Dennis Kucinich just introduced a bill to impeach Dick Cheney. Kucinich deserves to be President... no, he deserves to rule the world. He's the only member of congress who will stand up for what's right, AND he's a vegan. I'll not enumerate the multitudes of reasons for which Cheney deserves, not only to be impeached, but also to be burned at the stake. But the extent to which the American public is willing to put up with so much illegal, immoral, greedy, antics from this administration is mind-blowing. They lie about reasons for war, completely bungle that war, allow billions and billions of dollars to simply evaporate in no-bid contracts or simply into thin air, illegally spy on American citizens and then lie about it, torture innocent people, eradicate the right of habeas corpus, and on and on, and barely a peep from the American public?
Where are YOU? Support impeachment now. Or maybe you don't deserve to live in a free country.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Right-wing "media"
Boy, I'm a bit behind, but I'll catch up with the vengeance of a hugely pissed-off ardvark (they can be quite ferocious, I understand)
I heard the (mainly right-wing) media uproar about the toilet paper comments made by Sheryl Crow. I don't know anything about Sheryl Crow, other than that she's a pretty lousy artist, but my immediate impression was that she was 1) making a joke, or 2) a right-wing plant. It seems that the former assumption was correct, which is completely obvious if you read her original post. But that didn't stop Fox News, and almost every other right-wing media pundit/ blog/ idiot from acting as if she were serious. I could believe that these people are dumb enough to think that Crow was serious, but actually, I don't think that's the case. They knew she was joking, but also knew that their audience is so deluded that they would buy it. Fox News is not serious media, if anyone had any illusions.
It is a scary fact that many Americans get their news from a source that reports, with a straight face, that "Crow says we should wash out our toilet paper and re-use it. "
I heard the (mainly right-wing) media uproar about the toilet paper comments made by Sheryl Crow. I don't know anything about Sheryl Crow, other than that she's a pretty lousy artist, but my immediate impression was that she was 1) making a joke, or 2) a right-wing plant. It seems that the former assumption was correct, which is completely obvious if you read her original post. But that didn't stop Fox News, and almost every other right-wing media pundit/ blog/ idiot from acting as if she were serious. I could believe that these people are dumb enough to think that Crow was serious, but actually, I don't think that's the case. They knew she was joking, but also knew that their audience is so deluded that they would buy it. Fox News is not serious media, if anyone had any illusions.
It is a scary fact that many Americans get their news from a source that reports, with a straight face, that "Crow says we should wash out our toilet paper and re-use it. "
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
31 versus 500,000
Okay, my two cents on the Virginia Tech shootings:
First, can you believe the response from pro-gun rights advocates? "If people in that room had guns, they could have shot that guy!" Seriously? Do they really think that in a college classroom, everybody should be packing heat? That's the mainstream, right-wing response, folks, in all its glorious insanity. Here's the other one, "If Americans hadn't been so wussified by the liberal mainstream media (and gay people?), they would have just beat up the guy!"
Jesus.
Secondly, isn't it a bit strange that 31 Americans dying from random violence occupies more media attention than the entire Darfur genocide, which has claimed almost 500,000 lives so far?
31 vs. 500,000. That's a pretty big difference. The violence in Darfur is ongoing. Children are being murdered every day, women too, but they're just a bunch of nappy headed hos. Didn't we learn anything from Ruwanda?
Come to think of it, Anna Nicole's death occupied more news coverage than the entire Darfur conflict. Is there hope for the Human?
First, can you believe the response from pro-gun rights advocates? "If people in that room had guns, they could have shot that guy!" Seriously? Do they really think that in a college classroom, everybody should be packing heat? That's the mainstream, right-wing response, folks, in all its glorious insanity. Here's the other one, "If Americans hadn't been so wussified by the liberal mainstream media (and gay people?), they would have just beat up the guy!"
Jesus.
Secondly, isn't it a bit strange that 31 Americans dying from random violence occupies more media attention than the entire Darfur genocide, which has claimed almost 500,000 lives so far?
