Rage, Rage Against The Whining of the Right!

A Message For The "Religious" Right -- rant:

I was not going to be doing any more blogging today, but I got an email from my friend(s) Astraea(s) who follow this particular issue closer than I, having had the fortune of falling in love with a corporate person that shares a body of the same apparent gender.

Silly me, I don't even think of this as being "gay." I mean, not in my gut. Not that it's not true, kinda sorta, it's just that it is such a superficial description of hot multiple on multiple love.

Anyhoo, it's bizarre to me that I can (and did) get a civil marriage licence and she cannot, even though The Real Situation is identical.

Oh, and here's a little something else, something I want to mention before I go on, one quote from the beginning of this marvelous rant which will explain my personal passion about this.

Unfortunately, it doesn't take a lot to bring me back to a time when I remember the sting of the taunts and namecalling that comes from being singled out from the rest of the community. As a teenager and young adult, I saw that most often happening to others, although I know the times I was the brunt of such bullying in the halls of a high school. Of course, back in the early 1970's, it was a common occurence. . .I can remember walking home in the evenings from the library, doing work on a paper or just trying to get out of the house, and every now and then a car would go by with other high schoolers screaming that "faggot" slur out of their mouths. I would always feel the hairs rising up on the back of my neck and the fear almost choking off my breathing, and yet I would walk just a little faster and tell myself that I knew the neighborhood and how to find places to hide.

Same here, give or take five years. Perceptions trumped reality, or perhaps I was chosen to be gay by people who thoght that made them straighter. But for whatever reason, I was assumed to be gay, as well as a speed freak and a "stoner" - all because I was a weedy, ectomorphic asperger's kid in a persistant dissociative state.

But so many people were utterly sincere in their convictions that I actually gave the gay thing a shot. That's a very aspie course of action, by the by. No regrets, exactly. But no "postcard memories," either. Gay sex, aside from the icky bits which are avoidable with a polite "no thanks, not into that," is unavoiably an act committed with a person of the same physical gender - and at that age, that generally meant hairy, stubbly and testosterone poisoned.

I agree with a few cynical drinking buddies of mine from Amarillo; the only thing you really need to become a Lesbian is to have sex with a man. My wife agrees, by the way - and then adds, in a deliberate reference to that story of mine, in which I was ultimately declared an "honerary lesbian," that she doesn't really think of me as a man, either.

And that doesn't much bother me, because I know of what they speak, and I surely ain't that. I'm not much into Manly Things, like sports, male bonding, fast cars and loose women. I want to bed neither Anne Coulter nor Condaleeza Rice; unlike a truly astonishing part of the male population, I know a preying mantis when I see one.

If that makes me a "fag," so be it. I've long since grown indifferent to the good opinion of people to stupid to deserve one.

But that indifference stops when the stupid, thoughtless and intolerant start taking over tasks more important than the bank-tellers and fast-food salespersons.

The issue here is not the preservation of marriage, nor is it even really about a true, bible supported belief. This is about maintaining a right to persecute other people. Considering how swiftly such folks can turn and savage one of their own, you would think.... but, they are really very stupid, and willfully so.

"For decades, it seems to me that these 'religious' fanatics were the only citizens allowed to get away with torturing, abusing and attacking others, especially those in the very families they claim to 'protect.' They have no shame about thier behavior - but I am far and away long past giving them a break for claiming 'deeply-held beliefs' about others. Freedom of religion may mean they have the right to choose, in the name of God, the right to persecute others - but those they seek to persecute have the right to fight back, and to do it decisively. I do not have to respect their right to persecute me - it is THEIR belief, and it only applies to THEIR lives - NOT mine. And if we are going to stand up to this constant onslaught of brutality and abuse in the name of God, then we need to do it with more than just confusion. The only thing they understand is when someone goes for their throat.

These people do not wish to protect anyone's family. They seek to control families. And I don't give a damn how many times they whine about being persecuted because we refuse to let them persecute US - they should have known the score about constitutional rights when they made their choice to follow a totalitarian religious belief. Instead, they want that constitution re-interpreted and re-written"

This amendment, if it passes, will achieve absolutely nothing positive, not even in the devious and twisted ways the leaders of the American Taliban think. What it will do is cause thinking people to distain marriage altogether, and it will enrich a bunch of Philidelphia lawyers to come up with alternates that WILL be recognised under the "full faith and credit clause." These "work arounds" will derive from corporation law, and therefore be ultimately unassailable. If there is ONE thing American law is deadly serious about, it's Contract Law.

These new piles of paper - and they will be literal piles of paper - much like a mortgage contract - will have the advantage of making a good deal of sense and anticipating and accounting for things current marriage law does not. They will have specific prenuputal agreements, will allocate the division of assets and benifits and detail many things and assign many rights. They will contain mutual powers of attourney, and wills, they will define venues for the resolution of disputes and many other bits and pieces you may well recognise. And if parties to such agreements they are not elegable for marital tax benefits, they will be elegable for corporate tax breaks, because that's what it will be. A legally recognized corporation.

Indead, I'm using hindsight in my predictions; there are such lawyers and such "corporate families" now, to the best of my understanding.

These individual agreements between persons will make the issue of gender and indeed, the number of parties completely up to the signitories, as will be issues of marital and sports fidelity.

Not only will these evolutions be an acceptable alternative, they will be seen as morally and legally superior instruments. There will be those, those, gay and straight, who see the Marriage Amendment for what it is - a deliberate assault upon an entire sector of the population that does not agree with the "moral majority." And there will be others who will quietly take the advice of their accountant and choose the alternative that allows for better protections of personal wealth.

A life together that is blessed by law and "without benifit of clergy" will quietly become the norm, as it is in many civilized nations. And did you know that in many such nations, it's because the Churches were foresquare against behaving like civilized people. When it comes down to it, when the choice is to not be a total dick, or not belong to a church, most people will choose to not be a dick.

I do try to remember that there's a difference between "cultural Christians" and actual christians. Indeed, the only "cultural christians" we ever notice are the ones that embarrass their families and neighbors as much as they insult us and our values. I've met some genuine, honest, God Fearing Christians, some of them so personally conservative that they were to the right of Pat Buchannon. (Actually, it somewhat discomforts me that I occasionally AGREE with Pat.... ) But they did not impose their values on others, they upheld them in their own lives.

And if a flaming queer went into the terminal stages of Aids, they would install them in their spare bedroom and take care of them until the end, then cry like babies. Real Christians never let their morals get in the way of doing the right thing.

People like that taught me that a Christian should be too busy doing the right thing to have much time to spare thinking about what they think wrong about the actions of others.

Now, to you actual homophobes who might stumble across this, I want you to understand something. When I speak of homophobia, I'm not using the term as an insult. I suffer from a few phobias myself; for instance, I'm probably a mild androphobe - I have an irrational fear of men, which is a learned phobia. I'm also, technically a social phobic - that comes from the aspergers.

While it is possible for me to overcome those fears for a time and a space, it not easy, and may require drink or drugs to prolong for more than fifteen minutes. I would not like to have someone taunt me for my fears, or provoke me with the very things that make me gibber. So I truly get it that gays make your skin crawl and your mind spin into irrational gibberings. Fending it off and being a human being against the tide is hard freaking work.

But I do know the one thing that will make any phobia far worse, to the point where it will really, totally take over your life and turn you into a gibbering mental case - and that is trying to make a phobia make sense.

Next thing you know, you 'll find yourself marching with Fred Phelps and picketing soldier's funerals becacause the Pentagon "tolerates" gays in the military, and therefore all solders ... I forget. Go read, if you care. And take his lunacy as a caution to yourself as to what confusing a phobia with a calling can do to you.

True homophobia is an irrational fear. It doesn't have to make sense. You don't need to make excuses for having "a condition." And you do not have to let your fears make you do horrid things to other people or allow it to overly influence your life. Nobody - not some Pride Queen, and not the 700 Club - has the right to use your fears to manipulate, humiliate or extort you. Period.

if you find being around gay people, especially people who are being, ya know, kinda conspicious, like Carson Daily on "Queer Eye," I can understand. There' s no part of tolerance that requres that you put up with sweaty man-hugs. Aside from everything else about evangelicals that bothers my rational mind, the possiblity of being grabbed and squeezed and "slain in the spirit" by large sweaty guys fills me with a reflexive, visceral horror I'm sure you would find quite familiar.

