The Angry Politics Web Log

2005-04-25T07:56:00.000-04:00

The Ladies' Favorite?

Assholes

2005-04-23T10:23:00.000-04:00

Both leaders chastised what Perkins termed "squishy" and "weak" Republican senators who have not wholeheartedly endorsed ending Democrats' power to filibuster judicial nominees. They said these included moderates such as Sens. Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. They also grumbled that Sens. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and George Allen of Virginia needed prodding.

"We need to shake these guys up," Perkins said.

Said Dobson: "Sometimes it's just amazing to me that they seem to forget how they got here."

Full article

I don't know how these jerks get away with calling their bullshit political agenda as "doing God's work." Seriously, are these the kind of people that others turn to when they need guidance in their faith? It's pretty scary.

Does... Not... Compute

2005-04-13T07:33:00.000-04:00

The ex-boss of US insurance giant AIG, Maurice Greenberg, gave his wife more than $2bn (£1.2bn) of his shares in the company days before stepping down. ... The [SEC] is investigating alleged fraud in a suspect deal between American International Group and reinsurance firm General Re.

Adam, maybe you can help me out here... I just don't understand.

Do these guys really think they can get away with these scams? It's not like stealing a bag of chips from a 7/11... This is big money in high profile situations... I mean I realise the Enron guys got away with it, but regardless... What is going through these scumbags' heads? Do they think they won't get caught? Or do they hope that, like the Enron guys, they'll get caught but they'll still pocket so much that it just won't matter...

Just the audacity and brazenness of it all I find so shocking... I dunno, I just don't really know what to think here.

That Goddamned Church

2005-04-09T12:30:00.000-04:00

These are not small climb-downs, and they do not apply just to the past. They are and were admissions that the Roman Catholic Church has been responsible for the retarding of human development on a colossal scale.
[...]
By the time the church apologizes for saying that condoms are worse than AIDS, or admits that it was complicit at best in the mass murder in Rwanda, another few generations will have died out. This is almost exactly the sort of stuff with which Communists and their fellow travelers once had to content themselves. There had indeed been "spots on Stalin's sun," as one hack so prettily phrased it. But the leading role of the party was still a sure thing.

http://www.slate.com/id/2116443/fr/nl/

If At First You Don't Secede...

2005-04-04T08:12:00.000-04:00

The Texas state legislature set aside small matters like the implementation of the death penalty last month to consider a far more arcane ritual: cheerleading. [...] "It's just too sexually oriented, you know, the way they're shaking their behinds and going on, breaking it down," Edwards explained.

So, Texas wants to dock funds to schools whose cheerleaders are too sexy.

Now, as a strong supporter of Federalism, I say fine... If you want to be this fucking crazy, then by all means, vote on it and give it a go.

But at the same time, I'd imagine I'm not the only one who realises what nonsense this is... This is where I'd love to get Lauren's opinion, her having been a cheerleader, on the front lines of the new moral battlefield against women's sexual liberation.

How do we define sexy? (Besides asking Victoria's Secret's marketing agency, that is). Is one allowed to oscillate her behind? What about suggestive facial expressions? What if the cheerleader voted for Kerry?

This seems related to the Boston.com article about egregious government waste. I love that a state in our union is wasting valuable time and money on measures like this. I'm sure if you dig deep enough you can find rubbish like this on the books in every state's legislature.

Your Tax Dollars at Work!

2005-04-03T19:48:00.000-04:00

Here's a fun bit of investigative reporting from CT's loveable neighbor to the north, Taxachusetts!

Romney appointed Buonopane to the newly created job after Buonopane campaigned vigorously for him in 2002, donating generously to his campaign and helping to orchestrate an election-eve rally for Romney in the North End featuring former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.

But the $108,000-a-year post has no obvious duties. Buonopane seldom comes to work for more than a few hours, and takes frequent vacations -- seven-and-a-half weeks last year, and three-and-a-half weeks in the first three months of this year.

Full Article

The worst part about this is that this kind of crap exists on all levels of the government, and not just in MA. I know some people here who work for the Sergeant of Arms of the House. First I don't even know what the Sergeant of Arms does, but these guys work at most 30 hours a week, sometimes only a few hours a day, and earn $35k plus full government benefits. I still have no idea what they do in this job other than occasionally lead people around the House and watch a ton of TV. So ridiculous.

Post

2005-04-03T09:22:00.000-04:00

All that happiness eventually gets on my nerves. Weird but true. The final giddy touch is hearing the announcer exhort the fans to stick around after the game and watch as the fellas from "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" make over some of the Sox players. I need a shot of angst, and fast.

Good article

Boo Hoo

2005-04-01T09:19:00.000-05:00

A new government Web site gives parents advice on how to convince their children that “abstinence is the healthiest choice.” That’s dictating values, say organizations ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to gay rights groups, and they want the site taken down.

Article

What... abstinence is the healthiest choice. Calm down people. Just because they're Scary Religious Republicans doesn't mean they are by definition wrong on everything. On this one they happen to be correct.

But Perhaps government should leave matters of sexual activity to parents.

This one is Politics this time

2005-04-01T08:47:00.000-05:00

"Pinellas County Judge George W. Greer issued a steady series of rulings despite being targeted for electoral defeat and impeachment, compared to Joseph Mengele and other Nazis, and even threatened with death." Here.

I love the hypocrisy... The whole of the issue was Ms. Shiavo's death. Those so vehemently opposed to it threatened to murder the Judge protecting her right to die and her husband's right's as legal guardian. Lovely.
I particularly like Lithwick's point in her essay here:

"Congressional Republicans who have staked their careers and the last election on the "sanctity of marriage" have turned this case into a mockery of that very institution."

And Saletan makes a worthwhile observation of more Republican hypocrisy:

"In 1988, Tom DeLay's 65-year-old father, Charles DeLay, suffered catastrophic brain damage and went into a coma. He had no hope of recovery but evidently reacted when his son entered the room. Although Charles DeLay had no living will, his family concluded that he would be better off dead and wouldn't want to go on living this way. Tom DeLay joined other family members in deciding to withhold dialysis. His father died."

It's always refreshing in a certain macabre way to see yet more evidence of what a bunch of hypocritical scumbags this bunch are.
Also in Slate, but this one's nothing to do with Shiavo (promise): a film I can't wait to see:

"My reaction to Sin City is easily stated. I loved it. Or, to put it another way, I loved it, I loved it, I loved it. I loved every gorgeous sick disgusting ravishing overbaked blood-spurting artificial frame of it. A tad hypocritical? Yes. But sometimes you think, 'Well, I'll just go to hell.'"

Not politics...

2005-04-01T08:42:00.000-05:00

"Google will add a yet-to-be-determined amount of extra storage daily, with no plans to stop."

Article

I know it's not politics, but I think it's pretty awesome... Check out the gmail homepage, there's a counter showing how much space is added every second...

The wonders of Moore's Law?

Comparisons - Who Cares if They aren't Valid!

2005-03-25T18:40:00.000-05:00

Watching CBS News for some reason...protester out in front of where Terri Schiavo is being cared for said "This is the Roe v. Wade of euthanasia." Actually jerkoff, it's the complete opposite of Roe v. Wade...but I doubt you care anyway. Fact checking is only important if you're a rational human I suppose. Some other idiot protester had a sign that said "Free Terry" - obviously he knows her and her plight so personally he doesn't even know how to spell her name!

Also, today Schiavo's parents said she tried to say "I want to live." Uh, sure she did.

