Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Production of heroin is at an all time high. (pardon the pun) They are talking about another decade of fighting heroin exports and billions wasted in that fight.
Why can't we put these two issues together?
Why not contract Monsanto or ADM to develop a version of the poppy plant, with the drug production gene crippled? Then you fly over Afghanistan, dusting those poppy fields with the GMO pollen.
Before they know it, the drug producers are saddled with an enormous labor burden, making them weed out unaffected plants, and compromising their distillation processes. Black markets go through the roof, and addicts dry out.
Do the same for that high potency pot, and you have the added benefit of pissing off all of the Organic anti-GMO moonbats, crying over their empty bongs.
also posted here.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Let's see. George Bush calls the Danish Prime Minister to express his support over the violence perpetrated by criminal Muslims. This sounds like a patriotic, free speech loving American citizen to me. (Now do the right thing and shut down that port deal, Mr. President.)
So how does the fine, internationally respected, upstanding former President rally his support for freedom loving free speech?
Let's see. Bill Clinton urges EU to convict 'cartoonists'
Way to go Bill.
It gets better...
"..But that is very different, that is very different from what is going on when people come into the political system and they say that anybody that doesn't agree with them is godless, anyone who doesn't agree with them is not a good Christian, anyone who doesn't agree with them is fair game for any wild charge, no matter how false, for any kind of personal, demeaning attack."So I guess I am not permitted to replace Christian with Muslim, in Bill's quote here. Because doing so, would put Clinton at odds with his current position on cartoonists who disagree with Islam. Why the hell would anyone want to put this man near the White House again?
-- Bill Clinton Interview With Kevin Horrigan and Charles Brennan of KMOX Radio, St. Louis, Missouri, 24 June 1994
I thought Al Gore's act of deplorable apologism, bought and paid by our Arab Enemies was bad, but this puts the hypocrisy icing on the cake.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
I fired my uncle's nine-millimeter pistol once. The ringing did not stop for about twenty minutes. It was nice of him to warn me. Since he was laughing his backside off, I am sure it was all part of the plan.
Personally, I do not own any firearms. I own two hunting bows and a couple of Japanese swords. I have never killed anything with either weapon. However, I am a firm believer in Amendment number two.
Here it is, in all its glory:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people, to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Like many of my posts, this began with an argument by one of my liberal sounding boards. He argued that the first part of this statement, absolves the authorities of legal peril, when they ban guns on individuals. He was fired up, pardon the pun, about the recent San Francisco ban, DPT mentioned in this post. He insisted that gun possession must be permitted to local authorities, like police and National Guard. He said this does not guarantee the right of permission to individuals.
I felt it my duty to look at some of the language, used in the actual debate applied to our wonderful Constitution. I am talking about the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. Why look at these documents? They represent some of the thoughts and materials, used by the founders, to argue the ratification of our Constitution. If you are going to argue the meaning of the founders, listen to them and their contemporaries.
Excerpts from The Federalist Papers
In the vast body of the Federalist papers, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton make a long winded case for a Federal government based largely on the struggles of interstate commerce and resemblance of those struggles to nation states of historical note, such as Roman conflict with Carthage, etc. Jay alludes to the success of the British Empire and its cohesive military power.
What would the militia of Britain be if the English militia obeyed the government of England, if the Scotch militia obeyed the government of Scotland, and if the Welsh militia obeyed the government of Wales? Suppose an invasion; would those three governments (if they agreed at all) be able, with all their respective forces, to operate against the enemy so effectually as the single government of Great Britain would?Hamilton was a well educated man; a genius in fact. Had he and Jay had their way completely, state's rights would probably exist as a gossamer thready collection of associations. I dislike big bureaucracy. This would have been big. However, in glorious compromise, America turned out to benefit from the best of both philosophies, since Hamilton was right on when he said that a nation with no federal power and unity would breed enemies who would attempt to defeat us using the motto 'Divide et impera' or divide and command.