31 vs. 500,000. That's a pretty big difference. The violence in Darfur is ongoing. Children are being murdered every day, women too, but they're just a bunch of nappy headed hos. Didn't we learn anything from Ruwanda?
Come to think of it, Anna Nicole's death occupied more news coverage than the entire Darfur conflict. Is there hope for the Human?
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Nuclear Energy
There was an article on the front page of the Birmingham News this Sunday entitled, "State Leads Nuclear Comeback". The focus of the article was the re-opening of the Brown's Ferry Nuclear plant near Athens, AL. The fear of disaster at the plant was mentioned briefly, but, as usual, none of the real problems with nuclear energy were mentioned.
In the age of global warming, the prospect of "clean" nuclear energy is indeed seductive. But the collective failure of the public to recognize the recklessness of using it is, to me, breath-taking.
Most people I know who are smart, concerned about the environment, and well-meaning, are totally in favor of nuclear energy. I used to be among them.
...until I stepped back and looked at the big picture.
The problem with nuclear Energy is that it produces wastes that remain dangerous for about one hundred millennia. That's right. Haven't you heard? I'm not surprised. The fact is, nuclear wastes remain dangerous for about 100,000 years. That's roughly half the time our species has existed on the planet so far.
Most discussions I have read concern themselves with keeping the material safe for a few thousand years or so. Do you see a problem here?
Is it reasonable or ethical to litter the Earth with thousands of tons of shit that won't go away, uhm, for like practically ever?
All of the arguments that I have heard in favor of nuclear energy fall woefully short of reason, common sense, or any sort of ethical standard. Allow me to enumerate them:
1) "but we're destroying the atmosphere with pollutants from coal burning energy plants!"
True. And we need to fix that. We certainly don't need to simply delay the effects of burning coal. If WE mess up the atmosphere, it seems to me that WE should suffer the consequences. And I'm not convinced that using nuclear energy actually reduces coal consumption in the long run. Generally, humans will use about as much electricity as they can afford to use. How much energy do YOU waste? I waste a lot, because its cheap, which brings me to the next argument...
2) "we need cheap energy in order to maintain a growing economy and population!"
Nope. If you can't do something safely and ethically, don't do it. Besides, I think we can have a stable economy and a (gulp) growing population in the absence of very cheap centralized energy. The future of energy production needs to be decentralized, community-based production. And there needs to be an emphasis on efficiency and conservation. When people talk about a "growing economy", what that means in today's world, primarily, is the expanding power and wealth of first world corporations; corporations which have run rough-shod over the whole world, and whose power and influence has grown way past proportions that can be healthy in any capacity. I'm fine with a small check on the unbridled expansion of corporate power.
3) "Nuclear energy is safe, dude. We can store the wastes for decades, and by that time, we'll figure out what to do with it."
Maybe. But who knows? Maybe this technological juggernaut will not proceed on its current trajectory. But what is that trajectory, anyway? Are we headed for a StarTrek future wherein technology will save everything and there will be no stray dogs? Maybe. But maybe a gang of militant Amish will take over and jail anyone who uses a lawnmower. Or maybe we'll screw up the earth so badly that it can't support the techno juggernaut. Or maybe we'll decide at some point, that we need to rethink the way we're living and start to live sustainably. Is any of this likely? I have no idea. Do you?
The future is, by its nature, unpredictable. And using nuclear energy is betting the proverbial farm of our descendants, that they'll be able to fix what we fucked up.
4) "We'll send the waste into outer space"
I can't believe how many seemingly intelligent life forms have said this to me. Hello? Rockets blow up, rather frequently. When the space shuttle blew up over America, it was a minor environmental disaster. Imagine a rocket malfunctioning and scattering tons of radioactive waste over the land, or in the upper atmosphere, or the sea. Even if rockets are a lot safer in the future, they'll never be safe enough to justify that risk.
5) "We actually can store it safely for 100,000 years."