Cat and Mouse

2005-03-24T06:08:00.000-05:00

"The iTunes Music Store recently stopped supporting iTunes versions below 4.7 in an attempt to shut out 3rd party clients. I have reverse engineered the iTMS 4.7 crypto which will once again enable 3rd party clients to communicate with the iTMS," Johansen said.

PyMusique replicates the capabilities of Apple's iTunes application, and its users must still pay for the music they download. But because iTunes adds DRM protection to songs only after they have been downloaded, Johansen simply left that piece out of his program.

This means that iTunes music downloaded with PyMusique can be freely shared and transferred to portable devices other than Apple's iPod.

As iTunes 4.7 is the latest release available, it's not clear how Apple will respond to Johansen's latest move. The company may be forced to change its software once again and require all customers to upgrade.

Link

I think this guy is hilarious. Maybe Apple should make more secure software.

At the Risk of Beating this Thing to Death

2005-03-22T06:51:00.000-05:00

"The point isn't that Schiavo's parents are bad or that she's expressing anything about them. I'm no more qualified to draw such conclusions than you are. The point is that once people like you, me, and Tom DeLay start second-guessing the judges, doctors, and families who know a case firsthand, it never ends. The "culture of life" becomes a regime of ham-fisted political reinvestigation that does for ethics what medieval barbers did for health.

[...]

If I were Terri Schiavo and saw what was being done to my body, my honor, and my country in my name, I'd sooner die."

Slate piece

I love how one case has the power to cretinize the whole of American government.

The Right to What?

2005-03-21T16:51:00.000-05:00

"The rule of law also requires a fundamental separation of powers—in which legislatures do not override final, binding court decisions solely because the outcome is not the one they like."

Link

What a joke... Let this woman die with a little dignity.

Waste of Time!

2005-03-20T18:18:00.000-05:00

Remember when the Republicans were the party that represented state rights? Well not anymore:

They wasted our tax dollars and time that could be spent debating something constructive to pass a bill requiring a federal court to review the Terri Schiavo case. You know, the one with the husband who wants the right to remove his VEGETATIVE, NEVER RECOVERING wife's feeding tube so she can die in peace. Her parents want her to live, but according to Florida courts are not the guardians anymore. I just hope the federal court refuses to hear the case on Constitutional grounds.

Bring Back the Dignity!

2005-03-20T09:28:00.000-05:00

Here is an interesting article about how to restore corporate responsibility in part by treating investment bankers like dogs...

"Dogs and investment bankers both respond to the harsh stick rather than gentle persuasion. They will not modify their behavior through appeals to a higher moral sense, but they will respond to a rolled-up newspaper (Sarbanes-Oxley), or to a tough trainer who makes it clear precisely what they can and cannot do and who swiftly metes out punishment to those who transgress (New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer)."

Link

As a Political Science major who is still in college, Adam you surely are more in this world than I am -- your thoughts?

Fanatics are Scary

2005-03-15T09:14:00.000-05:00

I find some hope in the fact that all of this gay marriage talk is starting to happen, but at the same time I find it extraordinarily frustrating that it's such a big deal.

I love the blatant bias in this ABC News article: "Ushering out a social norm long considered sacred won't happen right away, however." Uhm, what? extending marriage rights to gay couples will usher out a social norm? That is totally indefensible. And long considered sacred? By whom? The divorce rate is nearing 60 percent -- I think straight people are doing a fine job of devaluing this supposedly 'sacred' institution just fine on their own. If anything, allowing gay couples who are desperate to marry will strengthen the institution of marriage, not weaken it. The article
Why must these religious conservatives highjack our language? Orwell really was right. "Campaign for California Families." "Liberty Counsel." Protecting your familial structure does not require destroying other people's lives! A happy gay family is just as much a family as anyone elses. And when you vehemently oppose extending liberties to a group of individuals, it's rather disingenuous to proclaim your bigoted lobbying group as championing Liberty.

To me, this is just like the death penalty -- the morality of it can be removed, and a conclusion can still be easily reached. There is no rational basis upon which to oppose gay marriage. Sorry, the Bible saying it's wrong (the Bible says a lot of things are wrong, by the way -- how have you been tilling your fields?) is not a legitimate foundation for an argument.

Adam, I imagine you will say be careful, they're not all fanatics. I can see this point, but I'd classify anyone who attempts to deny civil rights to others on the basis of a religious belief as a fanatic.

Media Bias?

2005-03-14T17:46:00.000-05:00

"The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.

Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism."

Article

Granted there are many negative things to say about Bush since he had the time to make plenty of mistakes in office, but there must also be something to balance it out with Kerry. I'm not saying there's liberal media bias, but you can't really say it's conservative either (Fox News nonwithstanding.)

Release the Luddites!

2005-03-10T07:58:00.000-05:00

Okay, I realise this is neither political nor angry, but I still think it's interesting.

Article

Nice Going

2005-03-08T05:58:00.000-05:00

"“I believe, but it’s only a hypothesis, that the happy ending to the negotiations must have been irksome,” she said. “The Americans are against this type of operation. For them, war is war, human life doesn’t count for much.'"

Article

Way to totally discredit youself with moronic generalizations... I thought she was a journalist...

Yeah, we shot her on purpose. Sure. Or perhaps the car was speeding towards a U.S. checkpoint in a manner similar to suicide bombers' and our troops must make split-second decisions that are life-or-death in character. Sorry, but you should stop the vehicle when they fire warning shots, not speed up and fly towards our soldiers. We did nothing wrong.

It Happens Here Too

2005-03-07T15:50:00.000-05:00

"Boeing Chief Executive Harry Stonecipher got fired Monday for having consensual sex with a female executive at the company-- an infraction that usually results in water cooler talk. Such behavior almost never ends in the CEO losing his or her job."

Article

This is pretty unbelievable. It's bothersome that ad homimen nonsense is slipping into the mainstream. Why must immaterial personal issues matter more than real ones? Damn this cretinization of our discourse.

I Hate Corporations!

2005-02-22T21:32:00.000-05:00

Do any of you know someone who hates corporations and think they're out to get everyone by taking over the government and enslaving the US population? Where does this irrational fear come from...I don't understand it. How do these people live a normal life? I think it must be next to impossible to purchase anything these days without a large company involved in the production somehow. Do they not drive cars? Do they not use computers? That electricity they use comes probably from coal or maybe oil. That wood in their house was perhaps processed by Weyerhauser. Uh oh...where do you live or work now without supporting the evil corporation cabal? Life must really suck for them. And please, enough with the corporations "fixing" the election. I'm sure there was a meeting at Diebold that went something like this:

CEO: I want to move our company in a new direction. We want to make these electronic voting machines because at the last election the old paper ballots didn't work and people complained about a fixed election.
Other Exec: Brilliant idea sir! But even better, since our entire company are all Republicans and won't say anything about it, let's make it so our voting machines vote Republican even if you vote for someone else!
CEO: Of course that's genius! No one will ever find out and our company will prosper for a long time! And I have no dignity!

Thus, Bush wins the election. Since you know, everyone used Diebold voting machines. Oh wait they didn't? Well it was fixed anyway! Just don't ask why Democrats completely ignored 3/4 of the country when they were coming up with their platform.

Argh just give it up! I anxiously await the day when Whole Foods gets investigated by the SEC for accounting violations and all the corporation haters don't know what to do. Meanwhile, I shall continue to shop at supermarkets where the food isn't ridiculously overpriced. And oh yeah, long live Wal*Mart.

