Cancer, as we know it, is one of the most dreaded diseases known to Man. While cervical cancer afflicts specifically women, it is one of the most common forms of cancer known to women, and believe you me that these type of cancer is particularly dangerous, because my mum was stricken with this type of cancer, and she had to endure a painful surgery plus months of chemotherapy.
And, according to a recent news article, the scientific community has found a vaccine to deter this deadly disease, and it has proven to be very effective, so far.
Suffice to say, this is joyous news. Now, why, you would ask, am I so damn bloody mad?
Because the Conservatives, once again, are going ape over what they deem as "an erosion of morals".
Excerpts from San Francisco Bay Guardian:
Sex vs. death
Will the religious right stymie the first-ever cancer vaccine?
By Tali Woodward
tali@sfbg.com
One might think a medical breakthrough that could prevent most cases of cervical cancer would be met uniformly with joy.
Think again.
Two separate but similar vaccines for human pampillomavirus, a sexually transmitted infection that is the primary cause of cervical cancer, have recently been developed. In clinical tests they have proven to be shockingly effective. Medical researchers say the vaccines, if administered routinely, could virtually eradicate the second most fatal type of cancer in women.
The problem is this: It makes sense to administer the vaccine to women who haven't yet been exposed to HPV – in other words, women who haven't had sex. The best way to do that is to inoculate preteen girls. But some conservatives see the vaccine as an invitation to be promiscuous – and are gearing up to limit its reach.
Even though many people have never heard of HPV, it's the most common sexually transmitted infection around, infecting up to 80 percent of Americans at some point before they turn 50.
Public health officials have found stemming the spread of HPV particularly challenging because it can be transmitted simply through the contact of skin in affected areas, with condoms offering only limited protection.
Most women have immune systems strong enough to kill HPV. But in some, HPV causes genital warts. And in others, the virus causes potentially cancerous cells to develop in the cervix. (It's possible, though significantly less common, for HPV to cause cancer in men.)
Cervical cancer – which researchers believe is almost always tied to HPV – kills more than a quarter million women each year. Women who live in developed countries where regular Pap smears are the norm are fairly well-protected because the test can detect precancerous cells that doctors can then remove. Still, in the United States about 3,900 mostly lower-income women die of the disease each year.
But in recent years, two pharmaceutical companies, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, have announced development of a vaccine – administered in three doses over six months – that protects against HPV, and therefore against cervical cancer. In clinical tests both have proven extraordinarily effective: They blocked contraction of the two most dangerous types of HPV in every woman who had been inoculated.
Dr. Joel Palefsky, a UC San Francisco professor who is an expert on HPV, said he thinks the development of these vaccines is "the most important thing since sliced bread in the HPV business" and something that ranks high on any list of recent medical advances.
But not everyone is greeting the vaccine with such enthusiasm.
Conservative groups, including the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, and the National Abstinence Clearinghouse, have already suggested that vaccinating young girls would send them a message that premarital sex is acceptable. Christian-oriented Web sites have also been following objections to the vaccines more closely than mainstream news organizations.
"Concerned Women for America"? They should perhaps call themselves "Witch-hunters of America". Seriously, what is going on through the minds of these narrow-minded baffoons?
Does anyone, anyone at all, in the fundamentalist groups that have any idea as to what they are objecting? So, am I to say that the procedure to reduce short-sightedness in people will encourage more people to play more computer games, which is one of the major causes of short-sightedness?
This is one of the primary reasons why I ardously support the Church-State Separation: When both co-mingle, you get the worst kind of ignorant crap and rubbish from these pious fools.
A vaccine that would otherwise have saved a huge portion of the 3900 people dying from this dreaded disease is abandoned, because some religious nut opposes it: This really takes the cut.
And they could jolly well do that, as the writer continues:
But if conservatives interfere with the CDC process, or prevent government funding of the HPV shots, access to this breakthrough vaccine could be seriously curtailed.
Alan Kaye, who became the executive director of the National Cervical Cancer Coalition after the disease killed his wife, told us he hopes critics of the vaccine back down. "I can tell you, with a ripped heart, that anyone who's ever battled cancer themselves or with family or friends would be for it," he said. "I mean, how can you not be for a cancer vaccine?"
I totally agree and concur with Alan Kaye's views. Allowing these religious nuts to bushwack their way to get a potential vaccine banned is no less evil than denying standard health treatment for the general public.
It seems to me that the fundamental right might want to cease this opportunity to assuage some of the wounded pride suffered in the recent ID Dover trial. But to choose this as a platform to launch another one of those silly campaigns is terribly sick; it really goes to show how low these idiots are willing to stoop just to achieve their godly purposes.
It is time for atheists to stand united and say "NO" to these kind of bullshit, especially when innocent lives are concerned.
Sincerely
The Beast
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Before I pull out of here, I want to offer a very public "I'M SORRY" to Lily for the way she was treated during her stint on our blog. Thanks to a breakdown in communication that was entirely my fault, I foolishly "downsized" a very caring and decent individual who deserved to be treated a lot better than she was. We have since discussed the issue, discovered the source of the breakdown and I will certainly make certain that nothing like this happens again.
Lily, you're all right by me, and I'm sure the rest of the crew here is sorry about the misunderstanding that nearly undermined the relationships here.
Have a good weekend, and feel free to visit us at any time
The cast and crew of THE COALITION FOR A REPUBLICAN-FREE AMERICA
Lily, you're all right by me, and I'm sure the rest of the crew here is sorry about the misunderstanding that nearly undermined the relationships here.
Have a good weekend, and feel free to visit us at any time
The cast and crew of THE COALITION FOR A REPUBLICAN-FREE AMERICA
NOW HIRING
LOOKING FOR SHORT TERM EMPLOYMENT?
Do you enjoy living on the edge? We are searching for a person or persons of Islamic, Mid Eastern descent to serve as our next bogeyman. Must have a strong stomach; a short temper; a proclivity for barbaric behavior; advanced techniques in the proper and improper uses of a pruning saw, and a thorough understanding of electronics, explossives, weapons, and insurgency movements/terrorist methodologies. Applicants need not provide basic identitfication, but should look mean and threatening to xenophobic, white, middle class, American Christians. We also ask that applicants be willing and able to work on all Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Holidays. Pay negotiable. No fringe benefits nor health care. If you look good with a machine gun in hand, and if you have a talent for uttering the words "Great Satan" and "American Infidel," please be so kind as to contact us at 1-888-IAMBUSH. Ask for Karl.
You may also snail mail your application to:
Propaganda Minister Karl Rove
c/o The SECRET GOVERNMENT IN THE BASEMENT
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC 20050
Allow 6 to 8 weeks for a top secret, unofficial response.