Theoretically. Nobody really knows exactly how to do that yet. And you still have to transport it, during which time it is subject to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and various other accidents. Its not worth it.
Got any more?
Here's a quote from the Birmingham News:
"Some critics say nuclear plants take too long for a payback on the money spent to build them. With a price tag of $2.5 billion to $4 billion each for a nuclear reactor, it would take a utility 25 to 40 years to recover its investment, according to an estimate from the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group."
So, all you devout worshippers of technology, do you really think that by 40 years from now, we won't figure out a better way to produce energy than by producing wastes that don't go away for 100,000 years? Imagine a few decades from now if we've figured out the whole energy problem. We'll still have hundreds of tons of waste to transport, store, guard from terrorists, and otherwise deal with for the next 100,000 years. What were we thinking?
Lastly, the resurgent popularity of nuclear energy is in some way related to the Bush administration providing incentives to build reactors. Before you make national policy affecting an energy source, shouldn't you be able to pronounce that source correctly?
...just a thought
In the age of global warming, the prospect of "clean" nuclear energy is indeed seductive. But the collective failure of the public to recognize the recklessness of using it is, to me, breath-taking.
Most people I know who are smart, concerned about the environment, and well-meaning, are totally in favor of nuclear energy. I used to be among them.
...until I stepped back and looked at the big picture.
The problem with nuclear Energy is that it produces wastes that remain dangerous for about one hundred millennia. That's right. Haven't you heard? I'm not surprised. The fact is, nuclear wastes remain dangerous for about 100,000 years. That's roughly half the time our species has existed on the planet so far.
Most discussions I have read concern themselves with keeping the material safe for a few thousand years or so. Do you see a problem here?
Is it reasonable or ethical to litter the Earth with thousands of tons of shit that won't go away, uhm, for like practically ever?
All of the arguments that I have heard in favor of nuclear energy fall woefully short of reason, common sense, or any sort of ethical standard. Allow me to enumerate them:
1) "but we're destroying the atmosphere with pollutants from coal burning energy plants!"
True. And we need to fix that. We certainly don't need to simply delay the effects of burning coal. If WE mess up the atmosphere, it seems to me that WE should suffer the consequences. And I'm not convinced that using nuclear energy actually reduces coal consumption in the long run. Generally, humans will use about as much electricity as they can afford to use. How much energy do YOU waste? I waste a lot, because its cheap, which brings me to the next argument...
2) "we need cheap energy in order to maintain a growing economy and population!"
Nope. If you can't do something safely and ethically, don't do it. Besides, I think we can have a stable economy and a (gulp) growing population in the absence of very cheap centralized energy. The future of energy production needs to be decentralized, community-based production. And there needs to be an emphasis on efficiency and conservation. When people talk about a "growing economy", what that means in today's world, primarily, is the expanding power and wealth of first world corporations; corporations which have run rough-shod over the whole world, and whose power and influence has grown way past proportions that can be healthy in any capacity. I'm fine with a small check on the unbridled expansion of corporate power.
3) "Nuclear energy is safe, dude. We can store the wastes for decades, and by that time, we'll figure out what to do with it."
Maybe. But who knows? Maybe this technological juggernaut will not proceed on its current trajectory. But what is that trajectory, anyway? Are we headed for a StarTrek future wherein technology will save everything and there will be no stray dogs? Maybe. But maybe a gang of militant Amish will take over and jail anyone who uses a lawnmower. Or maybe we'll screw up the earth so badly that it can't support the techno juggernaut. Or maybe we'll decide at some point, that we need to rethink the way we're living and start to live sustainably. Is any of this likely? I have no idea. Do you?
The future is, by its nature, unpredictable. And using nuclear energy is betting the proverbial farm of our descendants, that they'll be able to fix what we fucked up.
4) "We'll send the waste into outer space"
I can't believe how many seemingly intelligent life forms have said this to me. Hello? Rockets blow up, rather frequently. When the space shuttle blew up over America, it was a minor environmental disaster. Imagine a rocket malfunctioning and scattering tons of radioactive waste over the land, or in the upper atmosphere, or the sea. Even if rockets are a lot safer in the future, they'll never be safe enough to justify that risk.
