news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_on_re_us/sarkozy_stormy_interview_6
If only the French people had some hint that Sarkozy would be a horrible President...oh wait...
Maybe they should have voted for a competent candidate, like Royal, instead of voting for Bush Jr.
I think someone should investigate whether Sarkozy hid his marital difficulties in order to win the election.
It's pretty bad when the guy's wife can't even stand him.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1677120,00.html
Wow, yet another reason to hate the Rockies. Now I'm even more happy to see them get their asses kicked by the Red Sox. So much for fate, or destiny, or whatever arrogant bull crap they were saying before the World Series.
"I don't want to offend anyone," Rockies chairman and CEO Charlie Monfort said at the time,
No, heaven forbid they offend someone. Just ignore everything that comes after this and be assured that he doesn't mean to offend anyone.
"but I think character-wise we're stronger than anyone in baseball. Christians, and what they've endured, are some of the strongest people in baseball.
Never have I seen a group so privileged whine so much in my life. You'd think they were being persecuted at every turn, denied jobs and public services, constantly worrying about being found out and murdered instead of being the people singling out others for that kind of treatment.
I believe God sends signs; we're seeing those."
I think if God were to suddenly take an interest in baseball he'd pick a better team than the Rockies. Give the guy some credit.
"The Lord gives you everything you have," says center fielder Willy Taveras, who counts himself among the faithful, "and makes it possible to play this beautiful game."
So I guess you spent all those nights in school wolfing down cheetos and not working hard at all, huh Willy? Success in baseball, or in anything, requires significant personal sacrifice and hard work, don't sell yourself short.
the Rockies stand out for openly touting Christian values — as they define it, strong character and a moral compass
Because of course in asshole land, nobody ever did anything moral or right before Christians came along. Those are human values, they weren't invented by the Church, if they were you could be sure they'd find a way to make you pay for them.
God is "using [The Rockies] in a powerful way."
Evidently whatever he was using them for must have ended because damn did they get bitch slapped by the Sox.
In 2005 and 2006, the Rockies had a "Christian Family Day" at Coors Field.
If that doesn't say "non-Christians we don't want your money", I don't know what does...maybe working in a building called Coors Field?
This season the Rockies renamed the promotion "Faith Day," though there weren't many rabbis or imams at the park.
Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of people in Denver who don't feel the need to spend their entire life believing in something that may or may not even exist at all. Their "Faith Day" isn't exactly fair to the "bright" community.
"To do that to appease other religions is hypocritical to say the least," says McHendry, who helped organize the event. "It was truly a Christian day."
Yes, it was hypocritical, though I'm sure the good Reverend is just suggesting they should be upfront and say right away that they hate all non-Christians.
"Nobody seems to complain when Tiger Woods promotes economic sponsorship by wearing the Nike swoosh on this shirt," says Price.
Yes, and even after the United Zealots of Nike waged their Grand Inquisition against the Holy Reebok Empire. They were really good sports about that whole thing. Business is not religion and vice versa. I don't recall wars being waged based on product loyalty. Also, is he really suggesting that the Christian religion actively sponsors the Colorado Rockies?
"What's the difference with promoting religious affiliation? Isn't that more wholesome?"
Not when you consider how many people have died because of this "wholesome" affiliation.
Wow, yet another reason to hate the Rockies. Now I'm even more happy to see them get their asses kicked by the Red Sox. So much for fate, or destiny, or whatever arrogant bull crap they were saying before the World Series.
"I don't want to offend anyone," Rockies chairman and CEO Charlie Monfort said at the time,
No, heaven forbid they offend someone. Just ignore everything that comes after this and be assured that he doesn't mean to offend anyone.
"but I think character-wise we're stronger than anyone in baseball. Christians, and what they've endured, are some of the strongest people in baseball.
Never have I seen a group so privileged whine so much in my life. You'd think they were being persecuted at every turn, denied jobs and public services, constantly worrying about being found out and murdered instead of being the people singling out others for that kind of treatment.
I believe God sends signs; we're seeing those."
I think if God were to suddenly take an interest in baseball he'd pick a better team than the Rockies. Give the guy some credit.
"The Lord gives you everything you have," says center fielder Willy Taveras, who counts himself among the faithful, "and makes it possible to play this beautiful game."
So I guess you spent all those nights in school wolfing down cheetos and not working hard at all, huh Willy? Success in baseball, or in anything, requires significant personal sacrifice and hard work, don't sell yourself short.
the Rockies stand out for openly touting Christian values — as they define it, strong character and a moral compass
Because of course in asshole land, nobody ever did anything moral or right before Christians came along. Those are human values, they weren't invented by the Church, if they were you could be sure they'd find a way to make you pay for them.
God is "using [The Rockies] in a powerful way."
Evidently whatever he was using them for must have ended because damn did they get bitch slapped by the Sox.
In 2005 and 2006, the Rockies had a "Christian Family Day" at Coors Field.
If that doesn't say "non-Christians we don't want your money", I don't know what does...maybe working in a building called Coors Field?
This season the Rockies renamed the promotion "Faith Day," though there weren't many rabbis or imams at the park.
Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of people in Denver who don't feel the need to spend their entire life believing in something that may or may not even exist at all. Their "Faith Day" isn't exactly fair to the "bright" community.
"To do that to appease other religions is hypocritical to say the least," says McHendry, who helped organize the event. "It was truly a Christian day."
Yes, it was hypocritical, though I'm sure the good Reverend is just suggesting they should be upfront and say right away that they hate all non-Christians.
"Nobody seems to complain when Tiger Woods promotes economic sponsorship by wearing the Nike swoosh on this shirt," says Price.
Yes, and even after the United Zealots of Nike waged their Grand Inquisition against the Holy Reebok Empire. They were really good sports about that whole thing. Business is not religion and vice versa. I don't recall wars being waged based on product loyalty. Also, is he really suggesting that the Christian religion actively sponsors the Colorado Rockies?
"What's the difference with promoting religious affiliation? Isn't that more wholesome?"
Not when you consider how many people have died because of this "wholesome" affiliation.
Rupert Murdoch wants to take over the world...
downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/10/clear-channel-republican...
Clear evidence of why media consolidation is a bad idea.
Clear evidence of why media consolidation is a bad idea.