Sly Boots

2005-02-20T10:16:00.000-05:00

Article

But It's Surely to Their Credit

2005-02-17T08:18:00.000-05:00

"If Mr. Guckert, the author of Talon News exclusives like "Kerry Could Become First Gay President," is yet another link in the boundless network of homophobic Republican closet cases, that's not without interest. But it shouldn't distract from the real question - that is, the real news - of how this fake newsman might be connected to a White House propaganda machine that grows curiouser by the day."

Article

Also:

Article II

How I Learned to Start Worrying

2005-02-10T10:41:00.000-05:00

"North Korea on Thursday announced for the first time that it has nuclear arms and rejected moves to restart disarmament talks anytime soon, saying it needs the weapons as protection against an increasingly hostile United States."

Article

It is unfortunate that this administration still has not learned its lesson. Its belligerent rhetoric, which Rice is for some reason perpetuating, is not going to help the situation. North Korea repeatedly offered to sit down for talks, and the U.S. fumbled each time.

Now North Korea are starting to have a tantrum... this was easily forseeable.

And when you're asked whether you have plans to invade Iran, your answer should not be that you don't have any plans to do it. It should be "No, we would not invade Iran unless they attacked us. Barring that, unequivocally, no." That you don't have plans to invade them at this point in time is not relevant. My goodness...

What a Joke

2005-02-09T07:07:00.000-05:00

"[T]he Mexican government has published a guide that advises its citizens on the intricacies of sneaking into the United States."

Article

This is unbelievable. Even though it seems like the Mexicans who've successfully broken into the U.S. consider it 'useless' 'trash,' the very idea of Mexico encouraging its citizens to break our laws is shameful.

But how to stop this? Sanctions would only hurt their already pathetic economy, which would in turn damage their ability to control their end of illegal immigration... And I doubt a good scolding would change anything.

Perhaps if it really doesn't impact illegal immigration the best solution is to simply ignore it.

Thoughts?

What on Earth is Happening?

2005-02-06T10:19:00.000-05:00

"President Bush will seek deep cuts in farm and commodity programs in his new budget and in a major policy shift will propose overall limits on subsidy payments to farmers, administration officials said Saturday."

Article

Maybe it's just me here, but it seems like Bush is slowly turning into a better President... What is going on? I don't know how to deal with him getting more tolerable...

Social Security reform, Iraq's elections, now this... wow...

2005-02-01T20:07:00.000-05:00

Amsterdam's own The Dude

Bad Idiots!

2005-02-01T19:57:00.000-05:00

You don't have just a few beers and drive... Hang up the goddamn phone, save a life

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895319/

"Complete Nonsense"

2005-02-01T17:01:00.000-05:00

“It’s only complete nonsense to ask the troops to leave in this chaos and this vacuum of power,” al-Yawer, a Sunni Arab, said.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6874656/

It seems that some people are starting to get the hang of Bush's vapid optimism for world peace and democracy. I can't believe that ANYONE would even begin to think about the troops leaving Iraq, especially given the recent successful elections. Now is more of a pivotal time than ever, and the ramifications of leaving would be increasingly elevated now that the elections have taken place.

This reminds me of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the aircraft carrier after the initial Iraq invasion (Before 1500 troops were killed). It just isn't fair to begin drawing conclusions that Iraq is suddenly going to turn into a success, or even to speculate. The media really needs to keep this sentiment under control. If this invasion were a game of poker, we might have seen the flop by now. We still have the turn and the river to reveal, and the final outcome could change.

Lets remember: A majority power is nothing without a strong military behind it.

- Busch

These Crazy Europeans

2005-01-30T16:27:00.000-05:00

"The [European Commission] said that calling the second version the 'reduced media edition,' as Microsoft had planned, would put it at a disadvantage to the standard version of Windows.

The two versions will be sold at the same price. Personal computers loaded with the unbundled version of Windows will be equipped with a replacement media player like Real Networks' Real One player."

Article

First: I love the little fuck-you to the EU by calling it "reduced media edition." Nice going MS.

Second, and more importantly: what the hell is wrong with the EU? It doesn't make any sense to force Microsoft to devalue their operating system and include crappier software from a shittier company. Microsoft are not forcing anyone to use their media player -- anyone is free to download Real Player; it's simply convenient to already have a (vastly superior) media player already installed.

Like Adam's point a while back: by this logic, Ford should not be allowed to include a stereo in their cars because that hurts competing stereo companies.

Calling it that "would put it at a disadvantage to the standard version of Windows"? Yes, that's because the EU version of Windows is at a disadvantage.

I hope they don't start running the whole of their economy this way.

Moronic Bush Haters

2005-01-29T00:22:00.000-05:00

These people that see the President as the cause of all evil never cease to amaze me with their ignorance. They feel like anything wrong with the world is directly attributable to Bush, no matter what it is. The situation in Israel, Bush's fault. Saudi Arabia and China committing human rights violations, Bush's fault. "Global warming" (and I use that term lightly) "destroying" (of which there is no evidence) the Earth, definitely Bush's fault. Sure, none of this was ever a problem before Bush...the Palestinians and Israelis were best friends, Saudi Arabia was a shining light of humanity in the Middle East, and the environment wasn't cleaner today that it has been since before the Industrial Revolution. If only those special interests didn't run Washington you know?! I mean, give me a break people. It's not like lobbying is a new phenomenon that Bush created in some shady backroom in the White House with his "corporate cronies."

Their newest trick is to compare Bush to Hitler, which I can definitely see. You know, with the hating Jews and trying to create a master race to rule the world. I think that was on Bush's platform right after keeping the tax cuts, but I could be wrong. In four years, when Bush isn't around to blame things on, and perhaps a Democrat is president, who gets the blame? Oh, I guess it'll be the former president, because you know, Democrats were fine when Republicans blamed all the world's ills on Clinton...bunch of fucking hypocrites.

Maybe next, PBS won't be allowed to make any shows on black people.

2005-01-26T20:59:00.000-05:00

Check this out. The new Education Secretary's first order of business. Sure is important to keep them homosexuals off the TV. And can we cancel Ellen while we're at it?:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&e=1&u=/ap/education_secretary_pbs

Qualms

2005-01-13T13:56:00.000-05:00

1: 'we must remember that Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with fighting terrorism'

Uh, really? Have you forgotten that Zarqawi has pledged allegience to Bin Laden? That he, as our #1 enemy in Iraq and most active leader of the insurgents has endorsed himself as an Al-Qaida leader? That anyone who ever wanted to take a stab at the good old USA once and for all could go to Iraq? That children are being trained as suicide bombers, a clear indication that Iraq is headed more towards a modern-day Israel? Iraq may not have had anything to do with terrorism in the first place, but it sure as hell does now. Things have changed since March 2003.

2: 'Also, I think it is important that we remember what happened to Jessica Lynch. Remember how badly they tortured her? -- Oh, wait... that's right, they treated and cared for her at the hospital until she was 'rescued' by US Special Forces. My point is that few things are more dangerous than gross and unfounded generalizations.'

We seem to disagree on the fundamentals of terrorism. By their very definition, they kill innocent people to achieve media coverage that will spread their word. The reputation they have is the reputation that they want - their primary tools are fear and violence. Naming an exception to the rule doesn't really illustrate anything here, other than that there are exceptions to almost any rule. The bottom line is, at their root they are killers. This is fact not opinion; this is what makes them terrorists, and it is what defines their existence. Therefore a generalization is completely warranted. I find it more unfounded that you seem willing to give terrorists the benefit of the doubt. You are almost suggesting that a significant amount of the time you could count on them to "do the right thing". I find that particularly troubling.