5) "We actually can store it safely for 100,000 years."
Theoretically. Nobody really knows exactly how to do that yet. And you still have to transport it, during which time it is subject to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and various other accidents. Its not worth it.
Got any more?
Here's a quote from the Birmingham News:
"Some critics say nuclear plants take too long for a payback on the money spent to build them. With a price tag of $2.5 billion to $4 billion each for a nuclear reactor, it would take a utility 25 to 40 years to recover its investment, according to an estimate from the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group."
So, all you devout worshippers of technology, do you really think that by 40 years from now, we won't figure out a better way to produce energy than by producing wastes that don't go away for 100,000 years? Imagine a few decades from now if we've figured out the whole energy problem. We'll still have hundreds of tons of waste to transport, store, guard from terrorists, and otherwise deal with for the next 100,000 years. What were we thinking?
Lastly, the resurgent popularity of nuclear energy is in some way related to the Bush administration providing incentives to build reactors. Before you make national policy affecting an energy source, shouldn't you be able to pronounce that source correctly?
...just a thought
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Artur Davis is Just Alright with Me
I saw Artur Davis speak last night; always a pleasure. He's the Representative for the 7th Congressional district in Alabama, my district. Artur might be the most talented public speaker I've seen. I'll stand by that, though there are several contenders for "The Human Animal Award for Excellence in Public Speaking", a highly coveted distinction. But I think that man will go far. His only weakness is that he is trying to use Alabama as a Springboard.
And not only does the way he speaks impress me, but generally, I find myself in strong agreement with what he's saying.
I was right with him when he was talking about education, immigration, healthcare, the environment... Let me interject here: He talked about the recent Supreme Court Case , which fits nicely with my last post . In this case, the EPA went before the Supreme Court to argue that they did not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
Right. The Environmental Protection Agency was arguing that they do not have the authority to protect the environment or regulate airborne pollutants. The ruling (from the Court's written opinion): "what the fuck's the matter with you guys????"
Talk about frivolous lawsuits.
So anyway, I was totally digging what he was saying.
...until the last two questions, at which point, he took a giant nose-dive in my book.
Question 1: (paraphrased) Do you believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians?
Davis responded that yes, he does. Then he went on to say (to the best of my understanding) that he can't support gay marriage for 2 reasons: 1) I am a representative for my district so I am obliged to reflect their opinions. and 2) I do not feel that making laws to enforce the equality of gays is the best course of action in the long run. Society needs to progress before such laws can be enacted. (I'm sure Artur would take some issue with my summary)
What is Davis saying? On his first point, I would ask, isn't your first duty to the constitution and your interpretation of what is right? On his second point, Is he submitting that we should not enforce equal rights for all citizens unless everybody agrees about it? Does he think that equal rights for blacks should not have been enforced in the South before we had a majority consensus about the issue?
Question 2: Can you justify your vote for the Military Commissions Act?
I was dying to ask this, though I'm afraid I would have put it a little less politely ("why did you vote for the MCA, you moron?!") So I'm glad someone else asked.
His response: The MCA insures some level of compliance with the Geneva conventions, so it was better than nothing.
Artur Davis could not be more wrong. Here is a link to the Wikipedia entry on the MCA. Or just Google it, read from a bunch of different sources and then try to make Artur's statements jive with what you read. I'm not sure we're talking about the same Act.
I have written about this on several occasions, here, here, and here (also a 5 page letter to Davis after realizing that it seemed that he had no idea what the MCA actually did. What? Don't Congressmen read every pissed off 5 page letter they get?). So I'll refrain from pointing out all the problems with the Act. But here are a few excerpts:
"In General- No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories. [Act sec. 5(a)] "
Hello? "No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States..." HELLO?