If They Wanted Human Rights They Shouldn't Have Been Born in Pakistan...
www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/world/asia/04pakistan.html
And this is our ally. I guess we really don't care as much about human rights as we pretend. It seems when we pick an ally we just choose whoever is willing to do whatever we want regardless of the peoples' opinions. Now obviously our government is protesting this but we're not going to go as far as withdrawing support over it, I can guarantee you that.
And this is our ally. I guess we really don't care as much about human rights as we pretend. It seems when we pick an ally we just choose whoever is willing to do whatever we want regardless of the peoples' opinions. Now obviously our government is protesting this but we're not going to go as far as withdrawing support over it, I can guarantee you that.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Stupid...
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/...
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard...really really dumb...so dumb I'm not entirely convinced it's real and not a parody.
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard...really really dumb...so dumb I'm not entirely convinced it's real and not a parody.
Monday, August 13, 2007
The McCain Campaign is Officially on Life Support...
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070813/ap_on_el_pr/mccain...
Somehow I doubt he would be saying this if he wasn't completely embarrassed by the results.
Somehow I doubt he would be saying this if he wasn't completely embarrassed by the results.
Bush's Brain Leaves the White House...
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070813/ap_on_go_pr_wh/rove...
Wow, I must say this was a surprise. I'm really curious what must have happened to lead Rove to quit. There must be something big we don't know about yet.
Wow, I must say this was a surprise. I'm really curious what must have happened to lead Rove to quit. There must be something big we don't know about yet.
Friday, August 10, 2007
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1649312,00.html
Perhaps the overwhelming support for the war among Americans has something to do with the fact that all the major newspapers and news networks came out in complete support of the war (and many haven't changed their line even now). Americans had come to trust our news media (based on the fact that the media actually used to be trustworthy). Most Americans didn't realize that the reporters they went to for their news knew nothing about what they were reporting on or were in the employ of the very people trying to trick them. Now that Americans are coming to realize that the media is full of shit, the numbers in support of the war have gone down. Make no mistake though, just because Americans were fooled by a duplicitous and willfully ignorant media doesn't mean they have anything to apologize for.
even though it is more responsible than any pundit for U.S. policy in Iraq.
This is bullshit. The government has not listened to the actual desires of the people for a very long time. They would have gone to war with Iraq even if the approval numbers were in the low 20s.
This is not all the fault of the pundits or of "Washington" or of politicians. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq was scandalously unilateral, but it did in fact have the support of most American citizens, which surely egged him on.
I think the author has a problem with cause and effect. Bush was going to go into Iraq whether the American people wanted it or not (which is illustrated by the fact that he's not going to leave Iraq no matter how much the American people want him to). They manufactured support for the war in much the same way toy companies manufacture demand for their products by advertising during children's programming. They bombarded us with positive reporting about the war while completely ignoring and ostracizing those who said we shouldn't go to war. It's no wonder the support was there, there wasn't a single dissenting voice anywhere to be found in the media.
The ensuing disaster is partly the fault of those Americans who told pollsters back in 2002 and 2003 that they supported Bush's war and then in 2004 voted to re-elect him, which he took, quite reasonably, as an endorsement of his policies.
Blaming the victim is a common tactic of the victimizer. The American public was brow-beaten into supporting the war by non-stop pro-war coverage. The American public was deceived into voting for Bush by constant jabs in the media at John Kerry. To suggest otherwise is to diminish the significant effort that was put into creating this result by the media and the Republican Party.
Millions of Americans now apparently regret those opinions.
Because there's finally a voice, albeit quiet, telling them the truth about the war.
But unlike the politicians and the pundits, they do not face pressure to recant or apologize. American democracy might be stronger if they did.
Try as they may to shift blame upon the citizenry, the media will carry the blame for this 'til the end of time. They can't push that blame onto anyone else.
Perhaps the overwhelming support for the war among Americans has something to do with the fact that all the major newspapers and news networks came out in complete support of the war (and many haven't changed their line even now). Americans had come to trust our news media (based on the fact that the media actually used to be trustworthy). Most Americans didn't realize that the reporters they went to for their news knew nothing about what they were reporting on or were in the employ of the very people trying to trick them. Now that Americans are coming to realize that the media is full of shit, the numbers in support of the war have gone down. Make no mistake though, just because Americans were fooled by a duplicitous and willfully ignorant media doesn't mean they have anything to apologize for.
even though it is more responsible than any pundit for U.S. policy in Iraq.
This is bullshit. The government has not listened to the actual desires of the people for a very long time. They would have gone to war with Iraq even if the approval numbers were in the low 20s.
This is not all the fault of the pundits or of "Washington" or of politicians. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq was scandalously unilateral, but it did in fact have the support of most American citizens, which surely egged him on.
I think the author has a problem with cause and effect. Bush was going to go into Iraq whether the American people wanted it or not (which is illustrated by the fact that he's not going to leave Iraq no matter how much the American people want him to). They manufactured support for the war in much the same way toy companies manufacture demand for their products by advertising during children's programming. They bombarded us with positive reporting about the war while completely ignoring and ostracizing those who said we shouldn't go to war. It's no wonder the support was there, there wasn't a single dissenting voice anywhere to be found in the media.
The ensuing disaster is partly the fault of those Americans who told pollsters back in 2002 and 2003 that they supported Bush's war and then in 2004 voted to re-elect him, which he took, quite reasonably, as an endorsement of his policies.
Blaming the victim is a common tactic of the victimizer. The American public was brow-beaten into supporting the war by non-stop pro-war coverage. The American public was deceived into voting for Bush by constant jabs in the media at John Kerry. To suggest otherwise is to diminish the significant effort that was put into creating this result by the media and the Republican Party.
Millions of Americans now apparently regret those opinions.
Because there's finally a voice, albeit quiet, telling them the truth about the war.
But unlike the politicians and the pundits, they do not face pressure to recant or apologize. American democracy might be stronger if they did.
Try as they may to shift blame upon the citizenry, the media will carry the blame for this 'til the end of time. They can't push that blame onto anyone else.
Are you serious?...
www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/stu_bykofsky/20070809...
Wow, and they say Democrats want the terrorists to win.
The problem with this is that Americans won't come together. They will fall behind Bush just like they did after 9/11 because they're scared out of their minds. Which, I think, is what the author actually wants.
Another 9/11 will not trigger a great rush by both sides towards each other meeting nicely in the middle. It will involve the Republicans blaming everything on the Democrats, the Democrats being demonized in the media and the abolishment of the Constitution.