You just don't get to hit Carson with a tire iron until he's dead to make that feeling go away. Any more than I get to do it to Benny Hinn.

tag: marriage amendment, homophobia, carson daily, gay, gay pride, tolerance, non-pc,

That Patriotic Feeling

Feminist Mormon Housewives » Patriotism:

"Which leads to my confounding ambivalence on the subject of patriotism. I do “love my country” and feel an appropriate level of “loyalty” (more on this later), which is all the dictionary definition of “patriotism” requires. In that manner patriotism feels to me relatively innocuous (much like feminism is defined as the [currently culturally innocuous] belief in equality of the sexes).

But still, I am not comfortable with the connotations I attach to the word patriotism: nationalism, jigoism, racism, elitism, bellicism. I feel uncomfortable identifing myself as patriotic because in my mind it feels like I’m skirting the dirty edge of self-righteousness and violence. Am I wrong? I very well could be. Truthfully, I’m not at all sure.

I’ve even considered taking down the (old and huge and beautiful) US flag that hangs on the wall in my garage (despite the fact that patriotism is all the rage in the intermountain west) because I don’t want people getting the wrong idea about my beliefs . Just last week a neighbor complimented me on it and I had to suppress the urge to clarify that I was certainly not making any kinda pro-war pro-Bush conservative (shiver) kinda statement. That isn’t what the flag is suppose to say, is it?

When I look at that flag, I worry that I am."

The post is an essential read - and so are the comments. Read them all; this is a uniquely relevent and thought-provoking thread - a thread that leads me to the whole "flag burning amendment" nonsense.

This amendment makes sense only if you venerate the flag itself, in place of the things it stands for. In MY sense of the place of things, if there is any question that the things it represents cease to be, it is time to reverently burn the flag, in protest and as a statement that something beautiful has passed away, unnoted.

And I think, really, that is what those who wish to make "desecrating" the flag illegal are those who, at root, wish to have it as false packaging for a vision of this nation that has nothing to do with the ideals it is supposed to represent.

Oh, and just incidentally, the Flag Code states that burning is in fact the only proper way to dispose of a flag. I learned that as a Cub Scout.

First And Last Open Trackback

The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns

Ok, JUST THIS ONCE! TRACK BACK IF YOU DARE!




I applied to get onto Samantha Burns's Open Trackback Alliance list - without careful due dilligence. And then, as I was preparing to send my very best, something went click...

I was participating in a circle jerk.

Yes, a term from my bad old days as an internet pornographer, but even then I had more class than to manipulate search engines with spammish linkage.




No, no, I take that part back - partially. Not spam - but definitely an echo chamber. You see, as I looked at the list of folks I would trackback to that day - I didn't see anyone that even approached the right side of center.

Instead, I would have to have accepted trackbacks such as this from "THM's Bacon Bits." No truths to be found in "more inconvenient truths about the religion of global warming," just uninformed mockery and willful disbelief.

Oh, and four hundred years ago, fella me lad, we burned wood and coal. Lots and lots and lots of it, while the plains were black with bison. But yes, the evidence is not absolutely conclusive that man is causing global warming, all by his lone self. We do know, however, that greenhouse gasses contribute, so clearcutting rain forests and driving 12mpg monstrosities fueled with petrodiesel is just plain dumb. And meanwhile, whatever or Whoever is causing it - it might be an idea to Have A Plan.

Ah, but I rant. Such twaddle annoys me. It goes beyond wingnuttery and way off into the twilight zone of truly irrelevant opinion. And that is what this echo chamber is all about. Facts are so inconvenient when maintaining a poise of total self-rightious complacency.

I pulled the graphic and link from my template while at the same time wiping off dittohead cooties. I swear to goddess, there is not an original thought expressed in any site there. Even the vicarious wishes for the mutilations and death of inconveniently persuasive Liberals and members of the Reality Based Community. Smile when you call me a liberal, sonny boy!

So, since I cannot find Samantha Burns's email for to save my very life, will someone PLEASE tell her to take me off her circle jerk - I mean, self promotion strategy?

It may not really be a "circle jerk" but I sure as hell know crap traffic when I see it.

I mean, I just consider the sources.

Google Republican Pedophiles! I mean Republican Poisoners!

The Randi Rhodes Show -> STATE BY STATE GOP SCANDAL SCORECARD (12/01/05):

"Investigation: NEOCONS WHO ARE POISONING US CITIZENS. Donald Rumsfeld was the CEO at Searle when aspartame was created. Rumsfeld spent 17 yrs trying to get aspartame approved by the FDA but failed, due to its toxic compounds. The day after Reagan was sworn in, the FDA was forced to retract its findings from govt studies on asparatame and the drug was rename, "Nutrasweet".
Disposition: Lawsuits against Monsanto for ASPARTAME, a neurotoxin and carcinogenic. Used in 5000 food products.
Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas and John Ashcroft were Monsantos attorneys who strong armed the FDA into silence.
See VIDEO
Source Links: LINK LINK LINK LINK LINK LINK LINK LINK LINK LINK

And let's not forget that in the REGULAR cola you have your High Fructose Corn Syrup, which has somewhat disturbing properties.

But there's another reason to avoid HFCS. Consumers may think that because it contains fructose—which they associate with fruit, which is a natural food—that it is healthier than sugar. A team of investigators at the USDA, led by Dr. Meira Field, has discovered that this just ain't so.

Sucrose is composed of glucose and fructose. When sugar is given to rats in high amounts, the rats develop multiple health problems, especially when the rats were deficient in certain nutrients, such as copper. The researchers wanted to know whether it was the fructose or the glucose moiety that was causing the problems. So they repeated their studies with two groups of rats, one given high amounts of glucose and one given high amounts of fructose. The glucose group was unaffected but the fructose group had disastrous results. The male rats did not reach adulthood. They had anemia, high cholesterol and heart hypertrophy—that means that their hearts enlarged until they exploded. They also had delayed testicular development. Dr. Field explains that fructose in combination with copper deficiency in the growing animal interferes with collagen production. (Copper deficiency, by the way, is widespread in America.) In a nutshell, the little bodies of the rats just fell apart. The females were not so affected, but they were unable to produce live young.

"The medical profession thinks fructose is better for diabetics than sugar," says Dr. Field, "but every cell in the body can metabolize glucose. However, all fructose must be metabolized in the liver. The livers of the rats on the high fructose diet looked like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with fat and cirrhotic."

Oh, and your corporate giants? Here they are...

Four companies control 85 percent of the $2.6 billion business—Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Staley Manufacturing Co. and CPC International. In the mid-1990s, ADM was the object of an FBI probe into price fixing of three products—HFCS, citric acid and lysine—and consumers got a glimpse of the murky world of corporate manipulation.

Time to make a nice pot of ice tea. With cane sugar.

tag: aspertame, nutrasweet, high fructose corn syrup, Donald Rumsfied, Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Stanly Manufacturing Co, CPC International, Monsanto, Clarence Thoma, John Ashcroft, FDA, Food Safety,

Get A haircut, Ya Damn Hippies!

>Hey, Ho, the Battling Blogs
By Quin Hillyer

On blogs, anything and everything goes, including on the blog names themselves: What the heck, for instance, is "Echidne of the Snakes" or "Nyarlathotep's Miscellany"? Then there is Fafblog, which quotes an apparent admirer to this effect: "This is a good blog. This is the best blog. It is about god and the universe and those horrible screaming monkeys and that time I made a pizza out of an old tire and a can of whip cream. It is the Fafblog."

Ah, what ARE they teaching Young Republicans these days? If they'd just had a good, Old-fashioned LIBERAL education, they'd know that Echidne of the Snakes is a Minor Greek Goddess and that Nyarlathotep refers to a story by HP Lovecraft. A "miscellany," of course, is a collection of Odds and Ends, like disconnected thought particles, or my Blogroll.

