I happened onto a news stations website which had a list of comments posted on the "Iraw War" (I assumed it was Iraq). I was surprised to see so many comments that really had nothing to do with the actual military operations in Iraq. Most comments focused on the Bush administration's admitting to illegally gathering intelligence on US citizens and/or residents. Some interesting comments though.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news&id=3765777
30 December 2005
27 December 2005
Russia, putting the Communist back into "Free Society"
Russia has been quite busy trying to convince themselves that it's suddenly 1955 again, and "Big Red" should again rule Eastern Europe.
It's not just that they've stomped all over free political speech. It's not only the point that they've "nationalized" every important industry inside their borders (i.e. Energy, communications, media, etc.). It's also about the way they've handled foreign relations with former Soviet states, namely Ukraine.
Refer to any article or statement quoting Russian officials, and the language is very aggressive, and quite unapologetic about it. The article Putin Economic advisor offers Resignation offers a few glimpses into the current mindset of the Kremlin. Also the current argument over natural gas prices gives us an even clearer view of the coming "policy shift" Russia targeting Ukraine for natural gas rate hike.
Now, they want to loan the Ukraine billions of dollars so they can afford to pay the inflated gas prices. So they get the money doubled, with interest. While that's the most capitalistic thing I've heard from Russia's government in a while...It doesn't add up to anything more than an easy "We tried to help" when they shut off the gas supply to their neighbors. Why does the Ukraine get asked to pay prices 4 and 5 times higher than countries who are more amiable with Moscow? Simply put, the Ukrainian people are being punished because the new administration in Kiev wants to strengthen Western ties while backing away from the "little brother" role it's played for Russia for hundreds of years.
Good thing they're not trying to back away from Washington. That might get their "regime" changed.
I digress... One thing clearly left out of these articles is that these moves are pushing Russia right into becoming a socialist (more accurately communist) nation again. Putin has steadily and methodically stepped (nay! Marched in parade dress) right back in that direction since taking office. State controlled television and radio are now the only viable choices. Any corporation that is making a dent in the economy is immediately acquired by another state run corporation, even if the leader of the public company needs to be jailed to do so. This begs two different questions..
1. Why isn't anyone visibly concerned, especially with socialism taking hold in South America, and US politics looking more fascist all the time?
2. Hasn't communism already failed in Russia?
If this is a glimpse into the future, I'm looking for a hidden valley. (to those who know that reference, join me won't you?)
It's not just that they've stomped all over free political speech. It's not only the point that they've "nationalized" every important industry inside their borders (i.e. Energy, communications, media, etc.). It's also about the way they've handled foreign relations with former Soviet states, namely Ukraine.
Refer to any article or statement quoting Russian officials, and the language is very aggressive, and quite unapologetic about it. The article Putin Economic advisor offers Resignation offers a few glimpses into the current mindset of the Kremlin. Also the current argument over natural gas prices gives us an even clearer view of the coming "policy shift" Russia targeting Ukraine for natural gas rate hike.
Now, they want to loan the Ukraine billions of dollars so they can afford to pay the inflated gas prices. So they get the money doubled, with interest. While that's the most capitalistic thing I've heard from Russia's government in a while...It doesn't add up to anything more than an easy "We tried to help" when they shut off the gas supply to their neighbors. Why does the Ukraine get asked to pay prices 4 and 5 times higher than countries who are more amiable with Moscow? Simply put, the Ukrainian people are being punished because the new administration in Kiev wants to strengthen Western ties while backing away from the "little brother" role it's played for Russia for hundreds of years.
Good thing they're not trying to back away from Washington. That might get their "regime" changed.
I digress... One thing clearly left out of these articles is that these moves are pushing Russia right into becoming a socialist (more accurately communist) nation again. Putin has steadily and methodically stepped (nay! Marched in parade dress) right back in that direction since taking office. State controlled television and radio are now the only viable choices. Any corporation that is making a dent in the economy is immediately acquired by another state run corporation, even if the leader of the public company needs to be jailed to do so. This begs two different questions..
1. Why isn't anyone visibly concerned, especially with socialism taking hold in South America, and US politics looking more fascist all the time?
2. Hasn't communism already failed in Russia?
If this is a glimpse into the future, I'm looking for a hidden valley. (to those who know that reference, join me won't you?)
15 December 2005
I can't wait for the "I told you so"
So everyone at work is getting just giddy over the holidays. Secret Santas as far as the eye can see. I've dodged that bullet this year, or so I thought.
So at a meeting the other day when the boss asks "What are we doing for the holidays?". I'm silent hoping someone else says the words "Retaining my dignity and not participating in a stupid "festive" f'ing office hell." No one does. Cowards.
So, the boss then suggests a team lunch. Not a bad idea. Everybody hangs out away from the office, talks a little and gets a free meal out of it. Sweet. Then the standard "where?" discussion starts. So finally someone opens the metaphorical door and asks, "Where can they seat us all at one table in case we exchange gifts?". If I could have legally bored a hole in that person's head using only a spoon and my displeasure, I'd be a much happier man today.