In the wide field of Western territory, therefore, we perceive an ample theatre for hostile pretensions, without any umpire or common judge to interpose between the contending parties. To reason from the past to the future, we shall have good ground to apprehend, that the sword would sometimes be appealed to as the arbiter of their differences. The circumstances of the dispute between Connecticut and Pennsylvania, respecting the land at Wyoming, admonish us not to be sanguine in expecting an easy accommodation of such differences. The articles of confederation obliged the parties to submit the matter to the decision of a federal court. The submission was made, and the court decided in favor of Pennsylvania. But Connecticut gave strong indications of dissatisfaction with that determination; nor did she appear to be entirely resigned to it, till, by negotiation and management, something like an equivalent was found for the loss she supposed herself to have sustained. Nothing here said is intended to convey the slightest censure on the conduct of that State. She no doubt sincerely believed herself to have been injured by the decision; and States, like individuals, acquiesce with great reluctance in determinations to their disadvantage.Note that Hamilton discusses the benefit of having a State, aquiesce to a federal judgement, instead of using the sword (arms) to settle a dispute. Take note however, that he doesn't intend to censure the conduct of any State. He also puts the State's liberties in a similar category to individuals.
In essay 8, Hamilton addresses the distrust of standing armies directly. He clearly recognizes that the power of such armies will naturally progress towards monarchical or total executive power over the government and people.
The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it.  Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.Hamilton really begins to make the case for a free, armed citizenry in this passage.
There is a wide difference, also, between military establishments in a country seldom exposed by its situation to internal invasions, and in one which is often subject to them, and always apprehensive of them. The rulers of the former can have a good pretext, if they are even so inclined, to keep on foot armies so numerous as must of necessity be maintained in the latter. These armies being, in the first case, rarely, if at all, called into activity for interior defense, the people are in no danger of being broken to military subordination. The laws are not accustomed to relaxations, in favor of military exigencies; the civil state remains in full vigor, neither corrupted, nor confounded with the principles or propensities of the other state. The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an over-match for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil, and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights. The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people.Yes, you read that right. Hamilton says that a small army, or militia, encourages the natural strength in citizens to defend themselves. The small Militia is a useful tool of the magistrate to suppress small factions, or mobs, or insurrection.
This sounds just like the proper job of the police, doesn't it?
He also wraps it up with the assertion that this power deprived militia, will not be able to encroach upon the rights of the united body of the people. Why? Because the people can defend themselves, in the comfort of their arms, from this encroachment, that's why! This figures big in my conclusion.
Hamilton's subsequent paragraph, rejects the powerful military state, as one that loses all civil priority and degrades the living conditions and liberties of its citizens.
In a country in the predicament last described, the contrary of all this happens. The perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants of territories, often the theatre of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military power.
Once again, in the following paragraph, in the Queen's plain english, Hamilton make's the point for a citizenry, capable of defending itself.
The kingdom of Great Britain falls within the first description. An insular situation, and a powerful marine, guarding it in a great measure against the possibility of foreign invasion, supersede the necessity of a numerous army within the kingdom. A sufficient force to make head against a sudden descent, till the militia could have time to rally and embody, is all that has been deemed requisite.Since the 'militia' is not the primary subject in this last sentence, I am free to assume he meant the people, when he talked about that sufficient force. He may have meant the small army, unable to encroach on the united people; a temporary wall against an invader. In this case it still figures into the concept of a controlled militia. In fact, any force, intending to rally and embody itself, will need to draw on the skills of the people.
Excerpts from The Anti-Federalist Papers
A FEDERAL REPUBLICAN makes an argument against the power of a Constitutionally ratified federal government to march on you, with a Militia, to suppress your occassional free struggles. I am sure this concern led to Posse Comitatus .
...congress, by this new government, will be invested with the formidable powers of raising armies, and lending money, totally independent of the different states. They will moreover, have the power of leading troops among you in order to suppress those struggles which may sometimes happen among a free people, and which tyranny will impiously brand with the name of sedition.
A FEDERAL REPUBLICAN makes another great point regarding Federal judiciary power used against you. Not just, for gun rights, but for ALL your rights. Notice how he grieves over the kind of judicial and legal harrassment, that can be used as a weapon against you. (Cough.. nuisance lawsuits) It wears you down mentally and financially, until you give up your rights.
