Documenting the retardedness of the world

London Calling

2005-07-08T00:27:00.000-04:00

So, I feel its kind of needed to have a more calloused approach to the idea of London being bombed.

London's attack today has reached the hearts of the public again. It may not hit as close to home, but people are still leaving messages and stuff. I imagine that this will be at the forefront of most people's thoughts for the next few days. And, much like last year's bombings in Madrid, the horror of the events wil soon be forgotten in lieu of a more violating use of the events to put forth whatever political viewpoint people have. It has already started, as of today. The people of London have my sympathy.

What makes this most amusing is how things change when they go from being somewhere ese to being in your or your friend's backyards. People are people, and will always associated over there with over there. CNN, Fox News, and other such 24 hour news channels do little more than raise the death toll every time a bombing happens in the Middle East. 20 dead. 40 dead. There are no real conferences each time this happens. Why? Because they are over there. To the Western Civilization, they've made their bed, they can sleep in it, we don't care. They are not the same as us. And other such elements of distancing occurs.

As soon as it moved to the backyard, in this case London, it becomes front page news, headlines happen, news shows change, conferences are held. These are English speaking people who are victims. White people of European descent. They are us. This is abominable. Why did it have to happen, etc etc. Sure, it may not be on the scale of 9/11 (think 9/11 divided by 100, or 9.1), but it still is shocking.

But, what will be the overall response? The problem is that this will probably push people back into extremist divisions again. The Right Wing people will say, "You liberals have tied our hands behind our backs. This is what happens when we diminish our presence. We need to renew the Patriot Act so it doesn't happen around here. These people need policing." The Left Wing will say, "See what happens when you go around policing the world? They retaliate! It's not their fault they're miserable. It's ours."

Either way, in the shuffle of the upcoming political propagandizing, and abuse of the horror that people feel when they think about these events, the real London victims will be lost, and the constant barrage of attacks in Iraq and other nations will still be largely ignored. There may be some sympathizing, but maybe not.

The other thing that will happen is the real motive will be lost. One motive that may be used will be that people are trying to draw attention to the plight of the people and get the nations of the world to do something about it. The other motive will probably be that these are the people committing the steady stream of bombings already occurring, and they are trying to get the nations of the world to stop and leave them along. And, this, again, will further divide opinion.

The public has my sympathy.

Security

2005-05-26T19:31:00.000-04:00

The Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002. From DHS' website:

Vision
Preserving our freedoms, protecting America ... we secure our homeland.

Mission
We will lead the unified national effort to secure America. We will prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the nation. We will ensure safe and secure borders, welcome lawful immigrants and visitors, and promote the free-flow of commerce.

Their history, as defined by George W. Bush, on the DHS website:

a single department whose primary mission is to protect our homeland

In their vision, there is nothing about commerce, and only in the mission is there a comment on "the free flow of commerce." Their primary goal is to protect the freedom of the United States Citizens. Their mission is to protect us from terrorists, threats, and attacks. They are primarily a function to keep us safe.

So, why then, are they teaming up with the MPAA? Why did the Department of Homeland Security team up with the MPAA and the FBI to conduct a raid on Elite Torrents? Is this a threat to our nation? Are torrents really a threat to our national security? If 10,000 people (read: <$100,000) download Star Wars Episode III and find out that it SUCKS, and not go see it in the theaters, will this be an attack on our freedoms? If people steal software to practice on until they can actually afford to buy shit to practice on, will our nation crumble?

In a word, No. The Department of Homeland Security has far overstepped its bounds in doing a raid on a system not linked to terrorism or actively threatening our nation. This is exactly why we are under a constant threat, and why our nation's security needs more attention. The FBI and the DHS have spent far too long on lesser crimes, and not enough on ones that will actually damage the nation and bring it to our knees.

If 1334 h4xx0r5 weren't such lazy introverted bitches, I'd say that people need to organize a protest. Protest the way that this situation has been handled. The MPAA, the theater system in general, and everybody else surrounding has been able to gyp us left and right by raising ticket prices and jacking up the volume of bad movies. Back in the day, you could demand your money back if the movie was terrible. Now, you can't do that anymore. It is time to protest the terrorism against the torrents. Protest the 10 warrants against the Elite Torrents Admins. Capitol Hill, here we come!

In other words, FUCK YOU DHS, and your little dog too.

High Crimes

2005-02-09T22:39:00.000-05:00

Medicare has continuously skyrocketed. Since its passing, it has done nothing but increase in cost. Now, its riveling any of the bills which the liberals ever suggested, costing $720 billion.

Yes, folks, the once estimated less than $400 billion which was given to Congress when the bill passed.

December 8, 2003: Medicare Bill passed with cost estimate of $395 billion
January 31, 2004: Medicare Bill estimates rise to $520 billion.
February 9, 2005: Medicare Bill estimaes rise yet again to $720 billion.

We are only $70 billion short of being double the original estimate signed on the bill. There was no cost cap, so we have to live with it, currently (until it is successfully challenged).

In the meantime, I don't believe there ever was an investigation into the big scandal regarding the 2004 re-estimate, where a White House employee testified that he had provided estimates of 25-50% higher than the original bill called for, but was threatened into not revealing the estimates.

Let's go impeaching.

Power Hour

2005-02-08T10:12:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Dan, we have statistics for the State of the Union drinking game

If the game had been played, this is how many times we would have had to drink in approximately an hour:
21 - "freedom"
7 - "liberty"
3 - "justice"
7 - "democracy"
1 - "God" (really surprised at how low this one is)
2 - "Saddam"
3 - "election"
23 - "terror"/"terrorist"
2 - "tax relief"
1 - "Activist Judges"

plus 6 for 3 mentions of "war on terror."

And, lastly, a double shot of 151 for one mention of "imperial communism."

Grand total: 76 drinks.

Playing at 1 oz per drink, that would be just over 6 beers and a double of 151.
Playing at 2oz per drink, thats 152 oz, that would be almost 13 beers and a double shot.

All within an hour.

Listen Carefully

2005-01-29T08:38:00.000-05:00

Everybody knows that political speeches are notorious for being full of cliches and powerful words stripped of their meaning due to overuse. So, I decided I want to start having drinking game parties for every Bush speech. Drink when each gets mentioned/said:

- "freedom"
- "liberty"
- "justice"
- "hatred"
- "democracy"
- "God" (twice for God told me to/God is on our side)
- "Saddam"
- "elections"
- "terror" (twice for "war on terror"; shotgun for winning the war on terror)
- "tax cuts"
- "activist judges"
- double shot of 151 for "communist" or "communism"

OK, I think that's enough rules. Next speech: State of the Union.

Pop politics

2005-01-27T22:38:00.000-05:00

Instead of popping over to The Magic Bag for Team America (which I may still do, depending on...things, information to follow), I watched South Park's Trapper Keeper episode. This is the combo episode of Cartman getting a Trapper Keeper which takes over the world and the kindergarten elections.

For those of you who don't remember, Trapper Keeper aired on November 16, 2000. 9 days after Gore and Bush went head to head. It has Ike go head to head with Fillmore, and the election ended as a tie wth Flora not being able to make up her mind. Then, we had to get the sick, absent kid's vote. Then, Fillmore called in his aunt Rosie O'Donnell. Here's Mr. Garrison's little dialogue with Rosie O'Donnell:

Rosie: "OK, so then what we need to do is count everybody's vote by hand. Then, we need to go over the votes manually..."

Mr. Garrison: "Oh stop it, stop it, stop it! Look, kids, we're all in this kindergarten class together. We have to respect one another, or else we're in for a terrible school year."

Rosie: "We're just making sure that the kids who voted for my nephew don't get cheated."

Mr. Garrison: "Half the kids in the class didn't vote for your nephew, so what about them? You don't give a crap about them because they're not on your side. People like you preach tolerance and open-mindedness all the time, but when it comes to middle America, you think we're all evil and stupid country yokels who need your politial enlightenment. Well, just because you're on TV doesn't mean you know crap about the government. Now, get your ass back on first class and respect this class's ability to make up their own mind."

There is nothing quite like seeing the follies of your ways when you see them pitched from a long time ago. Four years ago, Parker and Stone hinted at it. But, did the liberals take notice? No. They sat there and continued on their merry ways, even though they had lost the majority of the elections. Though, we may be currently closer to when the democrats realize that they have been preaching at middle America instead of easing them around. The Republicans have more in common with Middle America (in terms of personal views), and, thus, are more believable. They are a less bitter pill to swallow. The Dems have been pushing their superiority to the Republicans, but that isn't very effective as it seems more like whining when you don't agree with them. Yet the Pubs can get away with it because you already are on their side, hence the popularity of evil talk radio people.

Speaking of talk radio, here come the liberals to Detroit. Air America is now on 1310AM for most of the day. They also will have the Jerry Springer show. So, for all you drivers who want a change from the awesome music you listen to, here's some liberal chit chat.

I'll leave you with the kindergarten finale:

Fillmore: "I don't want to play anymore, because this game is stupid."

Jenny: "Yeah, it doesn't make any sense."

P.S. My new espresso machine is really neat, now I just need to get the hang of it. I made a nice single shot, I think.

Crime and Punishment

2005-01-26T03:32:00.000-05:00

20/20: The Matthew Shepard Story (2004)
Producers: Stephen Jimenez, Glenn Silber
Reporter: Elizabeth Vargas

What do you get when you have one of the most savage murders in America become an icon for a lifestyle? What if the murder may not have been committed for the originally stated reasons? Do you dig up the truth, and report it?

Well, for Elizabeth Vargas, she decided to do some investigative reporting on the Matthew Shepard case, and what she found delves into the world of childhood abuse, money, and crystal meth...though not on the side of Matthew Shepard. Yes, boys and girls, according to Elizabeth Vargas, Matthew Shepard was not a hate crime, it was a drug-induced crime. In a reporting style that borders this side of fishy (oh, wait, this is a newsmagazine, right?), Liz interviews people ranging from gay limo drivers, to the attackers' wives. She came up with a story that drugs and money played important roles in both Aaron McKinney's life and the life of Matthew Shepard.

The purpose of the report could be stated that it is just to get the truth out. However, it seems to be less an anti-drug commercial (which it should be if the report was done in this manner) than an anti-anti-gay-rights commercial.

The first portion of the report make the two victims out as sympathetic victims of their parents' excesses. From being beaten by mother's boyfriends to...well...everything, the attackers were not masters of their destinies. And, by the time they murdered Matthew Shepard, one was a parent, and both had severe meth addictions. But, its OK because they had a rough life, right?

Well, meth isn't nearly as good as it should be because the awesomely gay Matthew Shepard used the evil meth. Very evilly, he used the evil meth. It was bad in this case because he had so much going for him, never mind the minor mention of his getting raped. How dare he be depressed that he was raped on a field trip and got AIDS as a result. He should have been damned chipper, if you ask Elizabeth Vargas. Certainly not a drug user.

The second half of the report drives home the idea that this was not a hate crime. McKinney's wife lied in 1998 when she said it was because Shepard made a pass at McKinney (or so she had said he told her). And, in fact, neither of the attackers were homophobic in any ways. On top of this, several people had seen Shepard and McKinney together prior to the event. And, McKinney and friend was just coming down off a three-day meth binge with little to no sleep when they beat and murdered Shepard. And tied him to the fence. But, it was the meth's fault. You can't really blame the attackers though. They're paying their time. Its all good. Never mind that it was only after Shepard touched McKinney's leg that McKinney hit him for the first time.

I have such mixed reactions to this piece of newsmagazine reporting.

1) I agree truth is important. If it was not a hate crime, then whatever. They still did a vicious murder that was probably more brutal than a great deal of cinema. They deserve no time off for drug use.

2) The truth was reported in such a way that I almost felt that becoming a meth addict should allow me to kill anybody and get away with it, so long as it wasn't a hate crime. Except, I'm bi, and that makes meth use bad.

3) The truth has changed from the inception. Though, even The Laramie Project hints at the non-hate crime motivations, and that was a few years before this piece of fluff. The problem lies in a 17 second clip (17:23-17:40 in my clip, 16:59-17:16 raw):

Elizabeth: You had told police that at some point, Matthew had reached over and grabbed your leg.
Aaron: Yeah
Elizabeth: And what did you do when he grabbed your leg?
Aaron: I hit him with a pistol.

Yup. No gay panic there.

4) The facts around this single hate crime should in no way shape or form invalidate the gay rights movement. For every falsely reported gay hate crime, there are dozens of real ones. Even though this writer does not feel that hate crimes make things worse, it is a way of labeling a group of victims and a source of problems which needs to be solved. And, the gay rights movement, largely fueled by the Matthew Shepard case, is in no way wrong.

Anyways, that's the story. Those are my problems with it.

Strangely Political

2005-01-12T09:55:00.000-05:00

Listening to AM 1400 is a funny funny thing. Sometimes its informative too. Here's some things I learned on that station:

1) Christians want to convert everybody to save them from the firey pits of HELL, even fellow conservatives. Somebody told Dennis Prager that he was going to Hell for not embracing Jesus...after telling him that she (the caller) agreed with everything he said.

2) People get sidetracked easily. Several times on the station (especially on religious nut Kevin Fobbs' show), people prattle on about topics hit on the day before, or even the week before.

3) Conservatives believe illegal aliens should be tagged. Some even belief that legal aliens should be tagged. By tagged, we mean implanting a chip inside the person's skin. Of course, this would mean we would have had to tag current cabinet head of Economics, but that's besides the point.

4) Christians are starting to perform Bar Mitzvahs. Oy Vey. This reminds me of the Jews For Jesus counter-trend.

5) People inevitably sound like the things they criticize. On Kevin Fobbs' show, he was criticizing Hollywood's anti-religious humor, and displayed SNL's skit of Leviticus. He ended up sounding like Leviticus.

6) Religious people want tolerance for their religion, but hate anybody who is atheist, agnostic, or UnGodly. They want to say prayers in schools and at work, but hate anybody who thinks that there is no God.

7) Inauguration day is all about healing. (see below)

8) Gays really are second class citizens.

---------------------------------------

On that note, I should bring up the Supreme Court's latest ruling. For those of you too busy to follow, the Supreme Court recently upheld a 1977 Florida law which prevents homosexual couples from adopting children.

The facts:
In 1977, Florida banned homosexuals from adopting children. You had to be straight in order to adopt children, and generally married. In 2003, they passe a law allowing single people to adopt children. However, Florida allows homosexuals to be foster parents, which means they can raise the kids, they just can't legally adopt them. Several foster parents, and other needy homosexual couples looking for rugrats to fill their sad lonely little lives, have sued to have the law taken off the books, so they can adopt their children. Today, January 11, 2005, the federal supreme court ruled that the best family is the classic nuclear relation of a mother and a father.

The positives:
On the one hand, this has become a cementing factor in the federal vs. state line. Federal law has generally left family issues such as marriage, adoption, and so on to the states. When gay marriage, and the amendment to the federal constitution to ban it, were in the spotlight, one of the hot issues was that it changed the weight from the state to the federal. Since there is speculation on this being a hot button issue in congress soon, the upholding of state law may be a key argument against the need for a national ban.

The negatives:
Well, gay rights have lost again. But, this is in both the state and federal arena. And, it isn't for the children since one of the couples suing was named Foster Parents of the year for taking in several children infected with HIV. This isn't for the family values, since single people can adopt as well. This is all about Florida coming down on gay people, and another dignity taken away. While I congratulate the federal supreme court in their decision, I condemn the Florida supreme court (through whom the case had to have gone) for not cancelling the law.

-------------------------------------

In other news, People are protesting George Bush's inauguration on Thursday, January 20, 2005. How? By not buying anything for 24 hours. The protect is called Not One Damn Dime, and they hope people will not buy anything for 24 hours in protest to the war in Iraq, and the re-election of George Bush. Go Blue!

Racism and bigotry - Conservative style

2004-12-06T13:50:00.000-05:00

We all know that Bush is chasing the minority and female vote when he promoted Condi "Mr. President is right" Rice, and then sledged it home when he elected an import to head the economics department, Carlos Gutierrez, and a woman to education, Margaret Spellings. In addition, he named another hispanic, Alberto Gonzales, to head the Justice Department. This isn't to reduce anything in their capacities, but they aren't exactly prime examples of their species. More like sycophants, with Bush playing the psychotic role of Oliver Stone in this strange and disturbing reality which plays out more like a film rolling before my eyes than reality setting in with normalcy and sanity.

Regardless of Gonzales' and Spellings' abhorable, yet obvious, states as Bush worshippers, Roger Clegg in National Review wrote on race and affirmative action (a more embarassing AA than Alky Anon) in the education and justice system. In this report, straight out of the fifties, Clegg writes,

It raises eyebrows, then, that two of the White House aides who are reported to have been behind the weakening of the Justice Department’s position in the Michigan cases are now slated to head the Justice and Education Departments: Alberto Gonzales and Margaret Spellings, respectively.

The Michigan cases which he writes about are the notorious University of Michigan Affirmative Action cases. I say notorious because the worst of the whites were clamoring against the worst of the minorities for the tail-end acceptances into a school which they will probably flunk out of anyways (It's sort of like if Badnarik fought bitterly with Nader for the Presidency). And, I do meant retarded. If you've seens ome of the mentally disabled people that come in to that school, and I am not just talking culturally insulated either. In these cases, both the law school graduate program and the LSA undergraduate program were targeted in separate cases with similar suits. The ruling came down that the law school was not justified in its use of race as an admissions factor, while the undergrads were.

Clegg wrote that Bush's view, as well as the view of the Republican Party, tates, "[B]ecause we are opposed to discrimination, we reject preferences, quotas, and set-asides based on skin color, ethnicity, or gender, which perpetuate divisions and can lead people to question the accomplishments of successful minorities and women.” Thus, he concludes that because Gonzales and Spellings recognized the potential for poor preparations (horrible school districts, terrible culture, etc) that a slight boost is needed for minorities who are the racial majority in desparate situations. That isn't to say that they are right, but that they saw something which many of the rich white folk with stupid children fail to see.

In actuality, Clegg is also reacting against the promotion of more women and minorities to the cabinet. Good bye Powell, hello Cuban? I can picture them saying, "goddamn spics, they better know where they're place is." Actually, Clegg writes it without the obvious vulgarities,

On the other hand, Gonzales and Spellings are both famous for being loyal soldiers, and one hopes that the White House will give them — and the rest of the administration — clear marching orders in the second term.

And, later,

It would be worthwhile, then, for senators to question Gonzales and Spellings during their confirmation hearings on these issues, and gain some reassurance that each will enforce the civil-rights laws in the same way for all Americans, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or sex. Conservatives should also insist that the civil-rights officials appointed under Gonzales and Spellings have a strong commitment to color-blind law.

Clegg is actually worrying about a minority and a female taking over. He suspecta that neither will actually be faithful to the party, but faithful to their race and their culture. Because, let's face it, women and minorities, in Republican terms, are just pawns meant to obey every word which comes out of their party's mouth, right?

Maybe I have been so naive that racism is veritably dead. Maybe I have been so naive that I would actually think that minorities were mainly judged on their actual merits. Though, since Spellings and Gonzales have already proven their loyalty (to a fault), why do we have this questioning?

Roger Clegg is a racist and general counsel for the Center of Equal Opportunity.

A tip to the wiseass

2004-12-04T02:13:00.000-05:00

If you fucking beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it fucking so! - Reservoir Dogs

Top of the news: Information retrieved by torture is now admissible in courts of law. Prisoners who have been held in prison for three years (and still going strong) were held because of evidence given from prisoners in Guantanemo Bay, where "misconduct" happened. (Actually, depending on the woman, I wouldn't mind being the prisoner who got flashed for information).

While everybody knew that torture had to happen somewhere in the system for the protection of our country (hell, we're one of the most hated countries, its probably not that easy to get information against us), this is the first time its use in courts to imprison people is acceptable in about 70 years. Part of the reason they stopped allowing duressed evidence: unreliability (see above quote).

While I am definately for the use of extreme conditions to gain information regarding the safety of the nation, I am against it being used to imprison people. Why? Because, as somebody else put it, "giving up your freedom is the harshest punishment around." Taking away freedom indefinately on circumstantial evidence is a bit lacadaisical, in my opinion. In addition, while it is a crime to conspire to overthrow the government (which seems rather unpatriotic to me, given that our nation was founded by overthrowing a government *whistles*), it is much harder to convict people on conspiracy to commit a crime.

But, we're on our way to convictions of the 9-11 prisoners. Yay law!

--------------------------------------------

In other news: Tom Ridge, director of Homeland Security, has stepped down. Another one bites the dust (and another one's gone...Hey, he's gonna get you too). I wonder if all these people were hoping that Bush would not get re-elected.

Making flippy floppy

2004-11-16T11:49:00.000-05:00

Top stories:
1)US declares Fallujah
2)Fighting in Mosul
3)6 Bush Cabinet Members leave (including Michigan's own Spencer Abraham)
4)Matthew Shepard hoax revealed?