So then someone (the supervisor) suggests we exchange gifts, but with a twist. Did anyone see the recent Christmas episode of "The Office" on NBC (The US version, I know all about the UK version and it's superiority, so save it). It featured a little practice called "Yankee swap". I actually tried to stop it. I said out loud...No. It's a recipe for disaster. I, of course, was drowned out in a sea of contrived enthusiasm because it was the boss' decision. For those who don't know what a Yankee swap AKA White Elephant Gift Exchange is, I'll give you the definition according to a quick google:
"Traditionally, a "White Elephant" is something lying around the house that you don't want (some horridly ugly item that someone gave you as a gift or some other item unwanted for some reason). I am of the belief that in most parts of the country, if you tell someone to bring a White Elephant gift it will almost certainly be a gag gift and not something genuinely useful or desirable." - Thanks to http://www.santalady.com/xmasgame/whiteelephant.html
Sounds fun, huh? Can't wait for the first racially, or politically insensitive or just plain stupid gift to be unwrapped. I'm telling you, when this all goes wrong I will laugh like a smug, smug bastard. At least I'll have a good seat.
So at a meeting the other day when the boss asks "What are we doing for the holidays?". I'm silent hoping someone else says the words "Retaining my dignity and not participating in a stupid "festive" f'ing office hell." No one does. Cowards.
So, the boss then suggests a team lunch. Not a bad idea. Everybody hangs out away from the office, talks a little and gets a free meal out of it. Sweet. Then the standard "where?" discussion starts. So finally someone opens the metaphorical door and asks, "Where can they seat us all at one table in case we exchange gifts?". If I could have legally bored a hole in that person's head using only a spoon and my displeasure, I'd be a much happier man today.
So then someone (the supervisor) suggests we exchange gifts, but with a twist. Did anyone see the recent Christmas episode of "The Office" on NBC (The US version, I know all about the UK version and it's superiority, so save it). It featured a little practice called "Yankee swap". I actually tried to stop it. I said out loud...No. It's a recipe for disaster. I, of course, was drowned out in a sea of contrived enthusiasm because it was the boss' decision. For those who don't know what a Yankee swap AKA White Elephant Gift Exchange is, I'll give you the definition according to a quick google:
"Traditionally, a "White Elephant" is something lying around the house that you don't want (some horridly ugly item that someone gave you as a gift or some other item unwanted for some reason). I am of the belief that in most parts of the country, if you tell someone to bring a White Elephant gift it will almost certainly be a gag gift and not something genuinely useful or desirable." - Thanks to http://www.santalady.com/xmasgame/whiteelephant.html
Sounds fun, huh? Can't wait for the first racially, or politically insensitive or just plain stupid gift to be unwrapped. I'm telling you, when this all goes wrong I will laugh like a smug, smug bastard. At least I'll have a good seat.
14 December 2005
Talk about coming to the party a little late.
Bush finally took the blame for going into Iraq based on bad intelligence. To his credit he did take sole responsibility for the mistakes in Iraq. Thanks for that, but this admission would have been a lot more effective had you not waited 1,000 days and over 2,000 soldiers' deaths later. Of course, he couldn't just take the blame. No he still tried to defend his decision, proving he isn't remorseful. Probably looking to up his approval rating a few points so he can keep campaigning for the GOP.
Bush said, "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq, and I am also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities and we're doing just that."
I wish he would have stopped right there. I would have applauded his speech, and my respect for him would have increased. But no, he went on to say this, "My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision", and "We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator"
How was the decision to remove Saddam Hussein the right decision? Iraq was a stable (in the sense they were a known quantity), terrorism free sovereign state before our "war on terror". We may not have agreed with Saddam's politics or his methods of government, but there was no reason for the US to get involved. Now the country is one of the most unstable in the Middle East in all areas. The Iraqis have gained some freedoms, but at the expense of personal safety (at least for now). As to Saddam's human rights violations, those violations that the former dictator is on trial for happened well before Bush (W.) was in office. Bottom line, Bush had nothing, so the administration created the opportunity to go into Iraq for reasons known only to a few.
The latter statement sure does poke at the truth more than anything else that's come out of his mouth in the past 5+ years though. Just think in another 3 years or so, we may get the real reasons this administration decided to target Iraq. Oil is an easy answer, but it seems way too obvious. Vendetta is a fun one to throw out there, but I have to believe that there is more. If not, then Americans truly need to rethink some things.
Of course all these admissions came on the same day as the Patriot Act was passed for another four years. (note: 'the framework of fascism' is my little nickname for it. I'll probably get wire-tapped and record searched because of it.) Is that a coincidence? I don't know. I'm not much into the conspiracy theories, but not much is coincidence inside the beltway.
Bush said, "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq, and I am also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities and we're doing just that."
