Wednesday, March 21, 2007

What Would Thumper Do?

hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Message from The American Center for Law and Paranoia:

Religion is under assault. Christianity is under attack. The nation is collapsing. The Lib’rals are guttin our values, stomping on our Bible-based Constitution, educating our children, putting condoms on our men and shoes on our women. Or so says The American Center for Law and Justice, whose initialism– ACLJ– is curiously similar to ACLU. Sneaky… sneaky… Credibility by association is not fair play.

This is urgent … we could see a vote in the Senate anytime this week! Your freedom of speech has literally never been so threatened as it is today.

Senate Bill 1 and House Resolution 4682 are clearly the work of politicians who want to control, limit, and silence Christians and conservative groups.

By classifying and regulating any Christian organization or church, which you may be a part of, as a ”lobbyist” …

… this legislation will forcibly restrict your right to free speech - which is absolutely unconstitutional.

Message from The American Center for Law and Justice « The Light

… except that H.R. 4682 does no such thing. Read it. (Helpful hint: If a person complains about the content of a easily available document but does not link to that document, don’t trust that person.) What the resolution does do is treat lobbyists like lobbyists. And that is the problem.

And she goes on, most eloquantly, to end up making the following point:

Nowhere in the resolution, so far as I have been able to find, does it discriminate against “conservatives” or “christians”. Framing it as doing so is dishonest.

Nowhere does the resolution forcibly restrict anyone’s right to free speech. It does require that lobbying activities be duly reported, but it does not restrict those activities. Framing it as doing so is dishonest.

Now, that's a very good point, but being an Athiest, she doesn't really take it and stick it up the right opening.

Quoting myself quoting Scott Peck, as quoted by The Yurica Report:

There are seven attributes of a man that God hates. God lays out the psychological profile of those traits he abhors. The following are from Proverbs 6:16-19 in the Amplified Version:

1. “A proud look [the spirit that makes one overestimate himself and underestimate others].

2. “A lying tongue,

3. “Hands that shed innocent blood,

4. “A heart that manufactures wicked thoughts and plans,

5. “Feet that are swift in running to evil,

6. “A false witness who breathes out lies [even under oath],

7. “And he who sows discord among his brethren.”

Selah! Pause and think on these things.

Those who make a living thwacking other folks with the Bible will be thwacked with it in the place they keep their wallet.

Or to make my point - is a person who, in appealing to you AS a Christian, and who lies in order to gain your support worthy of your time, attention, and support? Or should you "shake the dust from your feet?"
The link above goes to a slick, commercial-christian site that I fear would make a point of avoiding my point. But I rather do think the Jesus the Bible speaks of would give me a big hi-five.



Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Flashbacks to Chicago, 1968

Colorado Confidential :: Springs Police Launch St. Paddy's Parade Investigation:

Colorado Springs police have launched an internal investigation into the arrests of seven men and women during last Saturday’s St. Patrick’s Day parade in which officers were captured on camera and videotape dragging 65-year old Elizabeth Fineron across the street, resulting in a nasty road rash on her upper thigh and stomach.

The images also show police holding retired Catholic priest Frank Cordaro in a pressure point control that is designed to force compliance through pain, as well as detainees lying face down on the street in handcuffs as parade-watchers look on.

The seven who were arrested were marching in the city's annual St. Patrick's Day parade wearing green T-shirts with white peace symbols on them.
And such a threat to peace and security they were.

Of Duty and Honor - the responsiblities of Citizens and Soldiers.

The Unapologetic Mexican:
"IT IS REMARKABLE, this spirit we inherit, this blood we inherit, these dreams and these roads that we wake to find wound around our wrists and across our cheeks like war paint, like sleeplines, like shooting stars tattooed as gentle but indelible reminders. We are children for so long. Our desaturated comic strips blow into pulpy confetti clouds of memory and the palms open to reveal magenta astral charts...alien and familiar all at once. Nameless glyphs that reappear. Faultlines and gold-laden veins that bleed through old tests and texts and packaging slips. Emerald grit upon the fingertips. The voice that sings the moon to sleep reprises her reminders in the secrets that we speak. Drafts of warm air, cool lilac exhalations, and sunset's shadow. Desert sun and greyhound buses and memories of a home you've never touched with your hands."
Daayaam, that's fine writing; goes down like a stubby of Bohemian after a hot day riding a stuker and tossing bales of wet alfalfa - which is what blogging feels like some days, and no Bohemian pilsner to be found here in Reno.

This blog is a challenge and a joy - for I have to say that while it is beautiful, it's template needs a little tweaking for those of us who cannot read six point gold type on a parchment background.

But unlike most pretty blogs - it's worth highlighting or even fuzting with your browser text settings. That was a pretty post. But this is Graphictruth, where pretty is valued only to the extent that it helps the blade of truth slip between the ribs of ignorance.

So check this out.

You forge of your self a dull weapon.


PERHAPS A READER cannot readily agree with the stance of holding soldiers personally accountable for aiding such massive crimes as the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps even though it is made clear to us in everything from time-worn fables to Self-Help books to music lyrics to television shows to age old films to mama's words to our own inner urging—that each person in life is born alone, dies alone, and in the meantime, must stand up and be counted for what they have lent their hand to while here—we still imagine somehow that culpability for anything from kidnapping to assault and battery to murder is mitigated and even nullified, nay—justified, by immersing the self into a collective such as the military. Those who argue as much enable the State to carry out unmentionable crimes and and will do so for the end of time, justifying such dangerous and indiscriminate allegiance by arguing that the cohesion of their nation-state justifies all. These are the people who hand over their will and thought with but a slight gesture, and so they are that oppressive State. They forfeit the discernment and skepticism and autonomy necessary to mark one as a reasonable individual and they do it for a song, for a mediocre fee, for a fable, for a fluffed-up casus belli. For these people, even questioning the codified if unspoken set of rules that make these wars possible is taboo, after a point. And yet those who hold this ideology see fit, somehow, to bemoan the wars waged by the greedy elite when it is only their own ideology of Human as Mindless Tool that makes these wars a reality.
CHI-CHING!

Please tell me why should I not form a militia, or my own government? My own group of people who decide upon a book of laws? Why are they, then, not justified in killing where killing would otherwise be thought a crime? Because they are not your gang? Yes. And that is all. So at least we can be clear on that. There is no great morality that can be defended by any nation, and especially one that operates on the dictums the US does and engages in the hypocrisies that she historically has.

BLAMMO!

There is no such thing as Liberty and Democracy, nor Freedom when you seek dispensation of same from a Government. Because in the end, those glorious ideals and speeches and laws will be communicated with steel and blood and agony and murder, and based on reasons you may or may not agree with. Just as we see now. Just as we have seen in the past. Just as we will see again. For there is no law of society but force. Everything else is a conditional addendum. And to loan your body and will and force to the State—and unconditionally—is to forego your humanity and forge of your self a dull weapon.


KABOOM!

A dramatic - and damnably accurate assessment of the current situation. Nonetheless, I do support the troops. Not because I support the war, or even the supposed intent behind the war. I support their survival, so that they may internalize the experience of being cynically used as if they were Janissaries instead of free citizen-soldiers. I also remind all US Soldiers of their nearly unique oath of service - to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic."