Forget about the '08 election, we'll be lucky if we ever see another election ever again. Bush will declare, much as Rudy Guiliani did after 9/11, that things are just too volatile for an election and will proclaim that out of the kindness of his heart he will stay on just a little bit longer to lead America through this trouble. Unlike Rudy, Bush will conveniently forget to reschedule the election.
It is not Bush and it is not Hillary and it is not Daily Kos or Bill O'Reilly or Giuliani or Barack. It is global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children.
Funny, because Hillary and Obama will definitely be labeled the enemy if we are ever attacked again. Daily Kos will most likely disappear into some sort of American Gulag.
Most Americans today believe Iraq was a mistake. Why?
Maybe because it was?
Not because Americans are "anti-war."
No, we're not anti well thought out and executed war.
Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog.
Untrue, we'd be quite happy to support a war if we actually thought it was a good war and was going to accomplish something. Trying to blame Americans for this by claiming that we're fickle and impatient is stupid.
Americans loved the 1991 Gulf War. It raged for just 100 hours when George H.W. Bush ended it with a declaration of victory. He sent a half-million troops into harm's way and we suffered fewer than 300 deaths.
Americans "loved" the first Iraq War because the media sold it to us non-stop while all dissenting voices were silenced (sound familiar?) and it was over before we could really think about it.
Only someone who's never served in the military, or loved someone who has, can call fewer than 300 deaths a good thing.
America likes wars shorter than the World Series.
America likes wars that are actually fought for good reasons and accomplish something other than bringing down our entire country.
Bush I did everything right, Bush II did everything wrong - but he did it with the backing of Congress.
Only because they were threatened and lied to every step of the way. This war belongs entirely to Bush and those, like the author, who were such ardent cheerleaders in the run up to the war.
Remember the community of outrage and national resolve? America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy - 12/7/41.
We knew who the enemy was then.
We knew who the enemy was shortly after 9/11.
Yeah, judging by the media coverage the enemy after 9/11 were the Democrats. We didn't come together quite as much as we completely fell over the cliff and begged Bush to destroy our country so we could feel safe again. That we recovered doesn't mean we can't easily fall off again.
Because we have mislaid 9/11, we have endless sideshow squabbles about whether the surge is working,
Oh yes, who cares whether our soldiers are being launched at a brick wall when we can stare lovingly at our personal picture of President Bush?
if we are "safer" now,
Perish the thought. Who cares if our 6 year "war on terror" has actually accomplished something. Why, that might illustrate that Bush has been an absolute failure.
whether the FBI should listen in on foreign phone calls,
To hell with civil liberties.
whether cops should detain odd-acting "flying imams,"
How dare they fly while muslim?
What would sew us back together?
Another 9/11 attack.
Would the author volunteer to be a victim of this attack because I know I won't. He seems to forget that people die in these sorts of attacks, or maybe he didn't forget.
If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.
Yes, let's have another Reichstag fire...uh...I mean 9/11 so we can all rally behind our glorious leader with his manly codpiece and drink the blood of our enemies. To hell with Democracy when we can have a dictatorship.
The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever.
The first 9/11 proved that.
Again, the unity we felt after 9/11 had nothing to do with genuinely warm feelings for our fellow Americans (Republicans aren't exactly full of love for New York City and Northern Virginia which are both highly liberal areas). It had everything to do with taking a huge rightward turn while the country cowered and essentially gave Bush unlimited powers to do whatever he wanted. It was a unity where most Americans forgot that Bush was an idiot and allowed him to run amok like a bull in a chinashop.
That America eventually regained its composure only proves that Americans are not as dumb as some people (like Stu) think.
Wow, and they say Democrats want the terrorists to win.
The problem with this is that Americans won't come together. They will fall behind Bush just like they did after 9/11 because they're scared out of their minds. Which, I think, is what the author actually wants.
Another 9/11 will not trigger a great rush by both sides towards each other meeting nicely in the middle. It will involve the Republicans blaming everything on the Democrats, the Democrats being demonized in the media and the abolishment of the Constitution.
Forget about the '08 election, we'll be lucky if we ever see another election ever again. Bush will declare, much as Rudy Guiliani did after 9/11, that things are just too volatile for an election and will proclaim that out of the kindness of his heart he will stay on just a little bit longer to lead America through this trouble. Unlike Rudy, Bush will conveniently forget to reschedule the election.
It is not Bush and it is not Hillary and it is not Daily Kos or Bill O'Reilly or Giuliani or Barack. It is global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children.
Funny, because Hillary and Obama will definitely be labeled the enemy if we are ever attacked again. Daily Kos will most likely disappear into some sort of American Gulag.
Most Americans today believe Iraq was a mistake. Why?
Maybe because it was?
Not because Americans are "anti-war."
No, we're not anti well thought out and executed war.
Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog.
Untrue, we'd be quite happy to support a war if we actually thought it was a good war and was going to accomplish something. Trying to blame Americans for this by claiming that we're fickle and impatient is stupid.
Americans loved the 1991 Gulf War. It raged for just 100 hours when George H.W. Bush ended it with a declaration of victory. He sent a half-million troops into harm's way and we suffered fewer than 300 deaths.
Americans "loved" the first Iraq War because the media sold it to us non-stop while all dissenting voices were silenced (sound familiar?) and it was over before we could really think about it.
Only someone who's never served in the military, or loved someone who has, can call fewer than 300 deaths a good thing.
America likes wars shorter than the World Series.
America likes wars that are actually fought for good reasons and accomplish something other than bringing down our entire country.
Bush I did everything right, Bush II did everything wrong - but he did it with the backing of Congress.
Only because they were threatened and lied to every step of the way. This war belongs entirely to Bush and those, like the author, who were such ardent cheerleaders in the run up to the war.
Remember the community of outrage and national resolve? America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy - 12/7/41.
We knew who the enemy was then.
We knew who the enemy was shortly after 9/11.
Yeah, judging by the media coverage the enemy after 9/11 were the Democrats. We didn't come together quite as much as we completely fell over the cliff and begged Bush to destroy our country so we could feel safe again. That we recovered doesn't mean we can't easily fall off again.
Because we have mislaid 9/11, we have endless sideshow squabbles about whether the surge is working,
Oh yes, who cares whether our soldiers are being launched at a brick wall when we can stare lovingly at our personal picture of President Bush?
if we are "safer" now,
Perish the thought. Who cares if our 6 year "war on terror" has actually accomplished something. Why, that might illustrate that Bush has been an absolute failure.
whether the FBI should listen in on foreign phone calls,
To hell with civil liberties.
whether cops should detain odd-acting "flying imams,"
How dare they fly while muslim?