1) So, the US has declared victory in Fallujah. Yet gunfire rings out from, well, everywhere. They have declared 1000-1600 killed, though relatively few bodies. Ah well, the bodies up and went to

2) Mosul! There, the insurgents have conquored police stations and various other buildings in the Army's absence. Well, not quite absence as they have decided to drop 500-lb bombs in Mosul. Probably without warning. Good bye civilians. Fare thee well.

3) And, between fight or flight, it seems there is a mass exodus from the White House. John Ashcroft, everybody's favorite slimeball, kicked off the ceremonies last week. Joining him for the unofficial start was Commerce secretary Don Evans. Colin Powell, the resident token Black Man and veritable puppet, continued the ceremonies by announcing his leave. Spencer Abraham, sectretary of Energy and Michigan reject, fled as quickly as he could. Education secretary Rod Paige, and Agriculture secretary Ann Veneman have kept the race going. 6 people have left the cabinet so far. Color me scared.

4) 20/20 will air on November 26th a new report that Matthew Shepard, homosexuality's hate crime poster boy, was not beaten because he was gay but just because it was a burgled robbery. I can't wait, namely because I saw The Laramie Project on HBO last night for the first time, and I believe that all the words in that project were exactly what was said. If that was the case, then the whole defense was that he was targeted because of his sexuality. I should see if the court records are open. Anybody know anything about that?

In the meantime

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

So, while my computer is recuperating, I will send you guys with a link to an amazing piece of video animation, with a political message (liberal).

What Barry Says

Thanks you Knife Party!

Another reason why the democrats lost the election

2004-11-08T13:01:00.000-05:00

http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

Deconstructing a construction

2004-11-08T12:33:00.000-05:00

When asked which side needs to change, the conservatives or the liberals, confronted with the idea that Christians haven't changed in 2000 years, here was my response:

Do the Christians still torture and execute Jews, Gays, Muslims, and Protestants?

(well, we've solved 50% of the problem)

The Christians still attack foreign lands?

(yup)

The Christians still conduct Holy Wars against each other, burning churches and razing cities?

(I think most of these have been stemmed)

Yup, you're right, Christians are constructive.

In addition to these classic examples, currently we have religious leaders saying they'll murder gays just for giving them "a look" then lie to God about it (Jimmy Swaggart). Leaders who lead their flock to exclude people who don't believe in what they do (Kerry and abortion). Leaders who lead their flock to hurt people who don't believe in what they do (abortion bombings, groups of which have included pastors). Leaders who brainwash people and use manipulation tactics to get them to conform to what they believe (as opposed to the Glitterati informing people of what they believe and exposing them to it) (see Hell House). Leaders who praise the torture and beating of other people, solely for their sexuality (Rev. Fred Phelps). I could go on...

I have no problem with Christianity itself. I have a problem with the Cult (or Church, if you will) of Christianity. The total and utter control of beliefs to be exclusive of anybody who doesn't conform. The belief that gays or any other moral or belief system are second hand citizens (now slightly more inclusive with Jews!).

I understand the appeal of church. I understand the need to belong, the need to find answers to questions unknown. The need to believe. BUT, the church leaders are using their clout not for good, but for exclusion and/or conformity.>

The left's psychotics (who are psychotic...see Monster, a horribly sympathetic portrait of a killer) are to be shunned as well. But, they don't have nearly the committed following that the church does. With the glitterati, people don't necessarily believe the politics covertly dished out at the cineplex, in magazines, on television. They also aren't told they won't be allowed to watch programs or read magazines if they don't believe (see Communion counter-part).

In academia, things are a bit different, but the culture wars which happen in universities (see UofM, subdivision of Haight-Ashbury) prove that the students are not all listening nor believing. When the pro-Palestines clash against the pro-Israels, it is a beautiful clash. When the pro-Affirmative Actioners fight the anti-race-based-Affirmative Actioners, it is beautiful (I still love the White scholarship).

Both sides have their head deep in their ass, but the religious right has a much more solid grip on its followers.

Ideal job

2004-11-08T01:17:00.000-05:00

BBC News reports the latest in the anti-terror effort:

Before now, there has been speculation that Osama Bin Laden has hidden messages in pornographic images posted and swapped on Usenet, eBay and Amazon.

However, after analysing over two million images from eBay, Niels Provos and colleagues from the University of Michigan have said they found no evidence of hidden messages. Mr Provos and his colleagues are now extending their work to check more images.

I'd hate to be the custodian at UofM, but I want to study the pictures. I wonder what the preferred clean-up method was.

Not so stunning facts

2004-11-07T23:07:00.000-05:00

According to CNN

20% of Bush's voters go to church more than weekly. 11.7% of Kerry's do.

29.6% of Bush's go weekly. 22.2% of Kerry's do.

13.7% of Bush's make it monthly, 14.3% of Kerry's do.

24.7% of Bush's go a few times a year, 31.5 of Kerry's do.

10.5% of Bush's never go. 19.4% of Kerry's never do.

49.6% of Bush's voters go to church weekly or more. 33.9% of Kerry's voters do the same.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

88.1% of Bush's voters are Catholic or Protestant. 71.4% of Kerry's voters are Catholic or Protestant.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this probably doesn't include too much good information from the rural states.

Jaded about elections

2004-11-06T16:38:00.000-05:00

A story, told by an idiot, with much sound and fury, trying to explain the absence of the youth vote, signifying nothing:

I remember it like it was yesterday. Let's set the stage:

Date: November 7th, 2000
Time: 9:00pm
Place: Fraternity House

Election year. It is that quadrennial event in which people go to the polls to pull the pole which selects the politician which you want to lead your country for four years. It is the event of high hopes and dashed dreams. An event full of ideals and values. One of the events which should be sacred to every single American in this country.

This election year was my first to vote. It was also my second year in college. I had driven all the way back to my hometown to vote because this was the year where they passed a bill saying that you could not vote in your college town, but had to vote in your original district. I missed the absentee deadline, so I drove home to make sure I was able to vote.

Several of my fellow fraternity brothers had done similar things, or filed for absentee ballots. For many of us, it was our first chance to vote, our first chance to say who we wanted for leader, our first chance to say "we want this man to be our president."

Living in Michigan, one knows that the Democrat/liberal candidate would easily win. Gore hadn't said much that was ideal to me, but I know I hated GWBush and his politics. I had voted for Nader and the Green Party for the purpose of trying to get him to push to the 2% needed for federal funding. Not that he had a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but I felt the democrats and republicans were sort of like polarized magnets which were facing each other on a high friction surface. Slowly and painfully, they were coming together to become virtually the same magnet.

The house was pretty evenly split, but very cordial about it. Only a couple of the brothers were truly political (excluding yours truly...aerospace homework and parties = political lightweight). They were communication or poli-sci majors.

On election night, the house had gathered in the main room to watch the news progress throughout the evening. Eagerly anticipating the results, we were on the edge of our seats for most of the evening. Edge of our seats may be the wrong term...more like edge of our drink. We were drinking to celebrate and...well, it was a fraternity, we used any excuse to get together and drink, though I suspected this was a good one.

The results started coming in, rather silly at first. As usual. Most of us had pledged that we would stay up and watch until the concession speeches were given and the whole evening was over. As the results came in, Florida stayed stubbornly indecisive. Soon, a news channel had declared Florida for Gore. A general feeling of relief and finality had overcome us. The concession speech would surely come soon, right?

Time passed...

and passed...

and passed...

I decided to start doing my homework, which I had vowed to neglect until the speeches were done, (and I was slightly tipsy). Bush had not come out to give his speech. Why not? We were all really frustrated at this point. We wanted to get on with our lives knowing who would be our next President.

Then, Fox News decided that Florida really voted for Bush. Then, it was really close, and no concession speech would be given that night.

Days passed.

Weeks passed.

Stories of voter fraud started emerging from the newspapers. Recalls kept occurring. Ballots were thrown out. Stories of difficult ballots came out. The popular vote had clearly gone to Gore. But, who what would seperate the winner from the loser? And, finally, the Supreme Court decided that Gore had lost and Bush had won.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Year: 2004

Four years later. Billions of dollars in debt. At war with a country which did not attack us. We were poised to renew our bid for President. Would we be able to choose who we wanted this time around?

October 2003 had the beginning of the first section of the year's rally "A.B.B." Anybody but Bush.

The democrats were a joke when they first started their bid in October 2003. Who were these jokers, and couldn't we have a remix of them? Who really wanted to vote for any of these assholes? Why were we stuck with these decisions? Were we stuck with these choices because of ABB? Nobody chose to answer these questions, but Kerry was elected in the primaries, to the chagrin of most democrats. ABB became ABBAK, Anybody But Bush And Kerry.

Early in 2004, bombings of Spain their election week laid claims that the terrorists were manipulating elections abroad. Newspapers and politicians clinged to this concept of who people would vote for were dictated by fear. This wasn't too far off.

Cynical speculations that Usama Bin Laden would be "captured" sometime in late October, in time for re-election. Or, he would at least pop up somehow. This turned out to be true.

MTV's perpetual use as a pop culture brainwashing machine came to restart their "Choose or lose" which was later molded into "choose or die." Choose or Lose was deemed a success for asking what type of underwear Clinton wears, circa Beavis and Butthead era.

Actors and actresses came out, as usual, and demanded that people should vote...and vote for Kerry, the new Democratic running mate.

Besides the volume and rancor of the punditry, everything seemed to be moving fairly normally: except for ABB.

THEN THINGS STARTED TO GET MEAN

Besides the usual trash-talking and mud-slinging which pervades every election, we had the new stories of potential voter fraud, and more groups of wannabe registrars.

There were electronic voting boothes which had no paper trails, thus allowing data to be manipulated (there is a reason the IRS demands you keep reciepts for 7 years).

The groups were caught with various false registrations.

Ohio throws out registrations because they were not on thick enough paper

Registrations were missing through the mail.

Voter fraud starts appearing in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida...And these started happening in September.

By late October, many people were tired of the endurance which it takes to keep up with the virtual onslaught of politics which happens with election year.

Neither side was innocent. Neither side believed that the elections were sacred. They both took the events of last year's elections as a launch pad for further manipulation.

False news stories appear on television, to be proven false on internet blogs. False news stories then happen on blogs.

Finally, the voice of reason appears: from Trey Parker and Matt Stone. South Park's 8th season premiere airs the Wednesday before election day. In it, they criticize PETA and plead with people vote. They tell people to vote, but agree with the potential non-voters that the candidates are a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Literally. This had overtones of The Simpson's 1996 season (interestingly their 8th season) opener "Treehouse of Horror VII" which featured Bill Clinton and Al Gore as aliens, whom you were doomed to vote for. The issue with South Park was it ended with your vote didn't matter anyways.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why have the youth decided not to vote. Besides the respectable people who don't vote because they don't know anything about politics, we have a jaded society. Elections have become a sham. A way to defraud the American public. A joke. With armys of lawyers deployed to various states, we have an extremely large way for the youth to be jaded.

People between the ages of 22 and 25 have experienced two elections in a row which have practically seemed as if they weren't decided by votes but by flaws and laws. With al of the predictions from the liberal left coming true, why shouldn't we believe that there would be voter fraud? Then, those rumors came true when there was a computer election booth which created 3000 Republican votes.

Is it any wonder why we have so many youth jaded from voting?

Whoever wins, we lose

2004-11-03T11:22:00.000-05:00

1pm ET; 12pm CT; 11am MT, 10am PT

According to the NYTimes, Kerry will concede the race at 1pmET in Boston. 31 hours after the booths opened, Kerry will concede the race at 1pm. Ohio is a lost cause, as 130,000 is a shitload of voted. NV and NM and IA are all leaning towards Bush.

Whee!

Four more years.

Suing companies

2004-11-03T10:59:00.000-05:00

Now that civil unions have been banned in Michigan, it is time for all gays who do possess the civil union standing to go out and sue the pants off the state so their straight civil union counterparts do not recieve the benefits which their civil unions afford them.

Impeaching Bush

2004-11-03T02:30:00.000-05:00

Well, its 2:30, and there still isn't a decisive winner yet. Florida still is working its way through absentee ballots, though nothing short of a miracle will get Kerry's victory. Ohio has been declared about an hour and a half ago, given to Bush. This puts Bush at 269 out of the 270 electoral votes necessary, with the three last remaining states coming into play being Iowa, Hawaii, and New Mexico.

Here's where things get hairy, though. Ohio has been predicted to be the legal battleground state for recounts and various other elements of voter fraud. Florida has a notorious history of strange voting records (see 2000 election). But, there is still the hypothetical situation that Kerry could pull the rest of the states (MI [def], WI [def], HI[def], MN [def], IA[slim], NM [slim], and NV[very very bleak]), though I doubt it.

Not to sound like a sore loser (oh, wait, my candidate didn't even get 1% of the vote...fucking morons), but its time we get Bush to start being honest with us. Let's impeach the fucker. I want everybody to write to their Representative, write to your Senator. Start a judiciary committee on Medicare.

Yes, folks, Medicare might be the key to our success. Many conservatives are genuinely pissed off that Bush lied about the cost of Medicare, and they might be sympathetic to the plight posed by democrats. Deroy Murdock in National Review wrote about the illegality of what might have happened to get Medicare voted in. Medicare was known to probably cost around $600 billion, while it was voted on at $400 billion. But, what was best was that many of the people working for the administration came out as being forced into keeping quiet about the real cost. Murdock lists 5 laws broken.

Send this out to everybody. Let's get the impeachment trials started now.

Voting is easy

2004-11-02T13:37:00.000-05:00

In my district, there was no line this morning. I voted for Badnarik. I voted an almost straight libertarian ticket, UST when not libertarian, democrat when not independent.

No on Michigan Prop 1, No on Michigan Prop 2.

He's BAACCKK! or: Timing is Everything

2004-11-01T02:54:00.000-05:00

With the election being one week away, we have two different terroristic tapes on our hands, Iran's nukular issue, Arafat's illness, and, to top it off, a Japanese body was found in Baghdad.

1) Usama Bin Laden has released another video tape, this one dated back to the 70s. Seriously, it is dated back to at least September if not sooner. I think it was kept under wraps until this week anyways. Our government is weird like that.

2) Azzam the American. For those who haven't heard, we have a new cartoon character. This one is Azzam the American. Azzam has released a 75 minute long lecture tape, this one captured by ABC. It seems rather cartoonish and bizarre. At first, they assumed that English was not Azzam's native language. Now, they suspect that it is Adam Yahiye Gadahn (aka Adam Pearlman) who made the tapes. It is a hard-to-distinguish accent. *sigh* My favorite is the lack of originality in moving from Adam to Azzam. Yet Pearlman becomes Gadahn.

3) Iran has voted on their nuclear issue. They have voted to keep enriching their uranium, which can be used for nuclear weapons. According to the two reports, they shouted "Death to America"...again. Did we attack Iran two years ago? Nope. Last year? Nope. This year? Nope. Hrm. Did we attack Iraq? Yup. Did they have WMDs? Nope. Hrm. Do we want somebody who attacks the wrong country as our leader?

4) Arafat is recovering in a French military training hospital. No news whether this is free of charge, but he was lifted from Jordan in a French army jet. He is expected to make a full recovery, much to the chagrin of Israelis and Zionists.

5) A Japanese body this time? Jebus. Go war in Iraq. Japan won't pull out due to a dead body, so why should we, right? RIGHT? GODDAMMIT.

The silent minority

2004-10-26T23:52:00.000-04:00

There is one group in the country, politically. The Repocrats. OK, so it really is two parties but they have melded together in an urgent need to gain votes from the other side.

This is bad. Very very bad. Why?

Because we have a country where people aren't voting for who they think will do the best job, but who they think will win. People aren't voting for who they think will do the best job, but who won't do the worst. People aren't voting for the best candidate, but the lesser of two evils.

Before I go on, I must say that this is sounding so typically third-party in terms of whininess, but they do have a point...a point which I have agreed with since 1996.

In America, we have an unofficial two-party system. Over time, these parties have changed, but rarely has a three party system survived in this nation. We have a winner-take-all system when it comes to everything. President gets elected in, but the losers get nothing except the right to grumble about the elected. If you are in the third party, you get nothing.

Recently, with the development of the neo-con, it has seemed that the Republicans (who have made mistakes since I can remember) are splitting off. But, with this election being so "important" (dictated by the media), everybody is afraid from deviating this year from their party. On the other hand, many people voting for either candidate actually associate themselves as libertarians. Why?

One person wrote, "I won't vote for the libertarians because of the nutjobs who generally run for office." This is a problem inherent in the system. It costs a lot of money to campaign. It costs even more to demand recognition if the media won't help. You have to be able to have a job after the election is over, and survive through the campaign trail. One would have to be crazy to spend millions on a campaign which has no government support, and which is doomed to lose anyways.

Another person wrote, "I hate to waste a vote on somebody who I know won't win." If everybody who said this actually voted for the person they thought should win, that person would probably have into the 10% margin. At that point, there would (hopefully) be much more media attention to the third party. Of course, that is idealism (we all know that the media is in the pockets of the DNC and RNC).

In this modern time, I hope everybody votes for who they think would do the best job. Who stands for what you think is important. Not what party you should stand for. Stop voting for Bush if he doesn't support your ideals. Stop voting for Kerry if he doesn't support your ideals. Stop voting against somebody. Start voting with your brains and your morals.

It is also time to revamp the system. We have been behind the times for far too long. Canada has a system where your vote for leader doesn't just go to that leader, but also to a chair in a section of their parlament. Maybe we should adopt a new system which upholds this style of election. Where people wouldn't be afraid of losing a vote. Where things might happen outside of the bipartisan method.

When you vote on Nov. 2nd, vote with your brain. Not with your anger.

Sideline punditry

2004-10-26T13:40:00.000-04:00

Everybody knows about the Sinclair broadcasting hullabaloo. Here's what's going on from the other side.

2003 - ohGr - Majik - An industrial band releases an animatronic anti-Bush video.
Early 2004 - Sundance replays Robert Altman's HBO series Tanner '88, witten with Garry Trudeau, about a fictional presidential candidate's failed political campaign.
Mid 2004 - Another anti-Bush animatronic video (will get data by tomorrow)
May 2004 - Michael Moore releases the first in a flood of political documentaries which are just campaign commercials.
September 2004 - Sundance Channel replays Tanner '88.
September 2004 - Sundance Channel also picks up Al Franken's talk show.
October 2004 - Sundance plays several anti-Bush documentaries, including With God on Our Side, and The President Versus David Hicks
October 2004 - Eminem releases Mosh (Featured on Launch), another anti-Bush animatronic.
November 1st 2004 - Sundance plays the "un" trilogy, Unprecidented: the 2000 Presidential Election, Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War, and Unconstitutional: The War on Our Civil Liberties, as well as Bush's Brain (about Karl Rove). In addition, it plays A Perfect Candidate, a movie about Oliver North's 2004 Senatorial bid.

From the middle:
HBO has been playing Diary of a Political Tourist, which is a fluffy yet evenly despising comedy about the candidates.

What was that about the Sinclair broadcasting system being biased? At least everybody recognizes Bush as an evil cartoon character.

Scylla and Charybdis

2004-10-26T01:47:00.000-04:00

Given the extreme waffling in the electoral college polls, I have discovered that you can't trust any of them. However, Michigan is supposedly a strong Kerry supporter now, though Kerry is losing over all. One of the reasons is that The Detroit News, one of the conservative papers, has pulled its endorsement for President.

Yes, the Republicans are finally going against Bush in a conservative backlash against those bastard neo-cons. The big government "compassionate" (my ass) conservatives are ruining the nation, and The Detroit News has pulled its endorsement of Bush. They also are not endorsing Kerry. Some choice quotes:

The Detroit News will not lend its endorsement to a candidate who has made too many mistakes, nor to one who offers a governing philosophy that we reject.

Such bad management cannot be forgiven in a wartime president. At home, Bush has shocked us with his free-spending ways.

The president's record does not recommend him for re-election.

Thank God. Maybe we can pull some of the Republicans over to libertarians, or at least get a fiscally conservative candidate. Because, Goddammit, I will not vote for a President who does not support any of my ideals. I will not support a rock nor a hard place. I will transcend the two party system and back a candidate who I think will run the country in a better manner.

Pandering to the LCD

2004-10-23T08:24:00.000-04:00

Je suis un Mexicano. Je ne parle pas Espangole. Mais, dans l'ecole, j'ai apprendu le Francais.

I keep getting these fliers from the DNC telling me to vote for Kerry, only in French. I am torn between deciding whether I think its racist or not, since they are bilingual, half in Spanish, half in English. I'm also torn whether I think it is great for the DNC to be marketing to people who don't speak English since all of the campaigning is in English.

I have decided I didn't like it though. It makes assumptions.

To date, the RNC hasn't sent me any fliers.

Frightening Politics

2004-10-23T08:21:00.000-04:00

Chris Madden, a Bush Cheney Spokesman, commenting on the flu vacciene emergency, "We know that they listen to the facts. The reason for the shortage is because John Kerry and his friends support people to have the right to sue doctors...They won't listen to rhetoric -- Kerry pounding his fist on the table."

There are two things going on, if you didn't catch that:

1) Unintentional hilarity. Talk about irony, Madden's "rhetoric" line takes the cake, and he said it without any semblance of a sense of humor.