YOU SEE THE PROBLEM, don't you? Blogs can be fun, entertaining, and informative, but they don't lend themselves to disciplined thought, much less disciplined writing. There's nothing wrong with the blogs in and of themselves, but when they are a young person's only or next-to-only exposure to the written word, they certainly don't boost reasoning or writing skills.

Well, I suppose Free Republic, or Little Green Footballs might lead you to that conclusion. You might wish to visit a wider variety of blogs, and read past the masthead. Echidene of the Snakes, for instance, has been known to make some very cogent arguments... feminist ones, of course, but quite accurately reasoned and supported by actual evidence.

AGAIN, THERE IS A LOT TO LIKE about the blog world. It can ennoble and inform and provide great tools for discourse and for meeting like-minded people. But what it doesn't encourage is reflection, patience or, to stress again, discipline. And its wild informality, including the use and misuse of the written world, does not lend itself to careful persuasiveness.

Discipline. Ah yes, we in the blogosphere suffer from a lack of disciplined and formal argument, buttressed by observable fact.
Dare I compare myself to Established Broadcaster Rush Limbaugh and noted syndicated columnist Ann Coulter?

I dare. Moreover, I dare compare either to Wonkette or The Rude Pundit. Unfavorably. But in selecting such obvious and farcical targets, I am essentially knocking over straw whores.

But the still somewhat legitimate Mainstream Media has not done such a stellar job of persuasion themselves. Rather, they have simply ignored or suppressed competing voices, while mindlessly droning the talking points issued from the White House.

Menwhile, real journalists blog. And they are as loud, argumentative and contrary as any blogger - or journalists were before conservative media moguls required them to be neutered as a condition of continued employment.

Hey, it's almost July 4th.

And on this day, we put aside our cynicism and our political leanings and remind each other that if we are not living in the best country on earth - that's OUR fault.

The Patriot's Dream
by
webcarve

Get this custom poster at Zazzle

Domestic Spying

Domestic Spying
Originally uploaded by Coliopteran.

(watercolor and colored pencil on paper) original size 18"x24"
A poster design for the A.C.L.U.

Give the artist some love for this one. I think this might just turn some heads and open some wallets for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Coulter calls for Murtha's "Fragging"

I'd created this graphic to illustrate a story about the plagerism that infests Ann Coulter's latest book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." (no link to that, I wouldn't want to profit by it and I'm sure not gonna do it for free. eww. Coulter cooties! A better topic appeared first, But you may find this taunting, "Godless is Gutless" by Greg Palast to be amusing. They published their books on the same day - 6/6/06. Make of that what you will, folks.

However, she's on the book tour now, and Colms of Hannedy and Colms on Faux News asked her to explain her comment about Rep. Murtha. Via Media Matters.

Media Matters:

Summary: Ann Coulter refused to explain -- and even expanded upon -- her recent claim that Rep. John P. Murtha is "the reason soldiers invented fragging," military slang meaning the intentional killing of a member of one's own unit. On a Denver radio show, Coulter referred to her fragging comment as one of her "best lines" and refused to confirm that she was not "suggesting that anybody should off John Murtha," stating only: "It is what it is." On Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Coulter further expanded upon her statement, asserting that if Murtha "did get fragged, he'd finally deserve one of those Purple Hearts."

Even some conservitives consider that sort of statement beyond the pale, as Editor and Publisher reports.

Fragging, which became a well-known expression -- and occasional occurence -- during the Vietnam war, means soldiers attempting to kill their own officers for one reason or another.

This was so over the top that conservative Mike Krempasky at RedState.org posted, "I've said before that's its kind of ironic that just about every phrase Stewie from Family Guy uses to describe Lois could easily be applied to Ann Coulter. Well -- once again, Ann proves us right." He went on to call her "fragging" remark absolutely "disgusting. ... there's no excuse -- NONE -- for the allusion to soldiers who kill other soldiers. It's despicable -- and frankly, so is Coulter."

I can't agree more. And scum like Anne Coulter are making me reconsider my doctrinaire position against Hate Speech legislation.

Hush up, y'all, God's talkin' to me!

Bush rejects Iraq pullout: The Washington Times

President Bush said yesterday that "Islamic fascists" must know he will not bow to political pressure to pull out of Iraq, even as the Senate begins debate on setting a timetable.

"Don't bet on American politics forcing my hand, because it's not going to happen," Mr. Bush told reporters at a morning press conference in the White House Rose Garden, seven hours after landing from his surprise trip to Iraq.

Mr. Bush backed away from saying the tide has turned in Iraq, instead telling reporters that he senses "something different happening in Iraq" and that the new government is making steady progress. He also announced that he will send Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman to Iraq to help the nation with energy production and Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt to the United Nations and then to Baghdad to work on boosting support for the new government.

Gee, that sounds like infrastructure support for a timely transfer of power and a transition to direct civilian rule - by Bechtel.

Nothing at all like that Democratic plan to "cut and run."

I'm starting to understand BushSpeak. I'm betting we are going, going, gone - and in time to boost Republican chances in the mid-term.

You know, like he said, "As long as they need to be there, and not a day later."

Meanwhile, Baghdad Burning puts it into human terms.

"A new day for Iraqis" is the current theme of the Iraqi puppet government and the Americans. Like it was "A New Day for Iraqis" on April 9, 2003 . And it was "A New Day for Iraqis" when they killed Oday and Qusay. Another "New Day for Iraqis" when they caught Saddam. More "New Day" when they drafted the constitution… I'm beginning to think it's like one of those questions they give you on IQ tests: If 'New' is equal to 'More' and 'Day' is equal to 'Suffering', what does "New Day for Iraqis" mean?

ThisCanadian: Join the Revolution

ThisCanadian: Join the Revolution:

An interesting argument and a definitely refreshing change from the socialist manifestos fo my youth.

Oh, and Not Safe For Work. Indeed, I think that's the whole point to it.

Is O'Rielly on Crack?

To put it in polite, social conversational terms: Fox News blowhard Bill O'Reilly is a lying sack of shit. - Doug Thompson


Media Matters - O'Reilly again suggested employing Saddam's methods in Iraq:

"Summary: Fox News host Bill O'Reilly again suggested that Iraq should be run as it was under Saddam Hussein, stating: 'Saddam was able to control Iraq, as you know, and defeat insurgencies against him. The new Iraqi government can do the same, but it needs to get much tougher.' O'Reilly also declared that the American Civil Liberties Union, the BBC, and Air America Radio 'are helping the terrorists.'"

Were we not told we HAD to get rid of rid of Saddam because that's exactly the sort of thing he was famous for?

I confidently expect him to call for the use of gas on entire towns that consistently express their resistence to our benevolent rule.

Democracy and Freedom are messy things, Bill. The very concepts imply the freedom of dissent. And, as the night followeth the day, and as the dog returneth to it's vomit, oppression is what results in terrorism - the exact opposite of what you - if I may use the term loosely - think.

People who can express their dissent usefully and effectively without risk to their lives do that. In our nation, for instance, that right is defended by your personal great Satan, the American Civil Liberties Union, and joyfully expressed by the cleverer, better informed and much funnier folks at Air America and Comedy Central.

Now, many of you Authoritarian "bigger hammer" philosophy people make a big whup about how the founder of the ACLU was a Commie. Yeah, he was. Many sensible people were Communists in 1917. And many people were put in jail for their constitutionally-protected foolishness, so the correlation is hardly surprising, nor particularly damning.

And when Communism was dropped into the American Marketplace of ideas - well - how many Commies do YOU know that anyone paid much mind to? I mean, in order just to find a few, you have to stretch the definition beyond recognition.

And that was because the people who at first thought it was a good idea met some actual Communists - and they were about as much fun at parties as you are, my grim-jawed stalwart of truthiness.

Indeed, communism bombed as a philosophy and a social force even in China and Russia because it was co-opted by people JUST like you, Bill. That was the inevitable flaw of Communism in general and Marxist-Leninism in particular; it presumed that people could be trusted to put the welfare of others ahead of their own.

Well, yes - a great many can be. And they got ruthlessly exploited by those who cynically took advantage of their trustful natures. You know, like the folks that buy your books and Anne (The Man) Coulter's.