Should the sheriff or state collector in any manner aggrieve you either in person or property, these sacred rights are amply secured by the most solemn compact. Beside, the arm of government is always at hand to shield you from his injustice and oppression. But if a Continental collector, in the execution of his office, should invade your freedom (according to this new government, which has expressly declared itself paramount to all state laws and constitutions) the state of which you are a citizen will have no authority to afford you relief. A continental court may, indeed, be established in the state, and it may be urged that you will find a remedy here; but, my fellow citizens, let me ask, what protection this will afford you against the insults or rapacity of a continental officer, when he will have it in his power to appeal to the seat of congress perhaps at several hundred miles distance, and by this means oblige you to expend hundreds of pounds in obtaining redress for twenty shillings unjustly extorted? Thus will you be necessarily compelled either to make a bold effort to extricate yourselves from these grievous and oppressive extortions, or you will be fatigued by fruitless attempts into the quiet and peaceable surrender of those rights, for which the blood of your fellow citizens has been shed in vain.This is exactly how the liberals use the Federal court system. This is why the SCOTUS ruling on private property should scare the crap out of you. This is why you should never give up your rights, by apathy.
In this passage, AN OBSERVER notes that big government, in general, should be distrusted, when it comes to protecting the rights and property of individuals. He obviously does not believe in government controlling people's right to arms.
....It deserves also to be remembered, that the people of Scotland, in the late war between France and Great Britain, petitioned to have arms and ammunition supplied them by their general government, for their defense, alleging that they were incapable of defending themselves and their property from an invasion unless they were assisted by government. It is a truth that their petitions were disregarded, and reasons were assigned, that it would be dangerous to entrust them with the means of defense, as they would then have it in their power to break the union. From this representation of the situation of Scotland, surely no one can draw any conclusion that this country would derive happiness or security from a government which would, in reality, give the people but the mere name of being free.
...This hobgoblin appears to have sprung from the deranged brain of Publius, [The Federalist] a New York writer, who, mistaking sound for argument, has with Herculean labor accumulated myriads of unmeaning sentences, and mechanically endeavored to force conviction by a torrent of misplaced words. He might have spared his readers the fatigue of wading through his long-winded disquisitions on the direful effects of the contentions of inimical states, as totally inapplicable to the subject he was professedly treating; this writer has devoted much time, and wasted more paper in combating chimeras of his own creation...I am truly sorry. This excerpt just sooo tempted me to replace 'Publius' with ''Maureen Dowd'. Ahem. Ok, back to the subject at hand.
Here, MONTEZUMA writes a biting sarcastic piece on the powers of a federal government. Take note, the crushing of insurrections with a noble body of veterans (Militia).
....We have so interwoven continental and state legislatures that they cannot exist separately; whereas we in truth only leave them the power of electing us, for what can a provincial legislature do when we possess the exclusive regulation of external and internal commerce, excise, duties, imposts, post-offices and roads; when we and we alone, have the power to wage war, make peace, coin money (if we can get bullion) if not, borrow money, organize the militia and call them forth to execute our decrees, and crush insurrections assisted by a noble body of veterans subject to our nod, which we have the power of raising and keeping even in the time of peace. What have we to fear from state legislatures or even from states, when we are armed with such powers, with a president at our head?I love the way he ends his piece.
Signed by unanimous order of the lords spiritual and temporal.
In this piece, BRUTUS takes Hamilton on directly, arguing that even a small standing army is unnecessary, if you propose to trust the people to defend themselves from encroachment.
Besides, if the habits and sentiments of the people of America are to be relied upon, as the sole security against the encroachment of their rulers, all restrictions in constitutions are unnecessary; nothing more is requisite, than to declare who shall be authorized to exercise the powers of government, and about this we need not be very careful-for the habits and principles of the people will oppose every abuse of power. This I suppose to be the sentiments of this author, as it seems to be of many of the advocates of this new system. An opinion like this, is as directly opposed to the principles and habits of the people of America, as it is to the sentiments of every writer of reputation on the science of government, and repugnant to the principles of reason and common sense.An OLD WHIG ends his entry in the Massachusetts Gazette with this paragraph.
Before we establish a government, whose acts will be the supreme law of the land, and whose power will extend to almost every case without exception, we ought carefully to guard ourselves by a bill of rights, against the invasion of those liberties which it is essential for us to retain, which it is of no real use for government to deprive us of; but which, in the course of human events, have been too often insulted with all the wantonness of an idle barbarity.He got to see that bill of rights. It should be noted that the Bill of Rights was demanded by, many, who saw it necessary to enumerate those rights, against government authority. The second amendment is enumerated number two.
