There's been quite the dust-up between Spocko's Brain and KSFO/ABC Radio/Disney going on for the last month. I reported just a touch of it and it's gotten more interesting as time has gone by. Spocko's Brain set off Disney by recording some clips of KSFO radio "hosts" doing their right wing blather, blather that contained some pretty inflammatory speech, stuff I'm not going to repeat past noting that it involved lynchings, requiring Muslim blaspheming of callers, slightly veiled assassination threats and sending it on to KSFO advertisers and asking if that's what they intended their brands to be associated with. Disney's lawyers filed a Cease and Desist on copyright grounds and intimidated Spocko's blog host into shutting him down. Keep in mind that these were clips of radio broadcast.
Enter Daily Kos and Mike Stark to stir the pot. Mike got copies of the clips and distributed them to any who wanted them and a list of KSFO advertisers. Bloggers came out of the woodwork and began doing Spocko's gig for him. Electronic Frontiers Foundation began doing free legal work for Spocko and he found a Blog host who'd put him back up. The current toll for KSFO in advertising is confirmed as : Visa, Master Card, Bank of America, FedEx, and Michigan Economic Development Corporation. Some of the bigger players attracted to this dust-up are: San Fransico Chronicle, Media Matters, CBS KPIX, Atrios, Americablog, EFF, and a heck of a lot of other bloggers.
KSFO's Melanie Morgan claimed this has all gone through Media Matters since Spocko has been "joined by some very dangerous and frightening fringe-left groups in this country." She accused Spocko of using "these audio clips which are out of context, old, or in some cases just outright lies," without bothering to explain why age or context had anything to do with their nastiness and how exactly their clips were lies. Is this Orwellian enough language to bring to mind another right wing *******, the President and Co.? Online Media gets what's happened just so by noting, "Disney is now left with the option of playing a virtual game of "Whack A Mole," as the Rodent Empire's lawyers will need to slap citations against a series of sites as swiftly as they pop up." KSFO doesn't seem to be able to get it, yes, you can say what you want up to pretty extreme limits, but that doesn't mean that you can't get slapped for it. By a bunch of people who pay perfectly good money for you to do it.
Disney/ABC jumped all over the BushCo bandwagon awhile back, just about in time for that star to begin to slip. Now you have to wonder if Disney's family friendly brand being linked to hate speech is a real good business move.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Yippee, FISA Win, Or Not ?
Alberto Gonzales stated that the Administration was putting NSA's wiretap program back under FISA in an "innovative" arrangement. The Justice Dept strongly suggested that the warrants it received last week were individual in nature but refused to disclose much of anything. He continued to argue that the Admin's warrantless eavesdropping was legal.
It should be noted that there are hearing scheduled and a court case still pending regarding the NSA spying. A Justice Official said that they would file with the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati to have the case mooted. The current hearings in the Senate, Thur & Fri (possibly) are getting pretty much the same treatment previously offered, no specificity, Republican crappola propaganda, and Democrats getting exactly nowhere in determining what is actually going on. Corrente Wire is attempting to Blog live from the Senate, this means no transcripts but essentially commentary or analysis.
No Democrats seem to be happy that this state of affairs has existed for 5 years and has included 13 months of debate since NYT disclosed the existence of the program. What seemed to tick off Grassley (R) and Hatch (R) is that the Times disclosed and the existence of whoever the leaker is. No no one seems to be able to get Gonzales to cough up with a reason that the Admin didn't consult with Congress and he's continued to hold the line that FISA was not fast enough or nimble enough. Fast enough may be a debatable point considering the 3 day window allowed, but nimble is the worrying aspect. What nimbleness is required for judges of that caliber to understand an Act and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution? Let's remember that these people are supposedly suited to sit on a Federal Secret Court.
The NTY closes its piece A Spy Program In From The Cold with the line, " This administration long ago forfeited the public trust on these issues." Since this paper published the original story they have some ownership of it and they seem to be dissatisfied with the result the Admin has come up with. They'd still like to know what's going on, actually, and how things got to this pass. Because the NYT is putatively a reputable paper they won't just state what is obvious to many, this happened because the GWB Admin gives a rat's patoot about the Constitution and did what it could do given the craven Republican Congress and scared spitless public.
These mewling excuses for citizenry do not actually care about the rule of law, not any farther than it affects their current hobbyhorses. If the NSA dust up had included something positive for gays or separation of church and state somebody would've gotten lynched. I am not satisfied that this is anything more than a political ploy, that nothing has changed, this is the same bunch doing the same thing the same way. I'd keep an eye on this.
It should be noted that there are hearing scheduled and a court case still pending regarding the NSA spying. A Justice Official said that they would file with the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati to have the case mooted. The current hearings in the Senate, Thur & Fri (possibly) are getting pretty much the same treatment previously offered, no specificity, Republican crappola propaganda, and Democrats getting exactly nowhere in determining what is actually going on. Corrente Wire is attempting to Blog live from the Senate, this means no transcripts but essentially commentary or analysis.
No Democrats seem to be happy that this state of affairs has existed for 5 years and has included 13 months of debate since NYT disclosed the existence of the program. What seemed to tick off Grassley (R) and Hatch (R) is that the Times disclosed and the existence of whoever the leaker is. No no one seems to be able to get Gonzales to cough up with a reason that the Admin didn't consult with Congress and he's continued to hold the line that FISA was not fast enough or nimble enough. Fast enough may be a debatable point considering the 3 day window allowed, but nimble is the worrying aspect. What nimbleness is required for judges of that caliber to understand an Act and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution? Let's remember that these people are supposedly suited to sit on a Federal Secret Court.
The NTY closes its piece A Spy Program In From The Cold with the line, " This administration long ago forfeited the public trust on these issues." Since this paper published the original story they have some ownership of it and they seem to be dissatisfied with the result the Admin has come up with. They'd still like to know what's going on, actually, and how things got to this pass. Because the NYT is putatively a reputable paper they won't just state what is obvious to many, this happened because the GWB Admin gives a rat's patoot about the Constitution and did what it could do given the craven Republican Congress and scared spitless public.