Now, Bill, you consistently refer to those who defend civil liberties and insist on speaking verifiable truths about the war in public that contradict the delusional, nay, outright magical thinking of the Right as "helping the terrorists."

That means you never have to actually address the facts.

And in a sense, to the extent that the goal of the Iraqi Insurgency is to make us get the hell out Iraq, you are correct. But then, as the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

But that would put us on the wrong side of the war, a concept starkly incomprehensible to Bushites like you.

And that inability to consider dispassionately the fruits of policy and the results of actions taken in "defense" of our nation leads to such examples of public idiocy.

The Bush administration also needs to begin challenging those who are helping the enemy. The ACLU, for example, opposes just about every anti-terror strategy. This organization should be exposed.

The BBC also helps the enemy by consistently slanting the Iraq war coverage and portraying the coalition as villains. The vile Air America Radio network does the same thing.

Well, it is a fact that torture occurs. It is a fact that we, as a matter of deliberate, verifiable and documented policy, commit torture and subcontract it out to those less squeamish than us. This is despite strenuous, on-the-record objection from our own Counter-terrorism and Counter-intelligence experts, the FBI, who know full well that information gained in such ways is generally useless.

I also know that torture, and curfews imposed on pain of death and detention without trial are Un-American, no matter what the excuse. After all, if one sacrifices the constitution on the altar of "preserving our freedom," what HAS one achieved?

Yet another dusty, dull tyranny. I'm opposed to that, and I support anyone who is opposed to it having it imposed upon them. Even by us.

And if that comes to pass here, Mr. O'Rielly, not only will there be widespread resistance from domestic "freedom fighters," it's folks like you what will be first up against the wall - followed by those foolish enough to take you seriously.

For it's my true and cynical belief that anyone stupid enough to take you seriously is also too dumb to duck when the barricades go up and the guns start chattering.


tag: ethics, lies, iraq, reason, rationality, stupidity, stupid, Fox News, Bill O'Rielly, Media Matters, Saddam Hussain, propaganda, Air America, Comedy Central, Truthiness

On the power of Words.

Biblical Christianity: The Purpose Of This Blog:

The purpose of this blog is to put expositional teaching of Scripture on the internet for those who would like to read and comment. Currently there is exposition being posted on this blog from the books of 1 Timothy and Proverbs. These are from my personal studies. At church we are going through Acts on Sundays and 1 Peter during our mid-week meeting. As we finish these books and begin new ones (1 Corinthians on Sundays, Hewrews on Thursdays) comments from those books will find their way into this blog.

You may find it surprising that I am commending this blog to you, featuring it in a post, tracking back and suggesting you read the writing of someone who I likely agree with on absolutely NO point of social or public policy.

Well, I am many things; indeed, my name may not literally be Legion - but it's certainly Cohert. "I" am a functional Multiple Personality; a fact of my life that has distinctly influenced our faith and our understanding of reality in general.

Many of us are Christian - as disturbing as that may be for people who may think of a multiple personality as being "possessed by demons." Indeed, one of us who self-identifies as being originally a "demon' in the sense most Christans would think of it, wryly observes that most demonic posession is much like a dinasaur "possessing" a tar-pit, or an ant "possessing" a kitchen.

We-all manage to get along. One of the means by which we do is treating each other "as we would be treated ourselves." While we often deny being Christian, it is not to deny the word of the Bible, it is to deny the things "everybody knows" it says, but does not.

The rigorous and faithful study of Scripture - and by that, I mean any scripture you can get your paws upon, not JUST the Bible - is profitable and worthwhile. But it does tend to be disturbing to the doctrines one learned in Sunday School or your local Madrass.

Off hand, I cannot think of a single, legitimate, recognised Prophet who would fail to approve of such biblicaly-inspired apostacy.

To give you an example of a troubling doctrine that should have better Scriptural support, one that has at times been literal death to question aloud, and certainly will get you shunned at Coffee Hour; the Divinity of Christ.

I was raised Episcopailian. It's in the Creed. One does not question it. But Christ himself was decidedly slippery on the subject.

Finally, in a moment of confusion, I just decided to ask. (To me, the word "prayer" implies you really don't expect a literal answer in words you can understand.)

The answer came in the form of a short vision, in which he asked - Jew that he Is - "would knowing for sure, one way or another, change in ANY the truth of a single word of mine?" Close as I can recall.

I thought about it, and had to say that it wouldn't. The words of Christ in the Bible have a ring of self-evidence to them, and better yet, when you ACT upon them, they prove their worth.

And THEN I was reminded of this: "In the beginning there was the Word. And the word was with God, and the word WAS God.

Then we had a little "chalk talk." Suppose you believe in the LITERAL divinity of Christ. Well, then, you let His words pass by without examination, you just nod your head and follow blindly.

Well, that's one of the things he was continually beating his Apostles over the head with - their lust for simple answers. But he always made them think.

And what if he's provably just some guy from Galalee, a member of the poorest laboring class? Why should I bother to take his word for anything?

But if I'm not sure, I have to listen, consider and evaluate His words for myself!

The doubt is deliberate!

It's not about the divinity of Jesus, or of you or of me. Indeed, to the extent that our words ring true, we speak God. And when we do not speak truly - no matter how "holy" the "sacred cause" we are speaking for something else entirely. Discernment between the two - indeed, "the knowledge of good and evil" goes to the very root of the faith of the Peoples of the Book.

The purpose of Graphictruth is to speak the truth, as best as I can, on issues of the day, from a perspective most people are fortunate enough to lack. Being on the autistic spectrum and being a Multiple gives me advantages for this task, which is fortunate as it's about all I'm capable of doing well.

And it stunned me that that determination was, in fact, precisely the sort of thing Jesus was doing. Indeed, He said many of the same things I have. I say many other things - I have the advantage of not having to pay dearly for the written word. I can afford verbosity and I can afford to not worry so much about boiling things down into memorable parables.

Oh, and to the best of MY knowleged, my conception was as maculate as they come. Not that I care about that nonsense about the virgin birth; given the above, it resides in the great land of "so what?"

I'm not saying it's untrue, either literally or in some metaphorical sense. I'm saying that it literally doesn't matter to my faith. Indeed, the historical existance of Christ Himself does not matter. It's about the words. Read the words in red for yourself - and then write your own commentary.

Indeed, once you have read those words, you should look around you and speak, as best you may, something that you know to be undeniably true. Pick a cause. Pick a topic. It needen't be contraversial, nor timeless. It's enough that it's true, right here and right now, as well as you can say it. Maybe others will run across it, and recognising the truth, state it better. Or maybe a larger truth will emerge in a subsequent discussion. But first you must do the work of panning the stream of reality for the little shiny flakes that have yet to be noticed and brought into a larger conciousness.

And Truth Will Out.

Dispatches from our Republic in Exile

Greg Palast is promoting his latest book. And so am I; promoting his latest book. Now that I've read more bits of it and reader reactions, I think it might be worth the investment.

The Power and the Payoff - Greg Palast:

"They finally put Dan Rather out of his misery. Today, CBS finally terminated him and sent him to the electronic glue factory — all for reporting the truth. But not all of it.

Rather’s “unsubstantiated story of Bush’s military service” (says USA Today) got him canned. Yet, all the poor man did was repeat a story we put on BBC Television a year earlier — that Poppy Bush put in the fix to get his son out of ‘Nam and into the Texas Air Guard, spending his war years guarding Houston from Viet Cong attack.

But Dan never reported this: the documentation from inside the US Department of Justice detailing the fix. Why not? Because it opened up a far more serious charge: that those who kept Little George out of war’s way ended up very well rewarded. We ran that full story — from the evidence of the fix to the evidence of the lucrative pay-backs — on the world’s biggest network, BBC, and we’ve never retracted a comma of it. Nor, by the way, has the White House denied our accusations despite our repeated offers to respond.

George’s slithering out of combat turned into big pay-days for those in on the fix and its cover-up: Harriett Miers (remember her?), Karen Hughes and Texas lobbyists."