"As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. [Act sec. 6(a)(3)(A)] "
Hello? "the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the MEANING AND APPLICATION of the Geneva Conventions ..."
"The Act also contains provisions (often referred to as the "habeas provisions") removing access to the courts for any alien detained by the United States government who is determined to be an enemy combatant, or who is 'awaiting determination' regarding enemy combatant status. This allows the United States government to detain such aliens indefinitely without prosecuting them in any manner."
HELLO??
Am I missing something?
And not only does the way he speaks impress me, but generally, I find myself in strong agreement with what he's saying.
I was right with him when he was talking about education, immigration, healthcare, the environment... Let me interject here: He talked about the recent Supreme Court Case , which fits nicely with my last post . In this case, the EPA went before the Supreme Court to argue that they did not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
Right. The Environmental Protection Agency was arguing that they do not have the authority to protect the environment or regulate airborne pollutants. The ruling (from the Court's written opinion): "what the fuck's the matter with you guys????"
Talk about frivolous lawsuits.
So anyway, I was totally digging what he was saying.
...until the last two questions, at which point, he took a giant nose-dive in my book.
Question 1: (paraphrased) Do you believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians?
Davis responded that yes, he does. Then he went on to say (to the best of my understanding) that he can't support gay marriage for 2 reasons: 1) I am a representative for my district so I am obliged to reflect their opinions. and 2) I do not feel that making laws to enforce the equality of gays is the best course of action in the long run. Society needs to progress before such laws can be enacted. (I'm sure Artur would take some issue with my summary)
What is Davis saying? On his first point, I would ask, isn't your first duty to the constitution and your interpretation of what is right? On his second point, Is he submitting that we should not enforce equal rights for all citizens unless everybody agrees about it? Does he think that equal rights for blacks should not have been enforced in the South before we had a majority consensus about the issue?
Question 2: Can you justify your vote for the Military Commissions Act?
I was dying to ask this, though I'm afraid I would have put it a little less politely ("why did you vote for the MCA, you moron?!") So I'm glad someone else asked.
His response: The MCA insures some level of compliance with the Geneva conventions, so it was better than nothing.
Artur Davis could not be more wrong. Here is a link to the Wikipedia entry on the MCA. Or just Google it, read from a bunch of different sources and then try to make Artur's statements jive with what you read. I'm not sure we're talking about the same Act.
I have written about this on several occasions, here, here, and here (also a 5 page letter to Davis after realizing that it seemed that he had no idea what the MCA actually did. What? Don't Congressmen read every pissed off 5 page letter they get?). So I'll refrain from pointing out all the problems with the Act. But here are a few excerpts:
"In General- No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories. [Act sec. 5(a)] "
Hello? "No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States..." HELLO?
"As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. [Act sec. 6(a)(3)(A)] "
Hello? "the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the MEANING AND APPLICATION of the Geneva Conventions ..."
"The Act also contains provisions (often referred to as the "habeas provisions") removing access to the courts for any alien detained by the United States government who is determined to be an enemy combatant, or who is 'awaiting determination' regarding enemy combatant status. This allows the United States government to detain such aliens indefinitely without prosecuting them in any manner."
HELLO??
Am I missing something?
EPA (Exxon Protection Agency)
This story is a few weeks old, but it's worth remembering, especially insofar as it is representative of a pattern of behavior.
Bush's inclination to reward loyalty over competence is well-documented. But even more sinister and troubling is his habit of appointing people to important Government positions who are overtly hostile to the agency which they are chosen to represent, in order to render that position impotent.
The first and most flagrant example was appointing John Bolton to be the US Ambassador to the UN. Curiously, Bolton has expressed violent hostility to the very idea that the UN should exist, as well as to the notion that we should cooperate with them, at all.
Several weeks ago, the New York Times broke a story about Philip Cooney, a Bush aid who altered Government documents in order to weaken the language about climate change contained therein. Phil was chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. His qualifications? Before coming to the White House in 2001, he was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, which has long opposed the regulation of greenhouse gases. Two days after the article was published, Cooney resigned, and was hired immediately by... you guessed it, ExxonMobile.