Do you enjoy living on the edge? We are searching for a person or persons of Islamic, Mid Eastern descent to serve as our next bogeyman. Must have a strong stomach; a short temper; a proclivity for barbaric behavior; advanced techniques in the proper and improper uses of a pruning saw, and a thorough understanding of electronics, explossives, weapons, and insurgency movements/terrorist methodologies. Applicants need not provide basic identitfication, but should look mean and threatening to xenophobic, white, middle class, American Christians. We also ask that applicants be willing and able to work on all Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Holidays. Pay negotiable. No fringe benefits nor health care. If you look good with a machine gun in hand, and if you have a talent for uttering the words "Great Satan" and "American Infidel," please be so kind as to contact us at 1-888-IAMBUSH. Ask for Karl.
You may also snail mail your application to:
Propaganda Minister Karl Rove
c/o The SECRET GOVERNMENT IN THE BASEMENT
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC 20050
Allow 6 to 8 weeks for a top secret, unofficial response.
ANOTHER RANT: SPEAKING TRUTH TO THE ROVE PROPAGANDA MACHINE
"The great masses's receptive ability is only very limited, their understanding is small, but their forgetfulness is great. As a consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda has to limit itself only to a very few points and use them like slogans until even the very last man is able to imagine what is intended in such a word."
From the original, full- length version of Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
I've said it before and I'll say it again. When it comes to propaganda, 21st Century Republicans make their Nazi forefathers look like rank amateurs. Hitler and Goebbels were good, but Karl Rove is even better--just as warped as his fascist idols, but genuinely talented in the fine art of deception.
In a stunning display of duplicity our beloved Minister of Enlightenment and Propaganda has unleashed another underhanded campaign of delusion, half truths, and out right prevarications. In another attempt to paste Osama Bin Laden's beard on Saddam Hussein, Herr Rove has unleashed anew smear campaign of unabashed falsehoods to link 911 with the ongoing invasion of Iraq. Once again we are hearing the half-baked myth that this ill-fated invasion is a focal point in the war on international terrorism; and yet anyone with an IQ of 60 or above knows that international terrorism is just that--an international phenomenon.
Perhaps, if Reich Minister Rove had said that he and his beloved Fuhrer, George W. Bush, had turned the now failing state of Iraq into a training ground for home grown Iraqi insurgents and a handful of al Quaida fanatics, Herr Rove would have finally said something that resembled the truth, but that isn't what he did.
Instead of telling the truth, he offered a delusional tale about a glorious, patriotic war (of choice) and ignored the sectarian civil war that he he and his pupper Fuhrer have spawned. Instead of coming clean with the American people, our pudgy, pink, propaganda minister wove a demented narrative of talking points in which anyone who disagrees with his beloved pretender is a traitor.
The eleven hour debate that we watched in the Republican-dominated Reichstadt was nothing more than a series of calculated sound bites for the 2006 midterm elections. And the part that both amused and infuriated me the most was the fact that the Republicans are so unaccustomed to independent thought that they had little choice but to read their statements--they were so lacking in creativity and spontaneity that that stood there reciting the same, hackneyed missives that we have already heard a thousand times before: Begin with 911, end with Saddam Hussein; use the words "God Bless America," and smear the Democrats as weak on terrorism. All that after Bush and Rumsfeld dropped the ball on Afghanistan (where the Taliban has returned with a vengeance) and transformed Iraq into an over-glorified training camp for homegrown insurgents and terrorists.
It makes me wonder.
If this regime was truly concerned about terrorism, why did it fail (on three separate occasions) to either capture or eliminate Zarqawi? Oh, Jeeze. Do you think it was because this highly political administration saw Zarqawi as a very useful bogeyman? Do you think that it might have had something to do with the fact that handling the Zarqawi situation at the proper tome would have interfered with their attempt to build a coalition of the gullible?
All right. Maybe I'm being a little hard on the regime. I'm sure that the regime didn't know what it was doing when it proposed the half baked idea of handing over our port security to a country with ties to 911. And I'm sure they didn't mean it when they cut anti-terrorism funding to New York City. I mean, it wasn't as if New York has any important cultural or historical icons. The Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty, Wall Street, Broadway, the New York Public Library, The Empire State Building, Saint Patrick's Cathedral, the United Nations Building, the Metropolitan Opera, the New York City Opera, the New York Philharmonic, a couple of museums, maybe a few universities, the Bronx Zoo, Radio City Music Hall, Madison Square Garden, Rockefeller Center: Who would want to protect places like those when we can save French Lick, Arkansas, or Arm Pitt, Mississippi from eager-to-marry homosexuals?
Okay, maybe I'm missing the main point. Maybe I should celebrate the fact that while our Republican members of the Reichstadt were conducting a pre-written loyalty oath to their beloved Fuhrer, the latest leader in Iraq was granting amnesty to those insurgents who had only killed American soldiers. Maybe I should be more like the blood thirsty Republicans who celebrate the fact that we now have more than 2,500 dead American troops. Maybe Propaganda Minister Rove has the right idea when he gleefully ignores the deaths of more than 100,000 Iraqis, or the wounding of more than 59,000 American soldiers.
Hell, for all I know the Iraqi Constitution, which establishes Islamic law, is a good thing. Yeah. That's right! Giving support to Iraqi Shias,who have strong ties to Iran, only strengthens Iran's position in the Middle East as a whole, but maybe, just maybe, Propaganda Minister Rove has a another propaganda campaign in mind for an even bloodier and more costly war against both, Iran and Iraq!
Wow! I'm impressed!
We spent 11 hours debating a meaningless, nonbinding resolution, which by its very nature, offered an honorable promise but not a single, solitary solution as to how that promise would be kept. Yup. We're going to win the war on terrorism, but we're not going to talk about the inadequate prewar planning or the lack of a post war plan for creating a viable Iraqi government. Nor are we going to discuss the failed strategy. But then again, it might just be that Rove and his puppets in the Republican-dominated Reichstadt are living in a bizarre dream scape in which an unseen, flag-draped coffin is better than a living father, brother, or son.
Sarcasm aside, I was nothing less than elated when certain Democrats grew internal body parts which resembled back bones. Perhaps-just perhaps--the bad old days of complacent lefties are a thing of the past. At long last we see Democrats--real Democrats--pushing back against the Rove propaganda machine.
In fact, I was especially impressed by the following remarks by Connecticut Democrat John Larson"
"What a sham this is today, when we're denied any alternative resolutions. As Mister Lantos eloquently stated earlier today, when he talked about George Michael and his eloquence , standing on the floor, talking about speaking truth to power. And that's what's so upsetting to the American people, and why Mr. has been recognized all around this country for standing up and speaking the truth to the American people--something this administration, and frankly, this Congress, has been unable to do--level with the American people.
"Speak truth to power. I'm proud to associate myself with Mr. Murtha and everything he stands for."
Congressman John Larsen, speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives on June 15 2006.
What can I say? It's about time.
Have a good weekend.
From the original, full- length version of Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
I've said it before and I'll say it again. When it comes to propaganda, 21st Century Republicans make their Nazi forefathers look like rank amateurs. Hitler and Goebbels were good, but Karl Rove is even better--just as warped as his fascist idols, but genuinely talented in the fine art of deception.