2) Horror. This is a prime example of why we don't need tort reform. If not for the fear that we could sue the doctors, the doctors and, more importantly, the drug manufacturers would screw us over ever chance they could get, including giving us contaminated vaccienes.

---------------------------------------

Fox & Friends also showed the video of Ann Coulter getting attacked by pies. That was the most hilarious video ever. Then the comments by the newspeople were hilarious too. They kept going on about how dangerous it all was. Pies...pies were dangerous.

Who I should vote for

2004-10-20T19:27:00.000-04:00

http://www.selectsmart.com/president

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
2. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (77%) Click here for info
3. Cobb, David - Green Party (59%) Click here for info
4. Nader, Ralph - Independent (59%) Click here for info
5. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (59%) Click here for info
6. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (57%) Click here for info
7. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (49%) Click here for info
8. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (48%) Click here for info
9. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (44%) Click here for info
10. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (42%) Click here for info
11. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (41%) Click here for info
12. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (37%) Click here for info
13. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (35%) Click here for info
14. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (34%) Click here for info
15. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (33%) Click here for info
16. Bush, President George W. - Republican (26%) Click here for info
17. Hagelin, Dr. John - Natural Law (25%) Click here for info
18. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (21%) Click here for info

Palestinian Uprising in Michigan (or: Lecture Day)

2004-10-20T13:27:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I filmed a lecture given by Don Matthews, an asst professor at Oakland University. He gave a lecture here in the Middle East Speaker Series, put on by the college, and headed by Randy Schwartz. The lecture was titled, "Palestine, Israel, and the Origins of a Conflict." Matthews has visited Jerusalem annually, including in August.

The Speaker series is normally around 2pm on Wednesdays, but yesterday was different. It was on Tuesday and at 3pm, or so. There were fewer people there than normal (though more people than the first lecture I filmed) and in the audience were four Palestinian supporters, two of whom had the grammar and accent to have actually been from the area. Of the other two, one was a young kid with ghetto stylings, and the other was an older guy who had fish eyes and strong-ass glasses.

Matthews' lecture was surprisingly even-handed. He placed equal blame on the Israelis as on the Palestinians, or he did as much as possible. He went through the history of the area from pre-Roman era through the diaspora, the regions name, and its occupational changes.

For those of you who don't know the history, I'll give you a brief recap. Palestinians were the name of a group of indiginous people pre-Roman era. Not necessarily the people who are Palestinian Arabs though. They disappeared during the Roman occupation, and spread out. After the destruction of Jersualem and Israel, the area was named Palestine.

Palestine was always named Palestine throughout its occupations, though generally as a provencial-type name. It went through independence, occupation by the Ottoman Empire, British Mandate, and now Israel again.

Around the time of WWI, or just before, there were no Zionist Jews in the area, as most were nationalist for Palestine. The Zionists decided to take over the land, and ended up going from 35,000 to 450,000 population in a relatively short amount of time. The Brits promised the Jews a section to call their own, but not necessarily a state. The Arabs rose up against the Zionists before this time because they saw them as taking over the land (which they were). The Zionists were also not being friendly to the Arabs at this portion, killing many who didn't submit. Post WWII, the Brits finally leave the land because they were tired of the Zionists demanding control of the land, and the Arabs fighting over it.

They then left Israel in the hands of the Jews. There was a war which broke out, launched by the Arabs, against Israel by the five nations, and Israel lost 1% of its population suppressing the uprising. Then, in a combo move, the Arabs were simultaneously driven out and fled to become refugees in foreign lands.

Then, we fast forward and skipped over the Six Day war, of which Matthews said one of the scariest things possible (and it was also of the reugees too), "The history on that is still being written." Israel was the first to use arms, but Egypt had blockaded a river. Either way, this is the Gaza Strip and the West Bank areas.

At the present time, Egypt is at a formal peace with Israel, though they may be hostile otherwise.

After the lecture, this is where things got a bit hairy. The four Palestinian sympathizers decided to go rabid and make this a pro-Palestine source, and/or thought that Matthews was somebody who commented for Israel. He was, actually, very even handed. They started asking the most pointed questions and cutting him off before he got a chance to finish his statements.

Lord knows that I am not an Israeli sympathizer, but this guy was no expert. He was giving a foundation for the conflict, and these four fuckheads started going on about Ariel Sharon and recent events:

Fucktard 1: What do you see the war as...
Matthews: *gobbeldy gook* and Sharon's use of targeted killings...
Fucktard 1: targeted Killings, you mean assassinations?
Matthews: Yes, targeted killings, assassinations, whatever term you want to use for extralegal killing
Fucktard 1: But, here, isn't asassinations illegal?
Matthews: Yes, that's what extralegal means, outside of the law.
Fucktard 1: But, doesn't that
Matthews: Well, Sharons, if you'll let me finish my point, excuse me...

It was almost embarassing how pointed the questions were when he was trying to mak an even-handed point. If I had a beer for every time one of these fucktards had a personal story, I would have passed out. "They only gave us a tank of water on Tuesdays and Thursdays." "My grandfather was in the Jordanian army." "My foot hurts because of Israel." Shut the fuck up. If it wasn't for Israel, you wouldn't be in America, you fucktards.

Matthews handled as well as one could handle over-dominating cretins.

Kerry Ka-putnik

2004-10-14T01:20:00.000-04:00

First debate not watched solo. First debate in which Kerry looked completely terrible compared to Bush. Crash and burn for the Kerry team.

Kerry, tonight, appeared tired and beat, almost as Bush did in the first debate. The surprising thing about that is that yesterday was Kerry's day off, while Bush was going around campaigning and practicing his debate speeches. Maybe Kerry should take a note, ebcause he might spend the however-many-days of Vacation that Bush did on some ranch.

Kerry had no viable plan for anything, he didn't show any strength whatsoever, his plans were non-existant, and his attacks were weak in origin. Bush, on the other hand, had facts (though infinitely repeated ones) coming out of his left ear (where he was probably wired), and appeared confident almost to the point of cockiness. My fellow viewers resorted to remarking on Bush's appearance, including such micromanagement issues as his tie.

I don't undertsnad why when the debates were still somewhat rollicking when they weren't dull as shit. In the opening pieces, I was rolling on the floor I was laughing so hard, but through most of it I was bored to tears I had heard the same spiel so many fucking times before. It was a campaign management on ice.

Best phrase:
Bush: "...Fiscal sanity..."

Judaism is the greatest religion ever, and other ways to stay out of the government's reports

2004-10-13T01:59:00.000-04:00

The Telegraph reports that Congress has just passed a new bil, and it is now before the President. The new bill adds discrimination against Jews to the American human rights watchdog list.

In another test of America's frayed relations with France, Russia and other allies, the US Congress has ordered the State Department to start rating governments throughout the world on their treatment of Jewish citizens.

The resulting report cards on anti-Semitism would be published in annual US surveys of human rights abuses around the world.

Maybe its just me, but this is favoritism in the highest regard. With all religious groups being discriminated against in various places all over the world (America against Muslims, Sudan against Christians and tribals, China against Buddhists and Falun Dafa practicers, the Middle East against Jews and athiests) we get to focus on one religion: Judaism. Why?

Well, first, this could be construed as yet another round of "Let's Kiss Ariel Sharon's Ass!" Protecting Jews would be sucking up to Sharon and trying to get him to like us more. Second, because Jews are still "the most victimized group in history," at least according to themselves and anybody else who believes them.

But, why is this bad? Why am I outraged? Let's look at a quote from the State Department:

A three-page State Department memorandum, leaked to The Telegraph yesterday, complained that congressional plans would throw US human rights reporting "out of balance", and "erode our credibility by being interpreted as favouritism in human rights reporting".

Besides the charges of favoritism and the way logic could easily lead to the Big Jew Conspiracy conclusion, this type of reporting does nothing for the US as an areligious being. It also is extremely biased in that it covers none of the other types of non-Judeo-Christian religions (or even a lack thereof). It is biased and pissy.

In addition to this, the favoritism (which is inherent in the bill) also leads us into more trouble with the Middle Eastern Muslim terrorist factions (and other countries), who already hate our support of Israel. It is just a lot of antagonism.

On top of this, this could also lead to more than a few countries' peoples who think this is biased to increase their anti-Semitism, thinking that the Jews think that they are so special.

This is a horrible and unnecessary bill, and I don't know how it passed Congress with major support from both sides. Oh, wait, yes I do (israel).

Going to jail for what you believe

2004-10-11T01:02:00.000-04:00

Two interesting things happened recently.

Everybody's favorite liberal, Michael Moore, was going to be arrested and prosecuted for buying votes. He was going to give slackers clean underwear and ramen noodles for voting in the upcoming election. The Michigan GOP (fuck Michigan) decided that this was against the law and tried to prosecute, but the prosecuter said that this was not in his interest, and he would prefer to put the drug dealers and murderers behind bars.

Better yet is a case of an actual arrest. Badnarik and Cobb, Libertarian and Green presidential candidates respectively, were arrested at the Presidential debates on Friday. They were trying to serve papers to the debate commission, and crossed the police barricade attempting to do so. They were thus arrested.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining - Judge Judy

2004-10-05T22:49:00.000-04:00

In the most disgusting, degenerate, depraved display of a debate I have ever seen, our VP candidates have finally showed their true colors,

and

it

was

GLORIOUS!!!

Cheney and Edwards were at their snarkiest, their slickest, their most intense they could probably muster. And, that Edwards won most of the pissing contests in the most bitchy ways proves to me...that Edwards is gay and closetted.

Yes, folks, John Edwards is the gayest queen ever to run for government that I have ever seen. He was catty in the cattiest sense. He was bitchy, queeny, witty, and fun...trying hard not to retract his nails. He clawed Cheney a new asshole, even when Cheney tried to go on the offensive.

Best question of the night: What will you do to promote peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Best Answer of the night: Cheney's response to Israeli Palestinian conflict: "You should look at Edward's attendance record? And, at his voting record. For that matter, look at Kerry's matter."

Cheney was not nearly as calm and collected as he should have been. He has a proclivity for getting hot and riled under pressure, and he showed that in spades. When Edwards attacked Cheney as CEO of Halliburton, Cheney became so unraveled that I saw little puffs of smoke come out of his ears.

Thats not to say that Edwards was a glowing star for the whole night. He dodged questions much easier than Cheney, but he still dodged questions. The global test question popped up, and Edwards fell into the pit, not giving a viable interpretation which made him seem snake-ish as well, which he was. By the end, Edwards must have decided he didn't want to attack anymore. Even when he was avoiding the domestic AIDS queston, he didn't attack Bush's $15 billion for its red-tape, nor any of its limitations. The sleaziest part of the night, which also came courtesy of Edwards, was the Ohio campaigning "It takes 35 people in run the election here in Cleveland." It reminded me of Stephen Tyler shouting "HEYY ST. LOUIS" (Uh, we're in Springfield)

Cheney also managed to call several of Edwards' missed facts early on, and through some portions of the first half. Some of his data also didn't apply to the question at hand, as in the case of the Cleveland question. That the national jobs have gone up doesn't address that Cleveland and Detroit and us here in the rust belt style swing states have lost millions of jobs, and haven't got many back in the "upswing." Also, he didn't address the falling average wage, which had people with high paying jobs getting jobs back that paid a fraction of what they used to make.

Cheney was also flustered and tried to shake the piss off his cock onto Edwards at the end, but failed miserably. Edwards can use his adrenaline much better than Cheney can. This, to me, tells me he'd also be better than Cheney in negotiation situations than Kerry. He can stick it to people, and without flinching. He can also win some people over as well, if he was trying to get the people in the senate.

I think Cheney lost this one by a landslide. He was crusty, rough, angry, and miserable. Edwards was angry as well, but he seemed to have fun with the debate. It was this fun that made the debate enjoyable.

Then, again, I'm not the general public.

The liberals and the Middle East, and the big debate!

2004-09-30T22:51:00.000-04:00

I go to a community college, where the professors are generally cool or morons, and it also breeds the ideal liberal of all ages. More on idealism in college, and how people don't know any better.

The first lecture I was able to attend was one on Islam and modernity. It was from a lecturer at UofM who had done research in Morocco for 2 years. His aim was to talk about the similarities between Islam and America (though they are about as related as Judaism and America, but we'll leave that alone for now). He was trying to bridge the gap between Islam and the rest of the world, saying that we see each other as the "other," that victimized unit made oh so popular by feminists. He mainly interviewed college students in Morocco, some of whom had come from the countryside. He compared these religious views and everyday lifestyles to that of America.

He wasn't very good.

The third I was able to make it to was from Lawrence Pitnak, author of Seeds of Hate. He talked about the roots of terror. He kind of glossed over Israel and its influence on the Islamist sect, but then he went out of his way to call it the Zionist-Palestinian conflict. He said that between the U.S.'s support of dictatorships frienly to the US and harmful to the people and the U.S.'s support of Israel and our unnecessary invasion of Iraq, the Muslim world saw us as a major threat and did not support us. They saw us as an enemy now. One of the major thorns is still Israel though. When asked whether getting out of Israel's pants would help our cause, he said that it would, though he did comment, "I don't think we'll be stopping out support of Israel any time soon, with both Kerry and Bush competing on who likes Sharon more." He made some great comments on the "other" and how we saw each other (Arab world in Middle East vs. America). But, then, I agreed with him more than that first lecturer.

I may also get quoted in the newspaper, with the reporter guy saying, "where are you whenever I have to ask surveys? Everybody around here basically repeats what I say, only in different wordings with nothing original to add." He had asked my general opinion, and I felt it was too abbreviated.

---------------------------------------------------
DEBATE TIME

So, while watching the debates, I decided what a good drinking game would be; Everytime Bush said something was hard work, take a drink. You'll be drunk within half an hour. EVERYTHING is hard work for the President, from training the troops to conducting the war. Bush wants to attack North Korea and Iran soooooo badly, he gets all choked up about it (probably wants to attack more than Kerry). Then, again, Kerry isn't doing himself much justice. He wants to attack N. Korea and Iran, but pretends he doesn't. Yet, he keeps attacking Bush for not attacking or talking to those countries...

The following quotes brought chortles and/or groans to my lips. I even snorted a few times.

Bushisms from the debate:

We've been training the Iraqis, and its hard work. (as if he's doing the training himself)

Osama Bin Laden doesn't get to decide what we do for defense. The American public gets to decide what we do for our defense. I decided that...

I told her that her husband's sacrifice was noble and worthy...Everybody matters. Everybody's worth it.

I think that by speaking clearly, doing as we say, we will never have to use troops.

We will rue the day if Saddam Hussein stays in power.

[Hussein] had the capability to make weapons, and he would have made weapons.

I'm interested in working with other nations, and I do alot of it.

If Kim Jong-Il refuses to submit to our agreements, then...then...he'll be doing China a great injustice.

We've climbed the mighty mountain and now its time to go to the valley. I see the valley of peace.

Kerry:
Its very important to Israel [that we fix Iraq]

Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening if [Bush] had just gone through another round of negotiations with the other leaders. (how many rounds do leaders need to set down their arms?)

Iran has nuclear weapons, and the world would have been more dangerous. <-----Kerry plans to attack Iran as well. We've got a backdoor draft coming...(pull up your pants! Its the democrats who want a front-end draft)

---------------------------------------
Postwar debate:

Bush sucked, Kerry sucked minorly less. GeorgeWBush.com knows that Bush sucked and, so, proceeded to pounce on Kerry for the lamest of things (trying to pretend to be myth/claim-busters). Check it out. :-)

Some highlights:

Kerry's claim: Former military officers support Kerry.

The Facts: The President has been endorsed by Over 250 retired flag officers
OOOOOOOO, 250. That's, like, alot of them. That's certainly representative of a great percentage, right? RIGHT?!
----------------------------

Kerry's claim: Air cargo is not being screened for explosives.

The facts: One hundred percent of passengers and passenger bags now being screened.

Maybe I need my ears washed out, but he said that the passengers and passenger bags were being screened, but that the cargo bays were not.
----------------------------

Kerry's Claim: Kerry Claim he has only one position on Iraq.
----------------------------

My favorite

Kerry`s Claim: President Bush Has Not Done Enough To Secure Chemical Plants.

The Facts: Kerry Has Raised More Money From Paid Lobbyists Than Any Other Senator Over the past 15 Years.

----------------------------

Kerry`s Claim: President Bush Is Restricting Funding For Stem Cell Research.

Fear of the Unknown

2004-09-27T21:30:00.000-04:00

Intro
Part One was written on June 3rd before my first shroom trip, and part two was on June 4th, after the trip, while I was in Amsterdam. It was not transcribed until now. I felt that it woud be appropriate since it requires no research and I am almost too busy to read any of the major news sources.

Part One
Americans know Amsterdam for their drug reputation. Since marijuana have been all but legalized (they consider it tolerated) in Amsterdam, Americans believe that it is a country of "anything goes." This is far from the truth.

Amsterdam treats substances like America treats cigarettes. You must be 18 to enter a coffeehouse -- the places where one can buy and use pot as well as a normal energy coffeehouse -- or a headshop/smartshop: where one can just buy shrooms, pot, energy, and other mild chemicals. Amsterdam does have its limits though. LSD, Coke, and other hard drugs are illegal, as is ecstasy and ephedra (rave drugs).

I have to believe people have died from the last two, hence the banning in Amsterdam as well as America. They might have addictive properties, but the real problem is dehydration. One can die from dehydration, or other conditions, caused by/combined with these drugs. In any case, Amsertdam's take on drugs makes more sense than America's take on them.

I tend to believe biased documentaries like Grass where they report that the USA banned marijuana for political/control reasons. They were controlling the minorities and restricting their integration with the young and rebellious with the ban. That the government has repeatedly ignored studies that marijuana is safer than tobacco speaks more about our lobbyists than anything else. Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, and other major tobacco companies fear a new product would cut into their profit margin, even if they produced it.

Perhaps it is that I grew up near, and developed in (college years) Ann Arbor, where you can smoke cheaper than you can drink (in terms of legal fines), but I am firmly pro-marijuana. Not even for just medical uses either.

Part Two
After 3 days in Amsterdam, with one shroom trip under my belt, I can safely ask, "What's the big fucking deal bitch?" Drugs like shrooms and LSD and pot are less likely to be addictive than tobacco, and way less likely to cause crime than alcohol. If most of America wasn't so scared of what they don't know, we'd be a much happier culture. I'll admit, hard drugs like heroin and cocaine, which have statistically caused intense addictions, should be illegal because they do lead to crime to get it. However, in Amsterdam, where a dose of shrooms is 12-20 Euros, and a trip lasts 4-6 hours, the drugs lead more to introspection and people standing or sitting around looking at nothing...but the drugs aren't addictive.

Ed's note
I have taken E twice since I wrote this entry. Once was for medical study, which I got paid to do it, legally. The other was in the desert which is my annual trip. I took a small dose of shrooms in the desert, but not because I needed to. Drugs aren't for everybody, but it shouldn't be a jailable crime for those who would like to try them.

Homeland homeland security drills

2004-09-22T10:59:00.000-04:00

Michelle Malkin finds intolerance everywhere: under rocks, in barks of trees, on your toilet paper, etc. Today, Michelle Malkin visits Michigan's school system (specifically, Muskegon County) for the latest in homeland security intolerance. The drills mentioned in this article feature a non-race specific extremist group dubbed "Wackos Against Schools and Education" who demand everybody be homeschooled.

The drills include made-up kids and teachers to look like gruesome victims of bombings, and an overturned bus filled with smoke (though, they'd probably be mostly dead in the bus).

Malkin's main offense is aimed at the scenario though. Personally, I find it funny as far as ridicule goes. Its sort of like making fun of the Amish. But, in this case, its not really. The homeschool parents have taken offense with Malkin, in an extremely silly sense. The scenario is about extremists. Personally, I've never seen homeschooled students or parents go blowing up public school systems or threatening them in any way. Some snub the system (and generally their kids turn out to be socially retarded, and the kids may not recieve adaquate education because half the parents don't know enough to teach, but that's besides the point) but they're not extremists. Except for The Happy Homeschooler, I guess, since she takes offense to it.

I find it a humorous scenario. Its one that doesn't teach intolerance, is unrealistic, or anything bad. In fact, in order to create a scenario about extremists, somebody is going to be offended. Considering this scenario is beyond the scope of reality for homeschoolers, people should be happy for this inoffensive scenario.

I find it appallingly dark that The Happy Homeschooler wants an apology, and that Malkin also finds it an inappropriate situation. Malkin would rather have it aimed at Islamic terrorists, as if thats supposed to teach tolerance. Malkin also uses the logic that since the teacher's unions got mad at Rod Paige for calling them "terrorist orginizations," Muskegon (which she probably has never visited) should apologize as well. Because we all know two wrongs make a right, right? *sigh*

white ones and red ones, and some you can't disguise

2004-09-21T18:10:00.000-04:00

CBS' most recent typed memos are fakes, and they're finally admitting it. Now, here's what was really in the documents (if CBS and Rather were actually creative):

George W. Bush originally had his mother write him a sick note to get out of duty. The note read, "Little Dubya is sadly too sick to serve duty today. Please excuse him from any duty until he feels better. Thanks, Barbera Bush." It was this note that prompted the missed physical.