One of the most baffling things about this Iraq War is the fact that none of the arguments for it make a lick of sense. They sounded good at the time, but there was absolutely nothing to support them, if you did any looking at all. And by "any," I mean that literally. You didn't have to be an investigative reporter to realize the arguments for the war were misdirection. The question was, what were we being distracted from?

Years of bitter dispute over how transparent the lies were served beautifully as a distration from what the lies served to conceal.

And to illustrate what that was, I'll turn you over to a satisfied reader, Ed Uyeshima

The author wisely divides his findings into five interrelated sections. The first chapter, "The Fear", details the folly that the war on terrorism has become. It only begins with the bureaucracy instigated by CIA leadership, and Palast verifies much of what Gary Berntsen and Ralph Pezzulo has divulged in "Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander". On a larger scale, he paints a mercenary picture of military-based greed that has allowed the government and its ancillary companies to profit from the fear of the American public. This leads naturally to the main commodity valued, oil, which is the main topic of the second section, "The Flow", a penetrating look at how the current administration's hidden agenda has been to keep oil prices high in order to maintain the confluence of OPEC. Without hesitation, Palast points out that Exxon-Mobil wants neither OPEC disrupted nor Iraqi oil flowing, as the availability of more crude translates into lower prices and less profit.

This is restated by Steve Koss who states:

"The Flow," argues that the war in Iraq was never about WMD or Saddam Hussein, it was about oil. Not about getting oil, however, but about preventing us from getting it. The goal in Iraq is to keep Iraqi oil off the markets to raise the price, bolster OPEC, and line the black-slicked pockets of Houston oil magnates. Furthermore, Palast puts the lie to the notion that the world is even remotely running out of oil (other than the $10 per barrel kind) and reveals how the power centers of oil are moving away from Saudi Arabia and toward Iraq, Venezuela, and (believe it or not) Canada. Chapter 2 is one of the book's longest, most deeply documented, and most disturbing.

There is a great deal more, but it strikes me that "oil" is the key issue for my readership. However, I also strongly suggest you consider why, aside from the sheer, staggering, nose-bleed range profits, those in power would like you paying more for oil.

Consider this - as one more observation that I'm picking out of the pile. Individual liberty is ultimately an economic matter. The ability to travel is fundimental to liberty. Well, your ability to travel has been restricted.

And by that I mean, further restricted. Consider what the "war on terror" has done to air travel. And of course, all international travel IS air travel, save to the US and Mexico.

The concept of a spontainious trip to nearly anywhere has vanished into the haze of yesteryear. Who's interests does that serve, I wonder?

It is said that "travel broadens the mind," and I think we have all seen the result of unbroadened minds in the voting booth.

Now, I'm not against the idea of Globalization - it's an invitable development. But there is a stark difference between the evolution of a truly global economy and the mechanisms it requires and what the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are actually doing, which bears absolutely no resemblance to free-market capitalism whatoever. It is, rather, economic and - dare I say it - class warfare.

Now, I hesitate to use the term "class warfare" as it's a term most strongly associated with the biggest class warriers of all, the socialists and the Marxist-Lenninists. But sometimes one cannot avoid naming a reality for what it is.

But when I speak of "class warfare" I'm not talking about "rich versus poor." I'm talking "corporate class" versus "everyone else in the world."

I include in this the extraordinarily wealthy. Oh, they may let you retreat to your private island - but they will not allow you to use your wealth in any way that interferes with their desired outcome. Just try investing your money in something that would tend to mitigate global energy scarcity and you will find out just how wealthy you are not.

For that matter, try showing up at a shareholder's meeting instead of allowing your proxies to be excercised in your name. You may be in for a rude shock, and perhaps the sudden onset of "schizophrenia" or "senile dementia."

Call me paranoid if you will - but should you decide to take such a course, consider first the idea that a mere million dollars, one way or another is a price the vast majority of the world would kill for.

Now, there are some folks that think that Corporatism is the next stage in social development; unavoidable, if not actively desirable. For myself, I consider it to be a regression to something less palatable than serfdom, and more importantly,. dependant on the rather dubious assumption that billions of peopel will be content to live upon the crumbs left to them by a few millions who, by necessity, must be rather conspiciously concentrated into a few small areas.

Such as, say, the World Trade Towers.

Now, I'm not saying 9/11 was a good thing, or a justifiable thing, or even an effective act, any more than the strike against the McMurrah buliding by Tim McVeigh was. I'm just saying that such events become more and more likely as the target value becomes more obvious.

I don't actually support such violence at all, for there is a far more effective way of dealing with these people. First, Just Say No to the IMF. If you need money, and you can't get it on the "official" markets, there's always the grey market.

If you need communications - there are ways other than through pipelines controlled by AT&T and other corperatist shills. Consider a UUCP-style network running on the Citizen Band or HAM-UHF frequences, as a "samizdata" worldwide unoffical "Backbone." Third-world level tech could make this sort of network pervasive, and accessable by wi-fi by technilogical gurilla action.

Bill O'Rielly: Certifiably, Clinically Stupid

O’Reilly’s solution: Run the place like Saddam at Calling All Wingnuts

Via Randi Rhodes.

O’Reilly: Now to me, they’re not fighting it hard enough. See, if I’m president, I got probably another 50-60 thousand with orders to shoot on sight anybody violating curfews. Shoot them on sight. That’s me… President O’Reilly… Curfew in Ramadi, seven o’clock at night. You’re on the street? You’re dead. I shoot you right between the eyes. Ok? That’s how I run that country. Just like Saddam ran it. Saddam didn’t have explosions - he didn’t have bombers. Did he? because if you got out of line, you’re dead.

Didn't we go there to rid the Iraq People of brutal incompetant Bushists. BAATHISTS! I mean Baathists!

It's not just what happens to them; it's what happens to us.

Bloggers Against Torture: Blowback

I decided to join this group for reasons that should be obvious; torture is both an ineffective technique for gathering information and it is blackly unethical, immoral and illegal under international civilian law and the laws of war.

I have been dismayed to see certain sectors successfully diminish the recent suicides by presuming that the men in Guantanamo are too low for our concern. Never mind that we know that innocent men have been kept in there. Never mind that it's the kind of place where "evidence" against a 17 year old boy is acquired by torturing another detainee until he is cowering under his bedsheets and muttering to himself. We even have a study, based on data supplied by the Defence Department, saying that 55% of detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies. But a "boo freakin hoo" is enough to render all of that irrelevant.

I wanted to write a post about the tortures that the men at Guantanamo have suffered. The tortures at the rendition sites from which they're sent are especially horrific. But the above made me pause. Unfortunately, it is well known that humans have difficulty empathising with those outside of their own cultural group, and let's be frank, it's not exactly Middle Easterners that we need to convince here. So instead I'll post about what happened to Sean Baker.

Spc. Sean Baker is an American. There's a picture of him on the left. In January of 2003, Baker volunteered in the role of an uncooperative detainee at Guantanamo for the purposes of a training drill. The MPs weren't told it was a drill. They were told that he was an unruly detainee who had assaulted an American sergeant. They subsequently inflicted a beating upon Baker so severe that it resulted in a traumatic brain injury, leaving him with seizures, blackouts, headaches, insomnia and psychological problems.

Baker was lucky. He was wearing his uniform under the orange jumpsuit, and he had enough time to groan "I'm a U.S. soldier" to his abusers to make them check. I wonder how it would have gone for him if his name was Abdul Kareem. What recourse is there for someone who has no rights?

This is what happens to our people when we make it "ok" to mistreat "their people." They become more and more willing to abuse people casually, brutally, and in many cases, terminally. This is what we commonly refer to as "prejudicial to good order and discipline."

Now, you would expect - as a rational human being, especially one interested in a professional, competent and disciplined military - that at the very least, those soldiers would now be civilians, after discharge from the stockade.

But I doubt that, given the response to the incident by the military, recorded at the above-linked wikipedia article.

Therefore, as a rational and cynical human being, I conclude that the MP's were executing their duties exactly as trained and precisely as expected in Gitmo. Resistance is to be discouraged with total brutality.