I remind everyone that in supporting the troops, we are supporting fellow citizens in dire straits that are not of their choosing, and if many do not have the courage to take a principled stand such as First Lieutenant Ehren Watada it's due to having families to support - or due to what their friends and families would say. Sadly, many are willing to do wrong in order to be seen as "doing the right thing" by those who do not know better.

If they are unaware - as many are - as to their rights and duties as Citizen-Soldiers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the Constitution of the United States, it's our duty to find out and tell them. They are kinda, well, busy.

So my support to them is specific and limited to doing what is needful to survive. I discourage adventurous heroism. Dead heroes can't vote. I suggest that every non-citizen in US service who wishes to do so, pursue the citizenship they have - in my humble opinion - earned in the most honorable possible way.

But I'd also suggest requesting written orders for any actions that could be considered a war crime. Hell. in this clusterfuck, get written orders for everything, and make multiple copies, especially if related to combat injuries. Funny how hard it is for the VA to find such things.

Most of all, come back alive, in as close to original condition of issue as possible, and rejoin civilian life as an armed, dangerous and motivated citizen voter. We will help, and that, too, is Supporting the Troops.

And hey, we may need you, should it become clear that it's time for a Constitutional Convention.

tag: , , , , , , ,

Monday, March 19, 2007

Constitution, THEN politics.

Declarations of Pride Sez:

What I care most about is America and her soul! I care more for this than any maneuvers to guarantee power. If this President is left unchecked, then we become a land without the base respect and enforcement of our laws to the highest levels of our representative government, then what do we have left to be proud of? Not a democracy. Not "America the Beautiful," but something much less than America, and much more like the former USSR.

Standing firmly without care for strategy, and with immense power for the protection of this union from the hands of an out of control executive is the United States Constitution, and upon swearing an oath to this sacred decree, our representatives are charged with a duty to this country and this founding document.

What our legislature is charged with is a legal responsibility to hold the executive branch in check if it should break the rules of law, no matter the cause or the reason. It is one of the greatest responsibilities of that legislative body, and not something that should be toyed with, abused, or contemplated as a political tool of strategy.

It is my contention, outside of all contingencies, that President Bush and all those who have aided him in his war on Iraq, the truth, and our Constitution should be held accountable for their various and many crimes against America; not to mention laws violated or ignored at home and abroad.
Amen. And allow me to add that this reluctance is making me wonder if our democratic representatives are cut of any different cloth than the members of the Party of the Rubber Stamp. Politics and consequences be damned! The rule of law and justice demand impeachment.

Impeach. Impeach NOW!


A Republic, if you can keep it: H.R. 1022

A Republic, if you can keep it: H.R. 1022: Blogging a comment by Lester Luttrell:

"April 19th, 1775, when the British came to relieve American colonists of their arms, they were shot.
This is celebrated as patriots day, not 9/11 as has been changed on the calender.
That is the line in the sand to the true patriot.
HR 1022 is the tyrants coming after your arms.
Say no. Resist.
And if perhaps all of the bad people who are trying to kill you, aka, criminals cannot be stopped by our politicians, then we need to be responsible enough to protect ourselves - with firearms."
The constitution IS "just a scrap of paper" if it cannot be enforced by the people whom it empowers and defends from authoritarian nonsense. To that end, Graphictruth strongly supports the 2nd Amendment and private ownership of very capable firearms - though I tend to think that high-capacity arms are not as important to a well-trained militia as they are to regular forces. A "well-regulated militia" does well to rely on aimed fire - and police it's brass!

tag: ,

The other side of Neurotpical on the Autistic Spectrum.

Incorrect Pleasures: The marriage between the findings of this study and Baron-Cohen’s systemizer-empathizer theory falls into conflict when one ponders how these marriages between similarly-minded people are possible in a world that does not yet legally recognize same-sex marriage. To simplify Baron-Cohen’s theory, while looking at page 150-151 of his book, many people have a brain type that is a balance between empathizing and systemizing, while males are generalized as having a systemizing type brain and females are generalized as having empathizer type brains (already this theory seems inconsistent, doesn’t it?). Autistics are described as having extreme systemizer brains, and the people who are theorized as having extreme empathizer brains are undiscovered territory. The Constantino and Todd study suggests that most people marry others with similar brain types, so explaining marriages between the “balanced” people in Baron-Cohen’s scheme isn’t a problem, but one wonders where do systemizer males find systemizer women to marry, and what kind of guys do empathizer women marry? The kind of guys who like other guys? Are there really more empathizer males and more systemizer females than Baron-Cohen’s book suggests? Do systemizers and empathizers really need to gain an understanding of people who are their opposite type? Do most of these types of people get through life happily by simply avoiding contact with those of their opposite type?
In my experience, people I'd now consider to be on the opposite end of the Spectrum either avoided me as if I had cooties, tried to force me to accommodate them or tried to eject me from wherever I was. I was seen as a threat, unless I assumed protective coloration, and if I were to guess, I'd place Lennie Schaefer and other sorts of Curebies as probable examples of people with this sort of deficit.

Fortunately, fooling such people is a trivial exercise, though only worth the effort in a protective sense - one simply has to convince them that you are not in competition with them for whatever it is they are seeking. When that is not possible, one has to remember that bullying is part of their repetoire, and bullies are both predictable and react to effective confrontation by running away.

tag: , , , , ,

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Lawyer Who Wiped Out D.C. Gun Ban Says It's About Liberties, Not Guns

Meet the lawyer who conceived the lawsuit that gutted the District's tough gun-control statute this month. Meet the lawyer who recruited a group of strangers to sue the city and bankrolled their successful litigation out of his own pocket. Meet Robert A. Levy, staunch defender of the Second Amendment, ... said he has never owned a firearm ...
read more | digg story

The Constitution must be protected both from the predations of the well meaning and the machinations of power-mongers. Power and influence, indeed, all duty, responsibility and government derives from the people, and our founders in their wisdom dictated that it would be much more difficult for anyone to take that away and put it in the hands of the powerful if the people were armed.

It should be a symbolic issue. It's the fault of a great many over many decades that in Washington DC, it is a matter of great practical and personal importance to many people.

We must stop believing in the opposite fairies of delusion - that "gun control" and "being tough on crime" will solve a massive social problem. And we must also stop pretending - each and every one of us - that such social problems are the responsibility of "people in authority," the government, that may be solved by restricting the liberties of "other people."

Constitutionally, you and I ARE the government, as is your neighbor and the fellow down the street with a pot plant in his basement. The people who do the day to day paperwork, policy and enforcement are our delegates and if they fail in their duties, it's our responsibility to discuss, examine and correct the matter.

Yes, this decision is going to make things more difficult in Washington, DC. Perhaps there should be some examination of why there are so many people who are so desperate that crime has become a multi generational way of life.

Government should ensure that at the very least, everyone has access to the things they need at a price they can afford, and a path to fulfill their legitimate ambitions, for ALL the people are the power that the Government rests upon, and furthermore - our very system of government recognizes from it's inception that people have the inalienable right to provide for their own needs, even if an oppressive authority objects.

It is "inalienable" in the sense that any law made to restrict that right is both unethical and futile. It is a basic fact of human nature that illegitimate laws will only be recognized in the breech.