However, Bush eventually took the physical and tested positive for massive amounts of cocaine. His blood work tested for too much protein after his little stint outside of the Guard. He denies both gay sex and cocaine dealings.

Bush's rampant gay sexual affairs also indicate why he is so adamantly against gays getting married. His homophobia is linked to his latent homosexuality, which had already surfaced in the National Guard.

Bush was ostracized by the guard after dancing around with a lampshade on his head. Many in the guard considered the Tiffany brand lampshade to be to bourgois for their tastes. He later tried again with a Persian rug from his parent's mansion, claiming to be The King of Siam, but was still snubbed. Part of the problem with this venture was the lamb whom he was determined would make the best Anna in the pornographic version of The King and I.

How to tell if your child is a) dangerous and/or b) gay

2004-09-21T13:12:00.000-04:00

From the Free Press:

Warning signs that children may be chatting with someone you don't want them talking to online:
- Your child is hiding computer disks
- Your child spends an excessive amount of time on the Internet or is online late into the night
Your child quikly changes the computer screen when you enter the room.

Tips for parents for protecting your children from dangerous individuals online:
- Establish online rules and an agreement with your children about how they use the INternet at home and away from home.
- Monitor your children's access to electronic communications and e-mail
- Parents should be aware of who their children are chatting with online and encourage them to let them know if they meet someone who scares them
- Place your computer in an area of your home where you can easily monitor your child's internet activities

The first three warning signs were signs that I was exploring my gay side. But hiding computer disks?! Honestly, who uses floppies anymore? I used to when they were the only thing out there. Get your child a fucking pen drive for Christ's sake.

The last four are also ways to keep your child from exploring homosexuality.

Weird correlation, innit?

The report is due to the 17-year-old who was arrested because he was going to blow up Chippewa Valley High School, and was also a Nazi.

Tender Loving Weapons and alcohol

2004-09-21T11:28:00.000-04:00

When Weapons break out, they can go either way.

Smith and Wesson had opened up a whole section called "The Crossings" in which, along with handcuffs and firearms, you can also buy pillows, tealights, and tables. Yes, Smith and Wesson has finally gone Bed, Bath and Beyond (beyond meaning guns and handcuffs).

Even better is drunken semi-automatics. Kalshnikov, maker of the famed AK-47, and its sequals, has decided to branch out into...wait for it...VODKA!!! Yes, there is nothing better than sipping vodka with your AK-47 at your side.

So, remember kiddies. Smith and Wessons are for sissies, but AK-47s are for drunks.

Geeky Idealism

2004-09-20T22:58:00.000-04:00

Slashdot in all its infinite geekiness, posted a 15 question-long ask-the-candidate for Michael Badnarik. Come check out the radical ideas he has, and that should be implemented, at least for a change of pace. He makes some very very good points, IMO. Though, I am still supportive of the war in Iraq, though its an unwinnable war...

Gays unite

2004-09-19T20:41:00.000-04:00

I am so glad that the Christians are biting off their own leg, sometimes. The latest is everybody's second favorite homophobe, Jimmy Swaggert, calling for murder of gays. To be fair, he said that we need salvation, but he'd rather kill us first.

"Creepy televangelist and prostitute lover Jimmy Swaggart said in a televised broadcast that "I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died." (link to the video)

Yes, murder and decieving God is the good ol' Christian way, isn't it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

On a much more entertaining note, one guy from NYC has decided to fight back against homophobic subway preachers with showtunes!

excerpt:

Preacher Lady 2: “I got freedom of speech! And GOD TELLS ME THAT THE GAY DEVILS ARE CONTROLLING NEW YORK.”
Me: (standing up) “If you do not cease and desist fouling the air with homophobia, I must sing…SHOW TUNES.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FMA is supposedly back again, under a different bill number. Those pesky Republicans keep hammering away at our homophobia. This time, it is in the House under "H.J. 56". Go to the House's way of tracking this information and type in the bill to find its location. So far, it has merely been introduced to the House, back in May, but Americans United for Separation of Church and State believe it will be voted upon in the upcoming weeks.

Losing fair and square...but its not the end

2004-09-19T04:00:00.000-04:00

Louisiana just voted down gay marriage

Yesterday, Louisiana voted in a gay marriage ban on the ballot. 78% of the people voted for it, with 99% voting.

I have to say, we are currently losing the battle fair and square currently. But, then, since when does fair and square push civil rights anywhere? I'm sure interracial marriage would have been banned if they allowed a state by state vote on it in 1964. Yet, it was the judges who got civil rights for the blacks. Not by state or federal vote.

Then, again, maybe Bush's Amoralica (that's hick America) isn't ready for gays yet. But, would they ever be, considering their strong ties to religion and the assholes that lead the religions. Orthodox Judaism, and all forms of Christianity all seem to say "No" to gays. Some of the good-hearted Christian leaders want to commemorate the brutal murder of gays(see Fred Phelps). So, where do we go from here?

I say we attack like we did in Iraq. Just bomb the hell out of them, but then Nashville would become like Fallujah (but, then, most gays hate country music). I kid.

Exploiting your children through torture

2004-09-17T15:34:00.000-04:00

With the Republicans not letting anybody in to their campaigns, and the democrats letting virtually everybody in, guess who is going to have more "issues" at their campaigns. Yup, you guessed it, the democrats.

The latest in rally horrors was a guy who brings his 3-year-old daughter in to the rally. In addition to the 3 year old daughter, he brings in a giant Bush-Kerry campaign sign. Apparently, a rabid democrat took the sign and broke it, shredded it, or what have you. The girl started crying, for obvious reasons, and she was on top of Daddy's head for pictures crying. And, he had to pout for the pictures too.

First of all, what guy would bring his 3-year-old daughter to a political rally? Secondly, what guy would bring his 3-year-old daughter to a political rally with which he doesn't agree? Thirdly, what guy would bring his 3-year-old daughter to a political rally with a giant sign in opposition to the purpose of the rally, the sign obviously meant to raise people's ire, to evoke emotions, etc?

Obviously a guy set out to exploit his daughter for every penny she's worth. Though, it makes for great publicity. Yet, Running Scared notes that the guy has been in the paper for three election years running. I wonder what he'll do for his fourth... Maybe bring his 2 month old and allow the kid to be stepped on, lord knows he has enough kids (check the running scared entry).

On the other hand, the democrat who did rip up the sign should be ashamed of himself. He was a jackass who should be ashamed of himself. However, the father was just as evil. "He was just trying to state his position." Puh-leese. If a democrat did it at a Republican rally...oh wait, that couldn't happen.

Arguing the case for war

2004-09-13T14:37:00.000-04:00

Module 3: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Domestic and international intelligence sources said that there were WMDs in Iraq. These were not allowed under any circumstances. We invaded, but there were no WMDs, much to Bush's chagrin. We found some other artillary, which we tried to construe as WMDs, but they did not fit the bill (and Republicans always stick to the letter of the law) of chemical, nuclear, or biological. We claimed there were roving wagons which may have been able to be used, but we were grasping at straws.

Module 5 Strategic plan for the Middle East
Banish all thoughts and ideaologies which don't agree with our stated purpose of keeping Israel there in peace and good nature, as well as keeping our oil nice and cheap. Oooo, and don't forget, having a government with easy negotiations.

The Always Opressed

2004-09-10T17:25:00.000-04:00

Sundance showed Trembling Before G-D, the movie documenting the struggles of homosexual Orthodox Jews between their sexuality and their religion. It made me feel more secure to know that everybody opresses somebody. Though, I still haven't discovered whom the homosexuals opress.

Dr. Bush: or, how I learned to stop worrying and love the jet

2004-09-08T23:58:00.000-04:00

There are those who believe that the things which scare you should also be funny.

I find the government hysterical!

I'm reading The 9/11 Commission Report. The first 10 pages are completely tragic. The rest of the book (or what I have read so far) is purely comic in the most frightening sense. The direct quotes from speeches, the convolution of the red tape networks, the complete inadaquacy of anything, and the sheer child-like expectations of the government are all retardedly awesomely scarily bad. This is the funniest book of the year, just for the government bungles. Highly recommended.

Closetted emotions

2004-08-29T12:22:00.000-04:00

Michelle Malkin has a problem with what people call "Soft America." "Soft America" is one of those things I actually dislike for the most part myself, simply because of how boring and sappy it all is. Lewis Black made fun of "Soft America" when it interfered with the Olympics: "The Americans are showing the world we like to cry alot. NBC is constantly interrupting the sports with sob stories about how somebody overcame cancer/a broken leg/a dead pet/a brown thumb to finally make it as an Olympian. Who cares?" (Paraphrase, obviously). This, IMO, along with many other criticisms of "Soft America" are completely valid, as even most of the dark comedies are wussified by the ending (see Death to Smoochie).

Michelle Malkin's most recent criticism of "Soft America" is a new phenomenon of cuddling parties. Washington Post had an article about cuddling parties (where Mrs. Malkin heard about them), and I'll do a small summary because it is a lengthy article. Two people who are self-proclaimed sex experts (the main guy is a former bartender) have decided to hold parties where guests arrive paying $30, $20 if you do it with a friend, in order to cuddle with a stranger. They change into PJs (no nudity allowed) and just hug and even set cuddle limitations. No sex is allowed, so you can't really have any expectations of that going around. People have this, according to the holders, because people are "touch-deprived."

Mrs. Malkin has a problem with this, as she thinks it is completely immature and self-indulgent. She considers cuddling groping, but makes no mention of the subtext that the most groping people do is a back or foot massage, according to the article. Replacing "Cuddle" with "Grope" also gives way to sexual feelings, given the proper form of the two definitions. The side of these people she doesn't see is that they are probably hard-edged people when not in an apartment. One is an exotic dancer, which means that generally it would be no problem for her to pick up guys at a bar, but it doesn't mean the guys won't be sleasy/skeasy/gross. Here, she doesn't have to worry about drool marks on her dress as her date picks up his jaw from the floor long enough to make lewd, inappropriate comments.

Most of the people at these parties are probably the same, given that it seemed to be a very high girl to guy ratio. The one skeaze factor I will admit is that the male thrower of these events probably knew this, but he still isn't having sex at these parties. This is merely because of the scientifically proven fact that women are much more prone to touch than men. Alot of the people who are there probably are single with some desire for a mate, but either a confidence problem (husky male), an attitude problem, or a generaly sense of dating malaise blocks these people from having a serious relationship. And, so, they want to feel needed and hugged and what-have-you, if only for a couple of hours. The rest of the time, they are probably self-sufficient people. In fact, I was generally surprised that there was an engaged couple at the party, and I think they are the only couple I will think is almost self-indulgent. But, then, they were not looking for hook-ups either.

As a result, I challenge Mrs. Malkin not to hug, kiss, fuck, or otherwise cuddle/"grope" her husband (or anybody else, including her children) for 3 months. No pecks on the cheek. Don't sleep in the same bed, or if you do, do it a la The Brady Bunch where you have your own side of the bed and it is a seemingly platonic relationship. Try it for three months, then come back and tell me that these people are self-indulgent in a 9/10 (pre-9/11 for the slower ones) mentality. ;-)

Me, I think this points to cracks in society that have long since been evident. A general lack of personal interaction, a desire for everybody to be emotionally and physically self-sufficient. And, as animals and human beings, this is virtually impossible. But, is it worth a try?

Protesting the legality of permits to protest

2004-08-27T22:07:00.000-04:00

Hey from Seattle,
I thought I would write a little bit before heading away to Burning Man. Michael Badnarik, current Libertarian Presidential Candidate, is leading a protest in New York on Sunday. He is asking George W. Bush to apologize to the Libertarians. On top of this, Badnarik is not getting permits to protest, saying that permits are limitations of the First Amendment (which I tend to believe, the need for protest permits have always been a sucky idea, the best protests don't have permits). You gotta love Libertarians, that's why I am one.

Everybody should attend for me, because protests are fun, probably more so when they are Libertarian.

------------------------------------------
Badnarik's letter

NEW YORK -- While some political groups continue to 'negotiate' with the City of New York for permits to protest next week's Republican National Convention, Libertarians -- including a presidential candidate -- are preparing to open up a whole new can of worms in the Big Apple.

"If you ask for permission to protest, you deserve to be told no," says Manhattan Libertarian Party chair Jim Lesczynski. "The First Amendment guarantees our right to peaceably assemble -- and we're going to do so" on Central Park's Great Lawn at noon on August 29th. The city has denied permits to groups which have applied for permission to gather in the park, attempting to move them to more distant, and less visible, locations.

"There's an old saying -- it's easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission," said Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate, during a campaign strategy teleconference. "I've got permission. By definition, where I am standing is a free speech zone. We don't need permission to protest, but George W. Bush needs forgiveness for his mistakes. We're gathering to offer him that forgiveness ... if he's willing to ask us for it."

Among those mistakes, says Badnarik, 50, of Austin, Texas, are the war in Iraq, the PATRIOT ACT -- and the whole concept of "free speech zones" for protesters. "America itself -- the whole country -- is a 'free speech zone,'" he says. "That's what the First Amendment means, or it means nothing. We're going to find out which in Central Park. We're going to find out whether President Bush and Mayor Bloomberg believe in America or not."

While Badnarik is considered a long shot for the presidency, polling shows him determining the election's outcome in a number of "battleground" states, including closely watched New Mexico, where his support stands at 5%.

The Manhattan LP has a longstanding reputation in New York and in the Libertarian Party as an "in your face" activist group. Previous Manhattan LP initiatives have included "Guns for Tots," in which Libertarians handed out toy guns to the city's schoolchildren to protest a proposed ban, and the "Great Cigarette Giveaway," which provided New Yorkers with free smokes to counter the city's massive 2002 cigarette tax increase.

Badnarik is also expected to debate Green Party presidential nominee David Cobb during his visit to the city. The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party, with more than 600 Libertarians serving in elected and appointed office at the local, state and federal levels.

2004-08-25T17:46:00.000-04:00

Once again, coming on the tails of my last graphic, I am still going to vote for Michael Badnarik.

Another instance: Prscription drug issues. Instead of banning drug company advertisements (ala Edwards), he wants to de-regulate some of the drug companies, which have been in place since the '60s.

Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President

How true are these?

2004-08-25T10:38:00.000-04:00

(from Ask Buff)

Bumper sticker available for Purchase from Cafe Press

from Tim at Movementarian

Culture and its balance

2004-08-19T00:24:00.000-04:00

Death in Gaza (2004)
dir: James Miller

The movie opens with the numbing fact that director James Miller died in 2003 while shooting this movie. He had planned for a pair of films, but only got to shoot enough to fill one. Death in Gaza is the first half of the now-non-existant pair of movies featuring children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, focusing on Palestinian children in Rafah. The other half was to focus on the Israeli children. One can never know what the pair would be like, given that Miller is dead, and any other attempt would be flawed by a different set of idea(l)s.

One of the first images one sees is also of a car bombing which the Israelis conducted on one of the terrorist organizers. This isn't the truely disturbing part, but the footage that follows is. One sees the adults and children picking up brains, body parts,and blood from the victim, and trying to save as much of it as possible.

This is the disturbing foundation for what is to be an extremely surreal and disturbing movie analyzing the conflict from a determinedly neutral point. It shows the paramilitaries (the film hates to use terrorist, probably because of the biased implication) and their active recruitment of children. It focuses on Ahmed, a 12 year old, who is caught up in the war not by choice, but by fate. He was merely born into this. The paramilitaries actively recruit Ahmed to become a martyr, one of the highest honors to these people, ultimately to be used in a more political sense. But, the filmmakers don't hesitate to point out the contradictions of the paramilitaries. There is a scene, almost touching, when Ahmed is hanging with the group, and is shown as a brother. They pose him with a rocket launcher. It reminded me of the touching scenes you see in ghetto movies like Juice or New Jack City where an older male gives a young boy a gun to hold, half the time the boy's mother comes in bitching up a storm. BUT, by the end of the scene, the one holding Ahmed says, while Ahmed is in the room, that the interviewer shouldn't worry about the responsibility of Ahmed's age, as there are thousands more children like him.

I'll pause to give you value for that sentence.

The film also shows a very small girl who states that she once saw the sea before the Israelis put a wall up, and now she can't see it anymore. I would say the girl is about 7. She then states that she hates the Israelis, and that they are sons of dogs (probably a literal translation of an Arabic curseword). She comments how they come in with tanks and fire on everything.

The teachers also teach that the Israelis stole the land they procured in the 1967 war (and they probably also teach that the land was stolen in 1948 as well). There is so much anti-Semetic bias running through the teachings, one almost says that anti-semitism is ingrained in the culture.

But, then the film shows a different side. Tanks fire at kids because they throw rocks at bulldozers. At most, the rocks could be dynamite in a soda can, which would never do damage to the bulldozers, nor their drivers. In one of the most surreal moments, we see the bulldozers and tanks as almost inhuman self-contained objects coming in to Rajah. As we watch this, we wonder what this does to the Palestinian mind especially as they grow up in the state. Are the children more susceptible to the brainwashing by the elders because the Israelis bulldoze houses and shoot at unarmed children, who are just throwing rocks at whom they believe to be their oppressors? What does the constant state of Israeli bulldozers, and the destruction they conduct, do to the children and the residents? Does it inspire peace?

The film also shows a 14 year old going to the hospital after being shot by a tank while throwing rocks (I hate to use the word attack) at bulldozers.

The final segment of the film shows the death of James Miller. James Miller, his translator, and Shira Shah, his co-creator, walk out of a house after the bulldozing stops. They are holding a white flag, and have the words TV taped in white to their helmets and bodies. James even shines a flashlight on the white flag. We hear Shira call out in English, "We are British Journalists," just as James is shot in the neck, presumably by an Israeli.

James is turned into a martyr by the extremists (the film doesn't hesitate to pass judgement on them at this point), and is ultimately lost to his family and friends. Ahmed is inspired to drop the paramilitaries and to become a cameraman.

The best part about this film is that you realize that with new generations the starting and ending of the war are no longer legitimate points to start from. They have only been taught what they learn from the bias. They only experience the current state of terror brought on by both sides: the palestinian and the israeli. The new generations are now more inspired by their oppression than by history, and that is where we willbe in a very short amount of time. But, where do you go from there? When there is no start point, how does one get to the end? Especially when one of the sides is not completely government-sponsored, but conducted by militants and renegades rather than a single organized force.

These are the points that Death in Gaza brings up, but it offers no answers. I doubt it would have offered any answers if the Israeli film had been finished. It was intended merely an insight into the foundations of the anger and hatred pervading both cultures, but we only get insight into one side: the Palestinian side. Its cause is shown, as well as its irrationality. And that's what makes this an important movie.

A+

(currently being shown on the HBOs)

DOMA Upheld

2004-08-18T12:04:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, a federal judge of Washington (the state of) ruled that DOMA was still valid with federal courts. National Review has the technical ruling (a 30 page pdf) and an article about it.

Judge Snyder was ruling over a bankruptcy case, which was filed by Lee and Ann C. Kandu, a lesbian couple maried in British Columbia. They filed jointly for bankruptcy, shortly after being married, in October 2003. This led into an investigation, and it went to court, with improper joint filing as the main reason.

The first thing that should be noted, especially in cases like this, is that DOMA was not challenged under the full faith and credit clause (nor could it be, due to a marriage in Canada), but that DOMA was purely unconstitutional. The Kandus then have a list of amendments which seem, to me at least, little more than a blind throw to trying to get it deemed unconstitutional rather than anything else.

The most interesting thing about the court's decision is that it has a sentence in there about the judge's personal opinon. Page 26 states, "This Court's personal view that children raised by same-sex couples enjoy benefits possibly different, but equal, to those raised by opposite-sex couples, is not relevant to the Court's ultimate decision. It is within the province of Congress, not the courts, to weigh the evidence and legislate on such issues, unless it can be established that the legislation is not rationally related to a legitimate government end."

On page 27, he doesn't altogether contradict himself, but Snyder admits that DOMA is not perfect, nor could it be, in that it recognizes marriages by childless couples. He admits that in order for it to be perfect, one would have to inquire about the interest of having children in the near future. Me, I'm all for that actually. I think there should be a time limit between marriage and pregnancy or birth (2 years). Pre-existing children with the married couple only count if the children have devolved from both spouses together. If you don't have a child, the marriage should be annulled, simply on the basis of all the DOMAs in the country. At least until gay marriage has full rights.

In this case, it is interesting because Washington State did not recognize the marriage, nor did the federal courts did not recognize the marriage. The marriage was done in a foreign country, and, as such, it does not bring benefits to the couple. There would be no legitimate reason for the couple to think they could legally jointly do anything at this point. That is to say that I agree with the ruling, but not with the law itself. I hope this case does not become a milestone case in the gay marriage issue, as it was a weak construction, having started last year, and should be properly ignored.

Caption time!