I wish he would have stopped right there. I would have applauded his speech, and my respect for him would have increased. But no, he went on to say this, "My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision", and "We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator"
How was the decision to remove Saddam Hussein the right decision? Iraq was a stable (in the sense they were a known quantity), terrorism free sovereign state before our "war on terror". We may not have agreed with Saddam's politics or his methods of government, but there was no reason for the US to get involved. Now the country is one of the most unstable in the Middle East in all areas. The Iraqis have gained some freedoms, but at the expense of personal safety (at least for now). As to Saddam's human rights violations, those violations that the former dictator is on trial for happened well before Bush (W.) was in office. Bottom line, Bush had nothing, so the administration created the opportunity to go into Iraq for reasons known only to a few.
The latter statement sure does poke at the truth more than anything else that's come out of his mouth in the past 5+ years though. Just think in another 3 years or so, we may get the real reasons this administration decided to target Iraq. Oil is an easy answer, but it seems way too obvious. Vendetta is a fun one to throw out there, but I have to believe that there is more. If not, then Americans truly need to rethink some things.
Of course all these admissions came on the same day as the Patriot Act was passed for another four years. (note: 'the framework of fascism' is my little nickname for it. I'll probably get wire-tapped and record searched because of it.) Is that a coincidence? I don't know. I'm not much into the conspiracy theories, but not much is coincidence inside the beltway.
12 December 2005
"My lips hurt real bad."
My other half says she needs some "chopstick". That's our daughter's way of saying lip balm. She's fairly nutty, but she's fun.
Look at her moustache...
I just don't know why she was so happy about the blue marker on her face...
Meh, it's probably Lazytown's fault.
Look at her moustache...
I just don't know why she was so happy about the blue marker on her face...
Meh, it's probably Lazytown's fault.
05 December 2005
I love people
We just took the kids to go see that infamous fat man today. Of course, nothing makes me happier than capitalism at work, but I loathe the mall. I'm not one for all the ruckus. I like my experiences to be as calm and orderly as possible. Not a possibility today...
The mall must have had 2.2 trillion people in it. It might not have been so bad if 2.19999 trillion of them weren't inconsiderate mouth breathers. I swear people need brake lights and turn signals, cause you just never know when they're going to stop or take a hard left right into your seven year old. Then there were the several young men that felt a need to look at me (and all the other males under the age of 50) as if they were gonna shank me in the rec yard. Yes, I know your from the streets of suburbia, and I'm nervous of you, your practiced hard look, and your knowledge of all the lyrics of 50 cent's (That's fitty if you're from the streetz, yo) new song. Your glare just makes me wanna to piss all over myself. You are obviously the Alpha male.
What I thought was a good idea was they were giving those restaraunt pagers to all the parents who were there to see Santa. Instead of staying in line for 2 hours (literally how long it would have taken), you can roam around the mall for that time and spend money. Really a good idea for all involved. The beauty of it was that the better half offered to go to the mall first on a recon mission of sorts. She went and got the pager, and then called to tell me how long the wait was. I then waited at home for most of the 2 hours, and then brought the kids. She rocks sometimes. REALLY cut out the annoyance factor for me. She knows me, and she didn't want me yelling something vulgar and insulting to random people in the middle of the mall. I get to that point with stupidity sometimes. I think she'd make me wear a warning sticker if I'd agree. BEWARE OF HUMAN, or something like that.
Of course, when we answer the call to duty, the lady says. "Weren't you already here?". I couldn't answer with the answer with the first thing that came to mind, so I just stared at her as if she were speaking Mandarin Chinese.
All in all, we got the task of seeing Santa done. It only took about 1.5 hours total, so it wasn't that bad I guess. Still, shopping online sure beats the pants off that mall crap anyday.
Yeaaaaa, Christmas.
The mall must have had 2.2 trillion people in it. It might not have been so bad if 2.19999 trillion of them weren't inconsiderate mouth breathers. I swear people need brake lights and turn signals, cause you just never know when they're going to stop or take a hard left right into your seven year old. Then there were the several young men that felt a need to look at me (and all the other males under the age of 50) as if they were gonna shank me in the rec yard. Yes, I know your from the streets of suburbia, and I'm nervous of you, your practiced hard look, and your knowledge of all the lyrics of 50 cent's (That's fitty if you're from the streetz, yo) new song. Your glare just makes me wanna to piss all over myself. You are obviously the Alpha male.
What I thought was a good idea was they were giving those restaraunt pagers to all the parents who were there to see Santa. Instead of staying in line for 2 hours (literally how long it would have taken), you can roam around the mall for that time and spend money. Really a good idea for all involved. The beauty of it was that the better half offered to go to the mall first on a recon mission of sorts. She went and got the pager, and then called to tell me how long the wait was. I then waited at home for most of the 2 hours, and then brought the kids. She rocks sometimes. REALLY cut out the annoyance factor for me. She knows me, and she didn't want me yelling something vulgar and insulting to random people in the middle of the mall. I get to that point with stupidity sometimes. I think she'd make me wear a warning sticker if I'd agree. BEWARE OF HUMAN, or something like that.