But a "gun" is not the only way to wield the power of citizenship. Ideally, it's a tool that's never required - but upon that most practical and deadly of all symbols rests the means to maintain all others.

In this case, it's an individual with money. Money that represents power, that many governments would very much prefer to either co-opt or confiscate. "Plomo e Plata" is a phrase used by many thugs, some of whom carry badges. Their behavior toward the citizens that their authority rests upon should determine the response of a citizen to them.

In my case, it's an individual with a computer. In other cases, it has been a citizen with a cell phone or video camera. In all cases, it''s a case of a citizen who is willing to BE a citizen - a duty with some inherent risks - that keeps our society on track and maintains it in the face of many who would prefer we all bleat praises of the day's Leader in happy unison.

Government serves at the will of the people. This is a fact, true of any government, anywhere, whether or not that government legally recognizes the will of those who have ejected it's agents from their lands, it is nonetheless true that those who are ill-served badly enough and long enough by national governments tend to favor resistance movements and shoot tax collectors.

It is an embarrassment that those people who live in the Capital city of the United States of America are not as safe, as happy and as well secured as those in any gated community; the fact that it is not is an act of criminal neglegence, for it gives cover and connections to people that are our collective enemies.

Bluntly, it is an issue of National Security that the people of Washington DC do not feel themselves a valued asset of the Nation, nor in any wise secure.

Seems there's a body of elected representatives who have the duty to deal with this situation. I think they should spend some time thinking on the matter.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Blood Guilty Churches

Blood Guilty Churches is very possibly the most important thing you could read this year, whether you are Christian or not, Left, Right or Center.

It is expecially useful if you are trying to speak to those who blindly assert that this is "A Christian Nation" with a president "Appointed By God." These are assertions based, after all, on the Bible and therefore will stand or fall on how well the Good Book agrees with what those folk SAY the Bible says.

A chunk that is admittedly more than common fair use is required to fairly and properly represent this work. This section is the conclusion, and you should now go and read from the beginning to see how solidly each premise is established.

Profile of the Man God Hates

Scott Peck defines evil as, “The exercise of political power—that is, the imposition of one’s will upon others by overt or covert coercion—in order to avoid…spiritual growth.”[186] He says lying is both a symptom as well as one of the causes of evil.[187] There are several other remarkable facts about evil people revealed by Scott Peck’s book. He wrote in 1983:

“Because their willfulness is so extraordinary and always accompanied by a lust for power—I suspect that the evil are more likely than most to politically aggrandize themselves. Yet at the same time, being unsubmitted, their extreme willfulness is likely to lead them into political debacles.”[188]

Peck reveals the evil can never admit they’ve done anything wrong. They can never say, “I made a mistake.” They have to maintain the appearance of perfection—else the whole edifice of their personalities will crack. Peck explains, “Because they cannot admit to weakness or imperfection in themselves, they must appear [not to suffer deeply.] They must appear to themselves to be continually on top of things, continually in command. Their narcissism demands it.”[189]

Marked by the “appearance” of competence, the evil are driven by fear. Peck says, “They are terrified that the pretense will break down and they will be exposed to the world and to themselves. They are continually frightened that they will come face-to-face with their own evil. Of all emotions, fear is the most painful. Regardless of how well they attempt to appear calm and collected in their daily dealings, the evil live their lives in fear. It is a terror—and a suffering—so chronic, so interwoven into the fabric of their being, that they may not even feel it as such.”[190]

If we take Scott Peck’s analysis and compare it carefully with a profile of the evil in the Bible, we can see remarkable similarities.

There are seven attributes of a man that God hates. God lays out the psychological profile of those traits he abhors. The following are from Proverbs 6:16-19 in the Amplified Version:

1. “A proud look [the spirit that makes one overestimate himself and underestimate others].

2. “A lying tongue,

3. “Hands that shed innocent blood,

4. “A heart that manufactures wicked thoughts and plans,

5. “Feet that are swift in running to evil,

6. “A false witness who breathes out lies [even under oath],

7. “And he who sows discord among his brethren.”

Selah! Pause and think on these things.

Now go and rub the noses of your "Christian" brethren in this truth. For extra credit, "Do We Finally Have a Christian President" is asked - and you get to answer that for yourself.


tag: , , , , , , ,

Politics Explained

Politics Explained
Courtesy of Steve Jackson Games

Speaking Wonklish

Mike the Mad Biologist snorts at the rightward idea that there is insufficient wonkishness in Left Blogastan. (And really, he should know.) He quotes Matt Stoller, as do I, because Matt goes to the heart of the issue.

To put it in context, Kevin Drum's column was written prior to the 2006 election, and was something of an "if we win, then what" sort of piece.


Matt Stoller writes about Kevin Drum's plea for more wonkiness in the lefty blogosphere (italics mine):
I'm not going to go into details, but wonkery is at this point counterproductive because the essence of wonkery is an assumption of good faith. If you write a policy in wonk-land, it's assumed it will be carried out, the law will be respected, the money will be appropriated, etc. The Bush administration has broken that basic compact. They lie. All the time. They approach arguments in utter bad faith from the get-go. They abuse the process, everything from budget battles to conference committees. If you approach people like this in good faith, you lose...

Now, I do want things from Congress. And there are great discussions about the policies that we want, from Effect Measure to Boingboing to The Washington Note. But I'm not going to pretend like any of these are feasible without working out the systemic rot that has infected our discourse and political system. I want to see the law be reestablished as law, policy battles return to good faith terrain, and facts established as the basis for policy-making - and then we can discuss policy. [Emphasis Mine - and I wish I could use the blink tag-BK]

So, that is my suggestion for a policy. A general housecleaning. A return to good faith discourse and good faith politics. THEN we can discuss and argue about things that are not immediately obvious necessities to those unblinded by the delusions of the radical Right.

I say "a return," because much of this situation evolved (heh) from the Dominionist Christian efforts to infiltrate the political process, and they are quite expressly trained, advised and counseled to conceal their intentions, which are frankly to turn this nation into a theocracy not unlike that of the Taliban.

How George W. Bush became the head of the new
American Dominionist Church/State
by Katherine Yurica

Most Americans have been aware that religious right
Republicans have become extremely active politically
in the last twenty years. But because we're Americans
and we're mostly tolerant of other people's religious
beliefs, their rise to power hasn't really troubled us.
We should be troubled. There is now overwhelming
evidence that conservative Christians set out to
takeover the government of the United States and impose
their culture and values upon all Americans. This
article is not a theory--it is factual and historic.
The proof is in this essay. Dont miss this one.



Whatever dominionists say for public consumption, the real goal is what drives them. It's a policy that has brought them some success over the last 20 years, though it's unraveling as their actual agendas become obvious. But meanwhile, their tactics have obviously spread throughout the Right Wing, because in some senses, they have become the spiritual advisers to the Right - and because their tactics work.

For a while.

But as P.T. Barnum so famously observed, you can't fool all of the people, all of the time. The problem for the Right is just that - in order to continue all their overt and covert policies, they DO have to fool all of the people, all of the time. Worse yet, they have to start with themselves. This sort of willful suspension of a skeptical review of policy and ideological faith - and the loud derision of facts in evidence is bound to lead to a bruising collision with reality at some point.