The founders would probably be horrified by WMD and the morality of is necessity and use. This does not mean they intended people to have the right to bear WMD. This is not a slippery slope point of weakness in Amendment number two. Nobody is going to protect his or her individual home or family with a nuke or canister of Anthrax. The term bear arms, implies personal protection. WMDs are weapons of national defense, intended to harm nations. I am sure the founders did not intend individuals to be individual threats to entire nations.
I know this has been a long post. There is much more material than I cite here. Please go read it. It is your American History.
Perhaps I have not seen enough evidence, but I suspect that the founders and their contemporaries believed in the incontrovertible right of individuals, to bear arms. If I were to interpret the second amendment, based on the above material, specifically Alexander Hamilton's argument in Federalist 8, here is a summary of the main points.
- Hamilton recognized that a dissolved confederacy would breed standing armies, which might resort to the use of the sword, between feuding states.
- Hamilton recognized that an overall military power, with too much authority, could easily result in a military totalitarian state.
- Hamilton argued, for the natural strength of a community, with a healthy distrust of a small militia, chartered only as a 'necessary evil', to mitigate mob violence an insurrection (police power).
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,It means the exact opposite of my liberal friend's argument. Regulated does not mean armed, trained and disciplined. It means exactly what you expect it to mean: controlled. It means that the militia needs to be regulated like we regulate voltage or water pressure, to keep it from turning the federal government into a military power. It needs to be controlled, to insure the security of the people and their free State. How is this accomplished?
the right of the people, to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.That's how.
I am fairly convinced that most of the Anti-Federalists, would have been happy to accept the latter without any rationale, regarding uncontrolled military power. Of course, we know the federalists had to provide one, and they did.
Are we really in danger of a military or foreign tyranny? Perhaps not. But this does not give a judge or a legislator the power to remove this right. Clearly, when it comes to personal arms, with the intention of protecting your life and your personal property, both sides of the Constitutional debate recognized the need for this Constitutional right.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Just before the official White House Press gathering, trouble was brewing in the press room...
The foul David Gregory had just asked White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan about the Cheney hunting accident.
David, hold on. The cameras aren't on right now. You can do this later.
Don't accuse me of trying to pose to the cameras! Don't be a jerk to me personally when I'm asking you a serious question.
You don't have to yell...
I will yell! If you want to use that podium to try to take shots at me personally, which I don't appreciate, then I will raise my voice, because that's wrong.'
Calm down, Dave, calm down.
I'll calm down when I feel like calming down! You answer the question.
I have answered the question. I'm sorry you're getting all riled up about it.
[ insolutip: Send him over to the VP's office, Scott. Then Cheney can take a couple of 'personal shots' at him. ]
I am riled up. Because you're not answering the question.
At the real press briefing, the cameras were rolling, and Zell Steps in to handle the press like a real man...
Good afternoon, everyone. Let me begin by with one update on the schedule today. I will be taking questions in place of Scott. He's in the little girls room right now, drying his eyes on the hem of his skirt. He begged me to step in and kick some real jackass this morning.
Today, the President will be submitting his 2006 Economic Report to the Congress. The Council of Economic Advisors will be hosting a press briefing here shortly, at 1:30 p.m. today. Our economy is strong and growing stronger. The U.S. right now is experiencing a very healthy job market, with nearly 4.8 million jobs created since the summer of 2003. And for 2006, the Council of Economic Advisors projects a steady growth rate, in the range of 3.4 percent, which is in line with the view of other economic forecasts in government and the private sector.
I know that none of you parasitic vermin want to hear or talk about anything related to the health of the American people and their economy. So give me your best shots.
Zell, do you think that the shooting accident involving the Vice President on Saturday should have been disclosed to the public on Saturday?
C'mon, son, let's be honest here. If the Vice President had called you guys on Saturday, you would be sitting here today, whining about how he was more concerned with public relations, than with Harry's health.
Well, I assume that people -- he got immediate medical attention. Aside from the medical attention, which I'm sure was swift, isn't there a public disclosure requirement that should have kicked in immediately?
Yes. Mrs. Katherine Armstrong saw what occurred and she called her local paper. That's called public disclosure. The Vice President's Office was ready to comment on it at that point. Are you telling me that meat is not fresh enough for you?
Well, it's not really a hindsight issue here. I mean, the Vice President made a decision about how the public should be notified that basically is at odds with the standard practice of how the President's own press operation and this White House notifies the public; isn't that right?