What would sew us back together?
Another 9/11 attack.
Would the author volunteer to be a victim of this attack because I know I won't. He seems to forget that people die in these sorts of attacks, or maybe he didn't forget.
If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.
Yes, let's have another Reichstag fire...uh...I mean 9/11 so we can all rally behind our glorious leader with his manly codpiece and drink the blood of our enemies. To hell with Democracy when we can have a dictatorship.
The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever.
The first 9/11 proved that.
Again, the unity we felt after 9/11 had nothing to do with genuinely warm feelings for our fellow Americans (Republicans aren't exactly full of love for New York City and Northern Virginia which are both highly liberal areas). It had everything to do with taking a huge rightward turn while the country cowered and essentially gave Bush unlimited powers to do whatever he wanted. It was a unity where most Americans forgot that Bush was an idiot and allowed him to run amok like a bull in a chinashop.
That America eventually regained its composure only proves that Americans are not as dumb as some people (like Stu) think.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
What?...
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1642885,00.html
This is news? This is something that Time magazine takes the time to post on its website? This stupid ignorant crap?
First off, who the hell cares what some right-wing Christian thinks about Children's books? What are his credentials that quality him to engage in literary criticism?
Joanne Rowling has three fancy houses and more money than the Queen, but she still doesn't have a middle name: the K. is just an empty invention, added for effect when she published her first book.
Oh no, she changed her name to make it flow better, how can we trust her with our children?
In The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien fused his ardent Catholicism with a deep, nostalgic love for the unspoiled English landscape.
And introduced us to an entire race of "witches" with magical powers and eternal life. Make no mistake, right-wing Christians would have the same problems with LoTR that they have with Harry Potter.
What's missing? If you want to know who dies in Harry Potter, the answer is easy: God.
Well how dare she? doesn't she know that all fantasy authors are required to place at least one "God" character in their books? What will happen to the children if they aren't bombarded with thinly-veiled religious allegory in all areas of their lives?
Harry Potter lives in a world free of any religion or spirituality of any kind.
This is a bad thing?
He lives surrounded by ghosts but has no one to pray to, even if he were so inclined, which he isn't.
And yet somehow, with the help of his friends, he manages to do a pretty good job of defeating the demons that haunt him. There might be a lesson in there somewhere.
Rowling has more in common with celebrity atheists like Christopher Hitchens than she has with Tolkien and Lewis.
Because, of course, the lack of a stifling religious message is the only compelling lesson to be taken from the book (as opposed to the strong message of the books which is one of friendship and love). Christopher Hitchens is not a fantasy writer (in fact, I'd say Christian writers seem to drift far more towards fantasy while atheists primarily stick to science and logic, but that's another rant).
This charming notion represents a cultural sea change.
Only for people who demand Christianity be represented in every place in public so they can ignore that nagging little voice at the back of their mind telling them it's all a bit stupid.
When the end comes, where will it leave Harry? He'll face tougher choices than his fantasy ancestors did. Frodo was last seen skipping town with the elves. Lewis sent the Pevensie kids to the paradise of Aslan's Land. It's unlikely that such a comfortable retirement awaits Harry in the Deathly Hallows.
Easily the stupidest thing I've ever heard. For one thing, last time I checked Harry Potter is still a fictional character. Second, just because the books don't end with some Deus ex Machina "happy" ending, doesn't mean Harry doesn't have a happy life (though I haven't read the books yet so I don't know for sure). One doesn't need an overbearing God to be happy in their life.
This is news? This is something that Time magazine takes the time to post on its website? This stupid ignorant crap?
First off, who the hell cares what some right-wing Christian thinks about Children's books? What are his credentials that quality him to engage in literary criticism?
Joanne Rowling has three fancy houses and more money than the Queen, but she still doesn't have a middle name: the K. is just an empty invention, added for effect when she published her first book.
Oh no, she changed her name to make it flow better, how can we trust her with our children?
In The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien fused his ardent Catholicism with a deep, nostalgic love for the unspoiled English landscape.
And introduced us to an entire race of "witches" with magical powers and eternal life. Make no mistake, right-wing Christians would have the same problems with LoTR that they have with Harry Potter.
What's missing? If you want to know who dies in Harry Potter, the answer is easy: God.
Well how dare she? doesn't she know that all fantasy authors are required to place at least one "God" character in their books? What will happen to the children if they aren't bombarded with thinly-veiled religious allegory in all areas of their lives?
Harry Potter lives in a world free of any religion or spirituality of any kind.
This is a bad thing?
He lives surrounded by ghosts but has no one to pray to, even if he were so inclined, which he isn't.
And yet somehow, with the help of his friends, he manages to do a pretty good job of defeating the demons that haunt him. There might be a lesson in there somewhere.
Rowling has more in common with celebrity atheists like Christopher Hitchens than she has with Tolkien and Lewis.
Because, of course, the lack of a stifling religious message is the only compelling lesson to be taken from the book (as opposed to the strong message of the books which is one of friendship and love). Christopher Hitchens is not a fantasy writer (in fact, I'd say Christian writers seem to drift far more towards fantasy while atheists primarily stick to science and logic, but that's another rant).
This charming notion represents a cultural sea change.
Only for people who demand Christianity be represented in every place in public so they can ignore that nagging little voice at the back of their mind telling them it's all a bit stupid.
When the end comes, where will it leave Harry? He'll face tougher choices than his fantasy ancestors did. Frodo was last seen skipping town with the elves. Lewis sent the Pevensie kids to the paradise of Aslan's Land. It's unlikely that such a comfortable retirement awaits Harry in the Deathly Hallows.
Easily the stupidest thing I've ever heard. For one thing, last time I checked Harry Potter is still a fictional character. Second, just because the books don't end with some Deus ex Machina "happy" ending, doesn't mean Harry doesn't have a happy life (though I haven't read the books yet so I don't know for sure). One doesn't need an overbearing God to be happy in their life.
Friday, June 22, 2007
More lawlessness from the Bush Administration...
www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/22/cheney.documents/
I swear to God, it's like the Bush Administration lives in an entirely different world. Have they never read the Constitution? Are they illiterate?
Imagine for just a second the shitstorm that would occur if anything they've done up to this point had been done by a Democrat: warrantless wiretapping in violation of federal law, torture of detainees, illegitimate preemptive war that subsequently turns into an inescapable quagmire worse than Vietnam, etc...