Of course, when we answer the call to duty, the lady says. "Weren't you already here?". I couldn't answer with the answer with the first thing that came to mind, so I just stared at her as if she were speaking Mandarin Chinese.
All in all, we got the task of seeing Santa done. It only took about 1.5 hours total, so it wasn't that bad I guess. Still, shopping online sure beats the pants off that mall crap anyday.
Yeaaaaa, Christmas.
23 November 2005
Leave the press alone
Bush may not like the growing criticism he faces, but it's warranted
First, the Patriot Act. I could go on about that for about a year. It sets the course towards making 1984 a reality at best, and setting the ship on a full throttle course towards facism at worst.
Second, the attempted (and successful) overthrow of enemy governments for purposes of well....just cause he doesn't like the leader(s). Even in the face of the aforementioned criticism, it appeared he was angling towards expanding the "war on terror" to Iran or Syria. You know cause they are hotbeds of terrorist activity. Just like Iraq was in the Saddam regime.
Thirdly, the still (and probably always) uninvestigated Downing St. memo's. He had a very good idea the intellegence was exagerrated. You'll never convince me otherwise.
Now, there's the allegations that Bush wanted to (and may have) targeted a media outlet for bombings.
There are a lot of problems with this scenario if it's true. First it stomps all over the first amendment. I don't care if the media outlet was in another country or a war zone. Our smart bombs are smart enough to avoid entire buildings when they are readily identified as being television stations. Secondly, that's a terrorist act isn'it it? Targeting civilians.
Hypocrisy?
Sadly, there are still those who refuse to see the reasons behind the anger with the current administration at home or abroad.
First, the Patriot Act. I could go on about that for about a year. It sets the course towards making 1984 a reality at best, and setting the ship on a full throttle course towards facism at worst.
Second, the attempted (and successful) overthrow of enemy governments for purposes of well....just cause he doesn't like the leader(s). Even in the face of the aforementioned criticism, it appeared he was angling towards expanding the "war on terror" to Iran or Syria. You know cause they are hotbeds of terrorist activity. Just like Iraq was in the Saddam regime.
Thirdly, the still (and probably always) uninvestigated Downing St. memo's. He had a very good idea the intellegence was exagerrated. You'll never convince me otherwise.
Now, there's the allegations that Bush wanted to (and may have) targeted a media outlet for bombings.
There are a lot of problems with this scenario if it's true. First it stomps all over the first amendment. I don't care if the media outlet was in another country or a war zone. Our smart bombs are smart enough to avoid entire buildings when they are readily identified as being television stations. Secondly, that's a terrorist act isn'it it? Targeting civilians.
Hypocrisy?
Sadly, there are still those who refuse to see the reasons behind the anger with the current administration at home or abroad.
19 November 2005
Maybe Terrorism needs a Spin Doctor?
Well, it's finally starting to happen. People in parts of the Middle East are tired of being randomly blown up. I wish I could hug the people of Jordan for standing up and saying what everyone else wanted to but didn't want to be singled out as "wicked lapdogs of the infidels" by the fundamentalists.
People in Jordan massed to a crowd of approx. 100,000 and held a rally. Not surprising. They had just been subjected to a terrorist attack that killed 59 people. 30 of them were at a wedding of a Palestinian and Jordanian couple.....All Muslims. The difference is that the people of Jordan actually were blaming the bombers for the dead. They didn't fabricate ways to blame Israel (for being Jewish and oppressors of Palestinians), or America (for being in Iraq, and of course for the quality of life Americans enjoy), or Christians (for being...Well, not Muslims). They chanted "Al-Zarqawi, you coward,'' and carried banners that read, ''Al-Zarqawi, you are the enemy of God.''
The same rhetoric terrorists use to whip their supporters into thoughtless, western world hating, gonna show them by blowing myself up at a bus stop thus ending my chance at ever making a real difference frenzies. Interesting.
Then if that weren't refreshing enough (to see logic and reason taking a more prominent hold where mysticism seems the prevalent thought pattern), then came the tapes. The terrorists trying to justify their actions and statements that actually sounded apologetic. I swear this must be "opposites day" or something.
Here's the thing. You can be pissed at Bush and his administration for Iraq. I get it. I don't think that "war" should have ever happened either. I want Bush to own up to his lies of WMD and pay for his dishonesty as much as the next guy, but if you keep killing Muslim innocents (and even foreign innocents), eventually your rhetoric won't help you justify your actions. While I hate that it happens, I understand when you attack coalition military forces. You view them as an occupying force. America helped Afghans (and others) fight occupation when it was against a common enemy. Don't think that Americans with the capacity for reason don't see the hypocrisy.
