disagree with this assessment, and I believe that all cultures and races should be integrated into the great American melting pot, and what better way to do this than by mercilessly making sport of them and their cultures, the way the gods intended. I propose that school names and mascots are the best way to begin this great new American experiment.
Let’s start with the mentally retarded. Let’s face it, nothing is funnier than a retardo trying to act smart, or clever, or gods help us, sexy. Admit it, haven’t you ever laughed at least once at a retarded person? You just can’t help it at one time or another, let’s face it, they were meant to be laughed at, otherwise, well, you wouldn’t have laughed at that little mongoloid chick in school that was constantly sticking her finger up her butt and smelling it when she thought nobody was looking. Or the boy that just couldn’t keep his eyes off the best looking girl in school, and couldn’t help breathing like a maniac if she got so close to him. If you were that girl, and you were a little on the cruel side, you might have flirted with him just enough to get him to admit with a glaze over his eyes, “I wuv oo”.
About the only thing that isn’t funny about them is, well, when they try to be funny. Then you finally see them for what they are-stupid. Then you feel sorry for them. But is that any better? Hell no. Let’s bring them fully integrated into America. They are off to a good start with the Special Olympics, but let’s really honor them by naming a bona fide real sports team after them. For example-
THE RHODE ISLAND RETARDOS
MASCOT-
BUGSIE BOOGEREATER
Once that goes over like a lead balloon, and it’s obvious that most people just aren’t comfortable with making fun of the “mentally challenged” (realspeak translation-idiots), then we have to persevere by bringing in other minorities. Here is where the negro can make a contribution. Oh, excuse me, I forgot, it’s not negroes anymore, it’s Afro Americans. No, shit, that’s wrong too, it’s blacks. Wait a minute, man, I’m still way back in the past, it’s “people of color”. Oh wait,though, I forgot, that was decided to be too broad to apply to people of African heritage, so let’s make sure we call them “African Americans”. Well, for the rest of this decade, at least.
To hell with it, I have the perfect team name and mascot for our Negro/Afro-American/Black/People of Color/African American/Whatever’s Next You Damn Well Better Learn To Say It Quick brothers and sisters.
THE NEW JERSEY JIGGABOOS
MASCOT-
CHIEF SPEARCHUCKER
All during the game, his cheerleading squad will be charged with shouting out incendiary racial rhetoric. After losing a game, they will lead the crowd in looting and burning down the stadium and vandalizing all the cars in the parking lot. After winning a game, they will lead the crowd in looting and burning down the stadium and vandalizing all the cars in the parking lot.
Now, of course, some people might think we should make some exceptions, for example, when it comes to Arab/Muslim Americans. After all, these folks feel overly maligned due to association with Islamic terrorists. It just wouldn’t be right to add to their degradation by appropriating their cultural images in a humorous way for a sports team and mascot, would it?
Perhaps you will not be shocked to learn that I disagree with this opinion, and in fact the opposite might well be the case. In fact, what better way to relieve the stress and tension due to this serious issue than be dedicating a university or perhaps a professional sports team specifically to this misunderstood and yet intriqing culture. In fact, since there are so many Arabs and Muslims in the great state of Michigan, might I suggest-
THE DETROIT DIAPERHEADS
MASCOT-
MUHAMMED BEHEDR
Now, there will be a problem here with his cheerleading squad. Of course, they will be required to dress in such a manner so that no parts of their bodies will be shown, so they can’t take the chance of jumping up and down and risk showing an ankle or calve, so they will have to be relegated to waving posters and placards that say cool things like “Death To The Infidel Team” while Muhammed Behedr runs up to the oppossing teams' cheerleaders and throws acid in their faces.
Since they can’t be seen, it would be necessary for them to mingle with the crowd during halftime in a friendly way, while passing out team pictures in envelopes that also contain powdered anthrax.
The teams lawyers might also want to consider filing a lawsuit to lift the restrictions on airspace flights over the stadium during game time. At least during away games.