Which brings me to my last example: Conservatives are fond of saying things like "the government that governs best, governs least", which, in the case of the current administration, couldn't be more true. The less those guys do, the better. Everything they touch turns to shit. A brilliant strategy really: Say that Government doesn't work, then get into power and prove it.
Bush's inclination to reward loyalty over competence is well-documented. But even more sinister and troubling is his habit of appointing people to important Government positions who are overtly hostile to the agency which they are chosen to represent, in order to render that position impotent.
The first and most flagrant example was appointing John Bolton to be the US Ambassador to the UN. Curiously, Bolton has expressed violent hostility to the very idea that the UN should exist, as well as to the notion that we should cooperate with them, at all.
Several weeks ago, the New York Times broke a story about Philip Cooney, a Bush aid who altered Government documents in order to weaken the language about climate change contained therein. Phil was chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. His qualifications? Before coming to the White House in 2001, he was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, which has long opposed the regulation of greenhouse gases. Two days after the article was published, Cooney resigned, and was hired immediately by... you guessed it, ExxonMobile.
Which brings me to my last example: Conservatives are fond of saying things like "the government that governs best, governs least", which, in the case of the current administration, couldn't be more true. The less those guys do, the better. Everything they touch turns to shit. A brilliant strategy really: Say that Government doesn't work, then get into power and prove it.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Real American Heros
I took that title from the lame Budweiser commercials, and in keeping with the same,
Here's to you Mr. ACLU Lawyer!
I went to see a presentation by ACLU lawyer, Steven Watt, who is currently representing Kalid El-Masri. He spoke about EL-Masri's story, which included being abducted by CIA agents from his home in Germany, taken to Afghanistan via Bagdad, while drugged and shackled and chained to the floor of a CIA plane. Upon arrival in Afghanistan, he was subjected to various forms of brutal torture, and was detained for several months even after the CIA realized they had an innocent man. El-Masri is now seeking justice in American courts.
Watt talked about the obstructionist tactics utilized by the US Goverment, first among which, is claiming the "State Secret" priveledge, which, in essence, is a provision that allows the Government to say that if a particular case goes foward, it will inherently harm National security. The Government's invokation of the State Secret provision in this case, and others, is garbage, but it is difficult to challenge.
During the presentation, I started thinking about what this Scottland-born lawyer was doing, and how important that kind of work is to our fragile democracy. I thought about television and People magazine and Nike and Michael Jordan and Jennifer Lopez. Then I thought about how great it would be if the ones who fight for justice in the world were the ones who made millions of dollars and were featured on the front page of tabloids and were idolized by the common man. Were it that way, things would be as they should be.
Alas... the Human.
A Strange Animal.
Here's to you Mr. ACLU Lawyer!
I went to see a presentation by ACLU lawyer, Steven Watt, who is currently representing Kalid El-Masri. He spoke about EL-Masri's story, which included being abducted by CIA agents from his home in Germany, taken to Afghanistan via Bagdad, while drugged and shackled and chained to the floor of a CIA plane. Upon arrival in Afghanistan, he was subjected to various forms of brutal torture, and was detained for several months even after the CIA realized they had an innocent man. El-Masri is now seeking justice in American courts.
Watt talked about the obstructionist tactics utilized by the US Goverment, first among which, is claiming the "State Secret" priveledge, which, in essence, is a provision that allows the Government to say that if a particular case goes foward, it will inherently harm National security. The Government's invokation of the State Secret provision in this case, and others, is garbage, but it is difficult to challenge.
During the presentation, I started thinking about what this Scottland-born lawyer was doing, and how important that kind of work is to our fragile democracy. I thought about television and People magazine and Nike and Michael Jordan and Jennifer Lopez. Then I thought about how great it would be if the ones who fight for justice in the world were the ones who made millions of dollars and were featured on the front page of tabloids and were idolized by the common man. Were it that way, things would be as they should be.