In our case, we have Iraq, a president apparently willing to nuke Iran for reasons we can only speculate upon as his justifications are hardly worthy of the name, a looming energy crisis AND global warming, two linked issues that we should have started seriously addressing in the late seventies.

The right-wing "skepticism" about global warming is presented on the same intellectual level and possesses the same degree of intellectual honesty as it's "skepticism" about evolution and the human and environmental impact of - well, pretty much what any large corporate donor wishes to do.

The leaders of the various right wing factions - and there are many, with growing fissures between them - much prefer blind faith to measured and judicious support of their agendas based on skeptical discussion and review. It's a rather seductive proposition, it makes the job of wielding power ever so much easier and it creates a temporary illusion of juggernaut-like effectiveness.

But the problem of faith is that sooner or later that faith must be expressed in works. Faith - in God, in economic theory, in the merits of a military-industrial oligarchy - must bring a pudding to be proven.

And all we have gotten is repeated, rude figgings.

The cure for this starts with impeachment. Then it goes to a general cleansing of the government of "bushies," those who's success has depended more on loyalty and ideological purity than an honest day's work doing something related to their job description.

For instance, Homeland Security should have some relationship to actually securing our homes and our lands. And isn't that OUR job, Constitutionally speaking? Second Amendment? Well-Regulated Militia? (Volenteer fire departments are good examples of "well-regulated militias;" well-equipped and well-trained community members who are the "first responders" to many emergencies.

FEMA should manage emergencies that are too overwhelming for local responders. The Coast Guard should be guarding our coasts. Immigration and Naturalization should be doing things related to managing a coherent, fair and managable immigration policy. The FBI should investigate federal interstate crimes - which include both terrorism and treason. The CIA should centralize foreign intelligence. And we should have a foreign policy that does not make success in these efforts difficult to impossible to achieve.

This is common sense, of course - and since it is common sense, there's still a general reluctance to admit what a very, very poor job these agencies do when they do anything.

The only sane human reaction these days is to hide when a government agent approaches, for there can be no assumption of either good faith or the ability to do anything to make any human situation more bearable.

So let us start at the top, with impeachment. Then let us be rid of both those who are ideological incompetents and those who decided to play politics in preference to doing the right thing. In this I include many elected representatives of all parties who were in a position to know better, and either chose not to or were too focused on politics to remember that politics is a means, not an end in itself.

Let us restock our government with seasoned, apolitical professionals at the senior levels and task them with clearing out the underbrush.

The job of the government - first, last, always - is the regulation of the commons. Our common markets and our common access to them, our common resources, such as air, water, watersheds and green spaces that we all have an individual and equal survival-level interest in, regardless of wealth or position. Our common systems of transportation that make freedom of movement and access to markets more than just a fine-sounding pronouncement. This concept extends to some rather abstract-seeming things - like the broadcast spectrum, access to information, education and space exploration - but these are all things that we, as citizens of this nation, benefit or suffer from as individuals regardless of wealth, power or position.

Besides, even if you can buy access to power, bribe your way into markets denied the common man, it doesn't follow that you should have to, or that these "protected" markets are therefore superior in any way. Indeed, you've likely bought access to the shark pond, chum.

I have seen this situation coming since 1980. I've seen the promises, and I've seen the reality. This is a poorer nation than it was then, poorer intellectually, poorer financially, poorer spiritually and poorer in every other way relating to the graces and benefits of a civil and civilized society.

This nation has become greedy, mean-spirited, intolerant and - not to put too fine a point on it - stupefied.

The only policy that can be discussed is to rid ourselves of those who created those conditions and replace their policies with those that have been demonstrated to work in civilized nations, in accordance with our Constitution and with regard to it's enlightened intent of maximizing individual liberty.

I believe that a faith in things that work is the essence of Conservatism, and so I appeal to Congress; impeach. Impeach the President now. You are either with those of us who wish to live again in a decent, civilized nation that is well regarded by the world - or you are on the losing side, and the rest of us will be well-rid of you.

tag: , , , , , ,

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Suddenly Seymour Hersh

In reference to Seymour M. Hersh's New Yorker article, "The Redirection." Tom Engelhardt wonders where the media reaction is to something that looks like Iran-Contra, seems as naive and inept as Iran-Contra and likely to create far more problems than Iran-Contra ever did.

TomDispatch: The Seymour Hersh Mystery


"Iran-Contra alumni in the Bush administration at one time or another included former Reagan National Security Advisor John Poindexter, Otto Reich, John Negroponte (who, Hersh claims, recently left his post as Director of National Intelligence in order to avoid the twenty-first century version of Iran-Contra -- "No way. I'm not going down that road again, with the N.S.C. [National Security Council] running operations off the books, with no [presidential] finding."),"


Negroponte - that old cold warrier and worse - scared of blowback from a repeat of his "glory days?" What the hell does he know that Hersh has NOT found out? And dare we wait to know?

"In this country, it's a no-brainer that the Iranians have no right whatsoever to put their people, overtly or covertly, into neighboring Iraq, a country which, back in the 1980s, invaded Iran and fought a bitter eight-year war with it, resulting in perhaps a million casualties; but it's just normal behavior for the Pentagon to have traveled halfway across the planet to dominate the Iraqi military, garrison Iraq with a string of vast permanent bases, build the largest embassy on the planet in Baghdad's Green Zone, and send special-operations teams (and undoubtedly CIA teams as well) across the Iranian border, or to insert them in Iran to do 'reconnaissance' or even to foment unrest among its minorities. This is the definition of an imperial worldview."


Hersh's story amounts to this - there is a huge, complicated and frankly idiotic "black" operation run out of the Vice President's office with "black" funds (possibly stolen Iraqi oil dollars) to engineer a Sunni-Shia rift, civil war within Iran and God only knows what else. And they apparently think they can ride this whirlwind!

It seems like we here in the US are living on the wrong side of Mordor's gate.

tag: , , , , , , , ,

Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

Liar, Liar
Permission given to republish this cartoon with attribution to Bob King, Graphictruth.com

It's not just that the administration is lying to us, it's that they cannot even be bothered to exceed the minimum standards for the barest shred of "plausible deniability." In the case of the firings of US Attorneys, it was clear enough from who was fired that the motivations were almost certainly political. The appearance of email records proves that there exists both an intent to politicize every U.S. Attorney's office and a contempt for Congress and Constitution that takes my breath away. I'm not sure which is more stunning - the intent or the ineptitude.

This story in the Washington Post is one of many to be found that are feasting upon this well simmered pot of lame duck soup. (note - I included the wrong link, and now I can't find the correct story. I'm looking...) I can find the contents in search at WaP0, but the link leads to a different article.

Just trust me until I can find the proper link or re-write this thing.
The inconsistencies between Justice's positions and the documents are numerous. On Feb. 23, for example, a Justice legislative affairs aide wrote to Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that the department "was not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin." But internal Justice e-mails show that "getting him appointed is important" to Rove and was closely monitored by political aides in the White House.

Last week, senior Justice official William E. Moschella told a House Judiciary subcommittee that the White House was not consulted on the firings until the end of the process.