2004-08-16T01:30:00.000-04:00

Write a caption for this picture:

Compensation

2004-08-16T01:17:00.000-04:00

In thinking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I got to thinking about the Native Americans and what happened there. The situation is very similar. A group of people are ejected from a land due to religious beliefs (or debtors) and take over the land via British rule. The Natives attacked well into the 1800s, which means that we were constantly being attacked somewhere for 200+ years. The Natives also used the means they had, which were mostly renegade, to attack.

The difference is, the Palestinians and Arab people were not so welcoming of the Jewish populations when they started coming over in the late 1800s. They did not like the Jewish population, and decided to try to keep them off their land. But, it was their land until the Brits came around and took over, and then the Zionists started buying the land from the Brits.

But, in this case, who would be right or wrong? Both Zionist and Palestinian records have pointed out that the Palestinians were largely nomadic prior to the British rule. Thus, owning property seems like it may have been a foreign concept to the Palestinians as it was to the Native Americans (maybe less so, as I will admit this is a bit hazy of a fact). But, the Palestinians were the aggressors initially (though they had much the same rules as the Europeans did in the late 1800s).

Luckily, I have no ancestral guilt over what the Americans did to the Indians. My family is 2-4 generations American on all sides. Probably came on the cusp of true American industrialization.

ed's note: Please note that this is just thoughts formulating in my brain tonight, which may or may not lead to a better more thorough post.

Allowances

2004-08-16T00:56:00.000-04:00

(image stolen from sukk)

Actually, this has been a hotly debated thing on conservative websites. Many conservatives believe that the liberals try to shout down and otherwise censor other voices. Protests are notorious for doing this, actually. They won't let anybody march in the protest that doesn't have a voice which has the same view.

However, the Republican cronies are much worse when it comes to allowing people hear what they actually have to say. IT has to be filtered through media (or a diligant search can usually find a transcription, but its not the same) if we are to hear what the Republicans have to say, which isn't exactly my cup of tea. As I have mentioned before, there was the case in Grand Rapids I previously mentioned, as well as more recent cases, including Green Bay, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and other locations, including a smaller, non-Bush, event in Wisconsin,

I did find a story where the Kerry campaign also restricted access, which means it is a universal practice, but in it, the Kerry campaign ended with the students gaining admission after promising not to protest, which is perfectly understandable if they are wearing opposing stickers, at University of Miami.

What does this say? I dunno, I just found it interesting.

A big-fat brown-stained middle finger

2004-08-13T00:30:00.000-04:00

Fuck you Governor McGreevy. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. For shame, ex-Governor McGreevy. A democrat, against gay marriage, has had an extra-marital affair with a man. He also nationally came out in a highly remarkable speech which simultaneously illuminates what is wrong with homophobic America and confirms homophobic America's greatest fears. It was a disgusting and selfish speech, publicly spewing what should have been kept private.

First, affairs do not affect the government, the way the government functions, nor anything else regarding the government. Contrary to what the Republican believe, sex is not something to be ashamed of. Sexuality is not something to be ashamed of. Having an illicit affair is to be shameful only in private, while in public nobody's the wiser. The problem with America is, as Europtrip puts it, that it is a prudish nation.

Second, homosexuality is not something to be ashamed of. Being gay should not give the other side fodder for bashing you. You are gay, so go with it. If you decide to come out during your SECOND marriage with your SECOND daughter, you might not be completely gay, maybe a bit more on the bi side, don't you think? But, we live in a world of extremes, and if you don't fulfill one side, of course its going to come out as full blown gay. But, that's getting off the subject, since when did homosexuality affect anybody's ability to work? Or to do good work, for that matter?

Third, gays do not need more hetero-acting people getting caught in illicit gay affairs. It doesn't help the community one bit. It allows the homophobes of America to say, "Hey! The Gays are corrupting America. Look at these family men who were once straight and have now been co-opted by the faggot agenda!" Don't tell me I'm exaggerating much either. Can't people just admit they're gay without having affairs? Especially ones that could go into sexual harassment suits?

In the end, Governor McGreevy is an asshole. Being against gay marriage while you're on your second straight marriage, but really you're just showboating for your latent homosexual repression, is not cool. Especially if you're a democrat on top of it. You don't support your community, and I believe the community should not support you. Fuck you, and fuck your speech. Go fuck yourself.

P.S. And you couldn't even fuck a cute guy on the side?? You're a disgrace.

Desperate much?

2004-08-07T12:21:00.000-04:00

Here's the most hilarious piece of news writing I have seen in awhile:

Amish to vote Republican.

The author also notes that the "large" Amish population in Michigan helps Bush in this swing state. By large, he means 7,000 (as reported in 2000). *sigh* I wonder if Heaven's Gate was targeted like this.

More news than you can handle!

2004-08-05T09:25:00.000-04:00

First stop today: Missouri.
In Tuesdays election, voters chose to support the gay marriage ban in their state constitution. They chose to put in their own FMA, if you will, with 71% of the voters (not population) voting for it. Mind you, this is a conservative state, and there were 29% voting against it already. This shows that my statements that the gay marriage movement has moved a bit fast in many states. If it went slower, more people might be in tune with it eventually. [Every cloud has a silver lining, but this one might be mercury]

Second Stop: Yorba Linda, CA
Here, we have a celebration of the 30th aniversary of Nixon's resignation. (Hey, kids, I cannot make this stuff up). During the celebration, many hald panel discussions of Nixon, and sometimes he was compared to Nixon. Interestingly, Stepher Spruiell at the National Review has extended the comparisons to a national article, and did so. The Republicans are now getting desperate by using what democrats consider to be an evil president against them by comparing their candidate to him. Also, the republicans, at least a decent majority of them, liked Nixon and think he was a good President. The irony of the article ist tha Bush has been similarly compared to Nixon previously for the exact same methods, only by the left, and has been derided for doing so. Sadly, the left didn't have the same base for irony as the right does.

Third stop: New York City and New Jersey
Homeless people everywhere, and only one leader for them: Cheri Honkala. Apparently Cheri has read up on her Nazi history and has created a veritable army of homeless people who are down-on-their-luck and desperate. These people, who have little more than their freedom to lose, according to the article, have become devout followers, minions if you will, of Honkala and her cause. She is currently marching through New Jersey with her band of homeless, and will hit NYC when the RNC comes rolling into town, permit or not. She has finally tapped into a resource which has been long ignored: the desperate people. (ed's note: I have supported Honkala, unwittingly, by seeing Storytelling in theaters and buying it on DVD, as her son, Mark Webber, played Scooby and gives profits to his mother's charity)

Swinging good time

2004-08-04T19:23:00.000-04:00

So, unofficially, the results from yesterday's election is in. We have 15 Representatives in Congress for Michigan. Of those 15, 8 elected were democrats and 7 were republicans. Sadly, Thaddeus McCotter was re-elected in my district. This means that I need to get a group in my county willing to flood the McCotter office with letters saying how bad he is, and what we think he needs to change.

This is the justification I have been looking for as to why Michigan is considered a swing state. We had elected Gore in 2000 by 200,000 votes, and we had a semi-strong Nader following here too. Since I have been following politics, we have been a Democrat state, voting Clinton both times, Gore, and I imagine Kerry has a strong following around here. Previously, we apparently had elected Republican since 1972.

Extra! Extra! Michael Moore Lied!

2004-08-03T14:27:00.000-04:00

In an astonishing, astounding, and completely flabbergasting turn of events, concrete evidence that Moore manipulates and fabricates facts has emerged.

The Pantagraph was a newspaper which Moore used early in his film regarding the 2000 elections. In the movie, Moore shows a newspaper headline that states something like Latest Recount in Florida shows Gore won. In truth, it wasn't a headline at all, and only appeared in the letters to the editor page...on a different date than the digitized newspaper has it.

Are you as shocked as I am? Because, really, I had not an inkling that Michael Moore was so unscrupulous. I mean, re-editing newspapers?

Vote!

2004-08-03T09:16:00.000-04:00

I've got a surprise for you all. Today is a voting day! Go to Publius.org for what you get to vote on.

Lying Liars and the Liars who believe them

2004-08-02T01:37:00.000-04:00

From the Drudge Report:

The Speaker of the House wrote in his new book that he will push for the elimination of the IRS and a national sales tax.

So many issues with this, I just found it hilarious. For those of you too dumb to check it:

1. This is just prr-information released from a book being released on Wednesday. I will not reveal the name of the book, nor the author's name (if you know who the Speaker of the House is, or read the article, you'll know) due to the sleaziness factor involved with this sensational revelation.

2. Why is this the first time we've heard of this?

3. Will it ever pass? Well, only the purchases of the wealthy will be taxed, not their income. So, they'll remain wealthy. Perhaps it will pass. And, I see the monkey crawling out of my ass now.

Who believes this shit? It is idealistic, but highly doubtful. It is meant to attract the democrats who are want the taxes to reflect the wealth or the people, and the libertarians who hate government. It would probably also include internet purchase taxes.

The Seduction of Television

2004-08-01T12:55:00.000-04:00

Real Time with Bill Maher was on last night. Maher knows how to seduce an audience and make some really good television. Last nights panelists were Michael Moore, Former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell, and Republican Representative David Drier from California. Real Time also included special guests Ralph Nader and Governor Bill Owen (Republican from Colorado).

I am really starting to detest Moore. He has this snide humor that he presents with almost no facts, and is much more op-ed based. While I think that people should see Fahrenheit 9/11 just to see what the hell the movie is, I don't think Moore should be any sort of spokesman or representative for the liberal side of politics nor the Democratic Party. (I should readily admit here that I haven't watched a single minute of the DNC, thinking that it really would be like having sunshine pumped up my ass with its optimism. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I got that line from Real Time, so its not just me)

Call me anti-American, but the only person who was tolerable in their views was Prime Minister Campbell. Drier and Moore seemed intent on ripping each other to shreds. Maher put fuel on the fire. Nader was Nader (one of the best parts of the show was Maher and Moore [heh, M&M] on their knees begging Nader to pull out and support Kerry). Owen was surprisingly unfair, but what does one expect from a Republican, but so was everybody else.

While I generally enjoy the rabble-rousing nature of this type of program, this one, especially with Moore's inanities, didn't have any progression of ideas from their base elemental core to some sort of release of information. It was just elemental fighting elemental, which makes for some great entertainment, but it is hardly stimulating. Drier kept attacking Fahrenheit 9/11, and made some inane comment that Bush never once fabricated or distorted anything in his political run for office, either time. The Republicans keep harping on the war vote. The Republicans are getting desperate. The Democrats are still saying how urgent everything is. They keep saying that Bush is the most hated President in history (I wonder how Nixon stands up in that comparison...oh, wait, Bush is Nixon reincarnate).

Another hilarious thing Drier said was that Bush was a scientific president, and that he supported space exploration and research of a bunch of diseases. Um hrm, like AIDS and Stem Cell Research? One being an urgent global cause, the other being a very developmental experiment needed to forward or at least dispell the mystery of its nature.

They also kicked off by harping Bush on the Seven Minutes of Goat (which Drier insisted was 5-7 minutes, as if that makes a difference [though, there is video footage of this, why did the report insist on not using the exact time?]). Which, while funny, isn't exactly the most pressing issue at hand. You're saying he's a scared chicken and that's why he's madly attacking everybody and their nation [Afghanistan, Iraq, soon to be Iran]? Perhaps its a plausible idea, but its not exactly the best one.

I am really curious on next week's episode.

The Horse Got Back Up

2004-07-22T19:15:00.000-04:00

The previously mentioned H.R. 3313 (aka the Marriage Protection Act) has passed through the House of Representatives. Sadly, my own representative THADEUS MCCOTTER (R-MI)(whom I will not be voting for next year) has elected to vote in favor of the bill. Here's an article on it:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
365gay.com article:

(Washington) The US House of Representatives Thursday afternoon passed the Marriage Protection Act tying the hands of federal judges from ordering states to recognize gay marriages sanctioned by other states.

The measure passed the Republican controlled House by a 233-194 vote.

Federal judges ``must not be allowed to rewrite marriage policy for the states,'' Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., said.

"Marriage is under attack,'' said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., referring to the Massachusetts state court decision allowing same-sex marriages. The legislation is needed, Sensenbrenner said, to prevent Massachusetts law from being applied nationwide.

Democrats called the bill an election-year distraction that is nothing more than an unconstitutional attack on gays in America and the federal judiciary. They said it would set a precedent that Congress could use to shield any future legislation from federal judicial review.

"They couldn't amend the Constitution last week so they're trying to desecrate and circumvent the Constitution this week,'' Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said.

Republicans are ``undermining our Constitution today to get more votes in November,'' Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said.

Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., the House's lone declared lesbian made an impassioned plea to reject the bill..

``We face no less than a sign on the courthouse door: 'You may not defend your constitutional rights in this court. You may not see equal protection here,''' she said. ``Today, the 'you' is gay and lesbian citizens. But who would be next?''

The legislation faces long odds in the closely divided Senate and gay rights advocates vowed a fight.

"We will work to ensure that this measure is soundly rejected in the Senate," said Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques.

"Like the Federal Marriage Amendment, this bill attempts to undermine our constitutional system for political gain,"

Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director of Lambda Legal, said his group will challenge the law in court if if should pass the Senate and be signed into law.

"In attacking both gay people and the historic role of the courts, this bill clearly violates our Constitution and will never be allowed to stand.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has been clear that laws cannot single out gay people and treat us as second-class citizens, which is exactly what this bill tries to do. The right wing's efforts to rewrite the Constitution failed earlier this month, so now they're trying to undermine our government's system of checks and balances and disenfranchise gay couples who aren't a threat to anyone else."

"After failing in their attempt to amend the Constitution to deny same-sex couples the guarantee of equal protection, anti-equality politicians and ultra right wing organizations are attempting to strip from the courts their right to review DOMA," said Equality California Executive Director Geoffrey Kors. "This bill is a direct attack on our entire system of government.”

©365Gay.com® 2004

Donating Support

2004-07-20T10:53:00.000-04:00

So, I think I'm going to touch on an extremely touchy subject in America: Israel. I really hate to preface what I write, but I know the knee-jerk reactions of Americans, so I am going to preface this by stating I AM NOT AN ANTI-SEMITE. In fact, if I was totally against Israel and Zionism, I would still not be anti-Semetic because there are numerous reasons for being against Israel as protection against the Jews who live in Israel. And, in fact, there are many webpages which have been created by Jews who are anti-Zionist. I have also been coming in hard and heavy from the anti-Israel side on a different webpage, which taught me how to research the topic more thoroughly, as well as gave me a bit of the financial facts and the Palestinian side, needed to back this up. On with the post.

I love Israel. I love Israel so much I want to see them secede from the Gaza strip. I love Israel so much I want them to secede so far away from the Gaza strip that they won't be in harm's way. I want Israel to relocate to New Jersey. Yes, you heard me right, I am willing to donate land from the United States to create a safer Israel for the Jews.

Now, some of you may already be asking, "Why New Jersey?" Why not? It already has a decent Jewish population (358,000), and its relatively small. It is only 7,184 square miles, which is a bit smaller than Israel, but we all have to make sacrifices. Actually a good second place would be New Hampshire, because I really don't want to give up Boston or New York (call me selfish, but I love those places, but if thats what the Israelis want, I'll give them so long as I could visit). After all, it is only one tiny country, right?

Why move Israel at all? Well, the Jews need a homeland. They need to live in peace and protection. They need to live without being killed or threatened every day. So, let's get them out of the Middle East/Palestine where they are being killed every day, and take them to an area where there aren't any suicide bombers or terrorists (outside of the occasional wacko who comes from Michigan [the Unibomber went to UofM, Terry Nichols is from Michigan], thus we can't give up this shit state). It takes away a reason that the Palestinians can use against the Americans, and it puts the Atlantic Ocean between the two currently warring cultures. It makes all three sides happy, because alot of Americans believe that the Jews need a homeland and an area that they can call their own.

In fact, it makes so much sense, I highly believe that anybody who doesn't support the moving of Israel to New Jersey is anti-Semetic. After all, it is about the safety of the Jewish people, isn't it? It really isn't about some silly religious monuments nor about some God-Given right to be there, is it? If it is, then America is funding religion, and we can't have that with the separation of church and state, but we can protect a people. And, that's why I'm saying we should embrace Israeli Jews with open arms, and give up New jersey or New Hampshire (actually I'd probably prefer New Hampshire because they voted for Bush).

But the Horse Isn't So Dead

2004-07-16T13:23:00.000-04:00

While everybody was looking at and breathing easily over the retardedness of the FMA over in the Senate, the House has been up to some suspicious works.

Could everybody turn their heads and look at exhibit a: H.R. 3313:

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction

`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 1738c of this title or of this section. Neither the Supreme Court nor any court created by Act of Congress shall have any appellate jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 7 of title 1.'.

(b) AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.

Note, Section 7 of title 1 is the section from DOMA, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, as well as it defines spouse as somebody of the opposite sex, be it man or woman.

While this does not put anything into the constitution, which should be held with utmost regard, even moreso than the US Code, it does restrict the hands of the Courts.

This, in effect, prevents the repeal of DOMA. Period. It would need to be repealed by an act of congress, because the supreme court could not even determine the un-constitutionality of it, if it gets challenged.

For, you see, its all about those "activist" judges who want to change and pervert the idea of marriage, not the 5-time divorced senators who reap all of the medical and tax benefits allotted to them and their spouses.

Write to your Representatives, and express your opinion on how the power is again attempted to be taken away from the Judiciary branch, and the state branch, and put into the federal government.

Flogging a Dead Horse

2004-07-15T11:55:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, the Senate blocked the Federal Marriage Amendment from going to a vote (with its much repeated vote not even getting a majority). The Federal Marriage Amendment is an amendment designed to take power away from the states, and also to block same-sex marriages and civil unions. However, the victory at a federal level is not necessarily a victory at all. As Dianne Feinstein pointed out on Monday, many states have marriage limitations already on the books. Many more states also have state constitutional amendments limiting the definition of marriage on this November's ballot, including Michigan.

This brings us to ask why are the activist senators trying to put a restrictive amendment on the ballot? Well, as resident slimeball Sen. Rick Santorum was stateing, countries where homosexual marriage has been legalized, such as Denmark and The Netherlands, out-of-wedlock births have gone up. Actually, I can conquor that with some facts that aren't being revealed. he rates of heterosexual marriage has not gone down since the legalization of homosexual marriage. However, I learned from a Dane that marriage is best reserved for deathbed results. Why? Because in Denmark, it is more expensive to live as two separate people, instead of one married couple. The taxes are cheaper that way. This on top of a nationalized health care system which doesn't need marriage for health benefits, unlike America.

Apparently (barring some research), America had the same thing going on sometime in the 70s. They had taken away tax benefits for married couples, so couples would divorce in December, before they had to file, then use their tax return money to take a vacation and get married again! How convienent. The marriage tax benefits went back into place fairly quickly.

The only question I have is with the marriage recognition stuff. If your marriage is not recognized by the state which you live in, will the federal government still grant you the tax breaks which you would get in another state?

Protestation Imagery

2004-07-13T15:17:00.000-04:00

Like I promised, I am sharing the roll of pictures that I took over in Barcelona at the protest (with some commentary).

The people who are protesting, also put up a bunch of posters which protested the creation of the European Union. Unfortunately, I cannot read Spanish, so there is no translation available from me.

Here we see a table of anti-war gear mixed in with the communist gear, and gear supporting Che Guevera.

Here we see Bush getting compared to Nazis, side by side with the Cubans.

We seem to start losing the point of the protests here.

Again, lots of Cuban flags.

This needs some translation.

The images made famous around the world.

It reads: Next Stop...Lahaya.

One of the major communist groups.

If I remember right, this is the prime minister of Spain, or something.

Bush as a criminal, and Cuba.

Yay ANARCHY. High school or younger, but surpisingly not goth.

Check out the terrorist shirt.

Anti-capitalist shirt

Peace flags are rainbow in Europe

His stickers celebrate the intifada as well as denouncing war.

Here's a nice image representation from war. Its from the communists.

The whole group.

A cutie in a Superman shirt.

Television Alery

2004-07-12T12:01:00.000-04:00

Today at 1:00pm EST (10:00 PST), on C-SPAN2, they will be televising the debate on the federal marriage amendment, better known as "Just say no to Gays." The original writing which I criticized months ago is the one currently on the table.

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Simultaneously, Michigan voters support a state-wide, if not national, ban on gay marriage, and a more than necessary percentage support bans on civil unions as well. The Free Press ran a story today discussing how the bill got involved.

Michigan's amendment language reads:

To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

The language of both can be taken to mean both marriage and civil unions, thus outlawing both. Write to your senators and congressmen about your opinions, whether it be distaste, or support, on these constitutional amendments.

Fahrenheit Moore

2004-07-11T13:33:00.000-04:00

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
dir: Michael "Pompous Ass" Moore

I know that I am not one of the people for whom the movie was made. This was a movie made for the mass public who barely know what is going on in politics. They don't have the time nor the gumption to read every little thing that happens, and quite frankly...not many people do. I don't have my nose in complete politics, but I know an asshole when I see it.

Michael Moore is a name which liberals tend to revere and despise simultaneously. Which is a good thing, I think. Unlike the conservatives and their pompous asses (Limbaugh, etc), liberals tend to judge their loudmouths with criticism. The problem is, the movie isn't aimed at them either...and Moore knows this.