Sandy Berger was practically jailed for accidentally taking a few documents from the archives. Cheney doesn't even think he's required to submit to the archive system and, when someone points out that he's wrong he tries to have the department eliminated.
It's not even like this is the first time Cheney's done this. He doesn't want to submit to the traditional, and legally mandated, transparency with any of his office's actions. He didn't want to turn over the list of people he met with about the energy policy (mostly because the negotiations involved him asking the industry to write their own legislation), he didn't want to turn over the list of people who've visited his residence (even though he lives in a house owned by the American people), now he doesn't want to submit to rules governing the handling of classified information even though we're in the middle of a war.
What I really want to know though is this, and maybe some wacko right-winger will answer this for me: if Dick is not a part of the Executive branch, what branch is he part of? Is there some crazy secret fourth branch that the framers forgot to mention? Does his occasional role as tie-breaker in the Senate somehow make him a member of the Legislative branch even though that really is mostly a ceremonial role and is entirely reliant on his position as Vice President? (while his role as VP does not in any way rely on his Presidency in the Senate) More importantly, since this does actually appear to be his argument, if he's not a member of the Executive Branch, who is? If the guy who actually shared the ticket with the President, who is essentially just a President in waiting, isn't a member of the Executive how can you claim that anyone other than the President is? Or maybe that's their plan...next we'll be hearing that the Justice Dept. is actually part of the Judicial Branch (or maybe I should stop before I give them any ideas...)
This is the most secretive and ideological administration in the history of this great nation. It's literally scary to think of all the ways they've attempted to hide from scrutiny and exempt themselves from any sort of accountability. Clinton was impeached for receiving an oral favor from a consenting adult female. Bush has lied to Congress, he's lied to Americans about events that have cost thousands of American lives not to mention many more lives outside America, he's kidnapped American citizens and denied them basic judicial rights, he's wiretapped the phones of American citizens in violation of FISA, and that's just the beginning. Cheney's refused to disclose any information about how he does his job despite the very clear requirements for him to do so, he's also lied to Congress and the American people and is equally responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths directly linked to the administrations actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most seriously of all, both Bush and Cheney have willfully failed to capture Osama and appear to not even be trying to catch him. Bush admitted as much when he stated that he wasn't all that concerned about capturing Osama. Where are the articles of impeachment? Where is John Roberts in those absurd academic robes we were treated to when Clinton was impeached?
I swear to God, it's like the Bush Administration lives in an entirely different world. Have they never read the Constitution? Are they illiterate?
Imagine for just a second the shitstorm that would occur if anything they've done up to this point had been done by a Democrat: warrantless wiretapping in violation of federal law, torture of detainees, illegitimate preemptive war that subsequently turns into an inescapable quagmire worse than Vietnam, etc...
Sandy Berger was practically jailed for accidentally taking a few documents from the archives. Cheney doesn't even think he's required to submit to the archive system and, when someone points out that he's wrong he tries to have the department eliminated.
It's not even like this is the first time Cheney's done this. He doesn't want to submit to the traditional, and legally mandated, transparency with any of his office's actions. He didn't want to turn over the list of people he met with about the energy policy (mostly because the negotiations involved him asking the industry to write their own legislation), he didn't want to turn over the list of people who've visited his residence (even though he lives in a house owned by the American people), now he doesn't want to submit to rules governing the handling of classified information even though we're in the middle of a war.
What I really want to know though is this, and maybe some wacko right-winger will answer this for me: if Dick is not a part of the Executive branch, what branch is he part of? Is there some crazy secret fourth branch that the framers forgot to mention? Does his occasional role as tie-breaker in the Senate somehow make him a member of the Legislative branch even though that really is mostly a ceremonial role and is entirely reliant on his position as Vice President? (while his role as VP does not in any way rely on his Presidency in the Senate) More importantly, since this does actually appear to be his argument, if he's not a member of the Executive Branch, who is? If the guy who actually shared the ticket with the President, who is essentially just a President in waiting, isn't a member of the Executive how can you claim that anyone other than the President is? Or maybe that's their plan...next we'll be hearing that the Justice Dept. is actually part of the Judicial Branch (or maybe I should stop before I give them any ideas...)
This is the most secretive and ideological administration in the history of this great nation. It's literally scary to think of all the ways they've attempted to hide from scrutiny and exempt themselves from any sort of accountability. Clinton was impeached for receiving an oral favor from a consenting adult female. Bush has lied to Congress, he's lied to Americans about events that have cost thousands of American lives not to mention many more lives outside America, he's kidnapped American citizens and denied them basic judicial rights, he's wiretapped the phones of American citizens in violation of FISA, and that's just the beginning. Cheney's refused to disclose any information about how he does his job despite the very clear requirements for him to do so, he's also lied to Congress and the American people and is equally responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths directly linked to the administrations actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most seriously of all, both Bush and Cheney have willfully failed to capture Osama and appear to not even be trying to catch him. Bush admitted as much when he stated that he wasn't all that concerned about capturing Osama. Where are the articles of impeachment? Where is John Roberts in those absurd academic robes we were treated to when Clinton was impeached?
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Paging scientific method...scientific method to the front desk...
www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
I love how they trot out one "scientist" with an obviously limited understanding of scientific method, to try to claim that science and Christianity have anything in common (I guess this scientist has forgotten centuries of active oppression of science in Christian countries up to and including executions).
I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.
So you've run your "beliefs" through the scientific method and...oh wait...of course you haven't.
I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"
So he went and adopted the most unlikely explanation, completely devoid of reasonable scholarship and empirical proof.
Science is a hell of a lot better prepared to explain those things because it approaches them from a systematic and empirical direction instead of just coming up with something off the top of your head and declaring the discussion ended.
My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."
No more daring than Christianity (or any other religion) since faith is an assertion of a universal explanation of everything completely devoid of evidence and completely contrary to every one of the other belief systems in the world. In the absence of proof, the universal negative is the only position one can take from a scientific perspective. If you don't see a purple elephant, and nobody else can prove they've seen a purple elephant, than the true scientist must say that purple elephants do not exist subject to eventual further scientific discovery. This is not a true universal negative, since there is always room in science for further discovery, it is simply taking the obvious position in the face of no evidence to the contrary. Science could always prove or disprove God once and for all. Anything could happen. Until that time, the proper scientific position is to say it doesn't exist.
But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.