But the documents released this week show that the plan began more than two years ago at the White House counsel's office, which initially suggested firing all 93 U.S. attorneys. Gonzales rejected that idea, and Sampson wrote back in January 2006 that Justice and the White House should "work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of U.S. Attorneys."
Clearly these are people who think that the way you deal with embarrassing emails is to print them out and shred them.

Many Democrats have focused on the Feb. 6 testimony by McNulty, who appeared before the Senate judiciary panel for several hours to mount a strong defense of the legality and propriety of the prosecutor firings.

McNulty told the committee that there was no plan to use Gonzales's appointment powers to evade Senate oversight, that accusations of "politicizing" the hiring and firing process were "completely contrary to my daily experience," and that the dismissals of everyone but the Arkansas prosecutor were purely "performance-related."

Each of those contentions is called into question by the 143 pages of internal e-mails and other documents turned over to the House and the Senate on Tuesday. Most had been sent or received by Sampson.

Political considerations, for example, figured prominently in who was chosen to be fired. Sampson ranked all 93 U.S. attorneys in part on whether they "exhibited loyalty" to Bush and Gonzales or "chafed against Administration initiatives etc."
Captain's Quarters speaks of the matter, and the wish of Harriet Myers to can all 93.

The dismissals took place after President Bush told Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in October that he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud investigations, according to a White House spokeswoman.

The firing of eight was, apparently, the most the White House thought they could get away with at one go, perhaps due to that pesky oath of office thing, and perhaps there were a couple-three real incompetents thrown in to make things smell better.

But the evidence that Myers (and hence, the President) wanted to dismiss them all is a pretty clear indication that he wanted to replace all of them with handpicked loyalists. That's a frighteningly despotic idea.

The White House clearly doesn't have much truck with folks of either party who are more loyal to the Constitution than the Administration.

As for "vote fraud," well - I'm torn. I know that there is fine long tradition of Democratic vote fraud and I'm all for a fair and impartial approach to investigating and prosecuting offenders who interfered with the vote for partisan reasons.

I also think that it's quite possible that "vote fraud" is code for votes going to candidates who are not Republican. I also think it's quite possible that some in the Administration are dim enough to think that vote fraud IS the only logical explanation. No, I'm certain that's true of some - certainly secretaries, gophers and the like. The question is, how many in positions of authority are that stupid? Well, "Brownie" sure was. Chertoff - honestly, I think he's even stupider. And almost everyone sent to Iraq in a civilian, administrative capacity was chosen for blind loyalty.

Gonzalez seems to me even more delusional than Ashcroft. He's clearly a man to who the ends justify the means, without the interest in considering what the stated ends imply.

But when people such as the corporate officers of Diebold, who clearly and deliberately engineered insecure voting machines, or Katherine Harris and her voter roll purges are clearly shielded from the proper consequences of their actions, I (and no doubt many others) would see prosecuting Democratic vote fraud as a legal means to a political end - and that end would be eliminating effective operatives on the other side and not at all about preserving the integrity of the voting process.

It's politics as they have made usual, and to the extent that there is any degree of widespread Democratic vote fraud, it's due in part to Bushite meddling in the process. And to the extent that it's difficult to prosecute, it's likely due in part to Democrats attracting the smarter and sneakier sorts. who, when they commit illegal acts, do not send emails outlining the nature and intent of those acts to anyone!

Now, back in the day, Clinton would have said to Carville something to the effect of, "Jim, looks like there might be a problem comin' up in Iowa. Can you handle it for me?" And Jim would say "consider it handled."

If you are going to do something shady, something you ought to know won't hold up in the light of day, you better make sure you go about it in such a way that it never does come to light - and by that, I do not mean a situation where fairly much everyone KNOWS what's going on, whether or not any prosecution occurs. I mean nobody knows, nobody suspects and there is no evidence to trip over.

We must impeach the President and all his idiots, while we can. Otherwise they will end up doing something so insanely stupid that the Republic - and not just the Republican party - will be at risk.








tag: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

From the people who want to bring you Armageddon:

There are always those who think it better or easier to make a living by destruction and looting than by honest means. This was the main impetus behind the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials, if you doubt me, look into who got the property of deceased witches, Templars and other targets of "religious" persecution.

Domestically - if there is a Muslim family being targeted, it's a not unreasonable thing to ask yourself, what do they have or control that someone connected to the loud idiots might covet?

Media Matters - Falwell: Media ignored "radical Islamic terrorists ... because they are trying to keep Islam in a good light"

On the March 8 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, Rev. Jerry Falwell baselessly suggested that 18-year-old Sulejman Talovic, who shot nine people at a Salt Lake City mall in February, was a "radical Islamic terrorist," before adding, "[b]ut the press never mentions that -- most of the press -- because they are trying to keep Islam in a good light here in this country." In fact, media outlets have reported that Talovic is a Muslim while also reporting that authorities say there is no evidence that his faith played a part in his actions.

Talovic, a Bosnian immigrant, killed five people at Salt Lake City's Trolley Square shopping center before he was shot and killed by police. As Media Matters for America noted when right-wing radio host Michael Savage made a claim similar to Falwell's, a February 14 Associated Press article did, in fact, address the possibility that Talovic's actions were motivated by religion, terrorism, or both. The article reported that "authorities tried to figure out why a teenage Bosnian immigrant committed the rampage and how he got his hands on a gun. FBI agent Patrick Kiernan in Salt Lake City said the bureau had no reason to believe Sulejman Talovic, who was killed by police, was motivated by religious extremism or an act of terrorism." The article also quoted Ajka Omerovic, Talovic's aunt, as saying, "We are Muslims, but we are not terrorists."

Now the rest of the article gives more than enough reasons to suggest that the boy might not have been wrapped too tightly. I doubt being a Bosnian Muslim in a Salt Lake school added to his stability. But Falwell and the other empty-headed idiologes of the Right are eager to confuse correlation with causation. The non-empty-headed may be spinning opportunity from tragedy.

Indeed, all this effort to fan the terror, to exploit the terror makes me wonder aloud who the real terrorists are. There seems less and less potential benefit for Islam - or even the terrorists of Islam. And while the terrorists of Islam are, indeed not wrapped too tightly themselves, Falwell and his ilk have abandoned all restraint - and are connected so tightly to the wealthy and white classes you can't slip a sheet of bible paper between them.

Aside from the opportunities that pogroms creat for scavengers; it's always been good business to tell the ignorant and bigoted that Gawd Is On Their Side. It's obscenely profitable for Falwell, Savage, Dobson and Coulter; not only that, there's hardly any heavy lifting required; not even to the degree required of ordinary ideologues.

All you have to do is point out the witch and say she caused the plague.

tag: , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Oddly, KSFO flap continued without my attention

Spocko's Brain: Melanie Morgan of ABC Disney Radio Uses Parent's Grief to Sell Mattresses

Yesterday Melanie Morgan and ABC Disney Radio station cynically used the anger and grief of a dead soldier's parent to sell more Sleep Train mattresses, mortgages, carpet from Home Depot, cars from Mercedes Benz, pick-ups from Dodge, and fast food from Burger King and McDonald's (all current KSFO advertisers).
Picking it up just to add to their embarrassment, keyword-wise. Y'all read the original.

tag: , , ,

Vanity surfing can make you blush..