In a stunning display of duplicity our beloved Minister of Enlightenment and Propaganda has unleashed another underhanded campaign of delusion, half truths, and out right prevarications. In another attempt to paste Osama Bin Laden's beard on Saddam Hussein, Herr Rove has unleashed anew smear campaign of unabashed falsehoods to link 911 with the ongoing invasion of Iraq. Once again we are hearing the half-baked myth that this ill-fated invasion is a focal point in the war on international terrorism; and yet anyone with an IQ of 60 or above knows that international terrorism is just that--an international phenomenon.
Perhaps, if Reich Minister Rove had said that he and his beloved Fuhrer, George W. Bush, had turned the now failing state of Iraq into a training ground for home grown Iraqi insurgents and a handful of al Quaida fanatics, Herr Rove would have finally said something that resembled the truth, but that isn't what he did.
Instead of telling the truth, he offered a delusional tale about a glorious, patriotic war (of choice) and ignored the sectarian civil war that he he and his pupper Fuhrer have spawned. Instead of coming clean with the American people, our pudgy, pink, propaganda minister wove a demented narrative of talking points in which anyone who disagrees with his beloved pretender is a traitor.
The eleven hour debate that we watched in the Republican-dominated Reichstadt was nothing more than a series of calculated sound bites for the 2006 midterm elections. And the part that both amused and infuriated me the most was the fact that the Republicans are so unaccustomed to independent thought that they had little choice but to read their statements--they were so lacking in creativity and spontaneity that that stood there reciting the same, hackneyed missives that we have already heard a thousand times before: Begin with 911, end with Saddam Hussein; use the words "God Bless America," and smear the Democrats as weak on terrorism. All that after Bush and Rumsfeld dropped the ball on Afghanistan (where the Taliban has returned with a vengeance) and transformed Iraq into an over-glorified training camp for homegrown insurgents and terrorists.
It makes me wonder.
If this regime was truly concerned about terrorism, why did it fail (on three separate occasions) to either capture or eliminate Zarqawi? Oh, Jeeze. Do you think it was because this highly political administration saw Zarqawi as a very useful bogeyman? Do you think that it might have had something to do with the fact that handling the Zarqawi situation at the proper tome would have interfered with their attempt to build a coalition of the gullible?
All right. Maybe I'm being a little hard on the regime. I'm sure that the regime didn't know what it was doing when it proposed the half baked idea of handing over our port security to a country with ties to 911. And I'm sure they didn't mean it when they cut anti-terrorism funding to New York City. I mean, it wasn't as if New York has any important cultural or historical icons. The Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty, Wall Street, Broadway, the New York Public Library, The Empire State Building, Saint Patrick's Cathedral, the United Nations Building, the Metropolitan Opera, the New York City Opera, the New York Philharmonic, a couple of museums, maybe a few universities, the Bronx Zoo, Radio City Music Hall, Madison Square Garden, Rockefeller Center: Who would want to protect places like those when we can save French Lick, Arkansas, or Arm Pitt, Mississippi from eager-to-marry homosexuals?
Okay, maybe I'm missing the main point. Maybe I should celebrate the fact that while our Republican members of the Reichstadt were conducting a pre-written loyalty oath to their beloved Fuhrer, the latest leader in Iraq was granting amnesty to those insurgents who had only killed American soldiers. Maybe I should be more like the blood thirsty Republicans who celebrate the fact that we now have more than 2,500 dead American troops. Maybe Propaganda Minister Rove has the right idea when he gleefully ignores the deaths of more than 100,000 Iraqis, or the wounding of more than 59,000 American soldiers.
Hell, for all I know the Iraqi Constitution, which establishes Islamic law, is a good thing. Yeah. That's right! Giving support to Iraqi Shias,who have strong ties to Iran, only strengthens Iran's position in the Middle East as a whole, but maybe, just maybe, Propaganda Minister Rove has a another propaganda campaign in mind for an even bloodier and more costly war against both, Iran and Iraq!
Wow! I'm impressed!
We spent 11 hours debating a meaningless, nonbinding resolution, which by its very nature, offered an honorable promise but not a single, solitary solution as to how that promise would be kept. Yup. We're going to win the war on terrorism, but we're not going to talk about the inadequate prewar planning or the lack of a post war plan for creating a viable Iraqi government. Nor are we going to discuss the failed strategy. But then again, it might just be that Rove and his puppets in the Republican-dominated Reichstadt are living in a bizarre dream scape in which an unseen, flag-draped coffin is better than a living father, brother, or son.
Sarcasm aside, I was nothing less than elated when certain Democrats grew internal body parts which resembled back bones. Perhaps-just perhaps--the bad old days of complacent lefties are a thing of the past. At long last we see Democrats--real Democrats--pushing back against the Rove propaganda machine.
In fact, I was especially impressed by the following remarks by Connecticut Democrat John Larson"
"What a sham this is today, when we're denied any alternative resolutions. As Mister Lantos eloquently stated earlier today, when he talked about George Michael and his eloquence , standing on the floor, talking about speaking truth to power. And that's what's so upsetting to the American people, and why Mr. has been recognized all around this country for standing up and speaking the truth to the American people--something this administration, and frankly, this Congress, has been unable to do--level with the American people.
"Let's start with leveling with the American troops, leveling with all those families of reservists and national guardsmen, who I speak with on a regular basis, who have been deployed, redeployed, deployed, and redeployed, again and many times, because we haven't had a plan.
"Here we are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe, and you guys bring to the floor a political document not designed for a new direction, or to bring the country together to discuss the issue this issue the way that it should be; but instead, as talking points outlined by Karl Rove out in New Hampshire, sandwiched between the President's photo op and a picnic this evening.
"Americans are outraged that we don't have a citizenry and members here who are willing to stand up and have accountability. We all support the war on this terror, And this party from Roosevelt, to Truman, to Kennedy, to Jack Murtha, has stood on the watch wall of freedom and stood there valiantly , but collectively, with the American people, and in this body and in this chamber.
"But that's not what's going on here today. Instead its right out of the play book. Attack Jack Murtha, attack the messenger. That's a formula that works. It worked against Max Cleland, it worked against John Kerry. Jeeze, that'll work against Jack Murtha also. Discredit this guy. Discredit what he had to say because he had the temerity to speak truth to power in an administration that can't level with the American public.
"Why don't they criticize General Batiste, General Zinni, General Van Riper, all of these generals. Are they all wrong too for speaking truth to power? Shouldn't we be talking about how we can collectively move forward, instead of a tried and true playbook of political jargon on a resolution that's nonbinding?
Congressman John Larsen, speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives on June 15 2006.
What can I say? It's about time.