Reason can't prove the existence of God at all. Reason seeks absolute proof and faith is the opposite of absolute proof. It can be very interesting to listen to the voices in your head, but never forget that those voices are still in your head.
For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life,
There's remarkably strong historical evidence of my life (Did Jesus have a Social Security card or a driver's license? I do.) that doesn't make me the messiah.
who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor,
As did pretty much every religious prophet, preacher, guru, man on the street corner and even most non-theists.
and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing.
Not really. Plenty of people claim to be things they're not. We have places for them now, they're called insane asylums. The last guy we had who did that ended up burning down a building with his followers inside.
After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.
Translation: He got sick of being bombarded by obnoxious Christians in every arena of his life so he decided to drink the kool-aid and join the maddening throng.
The proper response to uncertainty is not to embrace the most unlikely explanation. It can be nice to completely abandon reason and just accept things on faith but it's not science.
Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?
Can a scientist believe in anything without subjecting it to the scientific method? I'm sure plenty a science masters student has wished he could defend his thesis by saying "Well, I can't prove my hypothesis, but I believe it with all my heart."
Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers.
Considering well over 90% of Americans believe in some sort of supernatural being, I'd say that number's not very impressive. Most of the 40% were probably educated at Liberty University or other such evangelical "colleges".
Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
Better not say that too loudly around the kool christian kids or they might just throw you out of the party.
I love how they trot out one "scientist" with an obviously limited understanding of scientific method, to try to claim that science and Christianity have anything in common (I guess this scientist has forgotten centuries of active oppression of science in Christian countries up to and including executions).
I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.
So you've run your "beliefs" through the scientific method and...oh wait...of course you haven't.
I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"
So he went and adopted the most unlikely explanation, completely devoid of reasonable scholarship and empirical proof.
Science is a hell of a lot better prepared to explain those things because it approaches them from a systematic and empirical direction instead of just coming up with something off the top of your head and declaring the discussion ended.
My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."
No more daring than Christianity (or any other religion) since faith is an assertion of a universal explanation of everything completely devoid of evidence and completely contrary to every one of the other belief systems in the world. In the absence of proof, the universal negative is the only position one can take from a scientific perspective. If you don't see a purple elephant, and nobody else can prove they've seen a purple elephant, than the true scientist must say that purple elephants do not exist subject to eventual further scientific discovery. This is not a true universal negative, since there is always room in science for further discovery, it is simply taking the obvious position in the face of no evidence to the contrary. Science could always prove or disprove God once and for all. Anything could happen. Until that time, the proper scientific position is to say it doesn't exist.
But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.
Reason can't prove the existence of God at all. Reason seeks absolute proof and faith is the opposite of absolute proof. It can be very interesting to listen to the voices in your head, but never forget that those voices are still in your head.
For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life,
There's remarkably strong historical evidence of my life (Did Jesus have a Social Security card or a driver's license? I do.) that doesn't make me the messiah.
who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor,
As did pretty much every religious prophet, preacher, guru, man on the street corner and even most non-theists.
and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing.
Not really. Plenty of people claim to be things they're not. We have places for them now, they're called insane asylums. The last guy we had who did that ended up burning down a building with his followers inside.
After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.
Translation: He got sick of being bombarded by obnoxious Christians in every arena of his life so he decided to drink the kool-aid and join the maddening throng.
The proper response to uncertainty is not to embrace the most unlikely explanation. It can be nice to completely abandon reason and just accept things on faith but it's not science.
Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?
Can a scientist believe in anything without subjecting it to the scientific method? I'm sure plenty a science masters student has wished he could defend his thesis by saying "Well, I can't prove my hypothesis, but I believe it with all my heart."
Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers.
Considering well over 90% of Americans believe in some sort of supernatural being, I'd say that number's not very impressive. Most of the 40% were probably educated at Liberty University or other such evangelical "colleges".
Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
Better not say that too loudly around the kool christian kids or they might just throw you out of the party.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Selective reasoning...
www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/22/navarrette/index.html
Sometimes I just have to imagine that Navarrette has a mini seizure every time he hears a Hispanic name/perceived insult to the Hispanic community and just completely loses all notion of reason.
Gonzales is certainly not the first person you would be building your case on when talking about perceived prejudice within the Democratic Party. Holding up Gonzales as a representative of the Hispanic community is a bit like holding up Condi Rice as the true bastion of the African American community (Condi is no Rosa Parks and Gonzales is certainly no Che).
The fact that Gonzales is the first Hispanic Attorney General also holds little sway with me, and I'd imagine with most Democrats other than Joe Lieberman.
an elite media that long opposed him
Now I'm no demagogue, so of course I have nothing on Navarrette, but I'd guess that this has more to do with him being the one who green lighted horrible torture at various US facilities and less to do with where his grandparents were born.
Leading this lynch mob are white liberals who resent Gonzales because they can't claim the credit for his life's accomplishments and because they can't get him to curtsy. Why should he? Gonzales doesn't owe them a damn thing.
Oh, of course, you dislike the Hispanic you must be a bigot. It can't possibly have anything to do with the aforementioned fascist tendencies and pro-torture policies that would make Jack Bauer blush. Liberals have hundreds of reasons to hate the guy without worrying about his heritage (he ok'd every single questionable Bush Administration policy as White House Council and after that earned him the big AG office, he continued to ok every asinine policy for his boss George. Then, when Dubya asked him to fire people just because they weren't political enough, he threw them in the fire with a fervor rarely seen. The guy's a train wreck from a liberal perspective).
Democratic politicians love posing with mariachis as they nibble chips and salsa on Cinco De Mayo. But it was a Republican -- George W. Bush -- who made history by nominating a Hispanic to serve as attorney general.
Here we go. What? Liberals aren't allowed to criticize a Hispanic, no matter how heinous his actions? Giving Dubya credit for nominating the first Hispanic AG is like giving him credit for nominating the first black (and woman) Secretary of State. I don't think either community was pushing very hard for those two to be the first anything.
Gonzales' persecutors are blind with rage, or maybe just blind. Surely they see that the push to dump the U.S. attorneys came from White House political adviser Karl Rove.
But, if Navarrette understood the hierarchy at all, he should realize that Karl Rove doesn't have the power to fire prosecutors (though you might expect the next Republican controlled Congress to change that). He needed someone with that power to throw the US Attorneys under the proverbial bus and Gonzales was more than willing to do it. The distinction between ruthless political operative and willing lackey is paper thin.