Well, maybe I jiggled it a little...
Blogging vs. Mainstream Media | Too Real: "The blog has also rocked the mainstream media. When only major media companies controlled the press, they monopolized the message. Now, with personal blogs, the mainstream media is no longer monolithic. Blogs create a mechanism to publicly criticize the media within this new medium. Sites like Fark and Graphictruth are full of examples media criticism."
It's moments like this that allow me to forget how much I'm not getting paid.

The Reasons For Treason

I keep finding more evidence of treason, fairly obvious and widespread, and it keeps getting uglier and uglier. Yesterday, in chasing down the threads of this, I ran into the Sibel Edmunds story, which I'd be completely unaware of, as was evidently The Whole Idea. But Lukery of Wot is it Good 4 has started a blog specific to the case.

Let Sibel Edmonds Speak
Sibel Edmonds is the most gagged person in US history. The government has repeatedly invoked the State Secrets Privilege in her case - not for reasons of 'national security' but to hide ongoing criminal activity. Please call Waxman and Conyers' offices this week and demand public open hearings into Edmonds' case and the State Secrets Privilege. Links to the petition, action items and phone numbers will remain in the post on top.
Elsewhere there:

Thom Hartmann on Air America Radio did an angry ten minute segment on the illegal, FISA-abusing, spying on "high-profile U.S. public officials" as exposed by Sibel and the NSWBC on March 5th.

Hartmann thinks that the Democrats should "raise some hell." I agree.

Download here (MP3)


This post gives both background and current info on the issues.

It has been almost five years now since former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds first contacted the Senate Judiciary Committee to reveal the shocking tale of Turkish bribery of high-level U.S. officials. In that time span, Edmonds has been misled by members of Congress on several occasions: Numerous promises have been made to the whistleblower by the Senate Judiciary Committee that her allegations would be exposed in public hearings. Those promises have rung hollow.

Now, with the Democratic victory in Congressional elections, coupled with revelations that many of the tapes she translated were probably obtained illegally through FISA warrants , the Turkish translator's case has gained new relevance.
...
Unlike the numerous Iraq War investigations that Waxman and other Democrats in Congress are planning, the issues brought up by Sibel Edmonds may tarnish the images not just of the Bush Administration, but also of certain elements of the Clinton Administration. Further complicating matters is that members of both political parties in Congress were also allegedly the recipient of Turkish gratuities: When a country like Turkey decides to engage in illegal espionage and lobbying, it spreads its funds generously. And though Edmonds' case involves the nuclear black market, not even the potential of a nuke reaching American soil is guaranteed to motivate our public servants, especially when they fear some of the muck might splatter on their own Party.
I have long wondered why leading Democrats have behaved as the have done - for instance, Harry Reid's inexplicable failure to support Jack Carter's run in Nevada against John Ensign - a man who is no more than a rubber stamp for the White House and his treasured Focus on the Family allies. The statement by Nancy Pelosi that "Impeachment was of the table" when already there was enough information to make hearings fairly much a formality.

And then there is Lieberman. Oy.

The specter that three or more leading Democrats are compromised either through corruption, blackmail or both is not a shade anyone should be comfortable with, but it certainly does explain a great deal about many things - such as the passage of the Patriot Act and the rubber stamping of the AUMF that seem, in a way, more plausible than what I've always thought to be rather weak excuses.

The thought of blackmail has crossed my mind before, but the "what" of it eluded me. This could be yet another smoking gun, and one more data-point suggesting that my gut feeling that it would be unwise to support Hillary is worth mentioning aloud LONG before I'm really ready. But at this point, I'm not willing to support her until she's cleared of involvement in - whatever it is that we do not yet know, and any lack of enthusiasm on her part in pursuing all these issues should be taken as confirmation that she's unfit for office.

That, of course, applies to all serving members of the House and Senate, of either party.

Now here's stuff from other sources relating to Plamegate.

Why Cheney Lashed Out at Wilson

Vice President Dick Cheney can be forgiven for feeling provoked. The Times, having been led by Cheney and others down a garden path littered with weapons of mass destruction that were not really there, did some retaliation of its own with the snide title it gave Wilson's op-ed: "What I Did Not Find in Africa."

Adding insult to injury, Wilson chose to tell Washington Post reporters, also on July 6, in language that rarely escapes an ambassador's lips, the bogus report regarding Iraq obtaining uranium from Niger "begs the question regarding what else they are lying about."

That threw down the gauntlet, and Cheney had to worry that others who knew about the lies might feel it safe to go to the press and spill the beans. Retaliation had to be swift and as unambiguous as possible.

Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). His e-mail is rrmcgovern@aol.com.


But in retaliating swiftly and unambiguously, Cheney blew a real "NOC" operative, an entire deep cover intelligence network and critically damaged our capability to monitor and deal with nuclear proliferation in the middle east and elsewhere, possibly contributing, along with other, equally brainless White House policies, to North Korea developing an offensive nuclear capability.

Nobody in our intelligence community - or any other - was unaware of the consequences of Cheney's act, as this 2003 article clearly shows.

NOC, NOC. Who's There? A Special Kind of Agent

Security agencies all over the world are now quietly running Plame's name through their data banks, immigration records and computer hard drives as the White House leak scandal continues to percolate. Officials with two foreign governments told TIME that their spy catchers are quietly checking on whether Plame had worked on their soil and, if so, what she had done there. Which means if one theme of the Administration leak scandal concerns political vengeance — did the White House reveal Plame's identity in order to punish Wilson for his public criticism of the case for war with Iraq?--another theme is about damage. What has been lost, and who has been compromised because of the leak of one spy's name? And who, if anyone, will pay for that disclosure?

There is no polite euphemism for this. It was, and it remains a conscious act of treason, in furtherance of a treasonous effort to subvert our nation and transform it into the servant of his own ambitions.

As for George Bush, who promised that he'd fire anyone who was responsible for the leak; well, he either knew who was responsible at the time or became aware soon afterward. Either way, that rises to the level of conspiracy to commit treason, or conspiracy after the fact. To say that either is an impeachable offense is the most British of understatements.

UPDATE+Bump More evidence of treason from a completely different perspective.
Wot is it Good 4 has the idea that blowing an intelligence network may have been the actual goal.

This is probably the most significant post related to this issue:
"My question then, given that the egadmin spent 2 months planning the leak of her name, is it more likely that they did it to:
a) discredit Wilson (which failed spectacularly, and could never have succeeded), or b) shine the light on BrewsterJennings (which succeeded spectacularly, and could never have failed)?