Another issue that is a great cause for concern is the problem of illegal immigration, particularly that of migrant workers from Mexico. These fine folks go out of their way to “do jobs Americans won’t do”, and are so concerned about the quality of work available to American farmers and businesses, they go out of their way to insure that inferior workers from Nicaraqua and Honduras are blocked at their own country’s southern border from entering the US. I think we owe them a debt of thanks, and what better way to repay them than by honoring them with a sports team and mascot of their own. Nor does it have to be limited to a team from the American Southwest. Not any more. Now, they are all over the country, even the east and midwest. In recognition of their “contribution”, therefore, I suggest-
THE WEST VIRGINIA WETBACKS
MASCOT-
THE WELFARE BANDITO
The whole team can be driven out into the field in the back of eighteen wheelers hidden under ears of loose corn and lettuce. This will probably be one of the poorest teams, of course, to all appearances, but they can make all kinds of extra money under the table by selling good quality Mexican blow and smack to the crowd. They won’t have to worry about the border agents arresting them. Even if they try to do that, all they have to do is shoot them. Who would complain about a thing like that? The government? Hah!
Of course, not all teams have to have an ethnic or racial orientation. Some might even have a religious orientation, as well as an ethnic one. To this end, what better team for white Christian folks to rally behind than-
THE ALABAMA BIBLE THUMPERS
MASCOT-
WHITEY HOOD
Can’t you just see him now taking the field and leading cheers with a crack of the whip?
Of course, he will lead the team in a rousing prayer before every game, shout out the Ten Commandments all throughout the game, and after every home game, he will lead them in burning a cross. After every victory that is, after every defeat they lynch an opponent of the visiting team. Just one though, then they tell the rest to go back where they came from.
Or, a team can have a solidly religious structure. After all, all Christians aren’t white, nor are they all protestant. They are, however, vital members of American society. As such, I am sure that catholics, for example, would appreciate a team such as-
THE PHILADELPHIA PRIEST PEDOPHILES
MASCOT-
FATHER PHIL BUTZ
Of course, this particular team will also require a special kind of cheerleading squad to accompany the good priest as he goes about his business of blessing the game, the crowd, the players, etc. A good solid squad of about fifty pre-teen children, one girl for every ten boys, should do the trick nicely. Half the team can masturbate during halftime while they perform, while the other half of the team looks the other way. It will be Father Phil’s job as team mascot to make sure all is forgiven.
Of course, it has been often stated that not all victims of sex crimes are legitimate, some are even making false accusations. Is this possible? Would a teenager lie about being molested, why what ever for? Surely their mothers or fathers wouldn’t put them up to that. In the case of runaways, is it true, as I have recently heard, that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM are unwilling victims of the sex slave industry? Especially the girls, I have heard, who just want a Prince Charming in a romantic fantasy kind of way. None of these girls actually ENJOY sex. How disgusting to even consider such a thing as that! Why, it’s impossible for a teenage girl to enjoy sex with a teenage boy, let alone a grown man, isn’t it?.
For that matter, would a grown woman lie about being raped? Why, you would have to think there are vengeful women on this earth to believe something like that. What other reason would they have to make up something so horrid, surely not MONEY?
This is where education can play a large role in teaching people the truth and bridging the sexual divide that causes these misunderstandings, and what better educational tool than in the realm of sports? Therefore, in order to show how ridiculous these beliefs are, I propose-
THE CALIFORNIA CUNTSLUTS
MASCOT-
PRUDENCE PRICKTEASER
She should be a real Amazon, of questionable sexual orientation, while her squad of cheerleaders should be women of all races, ages, and looks, ranging from drop-dead-gorgeous-and-knows-it, to god-awful-fucking-ugly, to downright trashy. When a ruling on the field goes against them, they all scream RAPE with a flashy, ear to ear grin of dubious sincerity, alternating with cries of mock anger and disgust if the offending rule stands. No matter the ruling, they threaten a lawsuit. No matter how the game ends, they are always ready, willing, and eager for the next one.