Moore is normally a fascinating movie maker. His four movies all reflect the style and subject matter contained within. Roger and Me was shoestring; the camera work and the editing were almost subpar. The Big One -- Moore's on-the-book tour documentary documenting closed factories -- was hurried and choppy. Bowling for Columbine, Moore's timliest movie, was slick and well timed. Fahrenheit 9/11, a work solely of it's time, is a rough, choppy, and urgent work. It seems that production on it was rushed to get it in on time.

The movie, as a movie, is rather lacking. The pacing is substandard, the editing is rough, the humor is cheap, and the perp is obvious. Some of the movie's ideologies are mentally retarded (note: I'm not commenting on the movie's message against George Bush yet), and there are moments of cheap voyeurism throughout. This all begs the question: Why would a movie like Fahrenheit 9/11, a substandard movie inferior to the directors previous ouvre, win the coveted Palme D'Or at Cannes?

The movie is political, and heavily against George Bush. Actually, I will admit that the movie isn't inferior in every way, its editing is very manipulative in ways unseen since Leni Reifenstahl made movies for Hitler...or for sure since Spielberg's last movie (you know I had to say it. :-P) As my friend said, as we walked out of the theater, "You came to see a Michael Moore movie, what did you expect?"

Well, honestly, you can't expect much from a man like Michael Moore. With Bowling for Columbine being so unabashedly contradictory that you don't even know what the hell the point was, you come to see a bunch of facts, some misconstrued, that give you a firm basis for when you should go next for your worldview understandings.

Part of the glory and problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 is that it is so recent that it can't keep up with itself. And, sometimes it even ignores facts brought up by itself. It criticized Bush's ignoring of the August 6 memo, Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States, but the memo had been declassified days after Condi Rice's nervous testimony, and she was indeed correct: it was a historical memo.

This moment comes early on in the film, as do a bunch of cheap shots against the republican party. It should inform the viewer that, yes, this movie will be biased, paranoid, unfair, on top of, misconstrued, and almost erroneous.

So, then he makes a bunch of well-made points linking th Saudis, Bin Ladens, and Bushes through companies and oil. I won't say that I knew much of the stories, but next time I see the movie I will be taking notes to do my own fact-checking and contextual placements. (Though, for a well written retort, check out Christopher Hitchens's Unfahrenheit 9/11: The Lies of Michael Moore)

The finale to the movie is pap and crap. It puts the punch in the movie full of spite aimed at Bush, except it is only a reactionary punch. He makes a point that only the poor and uneducated are the ones being recruited. Well...duh. And, money combined with boredom leads to teenage drug use. Oh, and people die in war. Did you know that one? They die in graphic gruesome ways. Really, do tell. Bombs may not be so accurate, and hit civilian targets. (actually that is news to the moron republicans *roll eyes*)

All in all, Moore gets a slightly passing grade for having a semi-solid-on-first-viewing first act, maybe even a moderately strong second act, but failing miserably in the third.

B-

Protestation, pt 1

2004-06-19T23:58:00.000-04:00

Barcelona, Spain
Today was the day for another anti-war protest in Spain. There have been signs up for at least 2 weeks with the pictures released through CBS of the tortured criminals, the main one chosen being the guy standing on the box with his arms out. The title of the protest was Ni Guerre ni Torture (no war, no torture).

Not being able to understand Spanish nor Cataluyan, I had no idea what the majority of the people were chanting. I did, however, take a full roll of film from the protest (27 pictures in all). Since, I am in Spain, and this were actual film, I will scan them when I actually come back to the states.

The main notice is that the protest was not very well organized, and very loosely tied together. It started out very chaotically, and eventually fell into some semblance of order. This also led to the many different causes that came out, like gay rights (rainbow flags have gay connotations here), Communism, anti-capitalism, and freeing Cuba (lots of Che Guevera).

The other thing one notices is the size difference between this protest and the ones in the US. This one was about two blocks by 4 lanes. The American protests are much much larger, and hopefully move faster). This also leads to people being much less crazy then their American counterparts. There was no burning of American flags, and the only usage of an American flag was next to another flag (currently forgetting which one, but I think it was Cuba) with writing on it that criticized Bush. There was no dressing up as terrorists, but there were a few people dressed up as prisoners. The closest to that was a single shirt with a blown up image of a terrorist.

I did pick up alot of fliers and propaganda sheets from the people though. They are in Spanish or Cataluyan though (two similar but different languages), so if anybody can interpret them, I could send them to you when I get back to the states.

An interesting side to the protest was a protest against the EU (or UE) and how they did not want the EU to have a constitution. I took a photo of the nice 4 page board they created for it, because I was struggling to read it (haven´t learned political termage in either language yet).

Ding Dong the bitch is dead

2004-06-09T18:03:00.000-04:00

Reagan finally kicked the bucket. Good.

Final Update before I leave

2004-06-01T19:29:00.000-04:00

OK, so One Last update from the airport.

Everybody needs to read National Review's condemnation of Bush's price coverup for the Medicare bill. National Review says that it breaks five laws. Part of the fun is that Democrats, who are normally for Medicare bills (if Bush's was a good one) are against Bush and his administration whole-heartedly. Thus, they will be using this against Bush. The Republicans generally dislike Medicare and will be against Bush for increasing the budget by $551 billion (over a ten year period).

If Bush knew about this, I smell a good opportunity for an impeachment. If he didn't, then at least the perps of said crimes will be probably be going to prison, and with any luck it will be the "rape-you-in-the-ass" prison. :-)

Hiatus

2004-06-01T11:03:00.000-04:00

I am off to explore the world outside of America. I will be on hiatus until July 9 (or so, depends on how quickly I can catch up on the news).

I am leaving you with a new Michigan based website, chock full of male nudity: I am Sick and Tired of White Girls.

California = Everybody

2004-05-30T11:21:00.000-04:00

A recent Senate bill, introduced on May 20, will be doing something California didn't even want to do: limit tobacco products. In reading the bill, you will notices this tidbit in Section 907.a.1:

A cigarette or any of its component parts (including the tobacco, filter, or paper) shall not contain, as a constituent (including a smoke constituent) or additive, an artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb or spice, including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product or tobacco smoke. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to limit the Secretary's authority to take action under this section or other sections of this Act applicable to menthol or any artificial or natural flavor, herb, or spice not specified in this paragraph.

Phillip Morris is backing this bill as well. Interestingly, menthol cigarettes are specifically included. My favorite on here is Clove. All the rest of the flavors are interesting, but clove, the choice for goths, is the most interesting as nobody really cares for them all that much. Many people regard cloves as harsh, even though they smoke them.

The bill is supposed to keep cigarettes tasting like tobacco, instead of flavors like Kool's new flavors from Brown and Williamson, so kids do not start smoking them, especially for their smooth flavors. Hrm. Are tobacco lobbyists using government legislature to do their competition work for them? Sounds like a raw deal to me.

Another article on it.

Bush, The Christian

2004-05-30T04:09:00.000-04:00

Here's a factoid I only recently learned. President Bush wrote an executive order (he likes those) to help out faith-based organizations. Well, while church and state generally don't mix, some of them need funding. But, guess what? Bush is a Christian. And, though his policy makes no attempt to say whether it will be biased or evenly distributed among the faiths, homework dictates otherwise.

This factoid shares that the government does indeed give out $24 million dollars to Intermediary Faith Based Organizations. Who are the intermediaries? Here's a list from the same website. If you notice, there are several christian/catholic-specific charities that get money. However, there are no Jewish charities which get any money. No Muslim charities, no Buddhist charities. Only Christian charities. The closest is stuff like state or university funds for non-profits or interfaith organizations, but they never get tied up with Jewish ones either.

I have more of a problem with the anti-Semetic distribution of this than the actual giving of money, because they do do some good for the communities in which they reside. More evidence that Bush needs to be dealt with and fast.

Religion Understands Not Hollywood

2004-05-29T10:38:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, the movie Saved!, a movie about mean students at a Christian academy, came out in limited release (LA/NY/Chicago?). It is actually about a girl who tries to save her boyfriend from his homosexual tendencies only to become pregnant herself, and ostracized from school. So, guess what? The conservatives are having a field day wth hating this movie, even to the point of getting so flustered they don't do any research.

Yesterday, the movie Raising Helen, a movie in which a young aunt suddenly becomes the guardian of her now-deceased sister's three children, and also falls in love with the hot and hunky pastor, was also released.

National Review only reviewed Raising Helen (which, by the way, got a 23% on Rotten Tomatoes, meaning 23% of the reviewers liked it), and liked it, or at least liked Pastor Dan. Another National Review article also commented on Pastor Dan, and liked him alot too. They both believe that Pastors have been either used for faddish methods (horror movies) or "sadistic, hypocritical killjoys," and even mentions Heathers in that vein. For those of you who don't remember, this Pastor was just a cynical preacher at funerals.

Front Page Magazine, on the other hand, attacked Saved! as being typical of Hollywood's treatment of religion. This is what gets the ire of the conservatives, I guess. He lists off some movies, most of which aren't really Hollywood, but independent. The "Hollywood" movies he names are, The Last Temptation of Christ, Priest, Dogma, The Magdalene Sisters, The Order, Stigmata, The Saint, The Basketball Diaries, and Heaven Help Us. Last Temptation is one of those classic stories of not being a Hollywood movie. It is Martin Scorcese directing an art film challenging faith as we know it, but still being relatively honest in its dealings with religion. In fact, I imagine it caused more than just me to question their agnosticism. As soon as word got out he was making it, he lost his funding for the movie and had to go completely independent early on. Priest is British, as in The Magdalene Sisters. In fact, The Magdalene Sisters is a historical movie, and not supposed to be all that fictionalized, if at all. Which brings us to the independent The Basketball Diaries, which was also based on biographical writings.

Mr. Feder also says two really really strange dealings which lead me to believe that Christianity and Catholicism is a cult. The first is that Hollywood pushes the concept of gender sameness, where gender roles are socially imposed instead of reality based. As most people know, a gender role is socially imposed, though some of it might be genetic. One only has to look at the wide range of females in my family (and in theirs too, probably) to know that gender roles aren't exactly everything. Especially with so many women becoming financially independent and secure... The other thing he writes is Hollywood's agenda, which the Conservatives are trying to stop, includes "a contraceptive culture, erotic indoctrination masquerading as sex education" (not to mention "abortion on demand"). Is there anything wrong with a contraceptive culture? People worldwide, throughout the ages, have been having pre-marital sex, and getting pregnant. Hence, a shotgun wedding, or various other euphemisms. As for the erotic indoctrination, I don't know about you, but I didn't learn how to give/recieve blow jobs, eat out a girl, or various positions in my class. We saw sterile drawings of a penis entering a vagina, and spewing without thrusting. We also saw genetalia with STDs. MMM, nothing gets me hornier than a wart covered vagina.

And, though it is only one case, Keeping the Faith, for all its suckiness, was missed by all three writers. This is the Ben Stiller and Edward Norton movie about a priest and a rabbi pining for the same girl. It was really slow, and should have been half and hour shorter, but alot of people really liked it. It wasn't demeaning to either religion, and it was actually a sweet movie. I didn't like it though.

So, with a distinct lack of research, and they're religious movie knowledge being based on the bottom of the barrel (Stigmata?!), the Conservatives are basically retarded and need to be Saved!

Game

2004-05-28T19:38:00.000-04:00

So, I know this isn't much of an update, but here's an extremely biased video game against Bush. It provides some fun facts about how Bush trashed our economy, and the fun facts regarding who gets his tax cuts.

Culture, Politics, Religion, the works!

2004-05-27T00:13:00.000-04:00

I just got back from seeing Life of Brian at Main Art. Yes, its like the 299384th time I've watched the movie, but it is brilliant. If you haven't seen it yet, run and rent it. It's on an old transfer DVD, as well as Criterion. (note: before you all go buy new ones, the new print still looks just as gritty and grainy as the Criterion edition does).

Anyways, the last time I actually watched the movie was back when I had taken the Kubrick class, at least (if not before that even). This was post-9/11, but not in the middle of the war. Or, maybe I just never understood the scene (which is actually entirely possible), but when the People's Front of Judea are going through the tunnels to kidnap Pilate's wife, they use the word terrorist quite a bit. And, there are alot of weird parallels to the whole American occupation of Iraq. Honestly, if you haven't watched the movie in awhile, it is now a good time to go back to it.

Because, part of the movie is about how Brian gets tangled in insurgent uprisings to get rid of the Romans, who are currently occupying the Jew's land. There is the comment, "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" Which completely reminds me of the liberals saying what have the Americans done for the Iraqis, besides get rid of Saddam Hussein, build schools, water, etc.

This is also noted by the political correctness of the Jewish insurgents, except for the leader..."Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies." It is really weird watching the movie at this point in time. How a propos that it is coming out this year for its 25th anniversary, just after The Passion, and in this time of war in the Middle East.

I should also note that for the first time, I watched Eddie Izzard's 1999 stand-up comedy show Dress to Kill last night. For those who don't know, Izzard is a British "executive/action tranvestite" who is quite intelligent and insightful. He had some cunning remarks on everything: culture, politics, and religion. He commented on the Islamic people and how they don't go around Jihading everybody. He commented on the CoE having the basis of being for divorce. He commented on Empires, and how Britain took over India (Well, you don't have a flag, and we do. Its a rule we just made up). It's really fast paced and quite witty, I suggest people take a look at it.

Go to church you heathen

2004-05-26T20:35:00.000-04:00

Here's a neat idea. Church for the internet-addicted.

The Conservative Bias

2004-05-26T00:14:00.000-04:00

So, I'm still having that major debate over at Anti-com on bias in the media, and when it becomes irresponsible. Well, here's something for irresponsibility:

Armed forces are given the option of silence or Rush Limbaugh. Now, honestly, is this really responsible airtime? The only good reason for this is that Liberals are against the war, while Limbaugh is for the war. I personally don't think that liberals should be aired over armed forces radio, simply because of the demoralization of our troops. I certainly don't want mindless drones there, but I don't want them to think that there is a rather large selection of Americans who are not behind them. Its hard enough being at war without having to hear that.

I propose no talk radio whatsoever. The army should supply them with news, Headline News-style, if they choose. The usage of Rush Limbaugh as a source of opinion in the nation is just like piping in a steady stream of Michael Moore, if not worse. And, conservatives would hate that idea.

Bashing Your Brains In

2004-05-25T23:25:00.000-04:00

OOO, political wars are trying to hit movie theaters.

In the red corner, we have Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 trying to catch a distributor.

In the blue corner, we have a new film, underground you might say, Michael Moore Hates America, a critical look at Michael Moore and his politics, as well as a search for the American Dream (yeah, right).

In all honesty, I'm totally digging Mike Wilson in that he is going a bit post-modern by making a documentary analyzing documentaries. It reminds me of that movie Games People Play, except this one won't just say I'm fake and you don't know what is real at the end, or will it? Either way it sounds like massive fun. Check it out, and spread the word.

Mommy, What's plagiarism

2004-05-24T20:38:00.000-04:00

Rape and pillage the first episode, just change the order a bit. Those sons of bitches out there ain't gonna know the difference. All that shit is just filler for the interview anyway. We film a new intro. Show some old footage from the first episode so they get a brief history of Mickey and Mallory. We introduce a new angle... - Wayne Gale, Natural Born Killers

Repetition works, David. Repetition works, David. - Wayne Gale, Natural Born Killers

Dubya just put forth his best effort to save his own ass, and it wasn't an effort. I couldn't help but think of NBK as I was watching the bullshit spew from his mouth as he basically repeated the same exact things he has been saying for a long-fucking times.

Here are the new additions:
Abu Ghraib prison will be torn down, and a new maximum-security prison will be put up in its place (probably with more security to protect film from escaping the prison)
We are keeping the level of troops at 138,000 instead of slowly pulling out of Iraq.

I think thats about it. The five steps he outlined, otherwise, were: Giving sovereignty to Iraq, establishing Iraqi security, Continue Rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure, Getting the international community to help out, and just generally moving to the free election by January. He reminds us that the violence will further spike, and that we have indeed lost quite a few of Saddam's higher ranked officers and loyalists into foreign terrorist cells.

Oh, did I mention the further exploitation of Nick Berg, even thouh he wasn't mentioned by name. And, he was only getting ready to be killed, though Al Zarqawi was only suspected to be the man with the knife. (I still think that the video was faked with further evidence here)

So, Bush said nothing new, and nothing new was all it was. *sigh* He hinted that Iraq was the central point of the terrorist organizations, and if we win in Iraq we almost win everywhere, which is a major fallacy. He doesn't hint that we will be applying pressure in any of the other surrounding countries to release the terrorist cells. He doesn't hint that we will be doing anything after we get Iraq settled, really. But, then, the speech, I guess, was supposedly only on Iraq, not on the war on terror as a whole.

It seems that Bush's speech writers are working from the same ideology that Wayne Gale worked on to manipulate the audience for ratings in 1994's Natural Born Killers (both scripts: Tarantino's and Stone's). What a gyp.

Media Censorship

2004-05-24T11:33:00.000-04:00

Cable television is the bastion for intelligent people who can afford it. But, some people still cannot afford cable, and must resort to the biased networks for their news source. So, what's happening tonight?

Bush is giving a speech on his plans of Iraq, which may actually make or break the election next year (unless he pulls a Kerry). The problem is that he may say something of importance and weight for the first time in ages, but the networks are not going to air the shows. Or, at least the major networks: Fox, NBC, ABC (and probably CBS) have all decided not to air tonight's speech in order to keep the public entertained and distracted by whatever mindless shit they have scheduled normally.

Is this a political move? If Fox was still airing the speech, I would say, you bet your ass it is. But, since every one of the stations have decided to keep the public mindless, its not even political It is a financially motivated move at the end of sweeps month. Fox is, however, giving the affiliates (read local carriers) the option of carrying the speech, though I am sure there is incentive to do otherwise.

Luckily Fox News, MSNBC, and the likes will be carrying the speech.

New Icon

2004-05-24T01:57:00.000-04:00

So, I just got a new Icon. It is John Waters meets Better Bowers with a limpwristed Bush with Farrah Fawcett hair.

OLD:

NEW

I'm kind of leaning towards the old one still. The new one in bigger format is shown now:

Also, I'm not sure why I haven't posted this on here, but I'm LJ-cutting it again:

Cinematic Punditry

2004-05-23T11:45:00.000-04:00

Background
Its not altogether unseen, but definately rare, when a movie wins awards before it has a domestic distruibuter (by domestic I mean within its own country). One of the biggest cases I have seen of this type of award-giving is in 1984/85 with the release of Brazil, when Terry Gilliam had a contract to release his big art-house movie at under 120 minutes, and it actually was 132 minutes. This caused a now-legendary fight between Gilliam and Universal Studios (specifically Sidney Sheinberg) leading to Universal's re-editing and withholding of the film for over a year, and Gilliam's campaign to keep control. While fighting for control, Gilliam made the move of showing it underground, especially to film critics, and ended up winning the L.A. Film Critic's award.

The latest misadventure in cinematic manuverings is the piece of punditry (with exaggerated, unfair, or fictional elements) from Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 911 (slogan, "The Temperature Where Freedom Burns"). As most people know by now, Disney, when Moore had proposed said movie, had originally said that they were not going to distribute the movie. However, Disney and Miramax gave Moore 4._ million dollars to make the movie, and when it was finished, Disney decided not to release it. This, of course, provides great fodder for publicity.

NEW INFORMATION

Before I lose you all by exploiting my cinematic knowledge, here is the latest update: Fahrenheit 911 has won Cannes Film Festival's Palme D'Or. For those of you who don't know, Cannes is a major annual international film festival held in Cannes, France (Mediterannean Coast). At the end of the festival, the Jury gives out awards to whomever they consider to be the best movie. Past winners of the Palme D'Or include Elephant (last year's awesome reaction to Columbine), The Pianist (Roman Polanski's look at life as a Jew under Polish Nazi occupation), Pulp Fiction, M*A*S*H, Apocalypse Now, and Taxi Driver. Also, it does make mistakes, such as Wild At Heart, David Lynch's abhorable movie with Nicholas Cage.

This year, the jury was headed by Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, duh...), and the rest of the jury represented a few different countries. The jurors includes:

Benoit Poelvadore (C'est Arrive Pres de Chez Vous aka Man Bites Dog, director and killer, Belgian)

Edwidge Danticat (a black female writer from Haiti who became a US citizen at age 12)

Emmanuelle Beart (female French actress, star of 8 Women [murderous singing lesbians] and Mission: Impossible)

Jerry Schatzberg (Finnish director, most famous for early works with Al Pacino, Scarecrow, and The Panic in Needle Park)

Kathleen Turner (American Actress, The War of the Roses)

Peter Von Bagh (Finnish Film Critic)

Tilda Swinton (British actress, Adaptation., and Vanilla Sky)

Tsui Hark (Vietnamese martial arts director, obviously a Tarantino choice)

So, 1 French, 2 Fins, 1 Belgian, 1 Brit, 1 Vietnamese and 3 Americans decided that Fahrenheit 911 was the best movie of the festival. Fox News, with its fair and balanced reporting, blames it all on the French. Especially with Tarantino heading the troops, and 2 violent directors (Man Bites Dog is one of the most vicious movies I have ever seen), I highly doubt that it was just the French who were thumbing their noses at America through Michael Moore.