These mewling excuses for citizenry do not actually care about the rule of law, not any farther than it affects their current hobbyhorses. If the NSA dust up had included something positive for gays or separation of church and state somebody would've gotten lynched. I am not satisfied that this is anything more than a political ploy, that nothing has changed, this is the same bunch doing the same thing the same way. I'd keep an eye on this.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Prosecutorial Bloodbath
Seven Federal Prosecutors have been fired/resigned before their terms expired over the last month. Talking Points Memo has several stories about this. Apparently some of these prosecutors have been investigating Congressional and White House corruption. These folks:
"
San Francisco - 1/16/07 - Kevin V. Ryan - unclear
Nevada - 1/15/07 - Daniel Bogden - pushed out
San Diego - 1/12/07 - Carole Lam - pushed out
New Mexico - 12/19/06 - David Igleslias - pushed out
Arizona - 12/19/06 - Paul K. Charlton - unclear
Seattle - 12/15/06 - John McKay - unclear; likely pushed out
Little Rock (Ark.) - 12/15/06 - Bud Cummins - pushed out "
*from TPMmuckraker
They are being replaced without Congressional approval through a section of the "Revised" Patriot Act. Some of us have been wasting good bytes complaining about this particular piece of treasonous crap. Isn't it just plain astonishing what you can manage with a lick-spittle Congress and a pants soiling frightened populous. Somebody should've thought of this idea before - oh, they did.
"
San Francisco - 1/16/07 - Kevin V. Ryan - unclear
Nevada - 1/15/07 - Daniel Bogden - pushed out
San Diego - 1/12/07 - Carole Lam - pushed out
New Mexico - 12/19/06 - David Igleslias - pushed out
Arizona - 12/19/06 - Paul K. Charlton - unclear
Seattle - 12/15/06 - John McKay - unclear; likely pushed out
Little Rock (Ark.) - 12/15/06 - Bud Cummins - pushed out "
*from TPMmuckraker
They are being replaced without Congressional approval through a section of the "Revised" Patriot Act. Some of us have been wasting good bytes complaining about this particular piece of treasonous crap. Isn't it just plain astonishing what you can manage with a lick-spittle Congress and a pants soiling frightened populous. Somebody should've thought of this idea before - oh, they did.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
How to Win in Today's Media
If you're curious how being a commentator on the run up to the Iraq war and being wrong, or right, works out for you, Radar has just the thing for you. Don't expect to be encouraged.
Scapegoat ...Aaaaaaggghhhh!
The President of the USA told 60 Minutes in an interview that if Americans wanted a "scapegoat" he was it. There have been "things that could've been done better" and if we need a scapegoat he'll take it on for us. My head exploded.
I like Webster's 9th New Collegiate, it's not the best but they do get to the point fairly quickly and are accepted:
scapegoat - 1. *biblical, never mind* 2. a: one who bears the blame for others b: one that is the object of irrational hostility
If Merriam Webster take these people in the White House seriously they're going to be publishing an entirely new type of dictionary, one with meanings optional. They'll just spray words at a page and you get to pick what you like.
Now if you can explain to me how exactly it is that the Commander-in-Chief, you know, The Decider, is bearing the blame for someone else regarding the conduct of his war I'll try to put my head back together and apologize. Failing that, explain to me how this person who has mislead us into a war, mismanaged a war, inaccurately described the progress of a war, and divided this country into Patriots who back him and Traitors who do not is the object of irrational hostility on this basis and I'll just stop writing anything at all, ever again, because I must be psychologically imbalanced and just plain retarded.
There is such a complete and total disregard for the meaning of the English language demonstrated by these people that there probably are no words to adequately describe it to them. This misuse of the language goes beyond spin into the realm of propaganda. For Condi Rice to argue that escalation isn't the proper term, that augmentation is a correct description to a US Senator - Republican - is just plain ... stupid. Augment means: to make greater, more numerous, larger, or more intense and escalate means : to increase in extent, volume, number, amount, intensity, or scope. This is the best we can do for a Sec. State? This isn't about the diplomacy of correct language, this is about using the language to deny that what you're doing is exactly what you say you're doing. Does this make your head spin? 'We don't want you to think we're doing exactly what we're telling you we are doing because you might not like us doing exactly what we just told you we are doing.' If you don't like being treated like a complete idiot, it would pay to remember that these people were elected by us TWICE.
I like Webster's 9th New Collegiate, it's not the best but they do get to the point fairly quickly and are accepted:
scapegoat - 1. *biblical, never mind* 2. a: one who bears the blame for others b: one that is the object of irrational hostility
If Merriam Webster take these people in the White House seriously they're going to be publishing an entirely new type of dictionary, one with meanings optional. They'll just spray words at a page and you get to pick what you like.
Now if you can explain to me how exactly it is that the Commander-in-Chief, you know, The Decider, is bearing the blame for someone else regarding the conduct of his war I'll try to put my head back together and apologize. Failing that, explain to me how this person who has mislead us into a war, mismanaged a war, inaccurately described the progress of a war, and divided this country into Patriots who back him and Traitors who do not is the object of irrational hostility on this basis and I'll just stop writing anything at all, ever again, because I must be psychologically imbalanced and just plain retarded.
There is such a complete and total disregard for the meaning of the English language demonstrated by these people that there probably are no words to adequately describe it to them. This misuse of the language goes beyond spin into the realm of propaganda. For Condi Rice to argue that escalation isn't the proper term, that augmentation is a correct description to a US Senator - Republican - is just plain ... stupid. Augment means: to make greater, more numerous, larger, or more intense and escalate means : to increase in extent, volume, number, amount, intensity, or scope. This is the best we can do for a Sec. State? This isn't about the diplomacy of correct language, this is about using the language to deny that what you're doing is exactly what you say you're doing. Does this make your head spin? 'We don't want you to think we're doing exactly what we're telling you we are doing because you might not like us doing exactly what we just told you we are doing.' If you don't like being treated like a complete idiot, it would pay to remember that these people were elected by us TWICE.
Monday, January 15, 2007
What's Gotten Into John Cole ?
Some of you may have noticed that my leftism is a little odd in comparison to the rightwing's version of lefty. You may also have noticed that I have a great deal of respect for the old time "C" Conservatives. Not that I want to kill government or some such, but their respect for keeping the government out of our homes and private lives was in tune with American values and they had the undoubted value of a principled adversary in improving an argument. John Cole, http://www.balloon-juice.com/ is now a "turncoat" conservative, in that most Bushisms are an anathema to him. One of his commenters wanted to know what had gotten into him.
I couldn't restrain myself and tried, in my lefty way, to touch on what might have gotten into a Conservative in regards to BushCo. Since I usually try not to write an essay in comments I thought I'd touch on it here as an expansion, and since the hit meter shows Balloon Juice readers showing up, as a hat tip. I share with Conservatives a basic tenet, that the Constitution and The Bill of Rights are the law of the land and they are not to be disregarded or infringed upon. From that simple beginning most of my past posts in that regard cover that ground left or right. John takes it a bit farther castigating the Republicans for their shams regarding gay marriage and religion. Here we're running into that Conservative extension of the Constitution & BOR into areas it does not specifically address but does in a spirit of understanding. All Americans are equal under the law, they have equal rights and responsibilities - yup - gays, too. BushCo in the name of security and unitary executive powers have run rough shod over already damaged rights and John doesn't like it. At all.