Have a good weekend.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BILL: CROUCHING FUNDIES, LYING BUSHIES
CRAZY FUNDIES: CALLING FOR A BAN ON "FAGS". REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO REACH OUT TO THEM. ZEUS BLESS AMERICA.In recent weeks, the Bush Administration has been rallying conservative Christians across America to support the "Marriage Protection Amendment", which, if passed with a majority of two thirds in Congress, would be inked into the US Constitution, henceforth banning gays from the so-called "sanctity of marriage".
Before I broach the issue a little further, perhaps the biggest irony of this "Marriage Protection Amendment", it seems, is never really about protection. In true Republican, fascist fashion, the amendment's objectives, in tandem with just about practically every Republican policy, is really to hijack more civil rights from the average American.
From the despotic terms of the Patriot Act, to the Bush Administration's handling of the prisoners of Guantanamo, tis clear that Bush and his fellow despots do not think that human rights and civil liberties are worth a dime. To them, the average American is just a small fry for the big fishes(big corporations, despotic characters, etc), willing to be exploited with minimal fuss.
So, the question that ought to be asked, at this point of time, is: Are the Bushies really that concerned about gays, or are they such a threat to the institution of marriage (if there really ever is such a institution), that they have to go through all the muss and fuss to bring up the whole issue to Congress?
BUSH ADMINISTRATION: FAILURES, FAILURES, AND MORE FAILURES
CLUELESS BUSH: HE JUST CAN'T SEEM TO GET ANYTHING RIGHT
Ever since Bush took over the helm as the "Commander-in-chief" (Read: Simian-in-hiding), America has been under seige, one way or another.
Which really is kind of unfortunate, if you consider how Christians consider America to be blessed (God Bless America).
Pardon the punt, but if this is the same looney Gawk is blessing America with, I'd think of God as some looney in a bin, rather than an aloof, stuck-up, all powerful deity they made him out to be.
First, it was the terrorists who struck on the tragic day of Sep 11, 2001. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq followed.
And then there was the penultimate "God-sent" disaster: The New Orleans flooding.
In the midst of trials and tribulations, not only have the Bush Administration not risen to the ocassion, they have been found wanting, with George Simian Bush being the chief culprit of them all.
IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN
OSAMA BIN LADEN: AMERICA'S BOGEYMANWhile the American Armed forces have been swift in destroying the renegade bastions of the Taliban and Saddam respectively, the abject failure to apprehend Osama bin Laden, the chief master of terror, in the rugged, mountainous regions of the Pakistani-Afghan border(thought to be the hiding place of Osama), and the subsequent failures to arrest the continuing violence and anarchy in Iraq (Despite the installment of a puppet Iraqi government), has drawn continuing criticisms from critics, who charge that the ineptness of the Bush Administration to think beyond techno-wizardries, has brought about this terrible, tragic mess.
HURRICANE KATRINA: BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S FAILURE?
Hurricane Katrina
The events leading to Hurricane Katrina cruelly exposed the frailities of America's elite units, both military and non-military, and much of it can be attributed to Bush's ineptness. By activating the Reserve Guards for military stints in Iraq, America was left exposed to the elements.
In the hour of need, the Reserve Guards, who were supposedly formed to contain such civil contingencies, was found wanting, no thanks to the unexpected burden borne in by them in Iraq.
ABU GHARIB, GUANTANAMO: AMERICA'S SHAME
Guantanamo:Gulag Camps Of Fascist AmericaFailures aside, policies instated by the Administration, geared towards protecting "American Interests", are merely cheap imitations of fascist and nazi policies, with the gulags of Guantanamo and Abu Gharib being the most notorious of them all. Thousands of "suspected" terrorists have been held, against their will, in detention camps, which are held in such secrecy that little or nothing ever leaks out from these appalling gulag camps. News of inmate abuse are rife, and recent reports of 3 Guantanamo inmates hanging themselves with bedsheets only highlights the tension between these detainees and their guards. With virtually no chance of a parole and freedom, the Guantanamo camps have become a symbol of what the Bushies really stand for: The Fascist States of America.
Even American citizens are not spared from Bush's policies. The Patriot Act, a carbon copy of the "Internal Security Act" of Malaysia and Singapore, actually provided legal provisions to federal law enforcement agencies to secure and imprison suspects without trial. Phones can be tapped by these agencies, without explicit approval from the local courts. In other words, the Bush Administration has been empowered to pry into the private lives of ordinary American citizens, and should anyone wishes to run for office in politics, they do better think twice, or live the life of a monk or nun. Because chances are, there is no telling whether anyone can misuse such information for cheap political and financial gains.
In light of such criticisms, support for the Bush Administration, both home and abroad, have dipped, and a recent Gallup Poll suggests that support for Bush and his inept policies have dropped to an all-time low of 31% (2005, May).
Al-Zarqawi: Killed by American forcesOh sure, they killed Zarqawi (Chief of Al-Qaeda guerillas, Iraq) alright, parading his mangled corpse for all asunder (Funny you don't hear cries of censorship from those violent-phobic Christians), but the whole truth is, Osama is still alive and kicking, America is embroiled in two theatres of war, one of which was never justified in the first place, and America is no less vulnerable to terrorist attacks since the 911 incident.
In short, the Bush Administration has completely failed to achieve its agenda, and despite the rhetorics and counter-arguments, the unbridled truth is that, Bush screwed up. And America has to pay that price for his failures.
MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: A MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE
Understandably, the Administration's glaring errors, both at home and abroad, have triggered opposition towards the Bush Administration.
What really matters, however, is waning local support. With the mid-term elections coming up, the Bush Administration is banking on their last bastion of support from the one group amongst the masses: The Conservative Fundies.
Quite possibly the staunchest republican supporters of the lot, these fundies will be the ones the Bushies must appeal to, because they are a sizeable lot, and they are the ones the Republicans bank on for the last two terms.
In an hour of desperate need, the Republicans are gambling on one of their last chips in hand: A ban on gay marriage.
By bringing up the seemingly fraudulent concerns of "marriage protection", the Republicans have effectively married themselves with right wing bigots.
And that, my friends, is what the Republicans are after.
THE FLIP SIDE OF THINGS
Of course, the flip side of this obnoxious "marriage", really, is that you open a can of worms for preceding Presidents to follow. If the Constitution could be amended to accomodate erroneous laws of a religious nature, and worst still, a deprivation of basic human rights(which the Patriot Act has already done), the American Constitution will really be nothing more than "a god-damned piece of paper".
Deceptions and religious fundamentalism aside, too much precious time has been spent on debating on the marriage issue.
More debates in Congress should focus on bringing the American troops back home, and combating real terrorism. Throwing Muslims and other suspected terrorists into gulag camps does not eradicate terrorism; neither will blatant use of phone tapping technology.
As long as Americans keep voting for Republicans, you can be assured that these dastardly politicians will make use of conservative policies at the expense of civil rights to fool the masses away from the real issues at hand.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
A Message from THE DIVINE...sort of
Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn,
Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
Blessed are the meek,
for they shall possess the earth.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst
for justice,for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,
Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure of heart,
Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice sake,
Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice sake,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
I said it two thousand years ago. And yet you refuse to listen to me. You elect greedy, self-centered politicians who wage wars against poverty by waging war on the poor. You wage war for the enjoyment of waging war. Your leaders lie, cheat and steal. You have a Republican Party that invokes my name on a regular basis but which ignores what I taught.