Finally, although I could name many more such examples, I would be remiss if I didn’t end this post with a recommendation to our leaders in Washington to set an example. They are always wanting a sports team, and amazingly, they have already led the way with The Washington Redskins, a team which has always come under much criticism due to the derogatory nature of this supposedly racist name. Yet, the Redskins play on, while the DC crowd prattles on, with the encouragement of the many special interest groups that demand special rights,considerations, and even privileges.
In honor of them all, what better team to grace the landscape of our nations capital than-
THE DC PC PRICKTARDS
MASCOT-
Of course, there would be many worthy candidates to hold the position of this particular mascot. Who knows what the future might hold?
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Guantanamo-The Perfect Training Facility
I feel that a great many of detainees of Guantanamo could probably be allowed to leave. Some, for example, that were merely innocent bystanders in Afghanistan, citizens of that place, or even those that may have been low level soldiers or mid-level officers of the Taliban. Sure, it would be taking a chance, however, it would at least be an effort on the part of the U.S. to show some kind of conciliatory move, even if some of these folks had indeed taken up arms against us. After all, how would we feel if suddenly we found ourselves surrounded by an invading army from another nation?
On the other hand, there are those that should be brought to trial. Not in our court system, however, but through the use of military tribunals, if there is evidence to warrant this. An example would be fighters who were taken on the fields of Afghanistan, who were from other nations, such as Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Whether they are Al-Queda members or sympathizers, or higher level Taliban members, they should be brought to trial, with of course some judicial oversight and review.
As for those who might have pertinent information, we have every right to extract that information by any means available, in my opinion. They are combatants who target civilians, who are not legitimate members of a recognized military or nation. Therefore, their rights under our constitution, and as far as I'm concerned under international law, ends where begins my rights to live my life in safety and security, for myself and my family. Guantanamo should therefore be closed to any scrutiny by any outside entity, such as Amnesty International, The International Red Cross, or any other group, foreign or domestic, who deigns it fitting to interfere, on whatever pretext, in our national security affairs.
However, I do not condone excessive brutality, unreasonable torture. By the same token, there might be a better way, a way to totally break their spirits. Simply make Guantanamo the training area of choice for the future Iraqi Army. Once the incarcerated terrorists see the resolve, the dedication, that the average Iraqi civilian goes about the process of training in order to protect the security of their state, the love and patriotism they exhibit for the prospect of finally living in an open, democratic society based on the rule of law, and equal protection under the law, of justice for all, a good many might come to see reason, if for no other reason than simple shame. If not, part of the Iraqi training can be in the area of enemy interrogation. The thought of suddenly finding themselves alone in a room of Iraqi military, American trained interrogators, might make some open up out of terror at the consequences, and others more out of the simple religious bonds that supposedly exist on at least a latent level amongst all Muslims.
If that fails, we can always go back to Christina Aquillierra.
On the other hand, there are those that should be brought to trial. Not in our court system, however, but through the use of military tribunals, if there is evidence to warrant this. An example would be fighters who were taken on the fields of Afghanistan, who were from other nations, such as Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Whether they are Al-Queda members or sympathizers, or higher level Taliban members, they should be brought to trial, with of course some judicial oversight and review.
As for those who might have pertinent information, we have every right to extract that information by any means available, in my opinion. They are combatants who target civilians, who are not legitimate members of a recognized military or nation. Therefore, their rights under our constitution, and as far as I'm concerned under international law, ends where begins my rights to live my life in safety and security, for myself and my family. Guantanamo should therefore be closed to any scrutiny by any outside entity, such as Amnesty International, The International Red Cross, or any other group, foreign or domestic, who deigns it fitting to interfere, on whatever pretext, in our national security affairs.