He supported the invasion of Iraq, like many he could not engage the idea that a Republican President wouldn't tell the truth about such an issue. Over time the disclosure of the lies, double dealings, character assassinations, sloganeering, and general Bushisms wore him out and he became a dedicated critic. As hard edged a critic as the disillusioned become and he now has an audience of "gasp" liberals.
This clueless commenter, a Bush-apologist, can't seem to figure out why someone who'd backed and been enthused by a Republican Congress and Presidency would turn so mean. This person cannot seem to get it, despite post after post by John detailing his problems with that bunch. John Cole is good at this stuff, much better than I am, so I have no idea where a person's head would have to be to miss this. I think it may be a measure of our opposition that we'd better have a real handle on because if the John Coles can take back the Republican Party it's going to be awhile coming. Don't think those Conservatives will make things easy, they'll come with ideas and philosophy and reasoning, not the religious claptrap and fear mongering that's actually easy to counter.
I put up a link to Balloon Juice some time back, I like the writing and I respect the reasoning. The commenters are mostly a smart witty bunch and don't disappoint. If you get some amusement out of Blog warfare, it erupts from time to time, John is, after all, a turncoat to the wingnuts.
I couldn't restrain myself and tried, in my lefty way, to touch on what might have gotten into a Conservative in regards to BushCo. Since I usually try not to write an essay in comments I thought I'd touch on it here as an expansion, and since the hit meter shows Balloon Juice readers showing up, as a hat tip. I share with Conservatives a basic tenet, that the Constitution and The Bill of Rights are the law of the land and they are not to be disregarded or infringed upon. From that simple beginning most of my past posts in that regard cover that ground left or right. John takes it a bit farther castigating the Republicans for their shams regarding gay marriage and religion. Here we're running into that Conservative extension of the Constitution & BOR into areas it does not specifically address but does in a spirit of understanding. All Americans are equal under the law, they have equal rights and responsibilities - yup - gays, too. BushCo in the name of security and unitary executive powers have run rough shod over already damaged rights and John doesn't like it. At all.
He supported the invasion of Iraq, like many he could not engage the idea that a Republican President wouldn't tell the truth about such an issue. Over time the disclosure of the lies, double dealings, character assassinations, sloganeering, and general Bushisms wore him out and he became a dedicated critic. As hard edged a critic as the disillusioned become and he now has an audience of "gasp" liberals.
This clueless commenter, a Bush-apologist, can't seem to figure out why someone who'd backed and been enthused by a Republican Congress and Presidency would turn so mean. This person cannot seem to get it, despite post after post by John detailing his problems with that bunch. John Cole is good at this stuff, much better than I am, so I have no idea where a person's head would have to be to miss this. I think it may be a measure of our opposition that we'd better have a real handle on because if the John Coles can take back the Republican Party it's going to be awhile coming. Don't think those Conservatives will make things easy, they'll come with ideas and philosophy and reasoning, not the religious claptrap and fear mongering that's actually easy to counter.
I put up a link to Balloon Juice some time back, I like the writing and I respect the reasoning. The commenters are mostly a smart witty bunch and don't disappoint. If you get some amusement out of Blog warfare, it erupts from time to time, John is, after all, a turncoat to the wingnuts.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Eddykayshun at OU
Thanks to Ridenbaugh Press for a heads up on this one. The Opinion Piece in the Register Guard signed by 92 Oregon University faculty is distressing to say the least. Some college athletics departments give money back to the university, at Ohio State U it's around $10 million, at our OU it's zip, yep nada. If everything was just ticking along that might not be an issue, but everything is not just ticking along. While the athletics department's budget has increased by 224% since 1994, $18.5Mil to $41.5Mil the biology dept. gets along with 20% less office staff for 20% more students and a budget increase of 47%. You get a situation where a student athlete costs $92,000 per year while a biology student costs $705 per year. I like sports well enough, but gee whiz, on an absolute scale biologists trump football players.
With faculty salaries on the low end of the American Association of Universities and academic rankings sliding it seems that the rah rah emphasis is misplaced. With athletics at a zero return to the school, being a major league training camp instead of a high power university is not a mission for OU that I'd back. In fact, in that scenario, once you get past giving students a common ground to root for the school it's a big fat waste of money. Versus providing a top notch education I don't particularly care if they can't beat the Baker HS Bulldogs.
The Opinion Piece offers quite a bit more detail and is worth a read if this is the sort of thing that gets you in an uproar. I've sat in -20F in a blizzard that was dumping 2 feet of snow watching an MTU football game, it was fun, it meant something to us, and we also were attending one of the top 3 universities in applied science.
With faculty salaries on the low end of the American Association of Universities and academic rankings sliding it seems that the rah rah emphasis is misplaced. With athletics at a zero return to the school, being a major league training camp instead of a high power university is not a mission for OU that I'd back. In fact, in that scenario, once you get past giving students a common ground to root for the school it's a big fat waste of money. Versus providing a top notch education I don't particularly care if they can't beat the Baker HS Bulldogs.
The Opinion Piece offers quite a bit more detail and is worth a read if this is the sort of thing that gets you in an uproar. I've sat in -20F in a blizzard that was dumping 2 feet of snow watching an MTU football game, it was fun, it meant something to us, and we also were attending one of the top 3 universities in applied science.
How to Measure Value
Warfare creates an unfortunate situation in which it becomes necessary to measure the value of a human life. It is fairly obvious that if someone is shooting at you, shooting back is required. From there it gets sticky. An Iraq bad guy is shooting from the window of a house, you're pretty sure there are civilian men, women, and children in there as well. The safest approach is to blow the place up. You are now required to make a measurement, the value of the innocents versus the value of your troops.
Iran apparently claims the US invaded one of their consulates in Iraq, these are supposed to be the territory of that nation and inviolate. The Iranians seized the US Embassy in Tehran and we've had no Relations with them since. The US claims the Iranian consulate was a staging point for attacks. Now you're measuring the value of international law.
George W Bush has put Americans in Iraq in warfare at a serious risk to their lives and health. They are dying and being maimed on a daily basis. He says it is worth it, the value gained is worth the losses. He measures the value of our troops and their families thus.
Now I say GWB is entirely wrong, now and from the outset. That does not change the previous measuring exercises, the troops are there, doing his bidding. How does this fall out?