With that in mind I would like to ask a question.
WHAT TO HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!
Do you you think that dying on that cross was a picnic? Do you think that I allowed myself to be whipped, tortured, and killed so that a bunch of phony-balony "Christians" could invoke my name and make a mockery of everything I taught while I walked the face of the earth?
I have news for you. When I told you to be kind and compassionate to your fellow man, I meant it. When I told you turn the other cheek, I meant it. When I told you to forgive and when I told you that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it was for a rich man to enter my kingdon, I meant that too. And yet I see nothing but greed where ever I look. I even see a political party--the Apostate Republicans--who believe that greed is good! I see Bible quoting hypocrites who spit on my teachings as they trample on the the weakest among you. I see people who have embraced me as the messenger but who have forgotten my message!
Well, my children, it's time to get your act together. Come November I will remember the Republicans; I will remember the so called Christian Right. I will remember all of them when I come back in a blaze of glory and send the whole right side of the political spectrum on a glorious, one way journey to a place that doesn't use oil to keep the fires going. Remember. The Republicans are going to Hell in a handcar, and if you vote for them you will provide them with plenty of company.
And now, if you will excuse me, I have to talk to the Angel of death. It seems as if we have another mess to clean up in the Middle East.
Yours Truly
Sweet JESUS CHRIST
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Reich Wing Activist Judges
"There is no independence of law against National Socialism. Say to yourselves at every decision which you make: 'How would the Fuhrer decide in my place?' In every decision ask yourselves: 'Is this decision compatible with the National Socialist conscience of the German People?' Then you will have a firm foundation which, allied with the unity of the National Socialist People's State and with your recognition of the eternal nature of the will of Adolf Hitler, will endow your own sphere of decision with the authority of the Third Reich and this for all time."
Dr. Hans Frank, Commissioner of Justice and Reich Law Leader, to German judges in 1936
When the far right complains about "activist judges" they are actually complaining about an independent judiciary which recognized the unconstitutional nature of the unitary form of government as proposed by their would be Fuhrer, George W. Bush. On a broader level, the term "activist judges" has also been applied to those judges who would expand the rights of their fellow Americans, as opposed to the truly activist judges on the far right who, having taken their oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution, would use their seats to limit or even abolish the rights of American people. In other words, the only activism which is coming from the American judiciary is not from the left, but from the right, which has seen the constitution as an inconvenience for at least twenty-six years and probably longer.
A case in point was Friday's decision by a federal appeals court which sided with the Bush Administration in an electronics surveillance case, a decision which will inevitably make it easier for the regime in Washington to tap our phone calls and broadband transmissions. I won't bother you with the details of the case; instead I shall merely ask that you click on Appeals Courts Backs Bush on Wiretaps for more information. That said, I will offer the following commentary.
This is not a good sign.
The far right has been packing the federal judiciary with inept totalitarians for twenty-six years. And when they weren't able to further pack the judiciary they were able to block virtually any mainstream nomination that was made during the Clinton Administrations, virtually guaranteeing that the instructions as offered by Doctor Frank to German Judges in 1936 would become a reality for Republican Judges in 2006.
I see no reason to differentiate between the situation that occur ed in Nazi Germany and the situation which currently exists in the United States. Both Frank and Hitler were opposed to the idea of an independent judiciary. Both Bush and his legal eagles are dedicated to the idea of an obedient judiciary that will rubber stamp virtually any attempt by this president to impose right wing Christianity and to limit the rights of those who disagree with their very narrow and very unconstitutional agenda Just as the National Socialists of the 1936 were dedicated to the eradication of the Wiemar Constitution, so too are George W. Bush and his fifth column followers dedicated to the abolition of the form of government that was handed down to us by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. I don't know if they want to create Christian theocracy in which non Christians will serve in the roll of second class citizens, or if they want to create a cult of one in which the president is the supreme commander in a unitary form of government without checks and balances is unclear. For all I know the might embrace the worst of both alternatives--a repressive theocracy in which the President serves as a sort of Puritan Divine.
But I do know this: Right wing activists want to use the federal and state judiciaries to dismantle our Constitution. They even have a process, a "legal" philosophy, by which they intend to accomplish this. It's called the "Doctrine of Original Intent" and it's based upon the truly oppressive idea that Americans in the year 2006 should only be entitled to the freedoms and liberties that were granted in 1787. In other words, they genuinely believe that the Constitution is a lifeless piece of rock, that it should be interpreted in a manner that will grant the fewest possible liberties to the fewest possible people. I would not be surprised if, at some future date, these strict constructionists were to propose bills and amendments, or reactionary judgements that would truly take us back to 1787, to a time when a black man was considered only 3/5 human. I would not be surprised if they were to propose measures that would abolish the 19th Amendment and recreate a system in which voters were defined in terms of white, male property owners. As you can tell, 1787 was a fine time to live--if you were a white, male, Christian property owner with enough slaves to keep the plantation up and running. But it wasn't such a fine place to live if you were black, female, Jewish, or otherwise non-christian. And yet these right wing activists routinely espouse a system of constitutional law that would both, ignore more than 200 years of history, and drag us back to the bad old days when a select ruling class was allowed to vote, to a time when the State legislatures elected our Senators.
Instead of a living, breathing document which adapts to social and historical change and which expands the liberties of the American people, these radical right wing activists (many of whom come with the most dismal of qualifications) propose a lifeless piece of rock which would almost invariably be used as a millstone around the necks of nonwhites, women, and non-Christians. And to make the situation even more bizarre, the idea of original intent wasn't even the intent of the Founding Fathers. The Framers knew that American society would evolve. They foresaw this. To that end they gave us the right to amend the Constitution. They left certain provisions deliberately vague, understanding that the Constitution would be interpreted by future judges. Moreover, Thomas Jefferson, who was not a framer per se, actually suggested that no generation had a right to impose its beliefs on the next generation, going so far as to suggest that each generation should tear up the constitution and rewrite it from scratch. That may sound radical, but it is no less radical than the idea that we should all live in a replay of 1787 and ignore every artistic, religious, technological, or societal development that occurred during the last 219 years. And I have more bad news for you. In 1787, the Framers, having just won a protracted revolution against a mentally deranged monarch and a mother country with an establish national church, were in no mood to create a system of government in which the President was a virtual king, in which a particular religion would have the power to impose its belief system on the entire nation. But that hasn't stopped the radical right wing activists and their radical Christian allies from proposing the idea of a Christian Republic; nor has it dissuaded them from the idea that we need a virtual king or dictator to guide us through a difficult situation.