I know a tough old bird like myself should be able to speak your language, but humor me anyway. How this is at odds with standard practice?
Let's just be clear here. The Vice President of the United States accidentally shoots a man and he feels that it's appropriate for a ranch owner who witnessed this to tell the local Corpus Christi newspaper, and not the White House press corps at large, or notify the public in a national way?
Are you talking about the tired practice of the administration pulling your lazy snout out of the rotting zebra's colon, then handing you a scourge, so you can turn around and beat them with it?
Give me a break, Terry. Do you want me to fetch your slippers for you too?
There was no traveling White House press corps with the Vice President.
Right, that's a distinction without a difference, really. I mean, we have Blackberries --
I know, I know. Frankly, even that's an exaggeration. All of you Chris Matthews types have blackberries. Fortunately, I have a pair of jumbo beefsteak tomatoes, this big. I am also not afraid to use them.
I know you had a chance to speak to, I assume, the President and the Vice President today. Did the Vice President follow all of the appropriate safety procedures that are familiar to hunters in this case?
He shot a friend by accident. Do you think he was following proper safety procedures?
I told the President he should have bought those nice new bug zappers at Wal Mart. A few more of those in the press lobby, and maybe we won't get so many stupid idiots buzzin' around.
Call Cheney's office. Talk to him about it.
Wait, wait, hold on. Human beings are not normally this inefficient. I mean, was the Vice President immediately clear that he had accidentally shot his friend, or not? Or did that information become available later? You make it seem like there's all this information that had to develop.
Yeah, I know human beings are more efficient. That's why y'all look like blood sucking scavengers to me. I know you are all desperate to pull some meat off this story and grind it into some covert conspiracy. If this were anything more than an accident, then I suppose Whittaker would have been found in a hotel room, with a head shot and a suicide note.
Is it proper for the Vice President to offer his resignation or has he offered his resignation?
[ Zell thinking to himself... ] I wonder where I put that snake killing shovel? I'm sure I could make it look like road kill. Even if they find out, George would surely pardon me. Nah.
That question smells as bad as you do. Next...
Zell, when you consider the chronology you're trying to go through here, and all of the various wrinkles of how long it took for the primary information that the Vice President was the person who shot this fellow to get through to the President, himself, is there any notion here of reviewing your own communications apparatus? I mean, this is sort of reminiscent of the levee story, frankly, you know?
Weren't you the one swimming around that levee, looking for a juicy story? If the communications apparatus included you, somewhere along the wiring, then I would conclude that there is something wrong with it.
Zell, would this be much more serious if the man had died? Would that change the --
Hoo boy. That's the worst case of foot-in-mouth disease I have seen in a long time. You must have memorized Hillary Clinton's book It takes a Village Idiot. Nobody could walk into a national press corps session and ask a question that mentally challenged without some sort of guidance.
On that note of redundant foolishness, I bid you all farewell.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Recently, much of the hard propaganda toil and labor, generated by our party and our good loyal friends in the MSM, has been compromised by all of this ridiculous coverage of righteous Muslims, who have been mortally insulted by insensitive cartoonists, defaming their religious symbols.
We must make sure we do not relent in our mission to expose the real evil power in this world, George W. Bush. Remember friends, his android minions in the SCOTUS took your true president away from you in 2000.
We have a golden opportunity here, my fellow Americans. While our Arab brothers are still expressing their anger, over the heinous insult to their revered prophet, we have a chance to turn some of that rage our way, by properly timing the delivery of my 'apology' (wink and nod) to the Arab world, and the expose',by one of our independent news sources, of evil British soldiers, beating powerless Iraqi youths. How can we not pity these poor starving, weedy waifs, who's only crime was delivering baskets of falafel, C4, hookup wire and duct tape, to grandma's house.
So, my fellow Democrats, we must make sure the evil emperor Bush loses this war on terror, by aiding our Arab brothers. We must turn Allah's magnifying glass to Washington, focus the brilliant light of Arab rage on the administration, and watch as Bush Rove and Cheney scurry out like burning ants. This is a global war on terror; The terror of this administration.
Your brother in arms,
President Al Gore
Friday, February 10, 2006
Go and read "Marx, Communism, Totalitarianism; Muhammed, Islam, Terrorism", by Rusty Shackleford, over at the Jawa report blog. I recently had an interesting discussion over at Daniel Levesque's blog Raving Conservative, regarding the separation, in our minds, of evil people, from the religious contexts they use to perpetrate evil.