3: 'A serial killer in Baghdad does not serve as proof that EVERYONE or even most Iraqi citizens are "risks" or at the very least, criminals that just haven't been caught yet.'

You know what? You're right. However, lest we forget, I specifically commented on the plethora of problems their government has. Of course there are serial killers everywhere, and I am not suggesting that "Serial Killers" in Iraq are somehow a reflection of the whole society. I merely used the example to suggest that the "social environment", as I termed it, is one that lets these types of people run freely on the loose. You see, in America, when a serial killer continues to strike and isn't caught, its not because we're not trying, or have higher priorities. Its because we have been unsuccessful in stopping him/her. Come on man, the article I was referring to specifically said that the man would kill women outside the same building, on the same street, every night, and that nobody stopped him. Does that make any sense to you? Its not that the people are "less" than us, as you seem to think I suggested, its that their civil services aren't fucntioning adequately. We have to use our military to guard their military so they do their job right, for crying out loud. There are Saddam loyalists pretending to function as policemen. Look, there are bad people in every country. The difference is, there's no domestic system in place in Iraq to stop them.

4: 'By your logic, I could have you imprisoned too. So what if you haven't commited a crime? You could still be a "risk"

I agree with your logic here. But I ask you, as I did in my previous post, what is the alternative? The system may not be working, but does that mean that we just stop trying? I don't think giving up is necessarily an option. Rather, I'm all for a reform of the way we detain people, and I'm sure you are too. To reiterate and clarify my stance, I do not think these forms of 'torture', 'interrogaton', or whatever you chose to call it, are appropriate to use on random people that you bring in, based on the fact that most of them are innocent. I reviewed the pictures from Abu Garab today and it was thoroughy disturbing. The pictures clearly showed it was for pleasure and had no purpose. I do not condone that behavior. Reciprocally, however, I DO think it is appropriate to use that particular pyramid method on confirmed terrorists. That was the thesis behind my original post that started this whole thing, and I stand by it. I said nothing about civilians in that post, and it is still not a part of my arguement.

5: Mind you that being naked in front of others is STRICTLY against Islamic code. Assuming you are Christian, how would you feel if someone made you stand up on a Cross?

Let me remind you that what the terrorists do is also STRICTLY against Islamic code. They pervert and distort the religion to into a fanaticism that suits their sick, self-motivated desires. They kill in the name of Allah. I, for one, think that alone negates the Islamic code that would protect them from this type of interrogation. They abuse the religion enough as it is; why should they be granted those priviledges?

6: If I were just a law abiding Iraqi, and I happened to be around the same area as supsected insurgents, I'm not going to be happy if you pick me up. What I'm going to do is go home (if I ever get home) and tell all my friends how the Americans imprisioned me for doing nothing, and how I wish they would leave:

So true, and this is why things need to change. I think reforming the way we bring people in and the way we question them are two separate issues, and I don't disagree with you here. This issue relates directly to #1, in which I said that the link between Iraq and 9/11 or Al-Qaida didn't exist until we invaded. We're alienating so many people that we are achieving backwards progress - and we're probably encouraging people to be insurgents who may not have been before being mistreated.

7: 'And why would you believe that Bush desires a democracy in Iraq when he clearly doesn't want one in his own country?'

Welcome to the bandwagon, Denise. Its safe and comfortable here, and you never have to think on your own again. Enjoy the ride and God bless.

-- Busch

Messopotamia

2005-01-13T09:10:00.000-05:00

Just two points right quickly:

First, you misunderstand my point about the apprehensions under the PATRIOT Act. Those are unrelated to Iraq -- we must remember that Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with fighting terrorism, for which the PATRIOT Act was designed. (Although their inevitable amalgamation is surely a harbinger of things to come, and indicative of the pathological incompetence of this administration in protecting us.)

I'm sure the number is much higher than 500 at this point, but these are individuals we round up throughout the Middle East on the 'suspicion' that they are terrorists. We did the exact same thing to Japanese Americans during WWII, none of whom were ever convicted, all of whom were -- whoops -- loyal Americans. I guarantee you 50 years from now we will look back on this with unspeakable shame and disgust -- some of us simply harbor those feelings about it already.

The main problems here are that we deny these individuals their right to counsel and habeas corpus, both of which are considered fundamental to legitimate jurisprudence.

* * *

Also, you seem to be drawing distinctions between different manners of torture. My thoughts on this:

Torture is binary in character -- it's either torture or it's not, there is no in-between and there are no degrees. So yes, I do see the naked human pyramids as the same as what 'they' do, because torture is torture. It is definitely worthy of note that to Muslims those nude piles are an horrendous offense -- and what better way to win over the Arab world than by consistently and egregiously violating their sense of morality? Whether you agree with that sense is not at issue; pragmatism here is what's most important.

Also, I think it is important that we remember what happened to Jessica Lynch. Remember how badly they tortured her? -- Oh, wait... that's right, they treated and cared for her at the hospital until she was 'rescued' by US Special Forces. My point is that few things are more dangerous than gross and unfounded generalizations.

And how fitting that they now announce they've given up their search for the WMDs they knew Iraq had. What could possibly be more criminal than lying to the world to start a war? Maybe I'll wait four years to come home...

Zp

Oh, P.S.:

"The White House has acknowledged that Iraqi elections set for January 30 are 'not going to be perfect'," the Daily Telegraph reports. Whilst I do think it's fantastic that there will be voting, is there really any better fuck-you to everyone who will be murdered than saying it won't "be perfect" ? What a gang of thugs we have running our country...

No WMDs

2005-01-12T18:07:00.000-05:00

You all might be interested to know that the Post reports that the hunt for WMDs in Iraq has ended, naturally turning up nothing. Once again proving that Karl Rove is brilliant enough to fool every important decision maker in America.

Torture, etc

2005-01-12T11:01:00.000-05:00

Greetings from London, everyone.

The fact that torture has existed for centuries is not an acceptable defense of torture
Torture does not procure accurate testimony -- if someone was electrocuting your genitals, Busch, I imagine you too would tell him where you think some WMDs are
It is impossible to retain the moral high ground in this 'new war' with which we are confronted whilst egregiously violating others' rights -- yes, even the people we apprehend as suspected terrorists have rights, as much as you may wish otherwise.
Lots of things could be construed as a 'means to an end.' Where do you draw the line? Ought our soldiers be permitted to rape the children of suspected terrorists to procure information? Perhaps we ought to simply eradicate all the brown people -- this would certainly be a means to an end, would it not? (Yes, I am aware that this is reductio ad absurdum, that is entirely the point; the question is, can you defend against it.)
"Regarless of our conduct, whether it be extremely aggressive or extremely passive and respectful, their views will not change." On what grounds can you support this statement? Until you can adequatedly defend this kind of reasoning, it must be dismissed as nonsense. You seem to be falling victim to a myopic and bigoted generalization here -- do not forget that these people are, at the very least, self-interested human beings.
"Just because someone in the liberal media who had connections decided to leak the story doesn't mean this is a new occurrence." You seem to be suggesting that since this is not a 'new' occurrence, it is not worth ameliorating. I must say I disagree. Also, it was Seymour Hersh at the New Yorker who leaked this story, and while he himself may be 'liberal' -- which is totally irrelevant -- the media are not liberal in any significant way whatever.