With that said, enough with the civilian attacks already. People, no matter how loyal or galvanized for a cause, can stand only so much. Case in point "Contributors to militant Web forums -- who generally lionize al-Zarqawi and praise his attacks -- criticized the bombings." With the situation getting no better for the average Arab, your promises of ousting the wicked, unholy, and Zionists from the holy land start to sound more and more like lies. You will probably see more people start to embrace a Western way of life with it's freedoms and security. Your basically taking a shit where you eat. That's not real smart.
People in Jordan massed to a crowd of approx. 100,000 and held a rally. Not surprising. They had just been subjected to a terrorist attack that killed 59 people. 30 of them were at a wedding of a Palestinian and Jordanian couple.....All Muslims. The difference is that the people of Jordan actually were blaming the bombers for the dead. They didn't fabricate ways to blame Israel (for being Jewish and oppressors of Palestinians), or America (for being in Iraq, and of course for the quality of life Americans enjoy), or Christians (for being...Well, not Muslims). They chanted "Al-Zarqawi, you coward,'' and carried banners that read, ''Al-Zarqawi, you are the enemy of God.''
The same rhetoric terrorists use to whip their supporters into thoughtless, western world hating, gonna show them by blowing myself up at a bus stop thus ending my chance at ever making a real difference frenzies. Interesting.
Then if that weren't refreshing enough (to see logic and reason taking a more prominent hold where mysticism seems the prevalent thought pattern), then came the tapes. The terrorists trying to justify their actions and statements that actually sounded apologetic. I swear this must be "opposites day" or something.
Here's the thing. You can be pissed at Bush and his administration for Iraq. I get it. I don't think that "war" should have ever happened either. I want Bush to own up to his lies of WMD and pay for his dishonesty as much as the next guy, but if you keep killing Muslim innocents (and even foreign innocents), eventually your rhetoric won't help you justify your actions. While I hate that it happens, I understand when you attack coalition military forces. You view them as an occupying force. America helped Afghans (and others) fight occupation when it was against a common enemy. Don't think that Americans with the capacity for reason don't see the hypocrisy.
With that said, enough with the civilian attacks already. People, no matter how loyal or galvanized for a cause, can stand only so much. Case in point "Contributors to militant Web forums -- who generally lionize al-Zarqawi and praise his attacks -- criticized the bombings." With the situation getting no better for the average Arab, your promises of ousting the wicked, unholy, and Zionists from the holy land start to sound more and more like lies. You will probably see more people start to embrace a Western way of life with it's freedoms and security. Your basically taking a shit where you eat. That's not real smart.
05 November 2005
Work Work Work
Note: This is a rare personal post. I may be turning into a selfish bastard!
I am currently employed by a large bank. I don't have anything to do with the actual money. People all around me help the bank to make a load of money, and then I crunch numbers, and analyze data, and report those figures up the chain. I hate reporting. Always have. Always will. I'm someone who likes to do get actual work done. While analyzing past performance is absolutely valid and is a useful tool, it's just not my gig.
Therin lies the rub. I took over a couple of reporting processes when I started a new position within my company. Because I do these tasks fast, error free (99.9999% of the time) and create processes to do them as automatically as possible, I get all the reporting. FRUSTRATING. I even mentioned to my supervisor that I would do them if asked, but it's the one task I cannot stand.
Now I feel as if I'm being overlooked for other projects that I would not only be excited and motivated for, but projects that actually fit my skillset better. I'm analytical but not a number cruncher. I'm more technical and technology-based. Of course, I have no time to display those talents as I've been labled "the report guru". Fucking yuck.
So now comes the dilemma I deal with (internally) everyday. Do I move on to another company where they would hopefully remember why they hired me in the first place (hint: resume showed strong technical knowledge and background), and lose some very beneficial perks (stock options, excellent 401K, etc,)? Or do I stick it out in this position hoping the situation changes or a new opportunity presents itself within the same company?
I'm not looking for advice, I just needed to write it all down. No one's reading this anyway!
Therin lies the rub. I took over a couple of reporting processes when I started a new position within my company. Because I do these tasks fast, error free (99.9999% of the time) and create processes to do them as automatically as possible, I get all the reporting. FRUSTRATING. I even mentioned to my supervisor that I would do them if asked, but it's the one task I cannot stand.
Now I feel as if I'm being overlooked for other projects that I would not only be excited and motivated for, but projects that actually fit my skillset better. I'm analytical but not a number cruncher. I'm more technical and technology-based. Of course, I have no time to display those talents as I've been labled "the report guru". Fucking yuck.
So now comes the dilemma I deal with (internally) everyday. Do I move on to another company where they would hopefully remember why they hired me in the first place (hint: resume showed strong technical knowledge and background), and lose some very beneficial perks (stock options, excellent 401K, etc,)? Or do I stick it out in this position hoping the situation changes or a new opportunity presents itself within the same company?
I'm not looking for advice, I just needed to write it all down. No one's reading this anyway!
25 October 2005
Am I wrong?