[snip]

Surely the maladministration knew the implications, exactly - they'd been thinking obsessing about it for months, and they went out of their way to cover their tracks. Not only did they know that it was illegal to do what they were doing, they surely also knew that BrewsterJennings would be exposed - surely we need to consider that the purpose of the outing was to out BJ, rather than some silly attempt to undermine Joe Wilson. In fact, given the extent to which they devised elaborate cover stories, surely we should at least consider the possibility that the 'get wilson' story is really just another level of cover..."
the rest of the post tries to rescue just about everyone from the apparently universal idiocy that Plame was outed to get at Wilson, and more specifically, that the long-set-in-stone idea that the Plame leak was "Clearly... meant purely and simply for revenge" - as reported in the 'blockbuster' Sep29 front-pager in the WaPo.
The question, of course is "why." But on the other hand, aside from aiding in the process of rounding up all the treasonous bastards - it doesn't matter. Because there are no excuses.

tag: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, March 09, 2007

Catwoman to Replace Penguin as Leader of the Axis of Villany

The Next President Visits Nevada: Breaking News - Condoleezza Rice to Become the First Woman Vice President of the United States - Vice President Cheney to Resign For Health Reasons

According to our sources in the Republican party, the recent news of Vice President Dick Cheney's health problems is cover for him to resign gracefully and to be replaced in that job by the current Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Dick Cheney has become a "lightning rod" for the President. President Bush is worried about his legacy. We think Condi Rice is a good choice for him as the new vice president, he seems comfortable working with her, and she has not nearly the baggage Cheney has.
News Flash, George; it's a little LATE to be worried about your legacy. But it's nice that you are considering someone who may possibly somewhat less of a Dick.

Not Even Jesus's General could have done it better

By the scams they fall for, ye shall know them.
It's amazing the things you can sell to Christians - or rather, let us say, the sort of people likely to grab you by the lapels to demand to know if you have been saved.

Holy Drinking Water

Don't miss the "Warning To Sinners" printed on every bottle of this precious and purified fluid!

By the way, don't click the "buy online" link unless you find identity theft an amusing diversion. There is no valid encryption certificate.

tag: , , , ,

Sanity Reigns in the Captain's Quarters

The Captain and his signatories has earned my undying respect for this act of genuine political courage. They will be mercilessly attacked as traitors to the Bushite cause. But then "Bushite" != "Conservative."
Captain's Quarters : An Open Letter To The ACU And CPAC Sponsors

Note: This letter will appear simultaneously on a number of conservative blogs this morning. It has been scheduled in advance for that purpose. My personal remarks will appear below.

Conservatism treats humans as they are, as moral creatures possessing rational minds and capable of discerning right from wrong. There comes a time when we must speak out in the defense of the conservative movement, and make a stand for political civility. This is one of those times.

Ann Coulter used to serve the movement well. She was telegenic, intelligent, and witty. She was also fearless: saying provocative things to inspire deeper thought and cutting through the haze of competing information has its uses. But Coulter's fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value. She draws attention to herself, rather than placing the spotlight on conservative ideas.

Um. Well, the Current administration - and Coulter's handlers - ain't all that fond of Conservative ideas; balanced budgets, strong and effective defense or even the most fundamental concept of prudence.

The legendary conservative thinker Richard Weaver wrote a book entitled Ideas Have Consequences. Rush Limbaugh has said again and again that "words mean things." Both phrases apply to Coulter's awful remarks.

Coulter's vicious word choice tells the world she care little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing conservative ideas.

I'm all for advancing conservative ideas and ideals; I share a great many of them. Indeed, a resurgence of responsible, factual, informative and - not to put too fine a point on it, sane - conservative commentary is sadly very rare. Of late, it seems to be a struggle to apply lipstick to the latest act of piggery.

I learned to think, in part, sitting (alas, only metaphorically) beneath the nostrils of William F. Buckley. If one comes to a divergent, supportable opinion in Buckley's presence, one has worked for it.

Demonizing liberalism in order to ignore all arguments because they ARE liberal or made by critics who therefore are "liberals by definition" is evidence of a mental and moral flaccidity that would give Barry Goldwater an apoplectic fit.

One of the points of CPAC is the opportunity it gives college students to meet other young conservatives and learn from our leaders. Unlike on their campuses—where they often feel alone—at CPAC they know they are part of a vibrant political movement. What example is set when one highlight of the conference is finding out what shocking phrase will emerge from Ann Coulter's mouth? How can we teach young conservatives to fight for their principles with civility and respect when Ann Coulter is allowed to address the conference? Coulter's invective is a sign of weak thinking and unprincipled politicking. [Emphasis Mine]
WILD applause, Sir! WILD applause!

tag: , , , ,

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Even MORE Pokez in the eye - and insight as to why.


The Pokez incident that I first mentioned a week or so ago refuses to go away, and this story gives an idea as to why.
San Diego CityBEAT: "“This is coming from all over the world,” said William Cary, a former board member of the San Diego Autism Society. “Some people are calling for a boycott, but there are others of us who would like to go with our children, and see how they’re going to respond, or reevaluate how they treat people.”

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that about 4 million children are born with autism every year, and one in 152 8-year-olds are autistic. Cary believes the Pokez incident tapped a deep reservoir of frustration in the autistic community.

“Everyone has a horror story,” Cary said. “I once had a supermarket clerk ask if my son needed an exorcism.”

Glass filed a police report and has been in contact with the City Attorney’s office. At the moment, he doesn’t plan to sue, but that could change.

“What I really want out of this is an apology for David,” he said. “He needs to know he didn’t do anything wrong.”"
Both autistics themselves AND the parents of autistics need to know they haven't done anything wrong when some disturbed individual decides to target the day's frustration upon us or ours just because we are a visible target.

I'm Autistic, what's your excuse?
Frankly, this has more to do with the concepts of Civility, Civilization and Civil Rights than it does with Autism or the alleged lack of it by the experts in neurobiology at Pokez.

David did nothing wrong, Pokez has done nothing right; compounding a waitress's "mental moment" with a callus disregard for the family and the good opinion of civilized people.

I believe it's time - both specifically and generally - to insist on being treated with the same courtesy given whatever home-boys the easily amused hang with, whether they be grungy rock fans, as in this case, schoolyard bullies or fans of quack cures for visible differences.

It is all of a piece, symptomatic of deep dysfunctions in our society, depravities that we must no longer tolerate in the name of "trying to understand both sides." This is one of those cases where there IS only one side; where even the most biased retelling of the facts cannot conceal the malicious and casual indifference to the difficulties and pain of others that has permeated our society. To remain silent, or to patiently endure it is to permit evil to flourish.

From Manifest Destiny to Manifest Stupidity

Ann Coulter; Not a straight shooter.I've been around the block a few times, advocating for ethical outcomes and reality-based approaches to the world and it's problems for years and years now.

The more I go 'round and round the issues, the more I realize that for whatever form of understanding or tolerance I advocate - be it autistic persons, be it multiple personalities, be it survivors of sexual and/or religious abuse, the same sort of people, probably a lot OF the same people, are the ones screaming and gibbering that it's lies, all lies! And It's an Evil Plot to Seduce our Children and Pollute our Precious Bodily Fluids to boot. Any delusions of being different - multiple personality, homosexuality, persistent, corrosive expressions of individuality and social justice such as feminism, liberalism or ecological consciousness will All Go Away when you take a Magic Jesus Pill and submit to the Correction of Proper Authorities.

Really. Just ask Ted Haggard and Oral Roberts! (Both are more than willing to sell you the Magic Jesus Pills they didn't personally need in their Miraculous Recoveries from Sin.)