My position, in a nutshell, was that evil people would seek any context they need to transmit their passions and appetites, regardless of religion. These contexts include non-religious ideological venues like Communism.
Mr. Shackleford raises an interesting and specific point about Islam, which separates it from other world religions. He argues, in his own words, that the total submission doctrine, embedded firmly in Islam, guides the individual's behavior, from a simple spiritual framework, into a socio-political and ideological mandate. Because of this, the individual is duty bound, to exercise his religion at the political level.
Putting aside this point for a moment, just what are the forces pressuring us all?
The Battle Lines of the Culture WarThere is a culture war. It is being waged on several fronts.
The Intolerant Secular Front
We have had a slow but steady increase in hostility against world religions, by progressives who have convinced themselves that religion, in general, is bad for humanity. They manifest their fears and activism in organizations like the ACLU, which routinely defends terrorists, while suing Boy Scouts. Accusing all religions of being evil, is a simple view, with a simplistic conclusion. It is also ironic that many of the people, so intolerant of religion, are the first to lecture everyone else on being diverse and tolerant of general cultural differences, in a superficial fashionable way.
Artists get into the act, by pushing buttons they know will detonate the emotional ire of their targets, in the name of free speech. Andres Sarrano immersed a crucifix in urine, and Chris Ofili defamed the Virgin Mary, with cow dung. The protests against these expressions were angry, but peaceful. Christian mobs did not burn museums to the ground and murder their patrons, like the cartoon Muslims, or the Muslims who vented homicidal rage over the fake Michael Isikoff Koran flushing story, published in Newsweek.
There are vocal individuals who feel that historical religious references, found in the halls of government or printed on money and government documents, are just arbitrary vehicles for religion to proselytize to the masses. Michael Newdow is an example of someone with one of these modern skin conditions, which bruises at the very thought of God. Personally, I think people like this are just media thrill seekers.
There is one sure way to breed anger in religious people. Tell them they are delusional. Tell them you wish to destroy their religion, for their own good, because you are convinced, through your own intellectual superiority, God does not exist.
The Moral Daisy Cutter
Sex and violence sell. They sell so well that the electronic and media driven institutions, that have made sex and violence big business, have slowly edged the bar of intensity up and over, to stimulate the profit margins to their limits. The appetites have followed suit. Modern media technologies, such as satellite, television and internet, provide a transmission medium, to feed this garbage into repressive nations. For decades, people in these nations, unfortunately, have used religious institutions as tools to express their anger over our open society, by portraying our society as morally bankrupt.
In my opinion, as angry as people may become, over the material we see in our marketplace, they always have the tools of that marketplace, and egregious obscenity legislation to punish the purveyors. Education is the key to moderate moral behavior, not restricting freedom of expression. Moral strength and freedom of expression have lived happily together in this country before. They still can.
There is one sure way to breed anger in religious people. Tell them they cannot make moral decisions for their own families. Tell them they have no right to know when their daughter is getting an abortion. Tell them that their children will be immersed in government mandated, homosexuality awareness classes, without their knowledge or consent.
There is one sure way to breed anger in all free people. Tell them the problems above, will be solved by forcing everyone into the submissive, first millennium retrograde religious repression of Islam.
The Intolerant Fanatic Front
Extremism is the ideological tool of the intellectually uninspired. Extremist behavior is not rational; it is emotional. When abortion protesters bombed clinics, they damaged their cause to save lives, by taking life.When local officials turned fire hoses on peaceful civil rights demonstrators, they proved, with imagery, they were taking away those civil rights. When environmentalists burned SUV dealerships, polluting the news with all that smoke, they defined themselves as environmentalist whackos. Extremism always gives your enemy a piece of evidence, to break your credibility in the arena of public relations.
Now we have Islamic extremists, murdering people and burning embassies over cartoon images. Even the abortion bombers and environmentalists did not have a goal orientation this petty and foolish. In free nations, where there is freedom to communicate, you can never win enough ideological points, to turn the public your way, through acts of violence, unless that public is weak minded, willing to be cowed by terror. This means you, Spain.
There is one sure way to breed anger in all free people. Tell them that their expression of free speech will soon be answered, with the bloody, explosive intolerance of a fanatic.