Okay. Sometimes I actually go back a day or two later and read my own writings to see if I am ever disagree with myself on a given subject. You know the step back and give it a day thing. Usually, I still agree with myself on the whole. Big surprise, n'est pas?
The thing I'm wondering now is...Do I think that much differently than everyone else. The things I say in this blog are the same as I say in my everyday life. Yet, it seems no one really agrees with me on the whole. A lot of people agree with me on one subject, but then think I'm absolutely off my pills on any other subject. It's quite odd really.
Here's what gets me: Most people who are willing to engage in political debate seem to want to tow the party line for the Fasc....GOP or the Hippi...Democrats. No one really has their own opinion completely independent of what Limbaugh, Matthews, O'Reilly or whichever "expert" tells them to think. The only person I've seen demonstrate anything close to an independent thought pattern is Bill Maher. Sometimes he says the smartest things I've heard in years. Unfortunately it's usually followed by something so far out in left field (only for the sake of making a guest look intellectually inferior) that it makes me want to chew a brick. Dennis Miller usually made sense to me. But look where that got him.
Then there's the whole sociology of today. People are unbelievable how far they'll carry this "there are no wrong answers, no failing grades, no harshness in the world" crap. YES THERE IS. You can be wrong, and it's mostly okay, because it's how you get to the right answer. Keep doing it though and the herd should give you up. You can indeed fail a test. It's not the school board's fault you can't write your name, you need to study harder. There are a lot of bad people and things in this world, and they will take you as soon as given the chance. Please don't leave me or anyone I care about unprepared to deal with them, the law only works adter a crime. An ounce of prevention folks, that's what I say. That brings me to why no one ever want to take responsibility for anything. Stand up, take the hit and fix the problem. That's what moral and righteous people do. They are fixers. The blamers can all get bent, cause they were there too, they just won't admit it.
Am I some kind of revolutionary to be shunned and burned at the stake of the status quo? It all seems fairly straightforward to me. Where's my voice these days? Maybe I'm too old school. The current state of the world really makes me wonder if everyone else is sane and I'm the crazy one.
Nah.
Okay. Sometimes I actually go back a day or two later and read my own writings to see if I am ever disagree with myself on a given subject. You know the step back and give it a day thing. Usually, I still agree with myself on the whole. Big surprise, n'est pas?
The thing I'm wondering now is...Do I think that much differently than everyone else. The things I say in this blog are the same as I say in my everyday life. Yet, it seems no one really agrees with me on the whole. A lot of people agree with me on one subject, but then think I'm absolutely off my pills on any other subject. It's quite odd really.
Here's what gets me: Most people who are willing to engage in political debate seem to want to tow the party line for the Fasc....GOP or the Hippi...Democrats. No one really has their own opinion completely independent of what Limbaugh, Matthews, O'Reilly or whichever "expert" tells them to think. The only person I've seen demonstrate anything close to an independent thought pattern is Bill Maher. Sometimes he says the smartest things I've heard in years. Unfortunately it's usually followed by something so far out in left field (only for the sake of making a guest look intellectually inferior) that it makes me want to chew a brick. Dennis Miller usually made sense to me. But look where that got him.
Then there's the whole sociology of today. People are unbelievable how far they'll carry this "there are no wrong answers, no failing grades, no harshness in the world" crap. YES THERE IS. You can be wrong, and it's mostly okay, because it's how you get to the right answer. Keep doing it though and the herd should give you up. You can indeed fail a test. It's not the school board's fault you can't write your name, you need to study harder. There are a lot of bad people and things in this world, and they will take you as soon as given the chance. Please don't leave me or anyone I care about unprepared to deal with them, the law only works adter a crime. An ounce of prevention folks, that's what I say. That brings me to why no one ever want to take responsibility for anything. Stand up, take the hit and fix the problem. That's what moral and righteous people do. They are fixers. The blamers can all get bent, cause they were there too, they just won't admit it.
Am I some kind of revolutionary to be shunned and burned at the stake of the status quo? It all seems fairly straightforward to me. Where's my voice these days? Maybe I'm too old school. The current state of the world really makes me wonder if everyone else is sane and I'm the crazy one.
Nah.
20 October 2005
"Let's burn our town down cause white supremacy is wrong!"
AKA "Logic in Toledo"
Let's see, the national socialist movement (I refuse to capitalize that because a true party has political ambitions, not just a hate inducing one) wanted to march in Toledo in the name of white power. Wow. I dislike Socialism with a fervor most men never know, but I think I may actually hate people who claim they're born better than anyone else. I hate them as equally as I hate people who think the world owes them something because they were born into wealth or stature, or because they "feel oppressed". I hate people who think either of these things because of skin color just a tiny bit more. Let's get this straight so we can all move on and live our lives: You are no more special than anyone else, and no one owes you jack. You want something? Work for it. You want to feel important? Accomplish something worth feeling proud of. It's real simple. Personal responsibility and ambition will give you all you ever need to live a worthy and respectable life.