However, if this is anything like the Brazil situation, this should make it easier to either force Disney to distribute it or give Miramax enough oomph to buy it back and find another distributor. For some reason, everybody trusts film festival awards to at least pick out entertaining films (Pulp Fiction was so much better than that piece of shit Forrest Gump which won at the Oscars).

So, with any hope, this piece of cinematic punditry will make its way onto film screens sometime in the near future, and we can see all the glory that Michael Moore tends to use. Well, at least his movies are downright entertaining. Good work Cannes.

Election Choices

2004-05-21T01:55:00.000-04:00

Ahhh yes, its that year again. That year where politics take a back seat to stumbling over tongues, pandering, and mudslinging. You know the year, its called election year.

This year, we have two frontrunners, George Dubya Bush (Incumbent) and John Kerry (Incumbent asshole). Our disillusioned candidates so far are Ralph Nader, and (in some cases) Lyndon LaRouche.

On the liberal side, we have irresponsible reporting from Kristin V. Jones, over at The Nation, regarding punks (starting with old-school goth dropout, and Ministry frontman, Al Jourgensen) and politics. Everything she writes is of the creepiest kind. Sure, I appreciate stuff like Punks Against Bush, and I'm even partially A.B.B. myself, but these kids know absolutely nothing about Kerry or Nader. And, while I am not for Bush, I'm not for Kerry either. These kids get signed up with cool hip shirts like, "Vote F*cker" and then vote for the president they are told to vote for, not an educated vote.

On a similar deluded note, strip clubs now have voter registration tables. Come in, sign up to vote against Bush (in Wisconsin), and get a lap dance. *shrug* Even the owners are getting into it. But, these places are straight strip joints. If they were gay strip joints, that's where I would see Bush stepping in. Dick and alcohol just don't mix, or something like that. But, I know that Bush and his cronies are probably frequent users of strip clubs (or were frequent users) especially given that the more conservative people I know generally go to strip clubs fairly freely (and in some cases regularly).

Besides all of this, we have the GOP bus doing the same types of things. But, at least the kids have a chance of hearing the president talk (unless they're kept out of the rallies).

Then, there is Ralph Nader. Nader and Kerry met this week, and Kerry isn't dissuading Nader from the trail, at least not yet (I'm waiting for another classic flip-flop). He is telling voters that their vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. But, they must not know much about the electoral process because, if Nader actually gets some electoral votes (HAH!) and Bush and Kerry still reign in, then we'd have difficulties. But, there have historically never been any three party runnings, really. Besides, Nader has been too quiet so far, though we still have 6 months.

But, still, Kerry has been doing his classic moves this week, announcing that he may elect anti-abortion judges, then flipping on the statement. I don't like Kerry one bit, and I never have. He's always seemed quite slimy.

But, then there's Bush and his administration. Let me just say, Ugh. Between the media censoring of the liberals that has been occuring under him (Farhenheit 911, Howard Stern, etc), his botching of Iraq (and his thinking they're ready to recieve power, though our war isn't finished...and don't you even think that just because we're not fighting the Iraqis that we shouldn't have control of the place until we're done), his abhorable stances on gay marriage, his view on the economy, budgets, taxes, etc...Well

And, LaRouche. I've said enough about him, look below. I'll be looking more into him though he's guilty of mind control tactics worthy of Jonestown or Manson minus the war. I love the guy for his efforts though. I wonder if everybody is as cynical about it as I am. I am getting calls from the LaRouche youth office to go to meetings and maybe I'll join the cult for awhile. It should be fun. :-)

So, there you have it. Clowns and jokers, the lot of them.

The Blood-Stained Bride

2004-05-20T01:19:00.000-04:00

We fired upon and bombed a wedding party over in the Middle East today. Fox News (I know I know, biased as all hell) and CNN both give reports thst the military say that the wedding party were shooting at planes and at soldiers at 3am (middle of the night). They have also found a good stockpile of weapons.

It makes me wonder, should I get a militia group and have them dress all in tuxedos and wedding dresses?

Idle Worship

2004-05-20T00:41:00.000-04:00

Let me talk about Lyndon LaRouche for a minute. It was on Thursday (you can scroll down a few entries on this journal) that I was in Ann Arbor and was pulled into a discussion for Lyndon LaRouche. It was an awesome holistically political discussion that ranked from geometry to GEB (I fucking love that book) to Shakespeare to LaRouche's economic strategy.

But, since this was only from the grassroots operations of the kid, I have been slightly reading up on the guy. Mind you, I haven't delved very deeply into his politics, having too much fun being a media analyst (I wonder what one has to do to get paid to be one of those) over at Anti-com.com (p.s. Check out my Gojira reference, its too funny). Yeah, I sound a bit cocky, fuck you all.

Anyways, I was reading up on LaRouche, so I should mention what I discovered originally.

First, there is LaRouche's Youth Movement website. It has a list of classic (read required) reading throughout history, including Riemann (Riemann sums are fun, Plato, Dante (WTF?! The work is an awesome piece of bile (having trudged through the first 6 levels of Hell), but I would never think that understanding it helps out politics in any way, shape, or form), and Homer (for the melodramatics, I suppose...as a side note, I'm reading The Iliad right now, so funny). Their Classes section included everything from economics to "Suicide, sex and the preconsciousness" to "Why Modern Art Sucks."

OKOK so that's just the youth movement page. Let's check out his own shit.

First we have the Southeast Asia Doctrine, in which he says very little other than I have the solution. At times it sounds semi-similar to ideas Vic had been saying in this Anti-com post, only much much much vaguer, while at other times it sounds completely contrary. He has some awesome moments, such as "unless that statement, as crafted by me, is considered," as well as the finale of the piece. Oh yes, Larouche is no dummy, he knows how to finish off saying not much. He doesn't say very much, has a point with many sub-points (readers are likely to skim), then finishes with two sections of grandioseness. And, my favorite, the webcast event, The Keys to Peace which says absolutely nothing except what he percieves as happening to the economy, oh and that he is awesome. Which could be true, but, then, I'm not an economist.

Then, the third piece of evidence against LaRouche is National Review's condemnation of everything LaRouche and his newsletter bases their ideas on as conspiracy theories and lies. Whcih still makes me laugh a bit.

So, maybe I'll vote LaRouche because he's interesting, smart, paranoid, egomaniacal, or at least different from the other two bozos currently running. He's not looking to be dictator though...he's 85, he can't do that.

ed's note: The issue here is that, as a pervert, I naturally decided to go to the sex as psychoanalytical discussion. Over half of the mp3 is not about sex. Though, look up Larouche in The Guardian on July 12. The Speaker is using alot of different techniques which are quite commonplace in manipulators at the end. "Don't hang out with those LaRouche Guys. Listen to mommy. And that leads us into psychosexual impotence." I love these people. I love cults, because he was talking about groups like the cult awareness network, the drug MK Ultra and LSD testing, and AFF. This guy is just purely awesome. "What makes you psychosexually impotent is if you don't feel like dealing with another person's mind in a serious way."

"In front of 10,000 people he started imitating himself masturbation, he may not have been imitating, I dunno he hanged himself later...Michel Fukoh said the only honest non-fantasized sexual relationship you can have is masturbation, because then at least you know you love the person you're having sex with...Essentially what he's saying is that you take the subjective out of sex. And that's how you overcome the Freud problem of non-mediated relationship with another being. You know its fantasy, so go ahead and do it, just make sure you know its fantasy. Now the point Phil is making on the, the point Lyn has always been making on this is that the problem with people becoming leaders is dishonesty on every single level. You're telling people 'trust me, I'm telling you the truth. Give your life to this cause' And then, two minutes later, you're staring at their crotch. I'm serious. Never happens in organizing? Hm...The question of psychosexual impotence is that that's going on and you try to pretend it's not happening, meanwhile you're not organizing the person because its like you don't have another person in front of you, you have a sexual organ in front of you."

And the dud lets out gas...

2004-05-19T19:49:00.000-04:00

I feel I have a sort of responsibility of talking about the new find of sarin gas. It seems that everything is flying over the new discovery.

For those of you who have your heads in the sand, the US military had a shell explode near them, and it had been loaded with sarin gas. They originally had said "trace ammounts of sarin gas." Even after a day or two, they still said "trace amounts of sarin gas." Recently, they have said 4 Liters of sarin gas were in the explosive. Apparently, it was one of those ones where you mix it to make it toxic.

Maybe I'm being too skeptical, but I feel that they are grasping for straws. Finding one stray shell to validate their vain continuing search for WMDs seems a bit suspicious, since they hadn't even found it if it hadn't have exploded. To me, the timing seems a bit too calculated with Bush's approval drop as well. I might even be prepped to believe there wasn't a shell since we haven't seen it yet. We aren't given evidence other than press reports that it exists. We only have the word from Bush's administration, and the fraudulent reports of WMDs surely back up his word to be true, right?

Even if it does exist, I still wouldn't lean towards UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix when he says that it isn't evidence of stockpiling. That seems too suspect as well.

Ideal-ogies

2004-05-18T11:19:00.000-04:00

Friday, I got to the bar ealy, and had avoided a cover charge. While at the bar, I decided to read Metrotimes until either a)some people showed up or b)there was some good music. While reading Metrotimes, I ran across a piece of information of idea censorship, only this time its from the right.

Yes, ladies and germs, The Nation via Metrotimes reported that the College Republicans of Kalamazoo College combined with the evil Bush-Cheney campaign team to block entrance to a Bush rally. They prevented seven individuals, most of whom apparently are outspoken members of the Left, from entering Bush's campaign rally. They were apparently fingered by the group an barred entrance from the rally, though they were not armed with even the minorest of offenses, like signs or weapons.

At U of M, back in October, when I attended the Michael Moore book/political rally, something not-so-similar happened. People from the Student Republicans (or some other nasty right wing group) had come in with signs even. They made it all the way to their seats. Interetingly, Phil and I were in the same row in the balcony with them to witness this first hand. They, however, put the signs up over the edge of the balcony, in what I thought was pretty solid and secure state. Especially if they held them throughout the rally. But, it wasn't meant to be, as the lady had to tell them they couldn't have their signs up on the balcony, but they were allowed to stay.

On a more hilarious note (and also what reminded me of this), was I saw the video and images from Anti-com.com's answer to A.N.S.W.E.R.'s March 20th March for Peace. The humor in putting this in the same post as the one from Metrotimes is that the "unjust authority of _______'s censor" is not limited to the left. The right participates in censoring just as much as the left, and in the end, we are all just trying to infiltrate and corrupt somebody else. EXCEPT, the major difference (and the injustice) is that one group was barred completely from peacefully hearing the President speak, while the other was barred from voicing their own opinion contrary to the purpose of the intended rally.

As a personal aside, I'm against censorship of all sides, and I'm for the disruption of both sides. If the right ever rallied (which they tend not to do with their influence in high circles, and a general respect for people who don't want to hear it), I'd be all for infiltrating their rallies too.

Fucking bastards, the lot of them.

The Right Wing Delusion

2004-05-17T01:58:00.000-04:00

"Anybody can make up statistics to prove a point. 14% of the people know that." - Homer Simpson

Recently, the AP reported that Bush's economic approval may be tied to his war approval. They said that as the approval for his handling of Iraq goes down, so does the opinion of how he handles the economy as well as the job market. This is as nonsensical, as well as sad but true, as the right wing's faith in Donald Rumsfeld that he can recover from the drastically misled war to bring us to a victory.

I've been looking at some of the conservative and liberal websites, and little has been said about the reparations which Rumsfeld and the administration are planning on giving to the Iraqi abuse victims. It makes me wonder if the liberals are happy with the idea that we are throwing money after the victims of our own abuse, and if the conservatives are just mildly unhappy because they have to do something to right their wrongs.

The problem is that there is no logic to the idea of these reparations. It reminds me of bad parents who, instead of going to games or spending time with their kids, just give them money. Just as we abused them, we hope this here payment will help make things alright for the damage done both physically and mentally to your brain. Which brings up the question, "what is the price of a soul?"

But, then, I'm not here to argue in support of these reparations, I am here to criticize Rumsfeld and Bush (and by Bush, I mean Cheney). This war we have here is started. I want all of you to face it. If you're a liberal wanting us to pull out of Iraq, you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that, as a nation, we started something that we cannot stop until it is over. A war isn't just some willy-nilly action that one can go in with even the shakiest of reasons, and, considering I, a once-out-of-the-loop college student, was against the war based on WMDs and whatever other minor illogical reasons Bush was giving that liberals ae currently harping on him for, then you should have been too. You can't just say, "well, I'm sorry, we were mistaken. Here's some money. Have a good life" and then pull out the military without a)being seen as a rash, illogical and cold-hearted bitch as well as b)losing further standing as a world power, in a world growing scarier by the impending and growing powers of China (why can't it be Japan? they have cooler shit).

Now that all of you are hopefully coming to terms with the idea that Dubya and his cronies got us into a giant mess from which we are not so easily extracted, you have to come to terms with where our mistakes have been. The problem is that, though Bush has said that policy should not be dictated by popular opinion, Rumsfeld's war was enhanced by the liberal leanings. While I believe Bush is wrong about policies, war is something best left for the cold brutal people who can handle the harsh reality of massive destruction. Having played games of Stratego and various other war simulators, one comes to realize that by going in in minor amounts always leads to the diminuation of the nations soldiers as well as the total defeat of the first attack wave. Yet, when it came to Iraq, we did not go in all gung-ho and defeat the terrorist cells. We did not send investigators or border patrols there by the millions. And, like it or not, this was a large influence of the liberal thinking.

Rumsfeld was the head of this war. He designed the war, and executed it. He was the one who fucked it all up. To me, the length of the war as well as the messy execution of the war is strike one for ole Rummy.

The second strike, to me, isn't really a strike. But, a large portion of our nation, including many of the conservatives, consider this a major strike. Rumsfeld knew of and approved the Abu Ghraib prison abuses. That link is a Wired link which also links to The New Yorker about a story being released today (or next Monday) regarding Rumsfeld's full knowledge of the policies leading to the abuse shown in the photographs.

This leads to Rummy's third strike: the reparations given to the Abu Ghraib abuse victims. I summed it up shortly in a little footnote two political links ago (maybe I'll start a politics only journal). Some papers report on the positive effects it has for the American side, like Washington Post's article on a former victim turned US guard. To me, that sounds alot like the way the Nazis scared people, including the Jews, into becoming an MP. Other groups are not reacting so positively(?) by going with Americans to help their fellow man. They are going against their attackers to eventually defeat them and kick them out. I had read a few stories in the days following the release of the photographs (but I can only find a link to a Salon.com article republished after, where the last line is pertinent) where the victims hated the Americans, much as a bullied child hates his bullies and gets revenge on them. Revenge is not a solely American concept, nor is it a solely Iraqi concept. Instead, it is a universal Human condition.

So, if we think about it, what would be the best way to get revenge on the Americans? Perhaps it would be to get money from them, deflect to their enemies, and then give the American money to the terrorist factions. And, guess who's helping to do that? Yup, ole Rummy. Which is why I think the third strike is the most serious strike of all. And, its not that we're trying to be good sports and giving them tips either (its not sports, its war people!). Maybe if the reparations were delayed until after the war effort, but then we would never give them money. Especially since the war is continually botched.

So, its not because of the prison abuse that I think Bush should give Rummy the boot, but its because of sheer incompetence that Rummy should get out of his office. He should be gone, because if I made a project that went months over its time schedule, as well as billions of dollars over budget, I think I would be fired, and there would be a new mastermind at the project's helm. As would any normal American in any corporatized company, just as the greenlighter at 20th Century Fox was fired/resigned because he OKed Fight Club which went over budget, and didn't make up its money at the theater, even though that was Fox's best year in a fuckload of time for film. But, not Dubya's administration and not in the government, apparently. I want that job security, you know?

Yet, the conservatives still want to cling to Rummy, even though they probably do agree with the three main points. They believe and cling to the idea that Rummy can redirect the war into something salvageable and we are not without hope. They believe that nothing was Rummy's fault. They believe in Rumsfeld and that he should remain in office. And, therein lies the fundamental Right Wing Delusion: the horse you're backing is awesome, even if he is in last place.

Marriage is Dead, Long Live Marriage

2004-05-17T01:53:00.000-04:00

As the bell tolls midnight, MTV News is currently on the steps of city hall in Massachusetts (I'm guessing Boston, but couldn't it have happened in an easier state to spell?) where same-sex couples are lined up to get married, this time legally and with full support of the US Supreme Court. Why the city hall gets special hours is beyond me, I mean fo fuck's sake, they could at least wait until 7am, but then if I a)had a boyfriend/girlfriend with whom I'd want to spend the rest of my life with, until finances do us part, and b) even supported the institution of marriage, this would be my only chance to get a marriage license, due to the hours that the city hall is open.

I digress. Gay marriage is a hot topic, and one that I've explored on this journal several times over. I've explored it always from a pro-gay marriage stance, and always critical of both the institution itself, but the religious reasons for getting married. The legal benefits of marriage denied to civil unions are impossible to overlook.

As most of you know, I am against marriage of any kind. I don't want to get married, I don't want to be legally tied to a person on top of being emotionally attached, and I certainly don't want to be tied through religion (especially considering my agnosticism). The only good thing marriage has going for it are the benefits that the federal and state governments offer to married couples, but lets take a look at why there are so many mehods opponents use against gay marriage, and why some of them are easier to dismiss than others.

The first group I want to look at is the religious sects. You know whom I am talking about, the groups that believe in God and Jesus Christ or whoever the fuck else they believe in, pay their churches/synagogues/temples/whatever money to worship there, and various other psychotically devout things. These are the people who support cardinals and priests who deny sacraments not only to the lawmakers who support legalized abortion laws, but also deny the people who vote for these lawmakers. These people are easy to dismiss and hard to ignore because of their influence over the religious lawmakers who actually buy into this crap. The problem with these people is that you can write them off with "there has to be a seperation of church and state" but the religious influence over the stupid and smart is hard to ignore, even if they agree. Everything has an influence, and many people think with their heart and not with their head. (note: Michael Moore was spouting against one of the original DNC presidential candidates because he said that he was against abortions but would not pass laws to make it illegal, and said that he had to believe that abortions were OK too...Moore is a jackass)

The second group are those that say marriage is an ancient institution that should remain the same. Well, I know I'm sounding extremely liberal, but FUCK YOU. Things change. If things didn't change, women would still be "obeying" their husbands like they do according to the Koran in mulsim cultures. Women would still be servants, and very seperate from husbands. Women's place would still be in the kitchen, if she was married. It's easiest to dismiss because its just people longing for the ways of old.

The third group are those that say marriage is for making babies and populating the nation. Well, enough people have out-of-wedlock babies now. And, lets look at the heterogamous but childless couples who can't have babies. The ones with barren wives, sterile husbands, or even physical disabilities or mental illnesses which make sex impossible. Not only that, there are plenty of benefits just for having children that the benefits of marriage have nothing to do with it anymore. It is still the middle difficulty concept to dismiss. Part of the reason for the benefits was so people who got married wanted to stay married, and it was harder for the father or mother to dump the family that he/she was creating. And, it is still beneficial in these terms, but many of the benefits also have nothing to do with family or children, but just the benefits of legal couples. This includes, but is not limited to, visitation rights and health insurance taxation. If we got rid of these benefits for marriage, or every single right was associated with civil unions as equally as marriage, then we would have no problem.

That, in turn, brings us to the fourth mehtod. Those that are willing to give gays civil unions, which is supposed to have every single right that marriage has. The issue and problem with civil unions is that there are many benefits that are given to marriages that are not applied to other types of unions. This is also troublesome in the concept of health insurance given by companies to people and their spouses. It is hard to argue the idea that civil unions are seperate but not equal, especially with people who aren't familiar with the differences that exist between the two.

Nevertheless, marriage is now, at this point of time, not a religious institution anymore. That was eliminated long ago when the first American laws were made dealing with marriage. Marriage is now a legal institution, and legal institutions change, whether you like them or not. In 1968, interracial marriages were illegal, and 72% believed it was wrong.

That being said, as always, I am still against the methods which the gay activists have used, and the channels gone through, to get this far in legalization of gay marriage. There was not a public debate. There is not even close to a majority agreeing to the concept of gay marriage. However, as Bush himself said, this is America, and we don't need the permission of the world to do what we want. I believe he also made some comment regarding political policies should not be dictated by popular opinion. I also have to argue, there could not have been that big of a public debate during the civil rights time either. They had to push their agendas ahead despite the moral objections which white supremacists, as well as racial bigots, possessed.