There is one sure way to breed fanaticism. Cower before it, then refuse to answer it with swift justice.
Ideology ~ Religion?
There is no doubt that we have seen other world religions, used historically, in an ideological and socio-political context, as the Roman emperor Constantine did, late in the age of the empire.
In deference to Mr. Shackleford, and the current theatre of our culture war, does the structure and language of Islam itself, not merely the actions and political power brokerage of specific individuals, facilitate the behavior we are seeing frequently now?
Given the current landscape of Islamic governments, over a millennia of stagnation, Muslim on Muslim violence and the frustrating apathy of Muslim bystanders, these are definite points to ponder.Given the facts, there is one sure way to piss off Insolublog. First, the NYT saying that defamation of a Christian crucifix, is a free expression of art. Next, the NYT accuses Christians, protesting the Broadway play 'Corpus Christi', of being homophobic bigots. Now, the NYT tells the free world that the defamation of Muslims with cartoons is a gratuitous assault on religious symbols.
Friday, February 03, 2006
I am talking about Julia Day's piece,US media at 'all-time low' Thursday February 2, 2006.
Arabic-language media have an unprecedented chance to take over as the world's premier news source because trust in their US counterparts plummeted following their "shameful coverage" of the war in Iraq, a conference heard today.
The US media reached an "all-time low" in failing to reflect public opinion and Americans' desire for trusted information, instead acting as a "cheerleader" for war, said Amy Goodman, the executive producer and host of US TV and radio news show Democracy Now!, at a news forum organized by al-Jazeera.
First, we need to bring out the Star Trek universal translator out, and run it through some of this language. "world's premier news source" becomes "America bashing propaganda engine". One thing Julia and I agree on is the US media is at an all time low, for failing to reflect public opinion and American's desire for trusted information. Given all the Dan Rathers, Pinch Sulzbergers, Jason Blairs, Judy Millers and Julia Days... Yes, we are definitely exhausted. We are exhausted by liars, propagandists and left wing demagogues.
Newsweek's Paris bureau chief, Christopher Dickey, said the US media were dying because of cutbacks and weren't interested in covering the world outside America.
That is the beauty of free markets. When they forget who pays to keep their lights on, they lose their shirts.
"The US media have done a shameful job of reporting on the Arab world. With the rise of al-Jazeera and independent media there is a chance for the Arab media to react back, but instead what we get is a clash," said Ethan Zuckerman, the co-founder of Global Voices Online and research fellow at the Berkman Centre for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School.
'Global Voices Online'. Dear God, Ethan must have come from the John Kerry school of international group hugs. Notice the language. 'React back' means, answer the obvious 'lies' of the US media, with some of that blessed, holy, sanctified fourteen carat Al Jazeera manna from heaven.
"I would urge everyone involved with new Arabic media not just to report on this [Arabic] world more fairly and accurately, but to report on the whole world more fairly and accurately. I challenge al-Jazeera and the new Arabic media players to do a better job that the US in covering the rest of the world," he said.
This is amazing. Here we are, in total agreement, once again. He's right. They should be focusing on all the wonderful work being done by our military and civilian contractors, to wipe out religious savages and bring civilization back to honest people.
Ms Goodman said in the run-up to the Iraq war a study of NBC, CBS, ABC and PBS newscasts over a fortnight recorded 393 interviews on the conflict, of which only three reported the anti-war movement.
This is because the anti-war movement doesn't even add up to a bowel movement.
"This is a media cheerleading for war and does not represent mainstream opinion in the US," she added.
I love this part. Julia and Ms Goodman are strolling down Harvard Square, on their way to have lunch with Ethan Zuckerman. They stop everyone, with a crumpled paper cup or a dirt ringed mouth ,wrapped around a steaming bong, then ask what they think of the US war in Iraq. Whammo! Mainstream public opinion is secure for the next issue of the Guardian.
Ms Goodman said she believed the policy of embedding reporters with coalition forces was "a total failure for independent journalism ... western audiences need to see the other side of the story - from communities and hospitals".
Boy, Ms. Goodman is doing well, here. I would love to see more of these journalists go 'independent'. There are just not enough of these ripe grapes in the open field, ready to be picked by savage headhunting religious fascists.
"If people in the US had a true picture of war - dead babies, women with their legs blown off, dead and dying soldiers - they would say 'no'," she said.