But I digress, as I often do. So Toledo puts the "kabosh" on the march by denying the . They threaten to gather anyway (without the march) on the streets (which Constitutionally is their right, as long as there are no disturbances of public order). So in order to protest this people who are against racists gather. So far, so good. Then the nazi's, err...sorry, socialists decide not to show at all. Probably the only wise move anyone in this situation made. So instead of dispersing peacefully and reflecting on a moral victory, the protestors riot in their own city. They decide they should flip cars, burn businesses, and pelt the police force (who was there to protect them) with rocks and garbage. How is that even an option? Congratulations concerned citizens, you've just given the nazis a very early Xmas present. You've given them fuel to spew their rhetoric. You've given them another reason to call people who don't think they as they do inferior. They've won because they didn't have anything to do with the actual violence and they can now point to the crowd that did show up and say, "You see, we're not the bad guys here". The worst part is you've given them the fuel to move on to another city and try the same thing.
Maybe we should revoke the right to assemble, because Americans seemingly cannot handle the whole "peaceable" part. I don't believe that, but you can bet your sweet GOP that's how the Neo-conservatives are going to angle it. You want to lose your liberty? That's a fantastic way to start the process.
AKA "Logic in Toledo"
Let's see, the national socialist movement (I refuse to capitalize that because a true party has political ambitions, not just a hate inducing one) wanted to march in Toledo in the name of white power. Wow. I dislike Socialism with a fervor most men never know, but I think I may actually hate people who claim they're born better than anyone else. I hate them as equally as I hate people who think the world owes them something because they were born into wealth or stature, or because they "feel oppressed". I hate people who think either of these things because of skin color just a tiny bit more. Let's get this straight so we can all move on and live our lives: You are no more special than anyone else, and no one owes you jack. You want something? Work for it. You want to feel important? Accomplish something worth feeling proud of. It's real simple. Personal responsibility and ambition will give you all you ever need to live a worthy and respectable life.
But I digress, as I often do. So Toledo puts the "kabosh" on the march by denying the . They threaten to gather anyway (without the march) on the streets (which Constitutionally is their right, as long as there are no disturbances of public order). So in order to protest this people who are against racists gather. So far, so good. Then the nazi's, err...sorry, socialists decide not to show at all. Probably the only wise move anyone in this situation made. So instead of dispersing peacefully and reflecting on a moral victory, the protestors riot in their own city. They decide they should flip cars, burn businesses, and pelt the police force (who was there to protect them) with rocks and garbage. How is that even an option? Congratulations concerned citizens, you've just given the nazis a very early Xmas present. You've given them fuel to spew their rhetoric. You've given them another reason to call people who don't think they as they do inferior. They've won because they didn't have anything to do with the actual violence and they can now point to the crowd that did show up and say, "You see, we're not the bad guys here". The worst part is you've given them the fuel to move on to another city and try the same thing.
Maybe we should revoke the right to assemble, because Americans seemingly cannot handle the whole "peaceable" part. I don't believe that, but you can bet your sweet GOP that's how the Neo-conservatives are going to angle it. You want to lose your liberty? That's a fantastic way to start the process.
Figured it out. I like it.
I decided to not stretch the picture. Thought the arty kind of cropped look would suit the page better. I think it does. I added the blue for a little contrast, and it just helps the page look a little more alive. Not like the pretty girl who just lays there like a trout (ifyouknowwhatImean). Anyway, if anyone reads this and has a comment or opinion, feel free to express it. Bwee.
I decided to not stretch the picture. Thought the arty kind of cropped look would suit the page better. I think it does. I added the blue for a little contrast, and it just helps the page look a little more alive. Not like the pretty girl who just lays there like a trout (ifyouknowwhatImean). Anyway, if anyone reads this and has a comment or opinion, feel free to express it. Bwee.
19 October 2005
24 September 2005
I have been at a loss as of late as to what to write about.
Note the lack of an entry in well over a month. When I sit down to write, it's usually stream of conciousness. No drafts, no theme, no point really. I had a really decent article about Hurricane Katrina and FEMA and Bush and Nagin and blah, blah....but then I thought...screw it. However, donate if you can...especially since Rita is prociding even more misery on the Gulf Coast. My personal beliefs usually keep me from giving to organizations that allow people to leech off the backs (and labor) of others, but I truly feel for a lot of these people. Maybe because I live within ten miles of an ocean, and an immense bay. Even though they were well aware that they were living in a bowl surrounded by water, there's no way to prepare for that kind of loss in today's economic world for the middle class and lower. I hope someone pressures the insurance companies to actually payout for once. The "your policy doesn't cover an act of god" bullshit is already starting in a lot of these places. I hate insurance companies. Not as much as Facists or Anarchists....but close.
Oh, Rome:Total War kicks ass. Fun game. More than just strategy, it's got a bit of a RPG aspect as well. How's that for randomosity. Yep.