However, I do not condone excessive brutality, unreasonable torture. By the same token, there might be a better way, a way to totally break their spirits. Simply make Guantanamo the training area of choice for the future Iraqi Army. Once the incarcerated terrorists see the resolve, the dedication, that the average Iraqi civilian goes about the process of training in order to protect the security of their state, the love and patriotism they exhibit for the prospect of finally living in an open, democratic society based on the rule of law, and equal protection under the law, of justice for all, a good many might come to see reason, if for no other reason than simple shame. If not, part of the Iraqi training can be in the area of enemy interrogation. The thought of suddenly finding themselves alone in a room of Iraqi military, American trained interrogators, might make some open up out of terror at the consequences, and others more out of the simple religious bonds that supposedly exist on at least a latent level amongst all Muslims.
If that fails, we can always go back to Christina Aquillierra.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Michael Schiavo Should Sue The Schindlers
Most of even the supporters of Michael Schiavo seem not to have noticed the real story behind the efforts of the Schindler family over the last decade. A time line might prove helpful in discerning certain facts. The Schindlers first sued for custody of their daughter, Terri Schiavo, within a year of Michael Schiavo winning a lawsuit which netted him 1,000,000 dollars for the care of his wife. It is easy to see that, had they won this initial custody suit, Michael would have been obliged, potentially, to hand over the money he had won in this lawsuit. Now, here is the important thing to consider. It was not until three years after this lawsuit initiated by the Schindlers, that Michael petitioned the courts to remove Terri's feeding tube. Take the time to digest that simple fact. When the Schindlers started their shit, it was three years before Michael petitioned the courts to have the feeding tube removed. Here comes a chronology.
1992: Michael Schiavo wins settlement of 1,000,000 plus dollars for the care of his wife.
1993: The Schindler family initiates a lawsuit to gain custody of their daughter from Michael Schiavo.
1994: Michael Schiavo petitions the courts to remove Terri Schiavo's feedign tube.
So what was the reason for the initial lawsuit on behalf of the Schindlers. It can only be money. Of course, this money was long since dissipated in the course of the numerous lawsuits filed by the Schindlers, which Schiavo was obliged to fight. But the Schindlers cause became the cause celebre' of Right wing Christians and social conservative politicians across the country, so they received, I would suggest, a great deal of metary support for their continuing endeavors. Look out for the book. And for the movie.
Michael Schiavo is a hero in my opinion, one of the few true American heroes (a term which is oft used and abused). And now that the final autopsy report has been released, verifying that Terri was indeed in a persistent vegetative state, the Schindlers, as I predicted, could not let it go. They are still insisting the doctors are wrong, even implying that they are lying, or hiding the truth to protect their reputations, with the assistance, no doubt, of the courts and state agencies which were involved in the matter and had decided time after time on behalf of Mr. Schiavo. Other amongst their long-time supporters will hold fast to the belief that regardless of the veracity of the autopsy, it was still morally wrong to remove the feeding tube. And then there is Governor Jeb Bush, who, in an effort to regain favor with ths crowd, which was tested severely when he refused to intervene with an emergency order to prevent the tube from being removed, has now stated the time line should be investigated as to how long it took Michael Schiavo to contact emergency personnel upon Terri's collapse, implying of course the potential for foul play on Michael's part.
Yet, no one has questioned the Schindler time line, and their obvious, to me, grasping for money and influence. I would strongly suggest that Michael Schavo should sue the Schindlers, as well as several of their supporters, including possibly their priest. Jeb Bush, too, might be considered by some a tempting target, including me. What Michael Schiavo has been going through over the last twelve years amounts to libel and slander of the most obscene variety. A good stiff lawsuit against the perpetrators might send a well needed message to them, and to the right wing smear merchants in general. It's time to bring this shameful episode in American jurisprudence to a close.
1992: Michael Schiavo wins settlement of 1,000,000 plus dollars for the care of his wife.
1993: The Schindler family initiates a lawsuit to gain custody of their daughter from Michael Schiavo.
1994: Michael Schiavo petitions the courts to remove Terri Schiavo's feedign tube.