Alas... the Human.
A Strange Animal.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Homophobia = Latent Homosexuality
Many people have speculated about this for a while now. But now there is very strong scientific evidence that homophobia is most often related to latent homosexual desires, as if Ted Haggard weren't enough.
If you need additional evidence, Paul Cameron is a right- wing jerk on the front lines of the anti-gay movement. Intrestingly, Paul's contention is that everybody wants to have gay sex, and therefore, as a society, we need to be regimented aginst that tendency in order to promote healthy families. A quote from Paul Cameron: "Marital sex tends toward the boring. Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does. If all one seeks is an orgasm, the evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women. Homosexuality seems too powerful to resist."
Wow! That is just awesome. My condolences to Mrs. Cameron.
It seems Willie is right! (see below)
If you need additional evidence, Paul Cameron is a right- wing jerk on the front lines of the anti-gay movement. Intrestingly, Paul's contention is that everybody wants to have gay sex, and therefore, as a society, we need to be regimented aginst that tendency in order to promote healthy families. A quote from Paul Cameron: "Marital sex tends toward the boring. Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does. If all one seeks is an orgasm, the evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women. Homosexuality seems too powerful to resist."
Wow! That is just awesome. My condolences to Mrs. Cameron.
It seems Willie is right! (see below)
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Willie Nelson's New Song
"Cowboys are Frequently Secretly", by Willie Nelson
There's many a strange impulse out on the plains of West Texas;
There's many a young boy who feels things he don't comprehend.
Well small town don't like it when somebody falls between sexes,
No, small town don't like it when a cowboy has feelings for men.
Well I believe in my soul that inside every man there's a feminine,
And inside every lady there's a deep manly voice loud and clear.
Well, a cowboy may brag about things that he does with his women,
But the ones who brag loudest are the ones that are most likely queer.
Cowboys are frequently secretly fond of each other
What did you think those saddles and boots was about?
There's many a cowboy who don't understand the way that he feels towards his brother,
Inside every cowboy there's a lady who'd love to slip out.
Ten men for each woman was the rule way back when on the prairie,
And somehow those cowboys must have kept themselves warm late at night.
Cowboys are famous for getting riled up about fairies,
But I'll tell you the reason a big strong man gets so uptight:
Cowboys are frequently secretly fond of each other
That's why they wear leather, and Levi's and belts buckled tight.
There's many a cowboy who don't understand the way that he feels towards his brother;
There's many a cowboy who's more like a lady at night.
Well there's always somebody who says what the others just whisper,
And mostly that someone's the first one to get shot down dead:
When you talk to a cowboy don't treat him like he was a sister
Don't mess with the lady that's sleepin' in each cowboy's head.
Cowboys are frequently secretly fond of each other
Even though they take speed and drive pickups and shoot their big guns;
There's many a cowboy who don't understand the way that he feels towards hisbrother;
There's many a cowboy who keeps quiet about things he's done.
There's many a strange impulse out on the plains of West Texas;
There's many a young boy who feels things he don't comprehend.
Well small town don't like it when somebody falls between sexes,
No, small town don't like it when a cowboy has feelings for men.
Well I believe in my soul that inside every man there's a feminine,
And inside every lady there's a deep manly voice loud and clear.
Well, a cowboy may brag about things that he does with his women,
But the ones who brag loudest are the ones that are most likely queer.
Cowboys are frequently secretly fond of each other
What did you think those saddles and boots was about?
There's many a cowboy who don't understand the way that he feels towards his brother,
Inside every cowboy there's a lady who'd love to slip out.
Ten men for each woman was the rule way back when on the prairie,
And somehow those cowboys must have kept themselves warm late at night.
Cowboys are famous for getting riled up about fairies,
But I'll tell you the reason a big strong man gets so uptight:
Cowboys are frequently secretly fond of each other
That's why they wear leather, and Levi's and belts buckled tight.