I find myself unwilling to risk the lives of troops to protect putatively innocent civilians, blow the place up. Is it wrong? Certainly it's wrong, but in a my kids versus their kids, my kids win. You could say the people inside could do something about the bad guy in their midst, but you're splitting hairs.
If a consulate is engaging in military action it ceases by definition to be a consulate and the occupants cease to be diplomats. Is that a poke in Iranian eyes? Probably and I really could care less. If the Iranians are engaged in making attacks on our troops they can die for it, in Iraq. It is simple enough to establish some crossing points on the Iranian and Syrian borders and anything crossing anywhere else is subject to immediate destruction. That could be hard on goatherds and others of simple lifestyles.
Warfare itself creates these kinds of measurement dilemmas and it becomes even more of a dilemma where it involves a war you oppose. Let's remember the measuring our kids had to do when we see them, let's try to marginally at least understand. After all, we let this happen. This war is a measure of us.
Iran apparently claims the US invaded one of their consulates in Iraq, these are supposed to be the territory of that nation and inviolate. The Iranians seized the US Embassy in Tehran and we've had no Relations with them since. The US claims the Iranian consulate was a staging point for attacks. Now you're measuring the value of international law.
George W Bush has put Americans in Iraq in warfare at a serious risk to their lives and health. They are dying and being maimed on a daily basis. He says it is worth it, the value gained is worth the losses. He measures the value of our troops and their families thus.
Now I say GWB is entirely wrong, now and from the outset. That does not change the previous measuring exercises, the troops are there, doing his bidding. How does this fall out?
I find myself unwilling to risk the lives of troops to protect putatively innocent civilians, blow the place up. Is it wrong? Certainly it's wrong, but in a my kids versus their kids, my kids win. You could say the people inside could do something about the bad guy in their midst, but you're splitting hairs.
If a consulate is engaging in military action it ceases by definition to be a consulate and the occupants cease to be diplomats. Is that a poke in Iranian eyes? Probably and I really could care less. If the Iranians are engaged in making attacks on our troops they can die for it, in Iraq. It is simple enough to establish some crossing points on the Iranian and Syrian borders and anything crossing anywhere else is subject to immediate destruction. That could be hard on goatherds and others of simple lifestyles.
Warfare itself creates these kinds of measurement dilemmas and it becomes even more of a dilemma where it involves a war you oppose. Let's remember the measuring our kids had to do when we see them, let's try to marginally at least understand. After all, we let this happen. This war is a measure of us.
Personal Price
I'm tool old to go to war, at least by today's enlistment standards, so I won't be going. But yes, Sen Boxer, I do have a possible personal price, my son enters OR Nat Guard boot camp this week, a nephew by marriage will be going back to Iraq. Condi was asked if the Bush Admin had prepared a casualty estimate for the troop escalation, "no." Well now that's entire Hogwash, the military doesn't do things quite that haphazardly. So maybe the Administration itself hasn't but it certainly has figures available to it. Now Sen Boxer pointed out that she has no personal stake in the war and that Condi doesn't either and since they're not paying the price it is the price that the military families pay. Seems accurate to me.
Somehow it's an insult to womanhood, or feminism, or blacks, or some such. Noting that a black woman doesn't have a child to get killed in a war that the black woman is advocating is insulting? I find a lot of things about Condi insult-able, but race, gender, and child bearing has nothing to do with it. Her ability to suck up to her Prez. and make the stupidest most historically ignorant statements in defense of his policies opens her to all sorts of rude comments. She's supposed to be pretty good on the piano, the country would've been better served if she'd stuck to tinkling the keys. By the way, poker players, she has egregious "tells," and I don't mind watching her get all ticked off about being called on the carpet - she's had her way too long. The incompetence of this Administration extending to them not being able to find good liars is a fine outcome, versus most of the rest.
As for the nonexistent casualty estimates, I'm way past hoping, wishing, or praying about the personal prices to be paid, all I can do is feel horrible helplessness, like sitting in the back seat in a car crash and seeing that this is going to be bad.
Somehow it's an insult to womanhood, or feminism, or blacks, or some such. Noting that a black woman doesn't have a child to get killed in a war that the black woman is advocating is insulting? I find a lot of things about Condi insult-able, but race, gender, and child bearing has nothing to do with it. Her ability to suck up to her Prez. and make the stupidest most historically ignorant statements in defense of his policies opens her to all sorts of rude comments. She's supposed to be pretty good on the piano, the country would've been better served if she'd stuck to tinkling the keys. By the way, poker players, she has egregious "tells," and I don't mind watching her get all ticked off about being called on the carpet - she's had her way too long. The incompetence of this Administration extending to them not being able to find good liars is a fine outcome, versus most of the rest.
As for the nonexistent casualty estimates, I'm way past hoping, wishing, or praying about the personal prices to be paid, all I can do is feel horrible helplessness, like sitting in the back seat in a car crash and seeing that this is going to be bad.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
A Bad Day
Friday night CBS showed some choices for a future news story, one of which would be about some women who attend every Arlington National Cemetery Funeral. My throat got kind of tight and I told my wife that I couldn't do that, after just a couple I'd lose my mind. As I went on to tell her that every time I've heard Governor Kulongoski talk about attending the funerals of Oregonians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan I could see it tearing him up, my throat continued to close up and finally my eyes got all wet. I realized that I was crying. No, not the sobbing kind, water running from my eyes kind.
I'm so tired of our young people getting hurt and killed for this President's little Iraq adventure, so tired I'm finally past words and into tears. For god's sake.
My son Nick goes to Oregon National Guard boot camp next week, that weighs on me some, but it is the shared disaster of those harmed by Iraq that is tearing me up. I would have considerably less reaction to me being in their position, I've gotten to have an awful lot of what life has to offer and I'm on the back side of the game. The back side of the game makes it pretty safe to say that, I'm outside the limits of age, but being safe only actually makes me feel worse about it. I'd make the trade to keep one kid from being there.
All I can see is more years of this, George W Bush is not going to wake up one morning and say, "oops," Congress is not going to de-fund the troops, what is going to happen is another election and that Inaugural Day is two years away. How many soldier's family and friends tears away is that? How many nightmares, how many broken marriages, how many broken bodies and minds and hearts away is that? A lot of Bad Days.
I'm so tired of our young people getting hurt and killed for this President's little Iraq adventure, so tired I'm finally past words and into tears. For god's sake.
My son Nick goes to Oregon National Guard boot camp next week, that weighs on me some, but it is the shared disaster of those harmed by Iraq that is tearing me up. I would have considerably less reaction to me being in their position, I've gotten to have an awful lot of what life has to offer and I'm on the back side of the game. The back side of the game makes it pretty safe to say that, I'm outside the limits of age, but being safe only actually makes me feel worse about it. I'd make the trade to keep one kid from being there.