So what was the reason for the initial lawsuit on behalf of the Schindlers. It can only be money. Of course, this money was long since dissipated in the course of the numerous lawsuits filed by the Schindlers, which Schiavo was obliged to fight. But the Schindlers cause became the cause celebre' of Right wing Christians and social conservative politicians across the country, so they received, I would suggest, a great deal of metary support for their continuing endeavors. Look out for the book. And for the movie.
Michael Schiavo is a hero in my opinion, one of the few true American heroes (a term which is oft used and abused). And now that the final autopsy report has been released, verifying that Terri was indeed in a persistent vegetative state, the Schindlers, as I predicted, could not let it go. They are still insisting the doctors are wrong, even implying that they are lying, or hiding the truth to protect their reputations, with the assistance, no doubt, of the courts and state agencies which were involved in the matter and had decided time after time on behalf of Mr. Schiavo. Other amongst their long-time supporters will hold fast to the belief that regardless of the veracity of the autopsy, it was still morally wrong to remove the feeding tube. And then there is Governor Jeb Bush, who, in an effort to regain favor with ths crowd, which was tested severely when he refused to intervene with an emergency order to prevent the tube from being removed, has now stated the time line should be investigated as to how long it took Michael Schiavo to contact emergency personnel upon Terri's collapse, implying of course the potential for foul play on Michael's part.
Yet, no one has questioned the Schindler time line, and their obvious, to me, grasping for money and influence. I would strongly suggest that Michael Schavo should sue the Schindlers, as well as several of their supporters, including possibly their priest. Jeb Bush, too, might be considered by some a tempting target, including me. What Michael Schiavo has been going through over the last twelve years amounts to libel and slander of the most obscene variety. A good stiff lawsuit against the perpetrators might send a well needed message to them, and to the right wing smear merchants in general. It's time to bring this shameful episode in American jurisprudence to a close.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Kinky For Governor-Really Now
Sometimes comedians, like con artists, start to take themselves way too seriously, and it starts to show, it's almost a sign of a disintegrating personality disorder. Kinky Friedman is a 60 year old singer and comedian, and native of the Lone Star State, who has been involved in politics on various levels for years now. But it was always more or less taken to be a kind of satire, sort of like Pat Paulson's run for the Presidency during the 1968 election campaign. His forum at this time was the old Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour. He seemed to be dead serious, in that deap-pan sort of way he had, but of course no one took him serious, even if at times you really had to wonder if he might have been.
With Kinky it's a different story. A good many of his positions belie any notion of seriousness. For example, his solution to the Mexican Border problem involves something called :The Five Mexican General's" Plan. As he explained this morning on radio's "Imus In The Morning", the plan is simplicity itself, and foolproof. You pay five Mexican generals to patrol five distinct areas of the Mexican/Texas Border, to the tune of a million dollars per year, for each general. You put this money into a special fund for each one, a fund to which they have no access until the end of each year. During that time, you subtract five thousand dollars for each Mexican caught at the border of any given general's jurisdiction. At the end of the year they receive the balance, at which point another million dollars is put into the fund for the next year.
He has a slew of celebrity supporters, many of whom he has promised to appoint to various posts of his administration. Willie Nelson, for example, he has suggested as the head of what would be the newly created department for the development of Bio-Diesel fuel. He has further promised that he would be the first Texas Governor to have an open telephone line. Any constituent can call him at any time he or she wants, to voice any complaints. Well, you don't say.
Don Imus, a long-time friend of Kinky's, seems to be struggling with the notion of making a political contribution, something he did once before in years past when "The Kinkster" ran for some minor post. He also seems to be struggling with the notion that this campaign might actually be becoming a serious proposition. After all, who could resist supporting a man who runs for the governorship of texas with complaints against the on-going "wussification" of Texas? A man who points out that, if elected, he would be the first independent Governor of the state since Sam Houston?