I for one do not condone torture, and it does bother me that you do, but that is your perogative.

Also, did you know that of the 500 people we have apprehended under the auspices of the PATRIOT Act, not one has been convicted of a crime? -- or do you support that as well, as a 'means to an end' ?

Hope you all are doing well back home.

All the best,

Zp

Two Things...

2005-01-10T17:41:00.000-05:00

A HARDLINE Indonesian Islamic group has attacked the presence of Australian aid workers in tsunami-devastated Aceh, as Labor raised concerns yesterday about their safety in the troubled province.

Article

I don't get these Islamists...what do they hope to achieve by doing this? If some minister came up to me when I was most in need of help and told me I couldn't get it because of my religion, I'm not going to stick with that religion. These people need to take Prozac or something and stop being so paranoid all the time.

And from the completely idiotic files:

A lawyer defending Specialist Charles Graner, who is accused of being a ringleader in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, argued that piling naked prisoners in pyramids was a valid form of prisoner control.

"Don’t cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year. Is that torture?" said Guy Womack, Sergeant Graner’s lawyer, in opening arguments to the ten-member military jury at the reservist’s court martial.

Hey dumbass...last I checked those cheerleaders are making pyramids under their own will, and are also fully clothed. How did this guy pass the bar?

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

2005-01-06T14:24:00.000-05:00

On January 25, 2002, Gonzales wrote a memo to President Bush arguing that the terrorism fight "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/gonzales.hearing/

"I will no longer represent only the White House," Mr. Gonzales said. "I will represent the United States of America and its people."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/politics/07gonzalezcnd.html?hp&ex=1105074000&en=e1ca8de5de25c484&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Great... I'm so glad that this monster will be representing me. Why must we have so many fanatics sneaking into our government?

How To Deal with Fat People

2005-01-06T14:12:00.000-05:00

The obesity epidemic plaguing this country "has led to airlines spending an estimated additional $275 million to burn an extra 350 million gallons of fuel." (italics mine).
(http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20041202/opcom02.art.htm)

* * *

Here's my idea:

Have the FDA come up with a "No Nutritional Value" classification. Any foodstuff that fits this category (all fast food, junk food, etc) is then additionally taxed, just like alcohol and cigarettes already are. I realize this would be difficult to pass by the food lobby, but that doesn't mean you don't try... And I realize the definition would be difficult, so you only classify what is obvious, like fast food, funyuns, all that shit -- if it's questionable, then you don't classify it.

Secondly, if two separate doctors confirm that a patient's health problems are due to obesity / caused by consistent consumption of No Nutritional Value foods, he is no longer eligible for government-supported healthcare. Why should society foot the healthcare bill for a person who's just going to destroy his body?

If you think this sounds paternalistic, that's because it is. But clearly, people are not capable of being responsible in this area -- otherwise we would not have this epidemic.

Thoughts?

The Constitution Sucks Anyway

2005-01-02T11:37:00.000-05:00

The Bush administration is preparing plans for possible lifetime detention of suspected terrorists, including hundreds whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

Talk about being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Rights and so forth

2004-12-29T01:42:00.000-05:00

http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/04/30/lincoln/

I think this is great. I think it can help prove that sexual orientation is totally irrelevant and not worth of consideration for establishing or impacting one's abilities, both in office and out.

Thoughts?

Beer

2004-12-28T21:42:00.000-05:00

i would strongly recommend Fuller's London Porter...

possibly a new favorite

New Rules

2004-12-20T13:00:00.000-05:00

[Bill Maher's "New Rules":]

November 5, 2004

And now it is time for our season's last New Rules.

All right. New Rule - you'll like this one, Andrew - if we want England's opinion, we'll dictate it to Tony Blair. "How can 59 million people be so dumb?" Gee, I don't know. How many of you voted for Prince Charles? Oh, right, I forgot. Zero. He got the job because his great-great-great-great-grandmother married the Duke of Brunswick in 1658. Sorry, but I can't take any country seriously where the bars close at eleven.

New Rule: Stop claiming you have an "agenda." It's not an agenda. It's a random collection of laws that your corporate donors paid you to pass. The American people were not clamoring for a cap on medical malpractice awards. If a surgeon leaves an Altoids box in my chest cavity, I want to see him in debtors' prison.

New Rule: Hey, now that you've won and you're safe, you have to tell us, what the hell was that thing on your back during the debate?

New Rule: Britney Spears has to perform with Justin Timberlake at next year's Super Bowl. I don't care what the FCC fine ends up costing. I'll pay it.

And speaking of that. [photo of Bush twins] New Rule: Hey, it's daddy's big day. Put on a bra. I mean, come on. You've got less support than Nader. And they call Kerry a flip-flopper.

New Rule: Kerry campaign manager Bob Schrum must switch careers. He is now 0-for-8 in presidential campaigns. The Washington Generals had a better record against the Globetrotters. Seriously, Bob, politics isn't the kind of business where you can have absolutely no proof of success and keep getting asked back. Or is it? [photo of George W. Bush] Hey, we lost! We deserve a few jokes.

And finally, New Rule: Stop saying that blue state people are out of touch with the values and morals of the red states. I'm not out of touch with them. I just don't share them. In fact, and I know this is about 140 years late, but to the Southern States, I would say, "Upon further consideration, you CAN go. I know that's what you've always wanted, and we've reconsidered. So go ahead. And take Texas with you."

You know what they say. If at first you don't secede, try, try again. And give my regards to President Charlie Daniels.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I almost forgot, this is the time of healing. The time when blue states and red states come together because we have so much to offer each other. "Spice Rack" meet "Gun Rack." "Picky about bottled water," say hello to "Drinks from a garden hose." "Bought an antique nightstand at an estate sale," meet "Uses a giant wooden spool he stole from the phone company as a coffee table."

Sorry, there I go again, kidding when I should be healing. Hey, say what you will about the Republicans, they do stand for something: Armageddon, but it's something. Democrats, on the other hand, have been coasting for years on Tom Daschle's charisma. But that's not enough anymore. Democrats will never win another election if they keep trying to siphon off votes from the Republicans. They will only win by creating a lot more Democrats. And you don't do that by trying to leach onto issues that you should be denouncing.

You wind up - you wind up in a goose-hunting outfit a week before the election--trying to appeal to guys who would sooner vote for the goose. Guys who even in down-to-earth, economically-ailing Ohio, thought blowjobs more important than job-jobs.

Hey, these folks aren't "undecideds." They're not in play. No, what the Democrats need are fresh, new ideas that are dumb and hateful enough to win these people over.

You know, stuff like, "No drinking on Christmas." Or how about a Constitutional Amendment protecting the song, "God Bless America"? I say, let's put a fetus on the dollar bill! With Reagan!

And you know what country has been asking for an ass-kicking in the worst way? Finland. Yes, Democrats need a really, really stupid, meaningless and utterly symbolic issue. And by issue, of course, I mean, thing to hate.

How about this? An amendment that says people with gerbils are threatening the sanctity of pet ownership--and that from now on, pet owning will be defined only as the relationship between a person and his cat or dog.

Now, my opponent may disagree. That's because he's a fag.

So, Democrats - Democrats and liberals, stop saying you're going to move because Bush won. Real liberals should be pledging to stay because Bush won. Trust me, you can't get away from Bush by moving to France. Because that's where we're invading next.

Can the Herd Really Handle Privatized Social Security?