The attorney general does have one person in his corner. President Bush came out swinging Tuesday, insisting that Gonzales has his support and warning Democrats not to go on "a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."
Having GW Bush as your chief defender seems quite like having Screech as your tag team partner. Perhaps it looks like a good idea floating in your head but in the end it doesn't mean much.
I've interviewed Gonzales twice since he became attorney general. During the last interview, which took place three weeks ago in San Diego -- that is, before the controversy erupted -- I asked about the firings of the U.S. attorneys. He told me what he has told others: It was about performance.
And it's a well known fact that Mexican-Americans are genetically unable to lie to reporters so I just took him at his word.
An avid baseball fan, Gonzales even pitched an analogy. "What I care about is -- are we trading up?"
I'm sure Karl Rove's protege has years of great legal experience to bring to his job as US Attorney...or perhaps he's just good at making up charges against Dems in swing states.
As a political columnist, I cover liars for a living. And yet, I'd say Gonzales is pretty much as advertised by his old friend, President Bush: an honorable public servant.
And this brings us back to my initial point, I don't think Navarrette can be objective in a case like this. There is absolutely no reason to call Gonzales a "honorable public servant". He's a joke as Attorney General (Ashcroft literally looks better in comparison). He hasn't done a single good thing in his entire time in the position.
He comes across as a straight shooter.
People said the same thing about Dubya...and John McCain.
It may be that he made a whopper here in trusting his No. 2 not to hand over the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys to a political hack like Rove. But then, Gonzales' critics aren't after the truth. They're after him.
I'm sure he knew absolutely nothing about the source of these firings. Give me a break. At best he signed something he hadn't really read just to help his buddy Bush. At worst, and more likely, he knew exactly what he was doing and sacrificed his deputy in order to save his own worthless ass. So he's either a horrible manager (didn't he fire a few people for that?) or he's an overzealous political operative who will do anything for his Republican masters.
Well, if they succeed in running him off without a fair hearing, many Hispanics won't forget the shoddy treatment afforded this grandson of Mexican immigrants. You watch. Democrats will have to intensify their efforts to win Hispanic votes in the 2008 elections. And there's not that much chips and salsa on the planet.
Here we have Navarrette presuming to speak for the entire Hispanic community. I don't think too many liberal Hispanics are looking up to Gonzales as the pinnacle of their community and I don't think the conservatives are ever going to vote Democrat anyway.
If he gets run off without a "fair hearing", whatever that even means, it'll be more about the fact that Bush outright refuses to have any hearings at all and less to do with the desires of Dems. I'm sure most Dems would love to hold all the hearings Gonzales would like before he leaves office but he just might find himself in jail instead of just out of a job. Gonzales might not want to open that can of worms though because he's done far worse things than just firing some US Attorneys.
Sometimes I just have to imagine that Navarrette has a mini seizure every time he hears a Hispanic name/perceived insult to the Hispanic community and just completely loses all notion of reason.
Gonzales is certainly not the first person you would be building your case on when talking about perceived prejudice within the Democratic Party. Holding up Gonzales as a representative of the Hispanic community is a bit like holding up Condi Rice as the true bastion of the African American community (Condi is no Rosa Parks and Gonzales is certainly no Che).
The fact that Gonzales is the first Hispanic Attorney General also holds little sway with me, and I'd imagine with most Democrats other than Joe Lieberman.
an elite media that long opposed him
Now I'm no demagogue, so of course I have nothing on Navarrette, but I'd guess that this has more to do with him being the one who green lighted horrible torture at various US facilities and less to do with where his grandparents were born.
Leading this lynch mob are white liberals who resent Gonzales because they can't claim the credit for his life's accomplishments and because they can't get him to curtsy. Why should he? Gonzales doesn't owe them a damn thing.
Oh, of course, you dislike the Hispanic you must be a bigot. It can't possibly have anything to do with the aforementioned fascist tendencies and pro-torture policies that would make Jack Bauer blush. Liberals have hundreds of reasons to hate the guy without worrying about his heritage (he ok'd every single questionable Bush Administration policy as White House Council and after that earned him the big AG office, he continued to ok every asinine policy for his boss George. Then, when Dubya asked him to fire people just because they weren't political enough, he threw them in the fire with a fervor rarely seen. The guy's a train wreck from a liberal perspective).
Democratic politicians love posing with mariachis as they nibble chips and salsa on Cinco De Mayo. But it was a Republican -- George W. Bush -- who made history by nominating a Hispanic to serve as attorney general.
Here we go. What? Liberals aren't allowed to criticize a Hispanic, no matter how heinous his actions? Giving Dubya credit for nominating the first Hispanic AG is like giving him credit for nominating the first black (and woman) Secretary of State. I don't think either community was pushing very hard for those two to be the first anything.
Gonzales' persecutors are blind with rage, or maybe just blind. Surely they see that the push to dump the U.S. attorneys came from White House political adviser Karl Rove.
But, if Navarrette understood the hierarchy at all, he should realize that Karl Rove doesn't have the power to fire prosecutors (though you might expect the next Republican controlled Congress to change that). He needed someone with that power to throw the US Attorneys under the proverbial bus and Gonzales was more than willing to do it. The distinction between ruthless political operative and willing lackey is paper thin.
The attorney general does have one person in his corner. President Bush came out swinging Tuesday, insisting that Gonzales has his support and warning Democrats not to go on "a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."
Having GW Bush as your chief defender seems quite like having Screech as your tag team partner. Perhaps it looks like a good idea floating in your head but in the end it doesn't mean much.
I've interviewed Gonzales twice since he became attorney general. During the last interview, which took place three weeks ago in San Diego -- that is, before the controversy erupted -- I asked about the firings of the U.S. attorneys. He told me what he has told others: It was about performance.
And it's a well known fact that Mexican-Americans are genetically unable to lie to reporters so I just took him at his word.
An avid baseball fan, Gonzales even pitched an analogy. "What I care about is -- are we trading up?"
I'm sure Karl Rove's protege has years of great legal experience to bring to his job as US Attorney...or perhaps he's just good at making up charges against Dems in swing states.
As a political columnist, I cover liars for a living. And yet, I'd say Gonzales is pretty much as advertised by his old friend, President Bush: an honorable public servant.
And this brings us back to my initial point, I don't think Navarrette can be objective in a case like this. There is absolutely no reason to call Gonzales a "honorable public servant". He's a joke as Attorney General (Ashcroft literally looks better in comparison). He hasn't done a single good thing in his entire time in the position.