Not to put too fine a point on it, the people who are out there on the other side, against all forms of choice, all forms of individual expressions that don't involve praising a plastic glow-in-the-dark god onna stick idol, that don't involve white, heteronormative authoritarian submission to Duly Constituted Authority are some of the most willfully ignorant, morally bankrupt and hypocritical mouth-breathing morons I have ever had the pleasure to cluebyfour.

I have passed many, many pleasant hours fighting in my way for individual liberties, freedom of expression, personal dignity and the mutual respect, tolerance and common decency required of any free and civilized society.

In doing so, I've tried to grit my teeth and be respectful of views and beliefs that cannot thrive in the presence of critical thought or evidence, but I can no longer muster any tolerance for the increasingly obvious fear and hatred this roughly 30% of the electorate represents.

As FDR said, "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." He was right - fear is the handmaiden of fascism and theocracy.

The unreasoning xenophobia and the very real possibility of violence from the right toward everyone who's views or indeed, existence contradicts their hateful, thoughtless ideologies and demented dogmas has caused many - including myself - to be over-cautious about calling them on their shit.

No more. The marketers of fear, these panderers of panic must be forced to partake of the poison they have peddled. They are either willfully evil, or so blind to the evil of their cheerleaders and exploiters that there can be no useful distinction. Either way, we must no longer harbor them within the "big tents" of our political and social compacts - we must reclaim our school boards, our state houses and our congress from those stupid enough to think either that "The Bible Says It, I believe it, That Settles It" or "I'm right because I'm Right."

It's not a conflict between respectable and debatable political viewpoints - it's really and genuinely now a matter of informed concience and reason in opposition to willful stupidity and the evil that festers in it's presence.

We have reaped the whirlwind by respecting the mindless idolotry of the unforgiving Strict Father ideal as a legitimate, defensable viewpoint compatable with our Constitution and the unabashedly Liberal values of our forebears. The mainstream churches have been complicit in their unwillingness to condemn it for the evil that it is, whether or not it claims the privilege of faith, though knowing well for themselves of permitting any church any degree of temporal power.

Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to trigger Armageddon just so they can meet Jesus while enjoying and mocking the suffering of the "unsaved" from a safe vantage-point needs to be gently restrained from any weapons of destruction available to them - and if this is intuitively true of a ranting street preacher waving a bent butter knife, it's even more true of someone with access to nuclear release codes.

If your religion calls for you to destroy the world, or even to rule it in the name of "cleansing it for Christ's Return", I'm unwilling to sacrifice my own selfish survival in the name of tolerating your "diversity."

Neither Civilization nor the Constitution are a suicide pact. As much as I believe in diversity, no ethical system or social compact that permits the extinction of it's supporters in wholesale lots is very useful. (cc: Moderate Islam - you got some shit to deal with too. And yes, I do consider all Radical religious movements to be as literally and figuratively as unclean as a dog deep-fried in pork-fat with a sauce of caramelized camel feces.)

As it happens, I am Christian in essentials of my faith, but I've long since abandoned it as a religion, because in it's myriad manifestations it has long since proven to be more of a disease than a cure. Far from being empowering of individual conscience, it has become the enemy of progress and justice, at times straying from callus indifference and abuse into outright lunacy.

My nature is to be concerned about justice, to look toward the facts, apply critical reasoning skills and then form an opinion, and I hold my faith and beliefs to the same tests. If a person I respect and who I know to have a well-informed opinion suggests a direction, I'm willing enough to explore it - but even so, I ask myself, Quo Bono? (Who Benefits - that I should believe this?) And, while I'm tolerant enough to let a tree grow and manifest it's fruit, if the fruit is bitter - that tree is firewood.

Speaking of faggots and firewood, It was Ann Coulter who brought this into focus for me. (Via Media Matters.)

COULTER: Right, and I suspect everyone listening to your show knows about that. I mean, I know -- well, I guess Pat is out in America now; you're primarily in New York City. I give a lot of speeches out in America, I frequently visit America, and Americans are pretty freaked out about somebody going to rehab for using a word, and that's of course what I was referring to. And I don't think there's anything offensive about any variation of faggy, faggotry, faggot, fag. It's a schoolyard taunt. It means -- it means wussy. It means, you know, Hillary giving a speech in a fake Southern drawl -- that's faggy. A trial lawyer who weeps before juries is faggy. Lifetime-type TV, faggy. Everyone understood I was not literally calling -- well, I was not calling -- well, for one thing, I wasn't calling John Edwards anything. That was the whole point. I couldn't talk about him, his life's work, his appeasement policies, his wimpiness on foreign policy, because that word is out of bounds. So, in point of fact, I called John Edwards nothing. I said I couldn't even discuss him because using any variation of that totally excellent word would send me into rehab.
Bullshit. A fucking unbelievable bit of utter twaddle unworthy of a fourth-grader, much less a veteran public speaker. Her "explanation" might possibly serve as barely plausible deniablity; enough to muddy the waters enough to keep her out of the civil dock, but what she meant to say was quite clear.

In point of fact, the only people who "think" (so to speak) that "faggot" is not a viciously offensive word is those who like using it to offend, but dislike suffering the appropriate consequences for offensive speech.

I've heard the very same excuse many times before - in excusing "coon" jokes, in regards to "physical humor" that involved pain and or humiliation for those judged worthy targets of "schoolyard taunts."

It's emblematic of Coulter that, when called on this, her response is, essentially "Can't you take a joke?"

Not if I don't have to, Ann.

Would Ms. Coulter like me to come up to her in public, grab her crotch and laughingly report my findings? After all, many people suggest she's not really female in an equally juvenile attack on her person.

Hey, if I did that in front of the right audience, LOTS of people would bust their asses laughing. Does that make it a joke, or an act of vicious humiliation? Targeting Ms. Coulter as a transsexual or transgendered person in order to discredit her is as elementally unethical as calling someone "gay" in order to ignore what they have to say about something you don't want other folks to consider. No, let's take it a step further; it's evil; it amounts to "bearing false witness" in order to gain an unfair judgment in the court of public opinion.

Anyway, As a person subject to such attacks from lefties who should know better, she has no excuse. We all know what she meant by "Faggot." She meant either actually gay, or "less than manly" in some other, equally derisive sense, and she did this in order to avoid saying anything accurate or actually funny about Edwards.

Why? Because there isn't anything valid she can say about him that her audience would appreciate hearing. In the Republican mindset, you cannot address actual policy or positions of your opponents even to disagree with them.

This is in part due to the utter incapacity of the average brain-dead Bushite to recognize a valid argument if it had teeth clamped on their most personal parts. But it's more due to the fact that the Republican leadership and providers of Cultural Conservative talking points believe the very same thing about their own rank and file.

"You can't HANDLE the truth."

Of course, that leads directly to the present situation.

You can be well-informed in matters of politics, conscience and current affairs, or you can be a Republican.

You can honor the words of Jesus who told us to feed the poor and clothe the widow and the orphan - or you can be a Conservative Christian.

If this is what Conservatism and Christianity has become, then I'll join with anyone willing to banish both to the snake-handling hinterlands. Even "godless liberals."




tag: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The irony is palpable.

The Raw Story | US refuses to join UN rights council

The United States will not seek a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, senior officials said Tuesday, asserting the body had lost its credibility with repeated attacks on Israel and a failure to confront other rights abusers
...such as...

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Popular Posts