People had a true picture of these. Saddam provided them in the form of mass graves and human Kuwaiti rubble. Ms Goodman pulls out the good ol' standby: "Think of the children."
She meant the ones Bush killed, not the ones religiously euthanized by her oppressed, misunderstood eastern brothers.
"There is nothing more important than the media - it is more powerful than any bomb or missile and we have to take it back ... we need a media that is independent and honestly showing us the images, the hell, ugliness and brutality of war, not selling us war."
If a nuclear bomb goes off in the US, because we said 'no' to Iran, and both Julia and Goodman still have this new age Kumbaya drool, swinging at the corner of their mouths, They would be advised not to show themselves on any American public street. Scratch that. Shout it out ladies!
Mr Dickey, the Middle East regional editor and Paris bureau chief at Newsweek magazine, said US media were "dying".We are all just waiting, looking at our watches, jiggling our legs in anticipation for that final death seizure. When Newsweek closes its doors:
"I didn't attend his funeral, but I sent a letter approving of it."
"After 25 years as a foreign correspondent I know what the US wants from the rest of the world: to forget about it."
Bingo! Of course, it's still ok if they buy our $hit, at a suitable premium, reflecting our hardship at having to listen to their's.
"There's this idea that the US media is controlling the agenda. In fact the US media is dying. Resources, money and staff are being cut back. Twenty years ago Newsweek had 25 staff in Paris, today it has one: me," said Mr Dickey.
Hey. Wait a minute. You guys represent the 'main stream' public view. Why don't you ask them for some resources? Maybe they open up that crumpled paper cup. You know, give you the money they were going to use for their 'next score'.
He added that the gap between what the US and Arabic media reports was widening. With American reports being "all about victory and the Arabic being all about victims".
Which, of course, in Mr. Dickey's neighborhood of make believe, makes the US the evil party.
However, concerns were aired at today's conference about the ability of the Arabic media to operate independently.
Lawrence Pintak, a director of the Adham Centre for Electronic Journalism and a former CBS foreign correspondent, urged delegates against thinking that Arabic media were allowed the freedoms to which western journalists were accustomed.
"I am concerned that someone from the US or Europe who doesn't know the Arabic world will think that all is goodness and light when we know that is not the case," he said, citing the beating of journalists during the Egyptian elections and the detention of journalists in Yemen and Morocco.
This is where our intellectual Guardians and CBS foreign Gestapo install the spring-loaded trap door. You know, if the Arabic media start getting uppity, and reporting any news, which might not fit the Guardian's acceptable Michael MooreBot protocol, they can come back later and express their 'concerns'.
"We might as well buy a new channel in the US," Mahmud Shammam, the bureau chief for the Dar Al Watan newspaper and Newsweek Arabic.
"[Al-Jazeera International] will not have Arabic characteristics and that's a big challenge."
Yes, it will be a major challenge to sell the efficacy of copulating with members of the order Artiodactyla, wearing urine soaked nightshirts and routinely beating wives and daughters. I suggest they target France first. There is a population already poised to understand at least two of these characteristics.
Hugh Miles, a journalist and United Nations media consultant, said al-Jazeera was massively popular in north Africa but because conspiracy theories about its agenda were rife, the new English-language channel would be watched very carefully.
"If al-Jazeera International is perceived to be biased or insensitive to Islam - on the Danish cartoon issues for example - there will be a loss of faith in the al-Jazeera brand," he said.
So, in other words, if the newspeak isn't popular, the 'main stream' Arab will treat it just like the US citizen is treating the international media. Here is where the true schizophrenia shows. We see all this sympathy for the poor, insulted people of Islam. If these were cartoons rendering Christianity or Judaism in a derogatory light, Hugh Miles, journalist and United Nations media consultant, would probably be waiving the banners of free speech, citing the ACLU and calling for liberty unchained.
"The Arabic service has done a tremendous job in establishing al-Jazeera as a trusted name. It would be a terrible shame to see that image jeopardised."
If they want a good example of jeopardizing their own image, just keep pumping false crap out, calling it news and shooing away their detractors. That is how CNN fell behind Fox.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Thank Lyn, over at Bloggin' out Loud, for sponsoring this contest.
Lot's of my sidebar friends are also in the running. This is, no doubt, a testimonial to their wonderful blogging arts. So, vote away!