There's many a cowboy who don't understand the way that he feels towards his brother;
There's many a cowboy who's more like a lady at night.
Well there's always somebody who says what the others just whisper,
And mostly that someone's the first one to get shot down dead:
When you talk to a cowboy don't treat him like he was a sister
Don't mess with the lady that's sleepin' in each cowboy's head.
Cowboys are frequently secretly fond of each other
Even though they take speed and drive pickups and shoot their big guns;
There's many a cowboy who don't understand the way that he feels towards hisbrother;
There's many a cowboy who keeps quiet about things he's done.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Tell Congress to Restore Respect for Human Rights and the Constitution
Read the post 3 below this one. Apparently, the democrats need a soft kick in the gut. Fixing the two most flagrant violations of Constitutional principle and universal decency committed by the Republicans, the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, should have been job 1 when the Democrats took over Congress. Where are they? Perhaps they need a reminder.
Carl Rove... Citizens Arrest!
Students at American University in Washington heckled Rove and pelted his car with random objects after he spoke to a group of College Republicans on campus. Students then laid down in front of his car and attempted to make a "citizens arrest" of the Evil Mastermind, as a result of media reports that Rove had been using private email accounts to communicate with the President, instead of using official servers as law requires. I love it.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Newt Calls Spanish a "Ghetto" Language
...and all the Republicans smile and nod. Racism is alive and well in conservative America. There is an ongoing effort on their part to find a continuous supply of social groups to hate and blame for the fact that they are miserable. Its our job to stop them.
Supreme Court delines to review Guantanamo Detainee's Case
The Supreme Court declined, on Monday, to hear the case brought by 45 detainees who have been held at the Illegal Guantanamo Bay detention center. The 45 men have not been charged with any crime in the 5 years they have been detained. Last year, the Republican led Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which, among other heinous violations of common morality and the US Constitution, stripped Federal judges of the authority to hear cases brought by "Enemy Combatants". The case before the Supreme Court challenged the Constitutionality of that Act.
In their written opinion, the Court cited the tradition of not hearing inmates cases before other legal avenues have been exhausted. But per the linked article, the reasons may have been more complicated. In short, some members didn't want to hear the case fearing that conservative Justices may uphold the lower court's decision, setting a precedent.
Let's be clear; these conservative Justices have no respect for individual or Human rights. It is now clear that they are pawns of the Conservative movement which seeks to strip American citizens, as well as citizens of the world, of pesky legal rights in order to concentrate power in the hands of American Corporations and power brokers. In other words, this case has nothing to do with detainees at Guantanamo, and everything to do with making laws and setting precedents that strip people of legal rights for whatever reason America might choose to do so. It doesn't hurt that, if released, these detainees would talk to the press, and that, my friends, would be quite embarrassing to the administration. Which brings us the the origin of Habeas: the Magna Carta established the right of Habeas in response to a nasty habit of Kings to imprison forever people who had negative things to say about them. It seems that modern day kings have the same inclination.
This stark reality is truly frightening.
In their written opinion, the Court cited the tradition of not hearing inmates cases before other legal avenues have been exhausted. But per the linked article, the reasons may have been more complicated. In short, some members didn't want to hear the case fearing that conservative Justices may uphold the lower court's decision, setting a precedent.
Let's be clear; these conservative Justices have no respect for individual or Human rights. It is now clear that they are pawns of the Conservative movement which seeks to strip American citizens, as well as citizens of the world, of pesky legal rights in order to concentrate power in the hands of American Corporations and power brokers. In other words, this case has nothing to do with detainees at Guantanamo, and everything to do with making laws and setting precedents that strip people of legal rights for whatever reason America might choose to do so. It doesn't hurt that, if released, these detainees would talk to the press, and that, my friends, would be quite embarrassing to the administration. Which brings us the the origin of Habeas: the Magna Carta established the right of Habeas in response to a nasty habit of Kings to imprison forever people who had negative things to say about them. It seems that modern day kings have the same inclination.
This stark reality is truly frightening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)