2004-12-19T09:37:00.000-05:00

"Human beings, it turns out, are wired to make dumb investing mistakes. What's more, we are wired not to learn from them, but to make them again and again. If there is consolation, it is that it's not our fault. We are born suckers.

"In the past 30 years, academic research has progressed beyond efficient-markets theory, which mistook humans for robots, into behavioral finance, which acknowledges that we are, in fact, sweating, breathing, herding, hoarding, pleasure-seeking, pain-avoiding animals who employ a looser definition of "rational" than computer chips."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2110977/

How to Constitutionally Marginalize Muslims

2004-12-18T23:51:00.000-05:00

Since I find it interesting and topical and you might as well, allow me to elaborate on what I said in my reply to Adam's post.

So, if these crazy religious people have their way and our government starts enacting Muslim-specific legislation to attack them, we as rational citizens have a safety net in the form of judicial review.

The easiest test for gov't to pass is rational basis -- it only fails this if the law is designed solely to harrass a group of people. Our government likes to do this to homosexuals, for example. So any "take that Muslims/Arabs!" laws passed could very well fail this test and be done with.

But: Race constitutes an "inherently suspect" category upon which to base legislation. What this means is that basically government is guilty until proven innocent vis-a-vis laws it passes affecting the group in question. So unless the government can establish 1) a compelling interest, and 2) that the law it's passed is the least restrictive means to fulfill that interest, then it won't be allowed to do it.

It doesn't seem to me that any of the nonsense that the crazies are advocating could ever pass a strict scrutiny test.

However, Bush will be stacking the Supreme Court with religious fanatics, so things could change for the worse soon. Fingers crossed.

zp

Yay Fear!

2004-12-18T11:12:00.000-05:00

From this article:

Nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, according to a nationwide poll.

But wait, what kind of restrictions on civil liberties do Americans want? This kind of restriction:

The survey showed that 27 percent of respondents supported requiring all Muslim Americans to register where they lived with the federal government. Twenty-two percent favored racial profiling to identify potential terrorist threats. And 29 percent thought undercover agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations to keep tabs on their activities and fund-raising.

Racial profiling I'm sure is already used, and I guess is probably the least intrusive as far as infringing on civil liberties. But ID cards so the government knows where they live? Moles in Muslim organizations? What the hell is wrong with these people? One thing the article mentions is that people who are highly religious are more in favor of abusing civil liberties, which confuses me since most religions, except Islam mainly, preaches inclusiveness and forgiveness. But that can't be the only contributing factor:

Researchers also found that respondents who paid more attention to television news were more likely to fear terrorist attacks and support limiting the rights of Muslim Americans.

Ah...thank you network news channels.

Fast Times at Our President is Incompetent

2004-12-15T23:11:00.000-05:00

The abortive $85 million exercise raised new questions about the reliability of the first elements of the plan, an heir to President Ronald Reagan’s vision of a space-based missile defense that critics dubbed “Star Wars.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6716035/

85 million dollars just for the test. I wonder how much body armor for troops 85 million dollars would have purchased, how many lives that would have saved.

And yet the Republicans still manage to get away with that Support-Our-Troops bullshit with overwhelming majorities of military personnell supporting them. They're the party that's against supporting our troops!

Goddamn nation of sheep.

Good Ruling!

2004-12-14T20:40:00.000-05:00

In a pair of victories for law enforcement, the Supreme Court on Monday made it harder to sue police for a questionable shooting of a fleeing suspect or for arresting a motorist on false charges.
In both instances, the justices said the courts should give police officers the benefit of the doubt and not allow them to be sued for doing their jobs.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=4&u=/latimests/20041214/ts_latimes/supremecourtmakesittoughertosuepolice

I think this is a terrific ruling. Your thoughts?

Bad Jury!

2004-12-14T13:26:00.000-05:00

At the risk of talking about this meaningless case, it at least says something about the pitfalls of the trial by jury:

Are these really the manner of individuals we want deciding guilt or innocence? This is a serious responsibility, I don't think you should be grinning like a moron over how pleased you are with your involvement in a media clusterfuck.

Retards.

Death Penalty -- Let's get this over with:

2004-12-13T19:56:00.000-05:00

In nature the death penalty does not exist -- it is a creation of the state. Thus, the advocate of the death penalty is the one making the positive assertion, not its opponent. As such, the proponent is in the position of defending his position, while the opponent is not. In other words, the opponent of the death penalty is under no obligation whatever to prove why we should not have capital punishment; the onus is entirely on the supporter of it. If the supporter cannot adequately defend his position, then his opponent wins by default; no further argumentation is necessary for him to secure his position.

That having been said, let's see if the proponent can overcome the hurdles against his argument:

The death penalty is not a deterrent. This is statistically provable.
States without the death penalty have significantly lower crime rates than those that use it.
The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison.
It does not provide "closure" to the victims or their families.
Regardless, it is not the state's responsibility to provide closure. The sole responsibility of the state is to provide justice.
The state does not have the right to enact revenge. Moreover, this is not an effective way of combating crime.
The death penalty is irreversible.
Mistakes are unavoidable in our judicial system.
Therefore, the execution of innocent people is unavoidable.
The execution of innocent people is an undesirable and unacceptable consequence.
A person incarcerated for the duration of his natural life is in no way a threat to society.

Mr. Gossard and his fellow death penalty supporters must satisfactorily overcome these points before the death penalty can rationally be accepted as an appropriate punishment.

Peterson Case Endgame

2004-12-13T18:00:00.000-05:00

Zack, I know you care little about this case, but this is interesting news to me. The jurors decided to pull the trigger on Scott Peterson, something I thought would never happen in California. Actually, I didn't even know the death penalty was an option in California. Anyway I thought I'd open this up to comment on the stupidity of the death penalty. What does one prove by killing someone because of their crime of killing someone. Is there anyway to delineate between the two actions? I don't think so. Life in prison without parole is basically the same option, and I'd be able to sleep better at night knowing I didn't personally lead to the end of someone's life.

Dead man (R)

The Fruitless, Neverending War

2004-12-13T15:00:00.000-05:00

"Nowhere is it even asked what would happen if the [Afghan drug] trade
was legalized and taxed: a measure that would immediately remove it
from mafia control and immediately enrich a vast number of Afghan
cultivators who currently exist on the margin of survival."

http://www.slate.com/id/2110987/

I hope our war on Islamic fundamentalism doesn't go as laughably
poorly as our unwinnable "war on drugs"

Good movie

2004-12-13T01:45:00.000-05:00

http://www.croqaudile.com/index.php?page=clips&id=6727

Big Tobacco

2004-12-12T23:40:00.000-05:00

Adam,

I'm with you on most of that, except for your saying that Big Tobacco helps make America healthier.

Smoking kills 396,741 Americans every year; Second-hand smoke kills approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the US each year.

Smoking causes "Death from each of the chronic diseasesconsidered in the CDC's estimate of smoking-attributable mortality(cancers of the lung, oropharynx, larynx, esophagus, pancreas,kidney, bladder, and cervix; ischemic heart disease, arterialdisease, and other heart conditions; stroke; chronic obstructivepulmonary disease; and other respiratory conditions)."