This may come as a shock and a revelation to the right wing activists (I just can't bring myself to call them judges) but the Republic did very nicely as a Republic for nearly 119 years. The founders did not want us to be a monarchy; the founders did not want us to be a theocracy, and--no matter what the neocons may believe--they did not want us to be an empire. And if the right wing activists don't get that then I see no reason why they should be called Americans when they are so clearly dedicated to overthrowing the Framers' creation.
Dr. Hans Frank, Commissioner of Justice and Reich Law Leader, to German judges in 1936
When the far right complains about "activist judges" they are actually complaining about an independent judiciary which recognized the unconstitutional nature of the unitary form of government as proposed by their would be Fuhrer, George W. Bush. On a broader level, the term "activist judges" has also been applied to those judges who would expand the rights of their fellow Americans, as opposed to the truly activist judges on the far right who, having taken their oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution, would use their seats to limit or even abolish the rights of American people. In other words, the only activism which is coming from the American judiciary is not from the left, but from the right, which has seen the constitution as an inconvenience for at least twenty-six years and probably longer.
A case in point was Friday's decision by a federal appeals court which sided with the Bush Administration in an electronics surveillance case, a decision which will inevitably make it easier for the regime in Washington to tap our phone calls and broadband transmissions. I won't bother you with the details of the case; instead I shall merely ask that you click on Appeals Courts Backs Bush on Wiretaps for more information. That said, I will offer the following commentary.
This is not a good sign.
The far right has been packing the federal judiciary with inept totalitarians for twenty-six years. And when they weren't able to further pack the judiciary they were able to block virtually any mainstream nomination that was made during the Clinton Administrations, virtually guaranteeing that the instructions as offered by Doctor Frank to German Judges in 1936 would become a reality for Republican Judges in 2006.
I see no reason to differentiate between the situation that occur ed in Nazi Germany and the situation which currently exists in the United States. Both Frank and Hitler were opposed to the idea of an independent judiciary. Both Bush and his legal eagles are dedicated to the idea of an obedient judiciary that will rubber stamp virtually any attempt by this president to impose right wing Christianity and to limit the rights of those who disagree with their very narrow and very unconstitutional agenda Just as the National Socialists of the 1936 were dedicated to the eradication of the Wiemar Constitution, so too are George W. Bush and his fifth column followers dedicated to the abolition of the form of government that was handed down to us by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. I don't know if they want to create Christian theocracy in which non Christians will serve in the roll of second class citizens, or if they want to create a cult of one in which the president is the supreme commander in a unitary form of government without checks and balances is unclear. For all I know the might embrace the worst of both alternatives--a repressive theocracy in which the President serves as a sort of Puritan Divine.
But I do know this: Right wing activists want to use the federal and state judiciaries to dismantle our Constitution. They even have a process, a "legal" philosophy, by which they intend to accomplish this. It's called the "Doctrine of Original Intent" and it's based upon the truly oppressive idea that Americans in the year 2006 should only be entitled to the freedoms and liberties that were granted in 1787. In other words, they genuinely believe that the Constitution is a lifeless piece of rock, that it should be interpreted in a manner that will grant the fewest possible liberties to the fewest possible people. I would not be surprised if, at some future date, these strict constructionists were to propose bills and amendments, or reactionary judgements that would truly take us back to 1787, to a time when a black man was considered only 3/5 human. I would not be surprised if they were to propose measures that would abolish the 19th Amendment and recreate a system in which voters were defined in terms of white, male property owners. As you can tell, 1787 was a fine time to live--if you were a white, male, Christian property owner with enough slaves to keep the plantation up and running. But it wasn't such a fine place to live if you were black, female, Jewish, or otherwise non-christian. And yet these right wing activists routinely espouse a system of constitutional law that would both, ignore more than 200 years of history, and drag us back to the bad old days when a select ruling class was allowed to vote, to a time when the State legislatures elected our Senators.
Instead of a living, breathing document which adapts to social and historical change and which expands the liberties of the American people, these radical right wing activists (many of whom come with the most dismal of qualifications) propose a lifeless piece of rock which would almost invariably be used as a millstone around the necks of nonwhites, women, and non-Christians. And to make the situation even more bizarre, the idea of original intent wasn't even the intent of the Founding Fathers. The Framers knew that American society would evolve. They foresaw this. To that end they gave us the right to amend the Constitution. They left certain provisions deliberately vague, understanding that the Constitution would be interpreted by future judges. Moreover, Thomas Jefferson, who was not a framer per se, actually suggested that no generation had a right to impose its beliefs on the next generation, going so far as to suggest that each generation should tear up the constitution and rewrite it from scratch. That may sound radical, but it is no less radical than the idea that we should all live in a replay of 1787 and ignore every artistic, religious, technological, or societal development that occurred during the last 219 years. And I have more bad news for you. In 1787, the Framers, having just won a protracted revolution against a mentally deranged monarch and a mother country with an establish national church, were in no mood to create a system of government in which the President was a virtual king, in which a particular religion would have the power to impose its belief system on the entire nation. But that hasn't stopped the radical right wing activists and their radical Christian allies from proposing the idea of a Christian Republic; nor has it dissuaded them from the idea that we need a virtual king or dictator to guide us through a difficult situation.
This may come as a shock and a revelation to the right wing activists (I just can't bring myself to call them judges) but the Republic did very nicely as a Republic for nearly 119 years. The founders did not want us to be a monarchy; the founders did not want us to be a theocracy, and--no matter what the neocons may believe--they did not want us to be an empire. And if the right wing activists don't get that then I see no reason why they should be called Americans when they are so clearly dedicated to overthrowing the Framers' creation.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Ah Yes: We Have Turned Another Corner--NOT
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead and we have given Osama Bin Laden exactly what he wanted.
Someone really needs to tell the American people (and for that matter the Bush Regime) that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaida proper represent a second generation of Islamic terrorists--and if they thought Bin Laden was a butcher, just wait--there's a third generation of Islamic terrorists and they're even more angry, more violent, and more fanatical than their Koran-thumping elders.
Contrary to popular belief, there have been significant tensions between second and third generation Islamic terrorists, most of which stem from the fact that the second generation disapproves of the third generation's tactics, al-Zarqawi being a case in point. This after all was the blood-thirsty thug who had himself video taped while he was sawing off the heads of innocent civilians. More important, he triggered a sectarian civil war between Iraqi Sunnis and Shias. Indeed, one of his last "accomplishments" was a recorded "sermon" in which he condemned those who had called for an end to the sectarian strife in Iraq, essentially demanding an all out war against Shias, Iranians, and secularists. Killing western "infidels" was one thing, but al-Zarqawi was attacking and killing fellow Muslims, which clearly put him at odds with the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaida proper.
Translated into the every day vernacular, al- Zarqawi had become a threat and an embarrassment to Al Quaida, which (unlike President Bush) clearly understands that this is a battle for the hearts and loyalties of Muslims across the face of the earth. And now, in a single swoop, two 500 pound bombs, have eliminated one of Osama's political embarrassments.
Now the bad news.