Your immediate sentiment is to support him, to hope that he wins, if for no other reason than to send a message about the political corruption and cronyism inherent in the states two party political process, enhanced and broadened over the years by career politicians and their big-money contributors, as well as the myriad of pencil pushing bureaucrats who are doing little more than living off the public dime. In the meantime, very little gets done, in texas, like in a great many other places. Maybe the recent elections of Arnold Schwarzeneggar, and Jesse Ventura of Minnesota before him, have emboldened the aging cult star. He does seem serious. But then again, remember, so did Pat Paulson.
In a way, I admit it, I hope he wins, even though I don't honestly believe he has a chance. At least I hope he manages to get on the ballot. If he gets the fifty thousand signatures he needs, which he has to accumulate after the up-and-coming party primaries in Texas, he is on. Of course, those who vote in the primary will be ineligible to sign his petition, and so, in what may be a concise clue as to the seriousness of his intentions, he is encouraging Texas voters to not vote in the primary, in order to sign said petition. I do hope he gets on, and I do hope he wins. If he is serious about running, there's a good chance he all ready realizes that being the governor of Texas is no laughing matter, though for a very short time it might be one.
With Kinky it's a different story. A good many of his positions belie any notion of seriousness. For example, his solution to the Mexican Border problem involves something called :The Five Mexican General's" Plan. As he explained this morning on radio's "Imus In The Morning", the plan is simplicity itself, and foolproof. You pay five Mexican generals to patrol five distinct areas of the Mexican/Texas Border, to the tune of a million dollars per year, for each general. You put this money into a special fund for each one, a fund to which they have no access until the end of each year. During that time, you subtract five thousand dollars for each Mexican caught at the border of any given general's jurisdiction. At the end of the year they receive the balance, at which point another million dollars is put into the fund for the next year.
He has a slew of celebrity supporters, many of whom he has promised to appoint to various posts of his administration. Willie Nelson, for example, he has suggested as the head of what would be the newly created department for the development of Bio-Diesel fuel. He has further promised that he would be the first Texas Governor to have an open telephone line. Any constituent can call him at any time he or she wants, to voice any complaints. Well, you don't say.
Don Imus, a long-time friend of Kinky's, seems to be struggling with the notion of making a political contribution, something he did once before in years past when "The Kinkster" ran for some minor post. He also seems to be struggling with the notion that this campaign might actually be becoming a serious proposition. After all, who could resist supporting a man who runs for the governorship of texas with complaints against the on-going "wussification" of Texas? A man who points out that, if elected, he would be the first independent Governor of the state since Sam Houston?
Your immediate sentiment is to support him, to hope that he wins, if for no other reason than to send a message about the political corruption and cronyism inherent in the states two party political process, enhanced and broadened over the years by career politicians and their big-money contributors, as well as the myriad of pencil pushing bureaucrats who are doing little more than living off the public dime. In the meantime, very little gets done, in texas, like in a great many other places. Maybe the recent elections of Arnold Schwarzeneggar, and Jesse Ventura of Minnesota before him, have emboldened the aging cult star. He does seem serious. But then again, remember, so did Pat Paulson.
In a way, I admit it, I hope he wins, even though I don't honestly believe he has a chance. At least I hope he manages to get on the ballot. If he gets the fifty thousand signatures he needs, which he has to accumulate after the up-and-coming party primaries in Texas, he is on. Of course, those who vote in the primary will be ineligible to sign his petition, and so, in what may be a concise clue as to the seriousness of his intentions, he is encouraging Texas voters to not vote in the primary, in order to sign said petition. I do hope he gets on, and I do hope he wins. If he is serious about running, there's a good chance he all ready realizes that being the governor of Texas is no laughing matter, though for a very short time it might be one.