And that would make perfect sense - in a facility that is intended as an offshore brainwashing and torture facility, as well as a repository for useful hostages and political prisoners. One must assume the latter, of course, but given that half are adjudged as being innocent of any activity against the US, they must be held for other reasons, making it a very probable truth, even if it's only in the sense that the White House is worried about the political impact upon them of anyone detained there telling what happened to them.

American Agenda

American Agenda

Gary points out that the "Gay Agenda" is the "American Agenda" that used to be the common dream of every single American, and is still the dream of everyone who, perhaps mistakenly, will do almost anything to come here.

I am just another American seeking my rights. American laws and rights are to be faceless. Without defining characteristics that make any one American more rightful than another. In the dark animosity of that theatre we are all just citizens, presumed equal in every way.

And soon we are all blind and toothless....

The Ethical Vacuum of the Warblogger.

Pirates! Man Your Women! » Derision: "Anyone who says anything about Geneva conventions and the terrorists, and close Guantamano because its cruel, well, they can go fuck themselves with something large and spikey.
Why? This is why.

An Iraqi military official said the bodies showed signs of torture and of being killed in “a barbaric way.”

Can anyone give me any reason at all why we should not bring back the time-honored practice of burying Islamic terrorists in pig skins? Notice I didn’t say dead Islamic terrorists…"

There is a reason why I talk about ethics a lot more than I do morals. "Morals" allow this sort of thing, because in practice, "morals" do not apply to any "out group."

I have a very solid reason why we should not act as he suggests: Civilized human beings have the duty to be better than that. Anyone that would do as he suggests is undeserving of the fruits of civilization or the company of civilized human beings, and should be confined or expelled, as may seem convenient, on pain of death.

Civilized societies cannot permit such behavior and remain civilized. That’s an historical truth there; great heaping piles of examples are just a google away; prove it to yourself if you do not find it intuitively obvious.

A system of justice, with defense lawyers and juries for even war criminals is not just a benefit of civilization, it's one of the things that defines it. Treating the undeserving in a civilized manner - even in the manner of their judicial execution is what separates us from barbarians like the Taliban and the sleeker but no less vicious ones in Saudi Arabia and the West Wing.

Oh, and among the ranks of the 101'st Fighting Keyboardists, of course.

Civilizations have rules, which are followed even when it interferes with our lust for blood and vengeance.

Here's the Dread Pirate Procedure for dealing with a mixed group of captured insurgents who may have valuable intelligence:

Walk into that room, and shoot one of the leaders right in the head. The one the rest looked to. Sure, he might have been the most “valuable” prisoner because he knew the most, but I guarantee one of the newbies will break. If not, take out #2.

I want you to think what you would honestly do in the newbie’s position. You’re just some 19 year old kid who wasn’t expecting anything like this when you joined up with Al Qaeda or “the resistance”. You just wanted to prove you’re a man. But that doesn’t include what’s happening now. I guarantee that if you know anything, you’ll talk at this point.

Ah, the words of a man unfamiliar with both history and Robert A. Heinlein.

Insurgencies run by competent folks are compartmentalized. Death and torture are presumed upon capture, and certain if you talk and are released. Such tactics may well work, and that is why their use is presumed.

Or in other words, son, if it were that easy, a fool like you could do it. But insurgencies hope that fools like you operate in such a manner. It makes their success possible.

Saddam's entire, extremely ruthless and quite professional intelligence apparatus evaporated as the morning dew, even as our troops were racing for Baghdad. And now, we face some truly professional insurgency. 1+1=?

You may presume that anyone you capture will be operating in a manner to limit the potential gains from interrogation by any means. Go read "The moon is a Harsh Mistress" for an exact outline of what a properly redundant insurgency looks like, and how the direct consequence of any compromised cell could be limited to one member of three other cells.

On the other hand, consider the impact on the morale of the enemy. Such behavior simply reinforces the spine of a resistance. Consider the battle for the Warsaw Ghetto.

This was a truly desperate fight, between mostly untrained and very lightly equipped Jews who preferred to die fighting, pitted against a truly professional force that embodied the fighting spirit so well illustrated by our Dread Pirate.

On Monday, April 19, 1943, the Jewish feast of Passover, over 2000 Waffen SS soldiers under the command of SS General Jürgen Stroop attacked with tanks, artillery and flame throwers. A fierce battle erupted between the heavily armed Germans and 1200 Jews armed with smuggled in pistols, rifles, a few machine guns, grenades and Molotov cocktails.

This was a final battle after months of urban warfare, warfare of a nature unrivaled until the current situation in Iraq.

The end result: the SS units sustained at least 50% casualties; accounts vary, but a remnant of approximately 1700 half-starved, poorly equipped fighters killed roughly 300 and wounded 1000 - and this does not account for casualties sustained earlier. The units involved were destroyed as effective units, and sustained huge equipment losses as well.

All of this was the direct result of policies that are nearly word for word and action for action what our dear pirate suggests as being "most effective."

And granted, they were effective. The Warsaw ghetto was wiped out. Of course, it inspired a later, more general Warsaw uprising, which had to be suppressed at an even higher cost and while both battles were "victories" for the Germans, it was at a price German forces could not afford, nor sustain.

The ethics of warfare are incredibly important, for ethics define the why of any war, especially in the breach. They also circumscribe the range of action one may take, lest the consequence overwhelm the potential gain.

Von Clauswitz (the Prussian military genius) is noted for a statement as profound as it is seemingly obvious; "war is fought by human beings."

Asymmetrical warfare is no different in that regard and while war is a dehumanizing business, anyone who bases their actions and beliefs on the delusion that the other side does not share a common humanity will ultimately lose. Indeed, they will probably lose rather quickly.

Von Clauzwitz was no fuzzy-minded Liberal squeamish about dropping hellfire upon his foes. He was instructing the reader to understand that that humanity was to be used to direct the fire. He was speaking about breaking the will of the enemy to fight, and no part of that involves underestimating their capability in any sense.

Likewise, look to Sun Tsu, who advised in the Art of War to always leave the enemy a path of retreat, and ideally, an option which made it attractive to them to not fight at all.

A cornered enemy with high motivation and the sure knowledge that they will face death or worse at your hands if they surrender to you is the most dangerous foe imaginable. Worse than that, they have the ethical, and indeed, the moral high ground - for you could choose to permit their escape as a disorganized and demoralized force.

If Hitler had understood this, all of Europe would be speaking German today.

When you choose to utterly crush an enemy, wipe them out to the last man, woman and child it will be at a high price in blood and the loss of your own troop's morale and discipline - and you will communicate something to everyone else you may face: "No mercy, no quarter, no forgiveness and no prisoners."

There is a Biblical proverb that boils this down to its essentials: "What profitith a man to gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

Some call this "war on terror" a "clash of civilizations." History records many such clashes and the ultimate victor is not always the one who triumphed on the battlefield. War is not a civilized business; it's the antithesis of civilized behavior and tends to destroy everything that makes civilization possible both in terms of physical things, like libraries and plumbing and in terms of the human ability to be civilized after being exposed to the potential inhumanity of mankind.

We call it "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder," and by some estimates, more than half of our active-duty combat forces have levels of PTSD severe enough that they should be hospitalized, instead of running around with weapons. For every soldier of ours this is true of, it's likely true of a hundred Iraqis.

It is unethical to do this sort of thing to people. Things that are unethical are also starkly unwise. People with PTSD tend to do sudden and violent things. They have a peculiar sort of mindset, characterized by being almost binary, black and white in nature. They loose empathy towards other people, and the ability to function within a multi-valued society. Left untreated, they tend to end up in prison or dead, and short of that, make the lives of those that love them a misery.

Now, all of this is inevitable in war to some degree. "War is Hell." It's a truism. It's a reality that every sane defense planner allows for. Therefore, it is advisable to be fighting for something that justifies such a price, and ideally extracts that price from the "other side."

That makes it desirable to have identifiable "sides."

Formless rhetorical ideas are not the proper target of a war. They cannot be defeated, nor can they be killed. But that stress must be vented, and as the guilty do not exist, by definition, the innocent will pay. This includes, as the very first and worst victim, the solder himself.