He comes across as a straight shooter.
People said the same thing about Dubya...and John McCain.
It may be that he made a whopper here in trusting his No. 2 not to hand over the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys to a political hack like Rove. But then, Gonzales' critics aren't after the truth. They're after him.
I'm sure he knew absolutely nothing about the source of these firings. Give me a break. At best he signed something he hadn't really read just to help his buddy Bush. At worst, and more likely, he knew exactly what he was doing and sacrificed his deputy in order to save his own worthless ass. So he's either a horrible manager (didn't he fire a few people for that?) or he's an overzealous political operative who will do anything for his Republican masters.
Well, if they succeed in running him off without a fair hearing, many Hispanics won't forget the shoddy treatment afforded this grandson of Mexican immigrants. You watch. Democrats will have to intensify their efforts to win Hispanic votes in the 2008 elections. And there's not that much chips and salsa on the planet.
Here we have Navarrette presuming to speak for the entire Hispanic community. I don't think too many liberal Hispanics are looking up to Gonzales as the pinnacle of their community and I don't think the conservatives are ever going to vote Democrat anyway.
If he gets run off without a "fair hearing", whatever that even means, it'll be more about the fact that Bush outright refuses to have any hearings at all and less to do with the desires of Dems. I'm sure most Dems would love to hold all the hearings Gonzales would like before he leaves office but he just might find himself in jail instead of just out of a job. Gonzales might not want to open that can of worms though because he's done far worse things than just firing some US Attorneys.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
It's about time...
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage
This is a nice first step. Hopefully someday we can get rid of all this semantic nonsense and just call it what it is, marriage between two people who love each other. But at least this is a good first step.
This is a nice first step. Hopefully someday we can get rid of all this semantic nonsense and just call it what it is, marriage between two people who love each other. But at least this is a good first step.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Chaka Fattah officially ends his run for mayor of Philadelphia...
www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/16692405.htm...
This is stupid and wrong for many reasons.
1) He'll never get it passed and he has essentially ended his chances of winning (which were pretty good before) by scaring many people in the city who rely on those outside the city for their income (business people, anyone who works at the companies owned by those business people, etc...)
2) Repeat after me: "Philadelphia is not London, America is not England". There, wasn't that nice?
Europeans are used to paying through the nose for transportation. They've been paying higher prices than we pay now for gas for decades. If we had the level of taxation on fuel that they have there would be riots.
London is also a very old city that was built long before anyone even imagined motor vehicular transportation. It's crowded and it's congested. The idea of the congestion tax in England was probably a good one but I don't believe Philly is at that point yet.
Also, London has a huge public transportation system unrivaled in this country. Even New York doesn't have the sheer number of subway routes that London has. It's quite possible for someone to get wherever they want to in London on the subway. Philly, with a whopping two subway lines and sporadic bus system that only runs at certain times, does not have anywhere near the transportation infrastructure to make this work. You can't even get to the Art Museum from New Jersey without a lot of trouble (I usually just walk the 20 or so blocks from the Patco station at 15th/16th and Locust to the Art Museum to save myself the trouble, not everyone can walk like that).
3) People will just stop coming into Philly from New Jersey and the Pennsylvania suburbs. It's not like there aren't places outside the city that you can go to have a good time. There are concert venues in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. There are high class restaurants and entertainment. People will just start going to Camden and spending their money there. It will destroy many businesses in Philly that rely on out of towners for business.
Philly already has an absurd liquor tax (trust me, I did a double take when I got my bill) that no doubt causes plenty of people to either not order alcohol or go elsewhere. Instituting this tax will give people yet another reason to bypass Philly for towns that actually want their business.
This is stupid and wrong for many reasons.
1) He'll never get it passed and he has essentially ended his chances of winning (which were pretty good before) by scaring many people in the city who rely on those outside the city for their income (business people, anyone who works at the companies owned by those business people, etc...)
2) Repeat after me: "Philadelphia is not London, America is not England". There, wasn't that nice?
Europeans are used to paying through the nose for transportation. They've been paying higher prices than we pay now for gas for decades. If we had the level of taxation on fuel that they have there would be riots.
London is also a very old city that was built long before anyone even imagined motor vehicular transportation. It's crowded and it's congested. The idea of the congestion tax in England was probably a good one but I don't believe Philly is at that point yet.
Also, London has a huge public transportation system unrivaled in this country. Even New York doesn't have the sheer number of subway routes that London has. It's quite possible for someone to get wherever they want to in London on the subway. Philly, with a whopping two subway lines and sporadic bus system that only runs at certain times, does not have anywhere near the transportation infrastructure to make this work. You can't even get to the Art Museum from New Jersey without a lot of trouble (I usually just walk the 20 or so blocks from the Patco station at 15th/16th and Locust to the Art Museum to save myself the trouble, not everyone can walk like that).
3) People will just stop coming into Philly from New Jersey and the Pennsylvania suburbs. It's not like there aren't places outside the city that you can go to have a good time. There are concert venues in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. There are high class restaurants and entertainment. People will just start going to Camden and spending their money there. It will destroy many businesses in Philly that rely on out of towners for business.
Philly already has an absurd liquor tax (trust me, I did a double take when I got my bill) that no doubt causes plenty of people to either not order alcohol or go elsewhere. Instituting this tax will give people yet another reason to bypass Philly for towns that actually want their business.
Double standards...
www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/02/13...
But it's the ones who dare question the Catholic Church who have to be destroyed...
Two very good people were threatened and intimidated all because they dare to be women and have an opinion that doesn't jive with the conservative Catholic idiots and the complacent, conservative media.
And who the hell cares what William Donahue thinks anyway? The guy's a racist and a nut.
But it's the ones who dare question the Catholic Church who have to be destroyed...
Two very good people were threatened and intimidated all because they dare to be women and have an opinion that doesn't jive with the conservative Catholic idiots and the complacent, conservative media.
And who the hell cares what William Donahue thinks anyway? The guy's a racist and a nut.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Molly Ivins, RIP...
www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/31/obit.ivins.ap/index.html
Molly Ivins has passed away...
She was a great American and a truly great writer. I'm afraid there aren't any more like her anymore.
I heard about it first on Democratic Underground...
Molly Ivins has passed away...
She was a great American and a truly great writer. I'm afraid there aren't any more like her anymore.
I heard about it first on Democratic Underground...
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)