All I can see is more years of this, George W Bush is not going to wake up one morning and say, "oops," Congress is not going to de-fund the troops, what is going to happen is another election and that Inaugural Day is two years away. How many soldier's family and friends tears away is that? How many nightmares, how many broken marriages, how many broken bodies and minds and hearts away is that? A lot of Bad Days.
The Decider as The Unifier
I've heard several news casts describe the President as being very alone or lonely with his escalation policy. That's not quite accurate, there are about 150,000 soldiers who'll be "with" him on this one. He won't be "with" them, he's demonstrated, quite awhile previously, he knows how to take advantage of a war and not get involved.
When Gallup looked at the question from a couple different angles, the Decider didn't seem to have a lot of company. Previous to the speech when confronted with several choices including escalation, only 12% chose it, asked as an established policy question 36% were good with the idea. As an established policy 61% opposed escalation (they named it surge, I won't use words for what they don't mean), this means the country has once again become unified, not quite as unified as post 9/11 but gaining. I believe 36% is just a little short of the Republican registration which means partisanship is dead. Ill. Ah hell, still alive and kicking for 1/3 of those polled. Darn. I really was starting to have hopes that sense and humanity might trump when I saw the 12% number.
But look at it this way, the Decider has gotten nearly 2/3 of those polled to agree about something regarding national policy and foreign affairs. That's darn near a stellar performance. Where can he go from there, even more agreement?
When Gallup looked at the question from a couple different angles, the Decider didn't seem to have a lot of company. Previous to the speech when confronted with several choices including escalation, only 12% chose it, asked as an established policy question 36% were good with the idea. As an established policy 61% opposed escalation (they named it surge, I won't use words for what they don't mean), this means the country has once again become unified, not quite as unified as post 9/11 but gaining. I believe 36% is just a little short of the Republican registration which means partisanship is dead. Ill. Ah hell, still alive and kicking for 1/3 of those polled. Darn. I really was starting to have hopes that sense and humanity might trump when I saw the 12% number.
But look at it this way, the Decider has gotten nearly 2/3 of those polled to agree about something regarding national policy and foreign affairs. That's darn near a stellar performance. Where can he go from there, even more agreement?
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Surgalation
A nonsense word? There's plenty enough nonsense around the terms it's coined from : surge - escalation. the President calls it a troop surge, some in the press buy that term, Democrats have been using escalation and a few of the press prefer that term.
Webster's 9th Collegiate has a couple definitions of surge:
a large wave or billow
or
a sudden jerk (you'd have to ask Laura)
For escalate we have:
to increase in - extent, volume, number, amount, intensity, or scope ( a little war threatens to - into a huge one) and no I didn't mess with this.
Webster talks about waves, billows and even links surge to electricity but they just don't mention warfare or troops. I'm aware that a crowd might surge forward, etc but that and waves and electrical phenomenon are very quick events, nothing I can see that's measured in weeks, months, or years. Somehow it's considered partisan to not use the term just because BushCo likes it.
Awhile back I wrote an article that stated that words have meanings and that meaning is important if we are to expect to communicate with each other. If word meanings suddenly are optional to the situation one would reasonably expect that the goal is to not communicate, but rather to confuse. The word "spin" comes to mind.
Now if you want to lie to me and I'm not smart enough to catch it or at least smack you for it, bad on me. But this crap of using a perfectly good language to mean what it does not mean is offensive to my intelligence and should be damn offensive to anybody who makes a living using words. Do you catch my drift, media enablers? If you want to play along with this word weasel nonsense then you should have no doubts about why your credibility sucks.
Try this, quit kowtowing to the Media Bias fear mongers and try using facts and the language that used to be so advanced that most of the civilized world tried to be competent in it. I don't give a rat's patoot what political party thinks misuse is a great idea, it isn't. It also isn't a great idea to try to be inoffensive about facts and words, all you do is offend everybody. There are not two points of view on what escalate means, it has a definition and that's it. 2+2=4 is not subject to countervailing points of view. Get over it, insulted power is not going to like you when you tell the truth, not ever, and if you do something else - you're pointless.
Webster's 9th Collegiate has a couple definitions of surge:
a large wave or billow
or
a sudden jerk (you'd have to ask Laura)
For escalate we have:
to increase in - extent, volume, number, amount, intensity, or scope ( a little war threatens to - into a huge one) and no I didn't mess with this.
Webster talks about waves, billows and even links surge to electricity but they just don't mention warfare or troops. I'm aware that a crowd might surge forward, etc but that and waves and electrical phenomenon are very quick events, nothing I can see that's measured in weeks, months, or years. Somehow it's considered partisan to not use the term just because BushCo likes it.
Awhile back I wrote an article that stated that words have meanings and that meaning is important if we are to expect to communicate with each other. If word meanings suddenly are optional to the situation one would reasonably expect that the goal is to not communicate, but rather to confuse. The word "spin" comes to mind.
Now if you want to lie to me and I'm not smart enough to catch it or at least smack you for it, bad on me. But this crap of using a perfectly good language to mean what it does not mean is offensive to my intelligence and should be damn offensive to anybody who makes a living using words. Do you catch my drift, media enablers? If you want to play along with this word weasel nonsense then you should have no doubts about why your credibility sucks.
Try this, quit kowtowing to the Media Bias fear mongers and try using facts and the language that used to be so advanced that most of the civilized world tried to be competent in it. I don't give a rat's patoot what political party thinks misuse is a great idea, it isn't. It also isn't a great idea to try to be inoffensive about facts and words, all you do is offend everybody. There are not two points of view on what escalate means, it has a definition and that's it. 2+2=4 is not subject to countervailing points of view. Get over it, insulted power is not going to like you when you tell the truth, not ever, and if you do something else - you're pointless.
Governor K's Baker City Inaugural Visit
I hope you'll bear with me on my "quotes" since I have no recorder and I don't know an actual version of shorthand, ok, I'm apologizing in advance for my crappy notes, but the quotes if not exact are real close. We had a pretty nice day for the Governor's luncheon, just a little fresh snow to make things white and mixed sunny weather.
I shook hands with TK and told him how nice it was to have him back and he thanked me personally "for all the good work you guys have done" (Baker County Democrats). So, kudos folks. Gale Voser, BCD Treasurer, deserves special thanks for closing up her store to come and help with the door. Courtney Warner was charming and efficient as she helped with the meet and greets, this means something in a small town. Sad to report that she's winding up her commitment to the Gov.