Our own military has determined that less than five percent of the Iraqi insurgency comes from outside of Iraq. That means that at least 95 percent of the insurgents are home grown Iraqis, that al-Zarqawi's death is virtually less than useless. Or at the very best a very small and temporary victory in the overall invasion of Iraq.
On the other hand, al-Zarqawi has already been treated as a fallen martyr, and as we all know, a fallen martyr can be a lot more dangerous than a living opponent. How exactly does one fight the dead? Mark my words. At some point in the near future, you, my dear reader, will click on your favorite news outlet, or open your morning paper, or turn on your beloved boob tube, and learn that al-Zarqawi's martyrdom was a theological shot in the arm, an inspiration for young, hot-headed zealots who want to avenge al-Zarqawi's death and martyr themselves in the process.
Ultimately this is an all too familiar rerun of the day we captured Saddam Hussein. At the time we were told that we had turned another corner--and then the insurgency expanded at a seemingly exponential rate while the pridefully aggressive Bush Regime watched on in bewildered confusion.
Bush will get a temporary boost in the polls, the insurgency will rage mercilessly on, more troops will die, more Iraqi civilians will die, and the Regime in Washington will again be left in a state of dishonor and bewilderment.
How do I know this? I know this because al-Zarqawi is dead and twelve Iraqis have already been killed in a market place bombing. Reports of car bombings are already filtering into our corporate, mainstream press. I know this because even as the violence continues, Bush and the Pentagon are again telling us that we have turned another corner. And anyone with an IQ of at least 60 knows that if you keep turning enough of those right hand corners you will eventually end up at the place from which you started.
For more information please read Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy by Fawaz A. Gerges. For a brief review of the book please click on Journey of the Jihadist or, better yet, go to Wisconsin Public Radio. This should take you to the menu for May 8, 2006. Once there, click on the 9:00 a.m. hour with Kathleen Dunn. This should take you to a 55 minute interview with the author.
Someone really needs to tell the American people (and for that matter the Bush Regime) that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaida proper represent a second generation of Islamic terrorists--and if they thought Bin Laden was a butcher, just wait--there's a third generation of Islamic terrorists and they're even more angry, more violent, and more fanatical than their Koran-thumping elders.
Contrary to popular belief, there have been significant tensions between second and third generation Islamic terrorists, most of which stem from the fact that the second generation disapproves of the third generation's tactics, al-Zarqawi being a case in point. This after all was the blood-thirsty thug who had himself video taped while he was sawing off the heads of innocent civilians. More important, he triggered a sectarian civil war between Iraqi Sunnis and Shias. Indeed, one of his last "accomplishments" was a recorded "sermon" in which he condemned those who had called for an end to the sectarian strife in Iraq, essentially demanding an all out war against Shias, Iranians, and secularists. Killing western "infidels" was one thing, but al-Zarqawi was attacking and killing fellow Muslims, which clearly put him at odds with the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaida proper.
Translated into the every day vernacular, al- Zarqawi had become a threat and an embarrassment to Al Quaida, which (unlike President Bush) clearly understands that this is a battle for the hearts and loyalties of Muslims across the face of the earth. And now, in a single swoop, two 500 pound bombs, have eliminated one of Osama's political embarrassments.
Now the bad news.
Our own military has determined that less than five percent of the Iraqi insurgency comes from outside of Iraq. That means that at least 95 percent of the insurgents are home grown Iraqis, that al-Zarqawi's death is virtually less than useless. Or at the very best a very small and temporary victory in the overall invasion of Iraq.
On the other hand, al-Zarqawi has already been treated as a fallen martyr, and as we all know, a fallen martyr can be a lot more dangerous than a living opponent. How exactly does one fight the dead? Mark my words. At some point in the near future, you, my dear reader, will click on your favorite news outlet, or open your morning paper, or turn on your beloved boob tube, and learn that al-Zarqawi's martyrdom was a theological shot in the arm, an inspiration for young, hot-headed zealots who want to avenge al-Zarqawi's death and martyr themselves in the process.
Ultimately this is an all too familiar rerun of the day we captured Saddam Hussein. At the time we were told that we had turned another corner--and then the insurgency expanded at a seemingly exponential rate while the pridefully aggressive Bush Regime watched on in bewildered confusion.
Bush will get a temporary boost in the polls, the insurgency will rage mercilessly on, more troops will die, more Iraqi civilians will die, and the Regime in Washington will again be left in a state of dishonor and bewilderment.
How do I know this? I know this because al-Zarqawi is dead and twelve Iraqis have already been killed in a market place bombing. Reports of car bombings are already filtering into our corporate, mainstream press. I know this because even as the violence continues, Bush and the Pentagon are again telling us that we have turned another corner. And anyone with an IQ of at least 60 knows that if you keep turning enough of those right hand corners you will eventually end up at the place from which you started.
For more information please read Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy by Fawaz A. Gerges. For a brief review of the book please click on Journey of the Jihadist or, better yet, go to Wisconsin Public Radio. This should take you to the menu for May 8, 2006. Once there, click on the 9:00 a.m. hour with Kathleen Dunn. This should take you to a 55 minute interview with the author.
Ahhhh Yes. We Have Turned Another Corner. Yeah. Right.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead and we have given Osama Bin Laden exactly what he wanted.
Someone really needs to tell the American people (and for that matter the Bush Regime) that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaida proper represent a second generation of Islamic terrorists--and if they thought Bin Laden was a butcher, just wayt--there's a third generation of Islamic terrorists and they're even more angry, more violent, and more fanatical than their Koran-thumping elders. Contrary to popular belief, there have been significant tensions between second and third generation Islamic terrorists, most of which stem from the fact that the second generation disapproves of the third generation's tactics, al-Zarqawi being a case in point. This afyter all was the blood-thirsty thug ho had himself video taped while he was sawing off the heads of innocent civilians. More important, he triggered a sectarian civil war between Iraqi Shias and Shias. Indeed, one of his last "accomplishments" was a recorded "sermon" in which he condemned those who had called for an end to the sectarian strife in Iraq, essentially demanding an all out war against Shias, Iranians, and secularists. Killing western "infidels" was one thing, but al-Zarqawi was attacking and killing fellow Muslims, which clearly put him at odds with the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaida proper. Translated into the every day vernacular, al- Zarqawi had become a threat and an embarrassment to Al Quaida, which (unlike President Bush) clearly understands that this is a battle for the hearts and loyalties of Muslims across the face of the earth. And now, in a single swoop, two 500 pound bombs, have eliminated one of Osama's political embarrassments.