I find this to be pretty convincing evidence that they don't help to make us healthier.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/284/6/706
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

Big Tobacco - Helping America

2004-12-12T21:39:00.000-05:00

I find it unbelievable how much tobacco companies and smokers contribute to the government, and therefore to the general American public, and still get so much shit from those anti-smoking groups and little much else in return. In Colorado they're increasing the tax on tobacco products by over 300 percent (see this article: Smokers face 320 percent increase in state cigarette taxes on Jan. 1)! Of course this is in addition to all the money Big Tobacco pays out thanks to the Master Settlement Agreement, which many states fail to use for its required purpose of anti-smoking programs and instead use to make up budget deficits. Sure these smokers cost the public lots of money in healthcare costs, but so do obese people and there's no taxes on fattening foods (and hopefully never will be). Today I saw one of those stupid Truth commercials where they asked outside Altria headquarters why they don't fly their flag at half staff because of their customers that have died. First of all, only the government can mandate when the flag is flown at half staff, obviously Truth figures everyone is ignorant or didn't research that fact. Second of all, why would Big Tobacco want to kill their customers. It costs many times more money to get a new customer than to keep an existing customer. Unfortunately the side effects of smoking include cancer and other ailments that can lead to death, but those risks are known and borne by people who smoke. I know Reynolds has been working for a long time on a smokeless cigarrette that will limit the intake of carcinogens, but it cannot replicate the benefits that smokers get from normal cigarrettes and is thus not commercially viable. Sure in an ideal world people would be smart enough not to smoke heavily, but also in an ideal world people would be able to exercise their right to do with their body what they see fit. In the meantime, let's thank Big Tobacco for contributing to make America healthier, something I'm sure you won't see on a Truth commercial.

2004-12-12T20:32:00.000-05:00

Conversation

Dispassionate Argument!

2004-12-12T16:30:00.000-05:00

Zack,

I believe various times we have discussed Issue 1 and have reached an impasse for philosphical reasons. However to your last point, you have disproved it by your first point. Also, humans cannot know what God thinks because (as lots of people have wasted their time thinking about) humans cannot comprehend God. Therefore, I win.

I'd also venture to say alcohol is better than pot because with alcohol there are so many choices for consumption. Also you can go out and drink but not go out and smoke thanks to the government. I must agree with your other issues.

Here is an issue we have discussed in private but I'll open it up now:

Why do people think Republicans hate everybody and are trying to destroy America? Please note I'm talking about the majority of elected Republicans, not the far-right people who seem to get a lot of press but really have little representation in Congress.

2004-12-12T03:44:00.000-05:00

Fighting Words

2004-12-11T23:31:00.000-05:00

Greetings and salutations, everyone.

I feel like initiating an entertaining, moderately-heated yet dispassionate (thus paradoxical?) argument over something about which I feel strongly. Consider any of the following statements:

God does not and cannot exist
George W Bush is the worst President this country has ever had
Hippies: synonym for hypocrites
The music I listen to is simply better music
Pot is hands down better than alcohol
I'm opposed to the War in Iraq but that doesn't mean I don't support our white troops
The liberal bias of most professors is only a problem if they cannot defend their views
The Indians got what they deserved
Easy Mac is better than Ramen
The U.S. is the greatest country on earth, dammit
A female President would just cry and have babies the whole time
In a battle between Michael Moore and Ann Coulter, both would die, and it would be amusing
God hates fags

This is only a brief list. If you have an issue you'd like to fight about, speak up!

I'd encourage you to argue over something from this list with a dear friend / lover of yours, especially in a public place after you've had a few drinks. Arguments are better when they devolve into bitter name-calling and personal attacks.

The first shot has been fired -- who will meet my challenge??

zp

Diversity...enough already!

2004-12-11T21:43:00.000-05:00

I truly am vexed about the importance of diversity that is being stressed here at Quinnipiac. Two weeks ago I was forced to run a program about diversity, it being one of the six core programs that I am responsible for as an RA. And unfortunately, I had a really hard time coming up with anything that would be in the least way relevant to everyday life here at Quinnipiac. If you take a broad and somewhat naive view of our campus, you'll notice that we are 95% white, but that isn't the point at all. When you dig deeper you won't find there is a lack of diversity, you'll simply realize "diversity" has become the trendy thing to preach.

As you look through the Quinnipiac brochure, you see images of the stereotypical college campus. You have your Starbucks, your labtop, and you sit out in the quad and discuss the post civil war reconstruction of the south with your ethnic friend. Oh, and did I mention it is always spring in the catalogue? But that's a different story. I did some thinking and debate with a friend of mine, and was able to come up with some conclusions about diversity (Even though I am still perplexed by the social phenomenon mentioned above). They are as follows:

1: Everyday life discourages diversity: I think this is a fairly basic concept, but I'll elaborate anyway. Diversity lessons tell you to concentrate on things OTHER than race, but through your interactions with society you are taught to do exactly the opposite. For example, simply turning on the 6pm news in the New York metro area or watching a Mcdonalds commercial shows you how much emphasis is put on race. And the media is not the only way in which this message is conveyed. Take a few minutes to look at Bush's "No Child Left Behind" act, for example.

2: People automatically default to their inane and habitual beliefs without thinking twice pro-diversity lessons: We all know that change is hard, and studies show that change is one of the things that people are the most afraid of. If as a child you grew up in a household that hated Asians, sitting in a diversity class for a couple hours before going out to happy hour is going to make little impact on you. People tend to learn these intangible beliefs through experience and interaction, not a textbook or a lecture. Not to mention that change happens slowly. Rarely do we wake up in the morning and have some life changing epiphany, especially over something for which we have little control.

3: Diversity is a great paradox of human nature: If I were to write a textbook definition of diversity, I would call it our attempt at being socially responsible and the masking of our preconceived notions of people. If you want me to analyze it down to the core, (And piss off a lot of people) I'd go as far as to say that such a firm emphasis on diversity has played a part in much of the social inequality of our nation's past. Diversity, in its meaning, appreciates differences between people. In the process of recognizing those differences, one is almost being begged to come up with discriminatory beliefs and stereotypes. The two go hand in hand and facilitate eachother.

4: Diversity is unrealistic: Diversity loses its meaning the more you force people to absorb it and then regurgitate it. Unfortunately, it has gotten to the point where it is almost entirely vapid in meaning. Most people don't grasp the concepts, they appease the masses by preaching a message of acceptance and don't actually practice those beliefs. They can try all they want, but complete acceptance of others is an unfair expectation. Ask someone you respect about a time when they felt threatened by someone of another race. They'll have a story.

- Busch

Zero Tolerance: Yeah no kidding

2004-12-11T17:34:00.000-05:00

This is from the Philadelphia Enquirer:

A 10-year-old fourth-grade girl at Holme Elementary School in the Far Northeast was pulled out of class, handcuffed, and taken to the local police station in the back of a police wagon earlier this week after a pair of 8-inch scissors were found in her book bag, according to authorities and her angry mother.

School district and police officials said yesterday that they were following state law and procedures in dealing with students who have weapons on school property. They say that those rules demand police be called and that procedures call for handcuffing suspects regardless of age or crime.

I'm sure this is really helping the children learn the skills they need to be competitive in the future... I'm glad when I was growing up people were more sensible and lawyers weren't predators looking for a quick buck. I mean honestly, a) who thought this would be a good idea and b) how did he/she/they get so many people to go along with it without any second thoughts?

AHD

2004-12-11T17:01:00.000-05:00

busch

2004-12-11T15:52:00.000-05:00

zack

Hacks! Hacks everywhere!

2004-12-09T23:08:00.000-05:00

I spoiled myself with new elixirs today, Busch. It's delightful.

But that is unrelated to what is making me mad.