Fred Warner (D) County Chair handled the introduction, noting particularly the difference in the economy and employment picture between the Inaugural Ball 4 years ago and today.
The Governor opened up by saying what a pleasure it was to "be back in beautiful downtown Baker City" (if you've never been, it is) and thanking Baker for all the volunteers for state boards noting that "people are starting to wonder if everybody is from Baker City." He said that he never gets to visit Eastern Oregon enough, but sometime too much with the funerals for soldiers and thanked us for how we support those in harm's way.
Most of the remarks were referenced to this "Moment of Opportunity" provided by our improved economy, and that he hoped to turn this into our longest and best opportunity for all of the state's people. He mentioned his plans for education from pre-school to work-force, children's health care, making Oregon a leader in renewable and alternative energy, and other facets of his Inaugural Speech that your correspondent was too slow to get noted.
I'm going to step out of chronological accuracy and group statements by topic and I'll note that these are statements I found interesting and strong.
On the topic of labor and global marketing Ted wanted the worker to know that when "he wonders who cares and will help, that we will." We will see to it that there is more education and skill training. "We will not abandon you." Regarding education and labor he stated that 70% of high school grads will not go on to college and that we need to carry the message to them that "labor is an honorable and worthwhile thing," something that is not being done now.
In regards to opportunities in Oregon, he pledged that "we will close the gap between those who have found the Dream and those who press their faces to the glass looking in." We care about each other in Oregon and take care of each other, "we do not move ahead by leaving others behind."
He believes that "if we remain defined by our differences we can never move ahead," that "before we are members of political organizations, we're Oregonians."
I've condensed an hour of speaking and Q&A considerably more than it deserves and Governor Kulongoski gave a good uplifting speech that I'm sure even the Republican Party of Oregon attendees could get along with. It is worth noting that the Republican Chair Mrs Jan Kerns is on one of the Governor's Boards.
The Geiser Grand Hotel, pre-turn of the century, is a beautiful building, and they served a nice luncheon and ran a good show. It is a premier hotel, worth a visit to "beautiful downtown Baker City."
Thanks for stopping by, Ted.
I shook hands with TK and told him how nice it was to have him back and he thanked me personally "for all the good work you guys have done" (Baker County Democrats). So, kudos folks. Gale Voser, BCD Treasurer, deserves special thanks for closing up her store to come and help with the door. Courtney Warner was charming and efficient as she helped with the meet and greets, this means something in a small town. Sad to report that she's winding up her commitment to the Gov.
Fred Warner (D) County Chair handled the introduction, noting particularly the difference in the economy and employment picture between the Inaugural Ball 4 years ago and today.
The Governor opened up by saying what a pleasure it was to "be back in beautiful downtown Baker City" (if you've never been, it is) and thanking Baker for all the volunteers for state boards noting that "people are starting to wonder if everybody is from Baker City." He said that he never gets to visit Eastern Oregon enough, but sometime too much with the funerals for soldiers and thanked us for how we support those in harm's way.
Most of the remarks were referenced to this "Moment of Opportunity" provided by our improved economy, and that he hoped to turn this into our longest and best opportunity for all of the state's people. He mentioned his plans for education from pre-school to work-force, children's health care, making Oregon a leader in renewable and alternative energy, and other facets of his Inaugural Speech that your correspondent was too slow to get noted.
I'm going to step out of chronological accuracy and group statements by topic and I'll note that these are statements I found interesting and strong.
On the topic of labor and global marketing Ted wanted the worker to know that when "he wonders who cares and will help, that we will." We will see to it that there is more education and skill training. "We will not abandon you." Regarding education and labor he stated that 70% of high school grads will not go on to college and that we need to carry the message to them that "labor is an honorable and worthwhile thing," something that is not being done now.
In regards to opportunities in Oregon, he pledged that "we will close the gap between those who have found the Dream and those who press their faces to the glass looking in." We care about each other in Oregon and take care of each other, "we do not move ahead by leaving others behind."
He believes that "if we remain defined by our differences we can never move ahead," that "before we are members of political organizations, we're Oregonians."
I've condensed an hour of speaking and Q&A considerably more than it deserves and Governor Kulongoski gave a good uplifting speech that I'm sure even the Republican Party of Oregon attendees could get along with. It is worth noting that the Republican Chair Mrs Jan Kerns is on one of the Governor's Boards.
The Geiser Grand Hotel, pre-turn of the century, is a beautiful building, and they served a nice luncheon and ran a good show. It is a premier hotel, worth a visit to "beautiful downtown Baker City."
Thanks for stopping by, Ted.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
The Brady Bunch
If you're big into anti-gun stuff or support the Bill of Rights and would like to see what your opponents like to say HuffPo has Paul Helmke's review of Private Guns, Public Health up for your perusal, I think the comments section is better reading. This Brady Campaign/Center to Prevent Handgun Violence shill, excuse me-President- gets his knickers in a knot telling us about the public health costs of firearms. They're going to address this public health menace...well how exactly isn't real clear. You don't suppose they'll do something about medical misadventures do you? I mean, after all, those licensed physicians kill more people than guns do, no I don't mean people have a tendency to die under a doctor's care, I mean they out and out kill them. He even mentions swimming pools, nicely done, you're more likely to die from having a swimming pool than a gun. He doesn't like Gary Kleck - he's unfair - oh for pete's sake, Brady classes 25 year old males as children to make their stats work and they call unfair?
There are some of the old tired ideas, gun registration - that magically makes guns safe? Or, I like this one, licensing. Let's hang these ideas on the First Amendment and see how it works out, you have to register your religious preferences or your mouth or paper in order to have one, then you need to have a license to use them. Now that certainly wouldn't have a dampening effect on freedom of speech, religion, press, or assembly would it? Wouldn't that have a certain tendency to let the government regulate those things and find the people doing it in a way the government doesn't care for? Maybe make them disappear?
I don't care if you want to own a gun or not, if you do, for pete's sake learn how to use and keep it safely and become proficient with it. And yes, doing that makes you a patriot to the ideals of America, just remember that the folks who set those up weren't the safe low key type.
The article is typical garbage from that Brady Bunch, we're all five years old and they'll take care of us, but the comments are illuminating, and they're not right wingers or even odd ball lefties like me. No, I didn't comment, they don't like me. And you can guess what they can do with that...
There are some of the old tired ideas, gun registration - that magically makes guns safe? Or, I like this one, licensing. Let's hang these ideas on the First Amendment and see how it works out, you have to register your religious preferences or your mouth or paper in order to have one, then you need to have a license to use them. Now that certainly wouldn't have a dampening effect on freedom of speech, religion, press, or assembly would it? Wouldn't that have a certain tendency to let the government regulate those things and find the people doing it in a way the government doesn't care for? Maybe make them disappear?