I have studied war and warfare for nearly as long as I could read. It's a fascinating subject, and a horrifying one. There is no record of a good war but there are many cases where the alternative was inarguably worse. In cases like that, there can be no sane argument against a resort to force.

But when ethics, ideals, common sense, sound military advice and the inherent value of the lives of the people directly involved are simply dismissed as trivial irrelevancies there can be no victory, save for barbarism in general.

I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-barbarian.

tag: ethics, warblogs, warbloggers, civilization, ethical warfare, just war, Robert A. Heinlein", reason, rationality, saudi arabia, ten commandments, terrorism, foreign policy, war, Iraq, 101'st Fighting Keyboardists,

Privacy should not be a commodity.

Let us speak together about ethics and morals, and those who wink at acts that violate the letter and the spirit of BOTH the Constitution and the Ten Commandments.

It's pretty clear to me that these folks want both mounted on the walls of courthouses in exactly the same spirit that they want the head of a 12-prong buck mounted in their den.

"I killed that. Have a nice Havana. I know a guy in Miami."

AP: Police got phone data from brokers - Yahoo! News:

"WASHINGTON - Numerous federal and local law enforcement agencies have bypassed subpoenas and warrants designed to protect civil liberties and gathered Americans' personal telephone records from private-sector data brokers."

The existance of "data brokerages" is not exactly breaking news for people who've been on the net awhile, but it's apparently news to those the Associated Press informs. But I confess I had not really considered the implications as fully as I should have.

A lawmaker who has investigated the industry said Monday he was concerned by the practices of data brokers.

"We know law enforcement has used this because it is easily obtained and you can gather a lot of information very quickly," said Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., head of the House Energy and Commerce investigations subcommittee. The panel expects to conduct hearings this week.

Whitfield said data companies will relentlessly pursue a target's personal information. "They will impersonate and use everything available that they have to convince the person who has the information to share it with them, and it's shocking how successful they are," Whitfield said. "They can basically obtain any information about anybody on any subject."

The congressman said laws on the subject are vague: "There's a good chance there are some laws being broken, but it's not really clear precisely which laws."

Now, here's an idea. How about creating some clear and precise laws that prevent third parties from gaining by stealth and misdirection what the government is forbidden to obtain without a proper warrent? Is that not what "lawmakers" do?

It's pretty clear to me that when one party pays good money to poke into the private life of others, their intents are pobably not to the benifit of the other party. This priciple alone should put it clearly into the category of theft and trespass. And for those who cannot understand the Constitution, well, both of those concepts are in the Ten Commandments.

In this case, my dear Theocons, read 'em and weep. If you wish to shove them down the throats of the entire nation, it seems fair that you should first digest them yourselves.

tag: What Would Jesus Do, MSM, constitution, constitutional, unintentional irony, irony, ironic, ten commandments, privacy, data theft, data mining, warrentless wiretapping

A Total Boehner

Think Progress » EXCLUSIVE: Majority Leader Boehner’s Confidential Strategy Memo For Thursday’s Iraq Debate:

On Thursday, the House of Representatives will hold a debate on the Iraq war. Media reports say Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) “hopes to match the serious, dignified tone of deliberation that preceded the Gulf war, in 1991.”

ThinkProgress has obtained a “Confidential Messaging Memo” from Boehner instructing his caucus to conduct a very different kind of deliberation. Here’s a quick summary:

1. Exploit 9/11. The two page memo mentions 9/11 seven times. It describes debating Iraq in the context of 9/11 as “imperative.”

2. Attack opponents ad hominem. The memo describes those who opposes President Bush’s policies in Iraq as “sheepish,” “weak,” and “prone to waver endlessly.”

3. Create a false choice. The memo says the decision is between supporting President Bush’s policies and hoping terrorist threats will “fade away on their own.”

You can read the confidential memo for yourself HERE."

Well, that link says a lot about the word "confidential" in our post-9/11 world. But this paragraph indicates just why they wanted to keep it confidential, and why it did not remain so.

Republicans believe victory in Iraq will be an important blow to terrorism and the threat it poses around the world. Democrats, on the other hand, are prone to waver endlessly about the use of force to protect American ideals. Capitol Hill Democrats’ only specific policy proposals are to concede defeat on the battlefield and instead, merely manage the threat of terrorism and the danger it poses.

These are troubling policies to embrace in a post-9/11 world. During this debate, we need to clarify just how wrong the Democrats’ weak approach is and just how dangerous their implementation would be to both the short-term and long-term national security interests of the United States.

Isn't it just wonderful - aside from the actual, very troubling policies - to be told what you, as a Republican, must believe in the face of near-overwhelming reality?

How very Orwellian.

As a Libertarian, or perhaps more accurately, a Jeffersonian Democrat, I will state with conviction that there is almost no case where the use of force by the State against anyone can "protect my ideals." I suggest that the ideals held by the Majority Leader and El Presidente de la Norte have nothing whatsoever to do with any idea or ideal Jeffeson ever set pen to write about - save in terms of the starkest condemnation.

But even if all the Republican members are still dedicated drinkers of the Kool-Aide, they have staffs. Staffs that are neither idiots nor interested in the sort of disruption to their lives and families that a continued Republican majority would entail. Staffs that would like to be working toward their own goals for people that have a faint hope of achieving them.

With the proper guidance, of course.

Oh, and they might just have some ethical issues with the Leader, if not purely moral ones. But as pure long-term political survival is sufficient to explain such leakage, I invoke Occam's Razor.

tag: leaks, house majority leader, talking points, 9/11, social control, ethics, politics, bush cronies, John Boehner, Republicans, Jeffersonian Democrat, , terrorism, foreign policy

The Smart Money agrees with me!

86% of it, to be precise

"Washington is failing to make progress in the global war on terror and the next 9/11-style attack is not a question of if, but when. That is the scathing conclusion of a survey of 100 leading American foreign-policy analysts.

In its first 'Terrorism Index,' released yesterday, the influential journal Foreign Policy found surprising consensus among the bipartisan experts.

Some 86 per cent of them said the world has grown more, not less, dangerous, despite President George W. Bush's claims that the U.S. is winning the war on terror."

"We agree that we face a Constitutional Crisis."

Andrew Sullivan | The Daily Dish: Quote for the Day II

"I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel I owe anybody an explanation," - president George W. Bush.

Sullivan uses this quote to point to a lengthy article in the New York Review of Books. Your literacy is presumed upon, but it's well worth some tired lips to read this account of George Bush's clandestine power grab with the passive complicity of a tame Congress.

Grover Norquist, a principal organizer of the conservative movement who is close to the Bush White House and usually supports its policies, says, "If you interpret the Constitution's saying that the president is commander in chief to mean that the president can do anything he wants and can ignore the laws you don't have a constitution: you have a king." He adds, "They're not trying to change the law; they're saying that they're above the law and in the case of the NSA wiretaps they break it." A few members of Congress recognize the implications of what Bush is doing and are willing to speak openly about it. Dianne Feinstein, Democratic senator from California, talks of a "very broad effort" being made "to increase the power of the executive." Chuck Hagel, Republican senator from Nebraska, says:

There's a very clear pattern of aggressively asserting executive power, and the Congress has essentially been complicit in letting him do it. The key is that Bush has a Republican Congress; of course if it was a Clinton presidency we'd be holding hearings.

Further down, there's this:

In late February, shortly after Bush's signing statement on the McCain amendment, the Constitution Project, a bipartisan, nonprofit organization in Washington, issued a protest signed by former government officials of both parties, prominent conservatives, and scholars, saying that they "are deeply concerned about the risk of permanent and unchecked presidential power, and the accompanying failure of Congress to exercise its responsibility as a separate and independent branch of government." They objected to Bush's assertions that he "may not be bound" by statutes enacted by Congress, such as the McCain amendment, and that he can ignore "long-standing treaty commitments and statutes that prohibit the torture of prisoners." It concluded that "we agree that we face a constitutional crisis."^[2]

Those of us with bluish blood and liberal educations (that is to say, the traditional liberal-arts values which are quite apart from political philosophy) have an reflexive horror which those of us that toil among the Common People must learn to suppress. I throw in a "fuck" now and again to establish my intellectual punk creds.