Terri Schiavo-Autopsy Report Due Today
The Schiavo controversy may be due this day for a resurrection of sorts, when the final autopsy report is finally made public. There are hopes that the report will prove conclusively that Terri Schiavo was indeed NOT in the vegetative state that her husband, scores of doctors, and a variety of court judges decided that she was, before the feeding tube that kept her wasted body going was finally removed, resulting in her death some nearly two weeks later. But just who is it that hopes for this? Her family, of course-her mother, father, brother, and sister-and one would assume their myriad supporters among the politicos, pundits, and religious figures ranging from the catholic hierarchy, to right wing evangelists such as Jerry Falwell and Doctor James Dobson, to Jesse Jackson. In other words, all of them are waiting on pins and needles in the hopes that poor Terri did, indeed, suffer grievously during her final days and hours.
In the event this does indeed turn out to be the case, hold your breath-and your nose-for the release of the numerous prepared statements to the press excoriating the widower Schiavo and his supporters. In the event that the opposite turns out to be the case, you can count on a separate variety of prepared statements from the same circle of allies, only in this case it will probably be a play in two acts.
Act One will contain the story of how the courts, the media, and Schiavo's attorneys have doubtless all conspired to lie on the documents for political, monetary, and legal reasons. A type of cover-up, if you will. They might maintain that this conspiracy has been on-going from day one, from the day Terri first suffered the on-set of her mysteriously degenerating condition, in the case of Mr. Schiavo and his shadowy supporters. Others might maintain the cover-up came after the fact of the death, in the case of political considerations of a good many of Mr. Schiavo's political supporters. There will be accusations of bribery and corruption in high places.
Act Two will come somewhat later, and will develop into an excoriation of the all-pervading "culture of death" that is all too ready to end a human life at the first convenience, and on the slightest pretext. And, once again, the culture wars will be in full fury, with the smiling, unaware face of Terri Schiavo the poster child of the Far Right, invoking the kindness of compassionate conservatism.
Only this time, the play will be performed to a nearly empty house, and will close after a very brief run, in the event that Mr. Schiavo's and his supporters claims turn out to be verified. Still, in the unlikely event that it does indeed turn out that Ms. Schiavo suffered form excruciating pain and agony during her last few days, as a result of Mr. Schiavo and his supporters selfishly removing the feeding tube, and it is proven that Terri was not, after all, in a persistent vegetative state, but had minimal consciousness and feeling-then, the family of Terri Schiavo and their friends and supporters will have a reason to smile. Of course, they will try not to, but, like Terri, hopefully they would be unable to control themselves.
In the event this does indeed turn out to be the case, hold your breath-and your nose-for the release of the numerous prepared statements to the press excoriating the widower Schiavo and his supporters. In the event that the opposite turns out to be the case, you can count on a separate variety of prepared statements from the same circle of allies, only in this case it will probably be a play in two acts.
Act One will contain the story of how the courts, the media, and Schiavo's attorneys have doubtless all conspired to lie on the documents for political, monetary, and legal reasons. A type of cover-up, if you will. They might maintain that this conspiracy has been on-going from day one, from the day Terri first suffered the on-set of her mysteriously degenerating condition, in the case of Mr. Schiavo and his shadowy supporters. Others might maintain the cover-up came after the fact of the death, in the case of political considerations of a good many of Mr. Schiavo's political supporters. There will be accusations of bribery and corruption in high places.
Act Two will come somewhat later, and will develop into an excoriation of the all-pervading "culture of death" that is all too ready to end a human life at the first convenience, and on the slightest pretext. And, once again, the culture wars will be in full fury, with the smiling, unaware face of Terri Schiavo the poster child of the Far Right, invoking the kindness of compassionate conservatism.
Only this time, the play will be performed to a nearly empty house, and will close after a very brief run, in the event that Mr. Schiavo's and his supporters claims turn out to be verified. Still, in the unlikely event that it does indeed turn out that Ms. Schiavo suffered form excruciating pain and agony during her last few days, as a result of Mr. Schiavo and his supporters selfishly removing the feeding tube, and it is proven that Terri was not, after all, in a persistent vegetative state, but had minimal consciousness and feeling-then, the family of Terri Schiavo and their friends and supporters will have a reason to smile. Of course, they will try not to, but, like Terri, hopefully they would be unable to control themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)