What is making me mad is, apparently, the same thing that makes Jon Stewart mad (n.b. Crossfire): media talking heads. I noticed Scarborough Country was on MSNBC as I was walking out tonight, and sat to watch it. Ann Coulter and Al Franken bitching at each other... They really are just hacks, and it frustrates me that this is the acceptable, standard manner of political discourse in the mainstream media (and, thusly, mainstream America).

For a prime example of the level of political / intellectual reasoning which I find most desirable, consider Foreign Affairs magazine (www.foreignaffairs.org). Slate magazine is also well-written, although not nearly as thorough as FA.

I do not think it either too bourgeois nor too exacting to desire this as the expected level of general political discourse; the only prerequisite is a non-apathetic citizenry who take an active interest in contemporary national and international affairs. So long as people eat what is spoon-fed them by the major media, they will continue to be fed empty rhetoric and unsupported pseudo-political psychobabble.

You really do have the power to salve this wound: change the channel.

zp

Lackluster parenting and its effect on the school system and society

2004-12-08T21:02:00.000-05:00

Conventionally, as one evaluates himself, it is entirely beneficial to evaluate failures in a hope that changes can be made to improve things did not live up to expectations. And while evaluating one's self should be an entirely personal reflection, there are certain aspects of humanity in which it isn't appropriate to implement such a simplistic and subjective thought process. Generally speaking, success and failure is in the eye of the beholder - but not when it comes to parenting. There are those that have the gift, and those that can only pretend. Far worse, there are those that claim to understand parenting, but just don't have the time after working 18 hour days on Wall Street and catching the 1 AM express home from Grand Central.

Take a recent article from the AP, filed under "Strange News", for example. The article discusses how two parents have gone on "strike" and refuse to continue parenting their children due to the way they have been treated. "This is war," Cat Barnard said. "I love my babies, but I don't like what they're doing." The parents have set up a tent outside and refuse to enter the house except for use of the facilities and to wash their clothes. Doesn't sound too strange to me.

The fundamental problem, which I think is abundantly clear, is not that these kids are the worst thing that's ever happened to society. The parents, who have manifested their inadequacies by letting the situation escalate to the level of national news, have only themselves to blame. They have a seventeen year old son and a twelve year old daughter. I can only shake my head in dismay and ask myself "What have you been doing the past twelve years?" This isn't about the children, its about the parents.

My mother is a public school teacher in North Salem, NY. It borders with Fairfield County, one of the richest counties in the country. Several fathers of my mother's students were killed in 9/11, and others work the stock exchange and commute to New York on a daily basis. So the two of us know what its like to deal with parents that don't understand the role that a parent is supposed to take in a child's life. "Billy just isn't able to concentrate for extended periods of time or focus on a particular task", the parents say. "Even though he's performing grade level and shows a hell of a lot of creativity, we think that he might need some medication."

If this sounds like a child you know, I have news for you. He doesn't have ADD. He probably doesn't have a learning disability. He's just in third grade. He's ten years old. How well did YOU concentrate when you were ten? Did medication pull you through a tough time in your faimly? After a lifetime dedicated to teaching, my mother willingly admits that the majority of children she's had as students that were medicated were completely "normal" children that in actuality were being held back by being sedated all the time.

Let me construct a scenario for you. You're ten years old. You are a child of divorce, are confused, and barely able to understand why mommy and daddy don't want to spend time together any more. You live with your alcoholic father and your older brother because your mother used to hit you. But daddy is never around because he's always working, so your brother puts you on the bus every morning. Sound like a crazy story? A similar scenario happens to more children then you'd imagine. Now, with all of the burden resting on your shoulders, amidst all of the confusion and a boiling pot of emotion, you sit at a desk and are asked to complete a simple task. It just isn't that easy any more, is it? And no ten year old knows how to constructively deal with that kind of stress.

But its not just disfunctional parents. The complete opposite side of the parenting spectrum provides an equally discouraging outlook: parents who are TOO involved. I cannot even recall how many 10PM phone calls my mother has received from insomniac parents who are worried about their child's "progress" in the class. The overwhelming problem, as I have observed, is that being "average" just isn't good enough any more. Since when did performing "average" become yesterday's news? What is wrong with someone who is performing exactly at the level they are expected to? Time and time again, we have parents (Many of them lawyers) who write angry letters to the school system demanding that their child be put into advanced programs for the "gifted" even though they didn't pass the test. Now you tell me how you're ever supposed to feel accomplished when you're traped in a lifestyle that consistently demands more than you can give and doesn't recognize or give any credit for the amazing talents that you DO have? Meanwhile, the tests you are forced to take to evaluate your "Aptitude" merely examines how well you can take in information and regurgitate it, not what you actually have learned. So if you're not the best at taking tests but you perform real world tasks with amazing ease, then I apologize for the 13 years you wasted in primary education.

In regards to the AP story, I'd love to hear more from the actual children of these slovenly parents. What went wrong in their family dynamics to prompt such disrespect? You can only take blaming teenage stereotypes and media influences so far. At some point, they have to realize that they haven't provided the guidance, structure, and mentoring that they agreed to when they had children. They've destroyed a sacred promise. They've turned something beautiful into something hideous and sickening. And the poor children, the true victims in this whole mess, use whatever means possible to express their dismay. More commonly, these drastic measures result in poor grades (or dropping out of school), damaged family relations, depression, and drug use.

According to their son, "It's extremely inconvenient". You're damn right it is. But moreover, its pathetic. I wonder where this kid will end up in five years. Will he have even graduated high school?

So when you become parents, go ahead and sit out on your lawn. Cause God knows, by then, its too late anyway.

- Busch

a cursory rant

2004-12-07T16:34:00.000-05:00

I am frustrated by the self-imposed limitations of the Left-Right continuum. All politics is simply too complicated and too complex to be viewed solely through the Left-Right prism. We can find some peripheral evidence of this in the fact that there are plenty of perfectly reasonable, rational people sitting much further 'right' than myself who are just as appalled by Bush's theological fanaticism and gross incompetence as 'left' leaning people.

And it seems to me that people about my age, especially college students, aren't willing to pigeonhole themselves into the traditional "left" or "right" labels. They are (fortunately) issue-at-a-time people, and they also hate Bush. In other words, disgust with this administration can (and should) exist independent of preexisting ideological or political loyalties. One must let reason and empirical observation take priority over his poltical convictions, and in so doing is forced to admit that this administration is... what's the word... horrendous.

Completely unrelatedly: you might find it interesting to know that Karl Rove modeled his strategy for Bush on the Republican strategy for 1896. If you look at the electoral map from that year, it's almost exactly the same as this election -- and that's not a coincidence. Rove is a genius. Without getting too deep into the theory behind it, basically what this means is that we're in for another 30-odd years of total Republican domination. (After 1896, they held power until FDR kicked them out with the New Deal -- Wilson is an aberration). We're seeing a social realignment starting now (they happen every 35 years or so, so we're due) that's reaffirming the old social order (i.e. Bush conservativism).

What this translates to is that (ceteris paribus) the Democrats won't have any significant power for another 30 - 35 years.

Also, and equally unrelatedly: there is a chance that the Republicans will declare as unconstitutional the 60-percent requirement for judicial nominations (yes, they can do it), thus eliminating the need for cloture and securing for themselves the ability to appoint whomever they please to the courts, including the Supreme Court. So goodbye Roe.

Sorry ladies.

zp

A web log entry

2004-12-06T23:48:00.000-05:00

If you haven't been listening to The Concretes, you should be.

Oh, and welcome to our web log.