But there is a point to speaking with both technical precision and with a deliberate lack of passion about such a grave matter. You see, to translate that into terms the politically apathetic and those of average education may understand, the phrase would be something along the line of "The British Are Coming; The British Are Coming!"

A constitutional Crisis is, in political terms, something like the term "broken arrow" in national security terms.

A Constitutional Crisis is a huge big fat fucking deal. The whole point to the constitution is to prevent anyone from doing precisely the things that El Presidente has done.

Declare war illegally, spy on citizens, detain persons without trial, ignore the laws passed by Congress as directed by the people - these are all things that are constitutionally forbidden, and for damned good reasons. One very significant reason for that is the security of the people - which our founders thought far more important than security of the people who consider themselves to be the government.

Nor were the founders particularly concerned about nebulous threats, or even naked ones. "The Tree Of Liberty must from time to time be Refreshed with the Blood of Patriots."

National Security is YOUR job, and MY job. The job of the Government (and at this point, the Founders were thinking of Militias, not armies) is to send out a holler for help, and you and me are supposed to grab our muskets and come a-runnin'.

Seeing that thee and me are likely to be raucously pissed should we have to go out and be shot at for trivial reasons, much less reasons of personal political advantage, the government was expected to conduct it's foreign and domestic affairs in such a manner as to prevent large numbers of us from picking sides and exchanging volleys.

With one notable exception, that philosophy has worked, although it may be argued - and I'm one starting to think it should be argued - that despite all it's flaws and all the evils of slavery and bigotry that existed within it, the Confederacy should have won.

Alas.

Confederates were a lot picker about their rights and freedoms - perhaps due to having so many examples of what the lack of it was like.

But of course, all of history is "Pre 9/11," as if we had somehow had a magical immunity to the reality of human nature before.

Now, "national security," you say "means we must give up a few rights and privacies."

There is only one proper response to that, in constitutional terms.

"No."

In frontier terms, in terms that anyone familiar with John Ford Westerns and Star Wars, the answer is more succinct:

"Draw."

Because anyone who is unwilling to individually defend their liberty and the liberty of their neighbors, their children, their town and it's widows and orphans is damn well unworthy to breath the same air free men do. They are either a gutless coward or an outlaw, and a bullet is a proper cure for either condition.

Now, the odds of you, personally being affected by even the most profound, destructive and deadly act of terror - short of the stupidest imaginable bioterrorism - are on the order of being struck by lighting - in your left foot.

But the odds of you being harmed, disadvantaged, annoyed, presumed upon, bothered, discriminated against or even rounded up and put into a detention camp are far greater. The odds vary for each possibility, but for some of us, the possibility of being "gitmoized" or just "disappeared" in the Poyndexterean sense is significant enough for us to consider taking out additional coverage, with both Lloyd's of London and Smith and Wesson.

Consider one thing: Terrorists are not interested in killing a huge number of people. They are interested in killing enough people to terrify a huge number of people. Dead people affect no policies and do not vote.

On the other hand. You can vote. Perhaps you did vote.

Are you satisfied with the results?

The Marching Morons and other hilarities.

Stranger in a Strange Land - A Slightly Twisted View of American Politics and Society: "Too freaking funny.

Apparently Tom DeLay is under the DeLusion that Stephen Colbert is an actual conservative who actively supports him and his cronies. The moronity that American voters manage to elect into office never ceases to amaze."

Strangerina is pointing to an hilarious Think Progress article where they reveal that defenddelay.com is citing STEVEN COLBERT as a staunch defender.

The comments are priceless.

1. Say what you want about Colbert, he’s a LOT more popular than DeLay, with liberals, conservatives and all other reality based organic lifeforms.

   Comment by Larry Epke — May 25, 2006 @ 8:55 am

2. Reminds me of when Christianists were quoting an Onion article in order to prove that Harry Potter was demonic and was corrupting children left & right….(no pun intended)
   Comment by richrath — May 25, 2006 @ 8:17 am

   I totally missed that one. How hilarious! Apparently the news that is was a spoof didn’t make it to some desperate housewife in my school district who has never read any of the books, but says they will influence children to practice witchcraft and is trying to get them pulled from the school libraries. Even here in the rural and red South she is considered a crackpot with most people.

   Comment by unbelievable — May 25, 2006 @ 8:59 am

3. By the way I tried to email the person under contacts for the delay defense fund and got a permanent dead link. Apparently they really don’t want any feed back. Go figure

   Comment by Blue Texan — May 25, 2006 @ 9:10 am

4. Colbert savages the Republican right with the weapon that the Democrats are afraid to use….. because it is a two edged sword…. bold truthfulness.

   The country is longing for a government that is not unintentionally ironic.

   Comment by kali — May 25, 2006 @ 9:31 am

5. Watching “The Colbert Report” just got even funnier knowing that many 29%’ers believe he’s conservative no matter what they have heard or seen………and they say the hardest substance in the world is diamond? I think not.

   Comment by just a bill — May 25, 2006 @ 9:38 am

6. Here’s what I think we oughta do…

   I agree with the idea that it doesn’t really matter if Colbert is being sarcastic/ironic…I mean, we know he is, but the Neocons will hear what they want to hear…they see him as the Conservative response to the Daily Show….

   Having said that, it is a good ole time watching Cons making asses of themselves…so I say we let ‘em twist for a while….hopefully the Conservative groups will continue to reference Colbert…

   Then we let them in on the joke in the late summer, just before elections…we can point and laugh…and perhaps in the process get some of ‘em to question the other crap this administration has been spoon feeding them…we could even bring in that if the conservatives morons had gotten a proper Non-Republican education, they’d have been able to identify “satire.”

   Good Lord, what dufuses…or is it dufi? I can never remember…

   Comment by TJG — May 25, 2006 @ 9:46 am

And meanwhile, the Right is seriously confused. Even fairly sensible people on the Right seem to be confused.

Is Stephen Colbert a Liberal or a Conservative?

Posted by Gordon Smith

During breaks in the graduation ceremony today, I chatted with Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin about all sorts of things. It turns out that she's a fan of Stephen Colbert, too. She asked whether I thought he was, at heart, a liberal or conservative. (Apparently, this is a matter of dispute among members of Congress.) I told her that I assumed he was a liberal, but she said that the congressman who claims to know Colbert best is convinced that he is a conservative.

Hmm. Interesting.

Irony. It's a terrible, terrible weapon to use on the unsuspecting. It is the WMD of comedy. It's horribly, hidiously unfair. When properly employed, the victims of the deadpan humorist are like baby ducks being led into a blender.

That's what makes it so much fun!

In other news, early hints of a private-enterprise funded Venus colony are being circulated. George Soros mentioned as possible large contributor to R&D efforts for Venutian habitats.






tag: steven colbert, irony, tom delay, funny, unintentional irony, bush cronies, comedy central, satire

The Moderate Voice - George Bush Sr. Tried To Get Rumsfeld Fired

The Moderate Voice - George Bush Sr. Tried To Get Rumsfeld Fired

Sidney Blumenthal writes in Salon:

Former President George H.W. Bush waged a secret campaign over several months early this year to remove Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The elder Bush went so far as to recruit Rumsfeld's potential replacement, personally asking a retired four-star general if he would accept the position, a reliable source close to the general told me. But the former president's effort failed, apparently rebuffed by the current president. When seven retired generals who had been commanders in Iraq demanded Rumsfeld's resignation in April, the younger Bush leapt to his defense. "I'm the decider and I decide what's best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain," he said. His endorsement of Rumsfeld was a rebuke not only to the generals but also to his father.

Read the responses: the sickly stench of bathtub-fermented Kool-Aid is upon their breath.

Capitol Hill Blue: Reid asks bloggers to become "force" for Democrats

Capitol Hill Blue: Reid asks bloggers to become "force" for Democrats

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid made a pitch Saturday to enlist bloggers as a Democratic force in upcoming elections, and said he'll ask Congress for stiffer reporting requirements for the president and the intelligence community.

"I know fighters when I see them. You're fighters," Reid said as he began a warmly received keynote speech to the YearlyKos Convention of Internet bloggers at a Las Vegas Strip resort.

You first.