I don't care if you want to own a gun or not, if you do, for pete's sake learn how to use and keep it safely and become proficient with it. And yes, doing that makes you a patriot to the ideals of America, just remember that the folks who set those up weren't the safe low key type.
The article is typical garbage from that Brady Bunch, we're all five years old and they'll take care of us, but the comments are illuminating, and they're not right wingers or even odd ball lefties like me. No, I didn't comment, they don't like me. And you can guess what they can do with that...
Jay Rosen - PressThink
You will find a new link on the side bar PressThink written by Jay Rosen who teaches journalism at NYU and spends some time thinking about interesting perspectives. His latest, "Grave and Deteriorating for the Children of Agnew"does some tracing of the conservative crying of media bias. He's spent quite a few words putting this together and I have no intention of trying a Cliff Notes version of short-changing him, so you 'll need to go on over there. You might want to save to 'Favorites' or whatever your browser calls it.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Governor Ted's Second Baker City Inauguration **Updated**
Wednesday January 10th the Governor comes to Baker City for his second Baker City Inaugural Event. You can attend the luncheon at Geiser Grand Hotel 1996 Main St, Baker City at 12:00 Noon. Tickets are $50 per person or $25 for Grassroots Democrats (a worthwhile investment in the DPO).
Maybe I'll take notes, though journalism isn't in my line.
**Update**
Sorry, if you don't already have tickets this one's sold out. Since I've had mine for awhile I'm in luck.
Baker County Chair Fred Warner will introduce the Gov. He's joked that they'd have had to go a ways to get a higher ranking Democrat. Fred is a popular County Commissioner and his daughter Courtney works for the Gov, she's organizing this.
Maybe I'll take notes, though journalism isn't in my line.
**Update**
Sorry, if you don't already have tickets this one's sold out. Since I've had mine for awhile I'm in luck.
Baker County Chair Fred Warner will introduce the Gov. He's joked that they'd have had to go a ways to get a higher ranking Democrat. Fred is a popular County Commissioner and his daughter Courtney works for the Gov, she's organizing this.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Blogswarm
Over at Daily Kos there's a little something going on that might be fun and useful for someone with some time and energy for it. KSFO radio in San Francisco is a right wing talk radio owned by Disney/ABC and they've indulged themselves in what can best be described as hate rhetoric so some folks are doing some work on their advertisers. The article itself isn't too long but last I looked there were 320 comments and many of them have important or useful content.
I'd like to do some small part toward detoxifying the air waves so I'm passing on info. The little bit of blogging I do occupies what little uncommitted time I have, so this is a hand-off. Many many years ago I lived in the North Bay Area and KSFO was one of the stations I listened to on occasion, too bad it's gone this way.
I'd like to do some small part toward detoxifying the air waves so I'm passing on info. The little bit of blogging I do occupies what little uncommitted time I have, so this is a hand-off. Many many years ago I lived in the North Bay Area and KSFO was one of the stations I listened to on occasion, too bad it's gone this way.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Huffington Post and Comments
I enjoy some of the stuff on The Huffington Post , there's some good writing and a fairly good selection of news reports. I also frequently find myself in in partial agreement and sometimes downright unhappy. So, I've availed myself of the "Comments" section, or rather tried to. I get nicely logged in, write something, click post, get assured that it's on its way, and it never appears. On going readers will note that I am at least marginally polite almost all the time and I try to stay on point. Somehow, HuffPo finds me objectionable. I've given them an opportunity to explain this to me, an opportunity they have not taken advantage of.
In one Post's comments section I counted 3 separate complaints about nonsensical arbitrary censorship, this from "lefty" commenters. Oddly enough, pretty rude "right" stuff seems to show up. I will note for the record that Sen. Chuck Schumer made a post "Back to Work on the Issues that Matter" and I bothered to comment that it sounded good but that civil liberties were important and that I was underwhelmed by his support of the Bill of Rights, in particular the Second Amendment. I also mentioned that while I might shoot the odd Bambi or target, the purpose of these guns is to keep the government off our necks. Somehow this is threatening enough to the powers that be at HuffPo to delete.
I started this Blog as a campaign site and stated at the outset that its purpose was for me to inform and readers to interact, any political campaign that remains in ignorance is engaging in stupidity and arrogance. This Blog is still a political campaign, just not an election campaign, I have an agenda, it's clear. HuffPo has an agenda, clearly, but evidently it's not to stay informed of their reader's thinking. I still stop by there, I don't believe holding the contributors responsible for policy is sensible, but I also no longer read Arianna, it's her blog. Too bad for somebody who wants to be influential.
Here, you can disagree, just leave the CAPs button alone, don't call stupid names, don't make personal threats, and give yourself some kind of identity. Some measure of civility will gain you credence if not agreement. If you want to say "Atta Boy" I can take that, too. Anybody is welcome here, just don't make a BIG effort to be a PITA.
In one Post's comments section I counted 3 separate complaints about nonsensical arbitrary censorship, this from "lefty" commenters. Oddly enough, pretty rude "right" stuff seems to show up. I will note for the record that Sen. Chuck Schumer made a post "Back to Work on the Issues that Matter" and I bothered to comment that it sounded good but that civil liberties were important and that I was underwhelmed by his support of the Bill of Rights, in particular the Second Amendment. I also mentioned that while I might shoot the odd Bambi or target, the purpose of these guns is to keep the government off our necks. Somehow this is threatening enough to the powers that be at HuffPo to delete.
I started this Blog as a campaign site and stated at the outset that its purpose was for me to inform and readers to interact, any political campaign that remains in ignorance is engaging in stupidity and arrogance. This Blog is still a political campaign, just not an election campaign, I have an agenda, it's clear. HuffPo has an agenda, clearly, but evidently it's not to stay informed of their reader's thinking. I still stop by there, I don't believe holding the contributors responsible for policy is sensible, but I also no longer read Arianna, it's her blog. Too bad for somebody who wants to be influential.
Here, you can disagree, just leave the CAPs button alone, don't call stupid names, don't make personal threats, and give yourself some kind of identity. Some measure of civility will gain you credence if not agreement. If you want to say "Atta Boy" I can take that, too. Anybody is welcome here, just don't make a BIG effort to be a PITA.