Now the bad news. Our own military has determined that less than five percent of the Iraqi insurgency comes form outside of Iraq. That means that at least 95 percent of the insurgents are home grown Iraqis, that al-Zarqawi's death is virtually less than meaningless. Or at the very best a very small and temporary victory in the overall invasion of Iraq. On the other hand, al-Zarqawi has already been treated as a fallen martyr, and as we all know, a fallen martyr can be a lot more dangerous than a living opponent. How exactly does one fight the dead? Mark my words. At some point in the near future, you, my dear reader, will click on your favorite news outlet, or open your morning paper, or turn on your beloved boob tube, and learn that al-Zarqawi's martyrdom was a theological shot in the arm, an inspiration for young, hot-headed zealots who want to avenge al-Zarqawi's death and martyr themselves in the process.
Ultimately this is a meaningless rerun of the day we captured Saddam Hussein. At the time we were told that we had turned another corner--and then the insurgency expanded at a seemingly exponential rate while the pridefully aggressive Bush Regime watched on in bewildered confusion. Bush will get a temporary boost in the polls, the insurgency will rage mercilessly on, more troops will die, more Iraqi civilians will die, and the Regime in Washington will again be left in a state of dishonor and bewilderment.
How do I know this? I know this because al-Zarqawi is dead and twelve Iraqis have been killed in a market place bombing. Reports of car bombings are already filtering into our corporate, mainstream press. I know this because even as the violence continues, Bush and the Pentagon are again telling us that we have turned another corner.
And anyone with an IQ of at least 60 knows that if you keep turning enough of those right hand corners you will eventually end up at the place from which you started.
For more information please read Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy by Fawaz A. Gerges. For a brief review of the book please click on Journey of the Jihadist or, better yet, go to Wisconsin Public Radio. This should take you to the menu for May 8, 2006. Once there, click on the 9:00 a.m. hour with Kathleen Dunn. This should take you to a 55 minute interview with the author.
Someone really needs to tell the American people (and for that matter the Bush Regime) that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaida proper represent a second generation of Islamic terrorists--and if they thought Bin Laden was a butcher, just wayt--there's a third generation of Islamic terrorists and they're even more angry, more violent, and more fanatical than their Koran-thumping elders. Contrary to popular belief, there have been significant tensions between second and third generation Islamic terrorists, most of which stem from the fact that the second generation disapproves of the third generation's tactics, al-Zarqawi being a case in point. This afyter all was the blood-thirsty thug ho had himself video taped while he was sawing off the heads of innocent civilians. More important, he triggered a sectarian civil war between Iraqi Shias and Shias. Indeed, one of his last "accomplishments" was a recorded "sermon" in which he condemned those who had called for an end to the sectarian strife in Iraq, essentially demanding an all out war against Shias, Iranians, and secularists. Killing western "infidels" was one thing, but al-Zarqawi was attacking and killing fellow Muslims, which clearly put him at odds with the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaida proper. Translated into the every day vernacular, al- Zarqawi had become a threat and an embarrassment to Al Quaida, which (unlike President Bush) clearly understands that this is a battle for the hearts and loyalties of Muslims across the face of the earth. And now, in a single swoop, two 500 pound bombs, have eliminated one of Osama's political embarrassments.
Now the bad news. Our own military has determined that less than five percent of the Iraqi insurgency comes form outside of Iraq. That means that at least 95 percent of the insurgents are home grown Iraqis, that al-Zarqawi's death is virtually less than meaningless. Or at the very best a very small and temporary victory in the overall invasion of Iraq. On the other hand, al-Zarqawi has already been treated as a fallen martyr, and as we all know, a fallen martyr can be a lot more dangerous than a living opponent. How exactly does one fight the dead? Mark my words. At some point in the near future, you, my dear reader, will click on your favorite news outlet, or open your morning paper, or turn on your beloved boob tube, and learn that al-Zarqawi's martyrdom was a theological shot in the arm, an inspiration for young, hot-headed zealots who want to avenge al-Zarqawi's death and martyr themselves in the process.
Ultimately this is a meaningless rerun of the day we captured Saddam Hussein. At the time we were told that we had turned another corner--and then the insurgency expanded at a seemingly exponential rate while the pridefully aggressive Bush Regime watched on in bewildered confusion. Bush will get a temporary boost in the polls, the insurgency will rage mercilessly on, more troops will die, more Iraqi civilians will die, and the Regime in Washington will again be left in a state of dishonor and bewilderment.
How do I know this? I know this because al-Zarqawi is dead and twelve Iraqis have been killed in a market place bombing. Reports of car bombings are already filtering into our corporate, mainstream press. I know this because even as the violence continues, Bush and the Pentagon are again telling us that we have turned another corner.
And anyone with an IQ of at least 60 knows that if you keep turning enough of those right hand corners you will eventually end up at the place from which you started.
For more information please read Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy by Fawaz A. Gerges. For a brief review of the book please click on Journey of the Jihadist or, better yet, go to Wisconsin Public Radio. This should take you to the menu for May 8, 2006. Once there, click on the 9:00 a.m. hour with Kathleen Dunn. This should take you to a 55 minute interview with the author.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
The Strength of Samson, or the Deceit of Delilah
Hat tip to Dude at Blue Republic for this one.
I have to admit a mild level of surprise. The surprise is that last week when Pat Robertson made his comment about the tsunami that he predicts might hit the Pacific Northwest (Pat was due to say something stupid again) I pointed out how in cycle he is. Pat is usually so faithfully on cue every three or four months or so, that you could practically set your clock by him (for change of the seasons anyway). It had been since January that he had made the comment about Ariel Sharon's stroke being divine retribution for the Gaza pullout, so when he predicted that storms and a tsunami 'might' hit the U.S., I almost thought about not blogging about it, it being one of Pat's milder idiocies (though that 'might' caught my attention-- he seems to have learned from some of his previous mistakes). So, I figured that Pat would return to his grotto and hibernate until late summer or early fall before he would come out and say something stupid again.
But it was only this week that he did. Actually not in person, but via his website, where he claimed to have leg-pressed 2000 pounds.
I wonder if someone contacted the Guiness Book, because the present record for a leg press is 1,335 pounds by former Florida State University Quarterback Dan Kendra.
Leaving aside the question of how many phone calls the 73 year old televangelist is undoubtedly now fielding from major university football programs wanting to see if he has used up his NCAA eligibility, if this claim is true, it should certainly convince doubters that Robertson is indeed the elect man of God.
After all, to not only break a world strength record at his age, but to shatter it by leg lifting 50% more weight than anyone has ever lifted this way, could only be possible if he indeed received the strength of Samson.
And if that is true, then we clearly have the wrong strategy in Iraq. Instead of sending mere mortals to fight, we should send Pat. The Bible after all says that the original Samson slew a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass, just imagine what Pat could do with all the arms we could give him? And if faced with hand to hand combat, he obviously has the leg strength that he could just drop kick a foeman over the next block. It is inconceivable to believe that God would give Pat such superhuman strength just so he could do a simple leg-press, he must want him to use it to perform some amazing miracle. Perhaps next week you will hear of Pat lifting a car off of a trapped victim, or jumping up to the second floor of a building to rescue a child from a fire, or perhaps kicking down a tree to help clear a break ahead of an approaching forest fire. We will have to wait and see what he will do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)