Still, this is a step in the right direction. There will be no delusions in this mind that, just as some people still regard interracial marriages as wrong, there will always be a group who are against gay marriages, and homosexuality in general. The difference will be the number against the marriages will hopefully dwindle to just being an annoying buzz, like the ones against interracial marriages. On the MTV show I do, but I can't there was a guy from one of those groups with Family in their name, who essentially said "Its clear that marriage is the end for the gay agenda, and that is why I am against it." Which is virtually impossible to argue with because of the brute cruelty and aggression involved in what he was saying, and he probably won't change his mind.

Still, I'll leave you with two quotes:
John Waters - "I remember when being gay meant that your mother didn't nag you about when you were getting married."
Scott Thompson as Buddy Waters - "Gays shouldn't be getting married. I mean, the world hates us, why ruin a good thing?"

Police State Redefined

2004-05-16T01:51:00.000-04:00

I really need to stop reading some of these idiots’ blogs. Honestly, they come up with some scary-ass shit, if you ask me. The most recent scary thing to come out of a somewhat intelligent blog post was, "A free-press cannot be maintained in a state of war."

I'll isolate it and bold it for effect too

A free-press cannot be maintained in a state of war.

(This was quoted from Rusty Shackleford)

Naturally, one can imagine that this is in response to CBS and their airing of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse photographs, as well as the Nick Berg beheading.

Before I go any further, I want to clear up a couple of points that I have made on both events. Therefore, you can ponder Rusty's above quote (which is not part of a larger sentence) as I wax remembrance.

Regarding the CBS release of the abuse photographs, as well as the photographs themselves, I have been, and still am, a bit callous towards the victims of the abuse as well as the release of the photographs. I believe that the Iraqis have done worse to Americans in their country by light-year leaps and bounds. The Americans, in this time of high stress, needed some outlet so they didn't go Section 8 on us, and, even if it was sanctioned by higher levels, all of our abuse pales in comparison to what Americans have been subjected to on the Iraqi street, as well as in terrorist captivity, so in my opinion, the abuse is nothing to get all hot and bothered over.

Regarding the Nick Berg video, I am having a split response. The first is if I believe myself and my own eyes and logical sense, that the video is fake and given by the government, but since that is a completely different argument, I will avoid retelling the details which are further explored yesterday. The other is if I believe the government as well as the media in that this really is a death, that Nick Berg was actually beheaded by terrorists (specifically Al Zarqawi), and that everything was the way its been portrayed in the media, after viewing the video I am a bit shocked and appalled. It also has that split purpose of telling me that yes, the terrorists are nastier and crueler than we could ever imagine or hope to be and "I shouldn't be offended by the abuse photographs," AND that we should unite as one in this war against terrorism. WHOA, flashback.

Which brings us back to:

A free-press cannot be maintained in a state of war.

On an unrelated journal, I have been posting comments as Anonymous (for various unrelated reasons), and have even laid claim to the name Anonymous (side note: maybe I'll make it a schtick), which is also a sort of snide statement to their desire for anonymity in the About Us section. I decided to maximize the effect of both their words as well as their mission statement. But, I'm getting sidetracked. On this blog from various writers, one writer wrote on Wednesday about the relationship between CBS and the Nick Berg video. It was along the same mistaken lines as Rustys blog, only even worse because Rusty at least admits that the terrorists needed no reason to kill Nick Berg, and this writer said CBS provided the latest excuse for them to kill, titling the post "CBS: Blood on Their Hands."

What this writer chooses to ignore is that the Iraqi street already knew about the abuse by hearing first hand stories from released prisoners, as well as seeing the effects of the abuse on the released prisoner's bodies. I'm going to venture to say that while the photographs are shocking, they probably don't compare to seeing the first hand bodily effects on the prisoners. This abuse was so well known that a mere 10 days after CBS' release of the photographs, Yahoo did a story on an art exhibit which featured no less than 3 alabaster statues depicting abuse victims which were strikingly similar to that of the photographs, as well as a quote saying "the photos came as no surprise."

So, then why is everybody blaming CBS and the purpose of a free press for increasing the awareness of the Iraqi public? All it did was confirm what American officials were investigating, and it informed the American public. I think that’s the problem though. Rusty seems to think that we are back in the 1930s, WWII era, where war was a patriotic glorified activity. Our war movies were so honorable and John Wayne stylized, the news told of all the good things that the war was accomplishing, and everybody was in on the bandwagon. It rather reminds me of the old-time newsreels that South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut satirized so well with the "Did I say death camps? I mean happy camps."

So, what is the purpose of having a free press if we cannot use it in the best of times and the worst of times? Why should all of our media constantly tell us and the rest of the world that we, as America, are the best country ever? Isn't the purpose of a free press not only to tell us of our advances and successes in the various arenas (arena of science, politics, economics, etc) but also to tell us when our government is doing wrong? Shouldn't we know that we are struggling in Iraq and essentially losing this battle?

Rusty has a semi-point though. He says that we need to minimize the split of Americans during times of war because a divided country is easier to battle than a united one. But, just as the majority lays fault to the Germans for voting in the Nazi party and not overthrowing them when the Nazis were doing horrible things to the Jews, Americans will be held accountable for the atrocities being done in their name overseas in Iraq. If a free press isn't going to tell us, as Americans, what our country is doing for us in our name simply so it can have a more unified front, I don't want to be a part of it. I don't care if the free press is actually out for money, so long as it is doing a good job of keeping us informed with relevant and pertinent news.

Part of the problem that both Rusty and the editors of the afore-mentioned blog are having is that the press is being too liberal (yes, it’s that conservative paranoia again) and only reporting on anti-American or pro-Islamic stories, calling that liberal propaganda. However, any patriotic, pro-American, demonizing Islam reports are A-OK. Case in point: while I have respect for that football guy (whose name will never be mentioned on my blog until I name every single one of the Americans who have died in Iraq), his story was complete and other patriotic propaganda. If it were any other soldier, the mainstream press would have just numbered the dead and moved on, but as soon as some celebrity dies, it’s a symbol of our fucking patriotism. And, this is good news according to these people. Perhaps, I'm being a bit cynical here, but that's honestly how I view it. It's government manipulation.

Nevertheless, my point is (I can hear any reader who has made it this far breathing a sigh of relief) a free press should be reporting on America's fallibilities and mistakes during times of peace and war. America should have a war that has a purpose to not so blindingly split the opinion over whether we should be in it or not. America should not have to worry about splitting the opinion on its world politics. America should not have to worry about its activities being released to the American public, or the international public for that matter. The press should not have to worry that America's mistakes will be a blight on America. In addition, given that things happen which negate all of the above idealistic statements, a free press has the duty and obligation to inform its citizens, with or without spin, in times of peace and in times of war, of everything their country is doing in their name. Without this, we have the press and the government changing stories, releasing disinformation (which happens even with the free press), changing history, and being able to do abhorable things in the name of freedom and America, and we become more and more a police state with no real sense of the world at hand.

----------------------------------------

As a side note, I notice that not one of the blogs has a reference to Rumsfeld giving money as compensation to the victims, nor to the stupidity of doing this. Especially since, if I were a victim of abuse, I would deflect to the other side, and probably give them money to help get rid of my attackers. But, that's just my opinion.

Pile Up

2004-05-14T01:52:00.000-04:00

Salon.com revealed this little piece of information today: Family members provided e-mails Thursday that say Nicholas Berg was held by the U.S. military before he was kidnapped and beheaded, but the government contends the messages were based on erroneous information.

Combined with my discoveries, and a full analysis of CBS' handling of the prison abuse photos as well as the US government's reaction to the release of both pieces of evidence, I think I may have enough for a small to medium sized article.

The Raping of Nick Berg

2004-05-14T01:48:00.000-04:00

The Raping of Nick Berg

In recent weeks, Americans have finally gotten the opportunity to see what exactly the American occupation in Iraq is like. We have been shown photographs of Abu Ghraib prisoners being humiliated, tortured and otherwise compromised. We have also been able to see a snuff video which has 5 face-covered men killing Nick Berg. This is widely different than 2002 when we had to struggle to find images of Danny Pearl’s killing. But, have we been getting the full and truthful story, or is the government trying to create a world where the press is worried that every piece of negative information it releases will lead to another additional brutal death in the war?

Chronology
It helps to analyze the current chain of events in recent politics, in order to put the recent news in perspective. For over a year, we have had troops in Iraq trying to quell the terrorist factions in order to create a civilized life for the Iraqi public. As the source of money is running out, and more and more politicians are getting cold feet about our presence in Iraq, the number of our troops is dwindling. In fact, on July 1st, we intend to transfer our authority to the Iraqi people and its government. This will be useless given that the terrorist factions are still powerful and able to conquer a government not backed by US troops.

In January 2004, photographs detailing prison abuse at Abu Ghraib are released to the American government, who then launches their own investigation into the incident in order to punish the criminal abusers. This investigation is made public, but not readily told, and rather hidden from the general American.

The Associated Press reported on March 4¹ that Iraqi militants were distributing a leaflet claiming Al-Zarqawi was dead. They claimed that he had been killed in one of the US’s bombings. Due to a wide level of distrust in this claim, no further reports have been implied. The French government laid investigational claims that Al-Zarqawi was behind the March 11 Madrid bombings.²

On March 24, Nick Berg was arrested and detained in Iraq. Whom he was arrested and detained by is unclear at this point in time. The US government had stated that he was detained by Iraqi forces, while Nick Berg’s parents have recently release e-mails dated April1st, from US Consular Officer Beth A. Payne informing them that Nick Berg was in the US custody. US officials have stated that at no time was Nick Berg in American custody. Nick Berg was supposedly released on April 6, and US officials said that they did not notify Berg’s parents at all because the information was not revealed until April 7. At some undetermined point of time and place, Berg was supposedly captured by Iraqi terrorists.

Also, on April 6, during a US military report on Al-Zarqawi, who had laid claim to the series of attacks at this time, they reported on a May 2002 medical visit. Prior to this report, Al-Zarqawi had been reported as having his leg amputated in the May 2002 visit to Baghdad. CNN reports, “The official would not discuss the reason for the change in assessment.”³

On Wednesday, April 28, 2004, CBS airs a story on 60 Minutes II which features some of the abusive and humiliating photographs of the Abu Ghraib prisoners. CBS, and Dan Rather, had been told to delay the broadcast of the story by the American government to protect our troops in Iraq and to prevent further distaste from the American public. CBS delayed the story for two weeks before finally airing the story on a Wednesday night broadcast of 60 Minutes II, airing against the popular show The O.C.

After the airing of the photographs on the relatively unwatched 60 Minutes II, the press picked up the story, and it became front page headlines. The photographs were an embarrassment to the US military, as well as showing activities made illegal under the Geneva Convention. As a result of the worldwide press which the photographs received, many blamed and took a negative stance toward the US military, the Pentagon, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Some even blamed Donald Rumsfeld for the abuse happening in Abu Ghraib, and called for his resignation. The US Government then proceeded to repeat that they had not wanted the photographs to be aired because of the effect it would have on the Iraqi street.

On Saturday, May 8, 2004, Associated Press⁴ writes a story about an art exhibit in Baghdad, Iraq, which features 3 alabaster statues on images which were strikingly similar to the images revealed in the photographs. This is exactly 10 days after CBS had released the photographs to the madding press. An artist in the exhibit who created the statues states, “The pictures did not surprise me” and said that many of his statues were based on stories from released prisoners.

Also, on Saturday, May 8, the US military claim to have found a dead body. There is no announcement. However, after the video is released on Tuesday, the military gives the body an identity, Nick Berg. We are not told if the body was headless, but give the video, we inherently believe it to be so. Also, we are not shown the body, nor are we given any hint that such a body actually exists, beyond official US reports, which are always dependable.

On Tuesday, May 12, 2004, 36 days after Nick Berg was supposedly released from Iraqi/US custody, and 13 days after CBS aired the release of the photographs, a website associated with Al-Qaida released a grainy, and edited, web video of Nick Berg being beheaded by 5 masked men which followed a lengthy speech from the center standing of the men. The center man is purported to be Abu Mus’ad Al Zarqawi, a sheikh closely associated with Osama Bin Laden. As part of his statement, he says one of his reasons for this video is “the shameful pictures and news of evil humiliation.”⁵

The Video
The initial aspect of the whole video is that it starts with Nick Berg tied to a chair alone stating facts about himself to confirm his own identity. The first thing we notice about the video is that it has been taken by two different cameras, each with a time stamp, each stating a different time. This is obviated by a cut at 0:08 on the video. The continuity of the first segment is undeniable, but one should notice the difference in the time stamps: Camera 1 has a time stamp of 13:26:27 and Camera 2 has a time stamp of 2:18:36, or a difference of 11:07:51. One can tell it is a time stamp and not a time code because there is no frame counter, and there are not 13 hour video tapes. The time stamp is an important piece because it is set by an internal chip.

At 0:19, the video cuts to a lengthy section where Nick Berg is sitting tied up on the floor with five masked men standing behind him. The center man gives his lengthy speech, before attacking him. This section is filmed by Camera 2.

At 4:30, we hear a strange, horrifying scream, though Nick Berg is neither screaming nor being attacked.

At 4:37, the five men pounce on Nick Berg and take him to the floor. And, at 4:38, we have a discontinuous cut to Camera 1. The time stamps become important here. At the beginning of this cut, Camera 2 has a time stamp of 2:44:37. Camera 1 has a time stamp of 13:45:47, or a time difference of 11:01:10. At this point, Camera 1 has a close-up of Nick Berg with his hair being pulled with a cringe on his face. At this point, no cutting has been made.

At 4:43, we are submitted to an extreme close-up of the chaos, as well as a cut. The cut is not from Camera 1 to Camera 2, but Camera 1 to itself. We have jumped ahead by 7 seconds, 13:45:52 to 13:45:59. The change in camera angle is representative that this was not a malfunction in the camera’s time stamp chip.

For the next 34 seconds, Camera 1 stays pretty constant while the screams stop and the men proceed to cut off Nick Berg’s head. Then, at 5:17, we are subjected to another cut. This time, again, from Camera 1 to itself. The time stamp has a difference of 73 seconds going from 13:46:33 (which works with the duration of the clip) to 13:47:46. In the space of this cut, the head of Nick Berg has been fully removed from his body. At the beginning, his head looks very much in tact, while at the end it is easily removed. The head is then held up for the Camera one to see in a very imposing stance.

One should note that the time difference of Camera 1 from its initial frame to the final stance holding the head is 121 seconds. From 13:45:47 to 13:47:48.

At 5:24, our second to last cut, the one proving the impossibility of this being a real video filmed simultaneously. This one cuts back to Camera 2, which now has a time stamp of 2:46:18. Note: the last time we saw Camera 1, at the initial push of Nick Berg, it had a time stamp of 2:44:37. The difference in time: 101 seconds. How is it possible that the bookend time from start to finish is 20 seconds shorter than the time of the actual recording?

At 5:29, our final cut shows the head resting on the decapitated body. We are back with Camera 1, now showing a time stamp of 13:48:38.

The overall graininess and distortion inherent to web videos causes the viewer trouble in discerning the details of the video. One can’t really see the blade, or if the neck is still in tact, or if it is actually real. What one can tell is that the attackers are not Arabic, but Anglo-Saxon as they have hands which are paler than Nick Berg’s head. One can tell this by comparing the hand to the head, as the hand is picking up Nick Berg’s head as they are cutting it. When they lift the hand up, after the cut, the hand appears darker, or the head, by contrast, has gotten paler.

Theories
Just from watching the video, one cannot determine that it is a fake until one notices the little details, like the lack of dripping blood from the head. However, from a bit of viewing of the media circus underlying the whole video, one can determine that the US government is definitely benefiting from it. With a little pay-off to Nick Berg and/or his family, the government could easily create a false murder to scare the press into submission.

In addition to being a fear factor for the press, this is also a great piece of anti-Islamic propaganda. This is a piece that causes Americans to jump up and shout “We need to silence the terrorist factions before they behead more of our personnel!” So, between a well-needed piece of propaganda as well as working to scare the press, the government has a lot to gain from creating the media hype around this video which rapes the our military, and Nick Berg.

¹ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4446084/
² http://www.news-leader.com/today/0327-LinktoalQa-48372.html
³ http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/06/us.zarqawi/
⁴ http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040508/ap_on_en_ot/iraq_abuse_in_art
⁵ http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/

Ann Arbor say What?

2004-05-13T01:40:00.000-04:00

So, I'm staying in Ann Arbor, mainly to go to D:Fuse at The Necto tonight. He's progressive house, so if anybody wants to join...

I was walking around, and got caught in a long-ass holistic political-economic discussion. There was a group of people who want Lyndon H. LaRouche as the democratic nominee, as opposed to John Kerry. It lifts my heart to see people trying to abolish John kerry.

Apparently LaRouche is doing this and that about our economy, but I have no idea what he has for various other ideas. I've decided that a good look at his website is in order. In the meantime, I have stuff like "The Night They Tried to Kill Me" and an open letter to the DNC.

As a big proponent of ABB, I'm also ABBOK (Anybody But Bush Or Kerry). I refuse to vote for either one. Kerry sucks, he's just out for himself. Bush sucks, but thats blindingly obvious.

Maybe LaRouche is my answer. I dunno, *shrug.*

Fail the Fucking Students

2004-05-13T01:36:00.000-04:00

In viewing the beheading, there were some very very noticable edits. I find the video to be rather suspect.

First of all, the screaming starts prior to anything actually happening.

Second, there were two cameras used. You can tell by their inclusion of the time code.

Third, The time code is also another problem. There is a section at 4:37, just before the beheading, where the camera comes in, and then gets caught up in the jumble of people. The time code then jumps by 7 seconds. The blurry close-up used when a student filmmaker is trying to get a one-cut look, but the time code is at fault here. At 5:17, we have another jump in time, of almost a minute and a half. It looks like they have finished their beheading already, but the time code jumps for them to life the head up in proud moment.

Fourth, it appears they are cutting from the top up, but the screaming stops at a rather odd place.

Fifth, the time code isn't precise on the two cameras either. There is a discrepancy of about 30 seconds between the two cameras' time codes. Camera one (which is the bookend) pushes him over at 2:46:42, then they have the head already lifted at 2:46:18, or 96 seconds. Camera two, however, has a time code starting at 13:45:47 and they're in the process of lifting the head at 13:47:48, In other words, 121 seconds.

I'm normally not a conspiracy theorist, but this video has problems with reality. If I was a film teacher, I'd fail them.

I should also note that this is not a time code, so much as a time stamp. It doesn't have frames on it, its just hours, minutes, and seconds.

(If you haven't seen the video: Salon had it up Thank you Phil for another link.)

Also, I'd like to give thanks to Troma Studios and John Waters for teaching me what good and bad filmmaking is all about, as well as movies like Cannibal Holocaust, and I Spit on Your Grave for giving me a stomach and eye for fake movie making. Also, Blair Witch for teaching me that a conspiracy is easy to create.

Fight Club - "I Want To Have Your Abortion"

2004-04-30T01:32:00.000-04:00

So, in reading NRO, the writers are still misunderstanding the abortion issue. Ponnuru and Solenni both write from a pro-life aspect, and their main observance is that there are not that many, if any, women who are proud to have had abortions.

This majorly confuses the issue. Promotion legal abortions is not endorsing people to go out and have abortions. Its not saying "you're not cool unless you've had one yourself." The name of the sect isn't pro-abortion but pro-choice. Being pro-choice is trying to prevent injury and harm from illegal abortion. Abortions, legal or not, will always be present. If they're legal, hopefully we can have these women have abortions in clean sterilized clinics with trained professionals doing it. If they're illegal, the methods for abortion can go from doctors performing them illegally on clean grounds to back alley actions to coat hangers in the bathroom.

Yes, I played the coat hanger card, namely because it isn't a card. When I went to UofM pre-student camp, one of my counselors had us play a political game, and I was the only one who was extremely firm in being pro choice. She was from Africa or South America, and went to a private school. She said there were somewhat regular occurances of seeing lots of blood on the floor, and every now and then a coat hanger abortion would go wrong. But, it was because having an abortion was illegal in that country and it would bring shame upon the family.

I have read where coat hanger abortions lead to permanent damage or death. And, since we'd be losing the unborn child anyways, why do we have to lose two people? (God, that almost sounds human) If they become crippled, they may become a burden on society. And, that is what being pro-choice is about. It isn't about being happy that people can get abortions. It isn't about reveling in the mistakes young women (and their boyfriends, the women don't deserve all the blame) make. It isn't about killing innocent kids. It is, at least to me, about preventing senseless preventable injury and death as a leading result of stupidity.

So, if abortions became illegal, then the pro-lifers would be right. The number of women regretting their abortions would go down...because they'd be dead.

Found

2004-04-30T01:29:00.000-04:00

Thanks to iadork4life, I finally got to see clips from the 60 Minutes II show. Well, not clips so much as images. Here's a link to somebody's journal entry with them.

The moral debate is, should we really hold our soldiers to such high standards where they don't have bars, clubs, or anything else to go blow off steam that they can't do anything remotely fun? I mean, these soldiers are over there for months without any sort of element of fun, what do you expect? Especially when the brethren of the poor tortured soldiers (and probably the tortured soldiers themselves) have brutally tortured and murdered the fellow soldiers of the torturers.