New Way Forward
The WaPo has an article saying critics complain that the "Surge, etc" is more of the same. GWB may not be the most truthful fellow around, but he generally gives some hints. Take the title given to his new Slogan, New Way Forward, there is Forward and there is Backward and there is Out as adverbs in this sort of connection. The noun Way I won't pick at, but New is probably actually an untruth except in the context of "More." (the advertising equivalent is "New and Improved" meaning the label or container is different)
Truth in advertising, oh well, but Forward does not indicate a change of direction and all indications are that it doesn't mean it to BushCo, either. The steady drip, drip of leaks about the "New" plan from this secretive bunch indicates a willingness to have it happen which would seem to indicate a desire to have the Public oven pre-heated. There are a couple strategies that could be at work: not wanting to have bad news hit all at once or bring out a somewhat different product implying that a lot of work went into this. Without paying attention to more than just this bunch's track record, what will be new is the Slogan.
Truth in advertising, oh well, but Forward does not indicate a change of direction and all indications are that it doesn't mean it to BushCo, either. The steady drip, drip of leaks about the "New" plan from this secretive bunch indicates a willingness to have it happen which would seem to indicate a desire to have the Public oven pre-heated. There are a couple strategies that could be at work: not wanting to have bad news hit all at once or bring out a somewhat different product implying that a lot of work went into this. Without paying attention to more than just this bunch's track record, what will be new is the Slogan.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Have A Dog In This Fight ?
If you've been watching any news you know that Hamas and Fata are busily killing each other in Palestine, in the latest a Hamas militia surrounded the house of a Fata commander Col. Muhammad Gharib killing eight. On Wednesday 5 died, on Thursday 60 were wounded including 10 children, they're getting right with the program. Both sides promise more of the same all the while saying their guns should be pointed at the Israelis. Some miles away, in Iraq, Arabs are involved in the same occupation of whacking each other, and the reasons don't seem a lot different.
You'd think the BushCo would be able to see that far away and get some kind of realistic input. The Palestinians actually have a common enemy - Israel - and yet they'd rather shoot each other up. Neither place has any particular experience with participatory democracy and even less with the concept of compromise and the results play themselves out on a daily basis. Their political solutions are at the business end of a bullet, or bomb. In Iraq we've exchanged a bloody minded despot for the tyranny of violence as politics by supposedly represented constituents, Palestine's methodology. I'm sure that tracing the course of frustrated aspirations and the history of violent oppression and resistance makes some of their patterns understandable and throw in their theocratic tendencies to get an outcome that's almost inevitiable. Why it is, then, that the Neocons and BushCo couldn't see today's Iraq barreling down the track?
It is not in the least racist or bigotted to state that the Arab version of Islam is theocratic in nature and by many interpretations, murderous. For the politically correct spinners of religious equality, Spain's Catholic Inquisition was theocracy at its finest, much less deal with the theocratic Crusades or - on and on. George II is a theocrat at heart and cannot see the obvious and inevitable consequences of indulging in it. Theocracy always trumps knowlege and history, it can only thrive on ignorance and superstition. There is no place within history that those qualifiers do not also result in muderous behavior. Be under no illusion that the versions of Islam in operation in the Middle East are somehow more debased than the vile versions of Chritianity practiced by US White Supremacists or some of the "fundamentalist" Christian Right, what they do not have is the power structure to indulge their fantasies.
Squealing, "unfair religious bigotry" at me is stupid, I will state unequivocally that the actual words spoken by these religions founders might actually be the basis for a much improved life. The problem lies with the politicization of their messages, many of the Books of the New Testament are nothing more than political power texts as are many of the passages surrounding the Koran. As these churches achieved political power their essential messages became perverted by the necessities of maintaining and enhancing that political power. There is a reason for a fence between secular and spiritual, that fence protects both but primarily the spiritual. I defy anyone to take the actual quotes of Jesus Christ and use them to back the anger and agenda of the Christian Right.
The deliberate cynical usage of the politics of religiosity by BushCo should have educated them in its propensity for mindless fanaticism, it should only have been a short step to understanding the brutality of its operation as government in the Middle East. The Sauds are family friends of George II, he kisses them and hold hands with them, their experiences with the Wahabbi sect surely are not secrets from him. Suppressed, ignorant, superstitious theocrats are dangerous murderous thugs. Why, exactly, we have a dog in any of these fights is beyond me.
You'd think the BushCo would be able to see that far away and get some kind of realistic input. The Palestinians actually have a common enemy - Israel - and yet they'd rather shoot each other up. Neither place has any particular experience with participatory democracy and even less with the concept of compromise and the results play themselves out on a daily basis. Their political solutions are at the business end of a bullet, or bomb. In Iraq we've exchanged a bloody minded despot for the tyranny of violence as politics by supposedly represented constituents, Palestine's methodology. I'm sure that tracing the course of frustrated aspirations and the history of violent oppression and resistance makes some of their patterns understandable and throw in their theocratic tendencies to get an outcome that's almost inevitiable. Why it is, then, that the Neocons and BushCo couldn't see today's Iraq barreling down the track?
It is not in the least racist or bigotted to state that the Arab version of Islam is theocratic in nature and by many interpretations, murderous. For the politically correct spinners of religious equality, Spain's Catholic Inquisition was theocracy at its finest, much less deal with the theocratic Crusades or - on and on. George II is a theocrat at heart and cannot see the obvious and inevitable consequences of indulging in it. Theocracy always trumps knowlege and history, it can only thrive on ignorance and superstition. There is no place within history that those qualifiers do not also result in muderous behavior. Be under no illusion that the versions of Islam in operation in the Middle East are somehow more debased than the vile versions of Chritianity practiced by US White Supremacists or some of the "fundamentalist" Christian Right, what they do not have is the power structure to indulge their fantasies.
Squealing, "unfair religious bigotry" at me is stupid, I will state unequivocally that the actual words spoken by these religions founders might actually be the basis for a much improved life. The problem lies with the politicization of their messages, many of the Books of the New Testament are nothing more than political power texts as are many of the passages surrounding the Koran. As these churches achieved political power their essential messages became perverted by the necessities of maintaining and enhancing that political power. There is a reason for a fence between secular and spiritual, that fence protects both but primarily the spiritual. I defy anyone to take the actual quotes of Jesus Christ and use them to back the anger and agenda of the Christian Right.
The deliberate cynical usage of the politics of religiosity by BushCo should have educated them in its propensity for mindless fanaticism, it should only have been a short step to understanding the brutality of its operation as government in the Middle East. The Sauds are family friends of George II, he kisses them and hold hands with them, their experiences with the Wahabbi sect surely are not secrets from him. Suppressed, ignorant, superstitious theocrats are dangerous murderous thugs. Why, exactly, we have a dog in any of these fights is beyond me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)