Note the lack of an entry in well over a month. When I sit down to write, it's usually stream of conciousness. No drafts, no theme, no point really. I had a really decent article about Hurricane Katrina and FEMA and Bush and Nagin and blah, blah....but then I thought...screw it. However, donate if you can...especially since Rita is prociding even more misery on the Gulf Coast. My personal beliefs usually keep me from giving to organizations that allow people to leech off the backs (and labor) of others, but I truly feel for a lot of these people. Maybe because I live within ten miles of an ocean, and an immense bay. Even though they were well aware that they were living in a bowl surrounded by water, there's no way to prepare for that kind of loss in today's economic world for the middle class and lower. I hope someone pressures the insurance companies to actually payout for once. The "your policy doesn't cover an act of god" bullshit is already starting in a lot of these places. I hate insurance companies. Not as much as Facists or Anarchists....but close.
Oh, Rome:Total War kicks ass. Fun game. More than just strategy, it's got a bit of a RPG aspect as well. How's that for randomosity. Yep.
20 July 2005
Hurricanes and the price of gas.
I've noticed lately that gas prices seem to rise no matter what the news and/or weather outlook is. Hurricane Dennis is supposed to hit the area of the gulf where the oil rigs are, and prices rise. Yep, I get that it makes sense. We may see a drop in the national reserves, and it's the middle of summer. Then the storm doesn't hit nearly as many rigs, and it's at a much reduced intensity. Prices should fall right? At least stabilize, right? WRONG. I then read that because everyone was evacuated, the prices will keep right on rising, even though they are able to get back to work a full day or more quicker than expected. I thought the pre-emptive rise in cost was to counterbalance this work stoppage! Then the next day it's "Prices rise on Hurrican Emily fears." BS. That storm is/was and always has been headed for the Yucatan peninsula then back into the gulf (nowhere near the previously mentioned rigs) and then towards northeastern Mexico/extreme southeastern Texas. What's the moral of the story? I'm not sure there are any morals when it comes to oil. I sure hope that this proclaimed alternative fuel research ol' GW is so amped about comes into play before I'm too old to care.
14 July 2005
I Hate Passive aggressive/PC Office Politics
You know those little emails you get from someone..."Is this problem still happening?" You can hear the emphasis on the word still as clear as if it were yelled from a tower using a bullhorn...but it's typed very nicely, very correctly. "Are you going to take care of that?" or "Do you need me to help you?". These would be fine if these type of people weren't raging fucktards who think they're smarter than you because they've got four to six months more seniority.
Now, you may be thinking, what if they are innocent comments? Ohhhhhh nooooo. They most definitely aren't. When they do come to you and talk AT you, you can hear the fake just dripping off their words. It's disgusting. I propose that we just say what we mean. No lift in our pitch to feign concern, no lightening our volume to seem non-threatening, no jargon, no buzzwords, and no BS. Just ask me, "Hey, you gonna do this or do I have to?", "Did you fix this yet?" or maybe "Do you even know how to do it?", even a "Hey, 'tard....Is that gonna take all week?". At least I could respect your honesty.
I also hate that everything some people do every single day of their pathetic little existence is to try to make themselves look good at the expense of others. STOP THAT. It's sad, and desperate. Let your work show off your ability. Stop relying on setting others up for failure so you can come in and shine. It's usually on the back of someone else's work because you were too busy screwing around scheming to actually get the work done. If you would have worked that hard on doing well at your job, you wouldn't need to use these tactics.
When someone figures you out, you look not only unethical and immoral, but you're exposed as a completely worthless waste of space. Good luck regaining any respect. Idiot.
You know those little emails you get from someone..."Is this problem still happening?" You can hear the emphasis on the word still as clear as if it were yelled from a tower using a bullhorn...but it's typed very nicely, very correctly. "Are you going to take care of that?" or "Do you need me to help you?". These would be fine if these type of people weren't raging fucktards who think they're smarter than you because they've got four to six months more seniority.
Now, you may be thinking, what if they are innocent comments? Ohhhhhh nooooo. They most definitely aren't. When they do come to you and talk AT you, you can hear the fake just dripping off their words. It's disgusting. I propose that we just say what we mean. No lift in our pitch to feign concern, no lightening our volume to seem non-threatening, no jargon, no buzzwords, and no BS. Just ask me, "Hey, you gonna do this or do I have to?", "Did you fix this yet?" or maybe "Do you even know how to do it?", even a "Hey, 'tard....Is that gonna take all week?". At least I could respect your honesty.
I also hate that everything some people do every single day of their pathetic little existence is to try to make themselves look good at the expense of others. STOP THAT. It's sad, and desperate. Let your work show off your ability. Stop relying on setting others up for failure so you can come in and shine. It's usually on the back of someone else's work because you were too busy screwing around scheming to actually get the work done. If you would have worked that hard on doing well at your job, you wouldn't need to use these tactics.
When someone figures you out, you look not only unethical and immoral, but you're exposed as a completely worthless waste of space. Good luck regaining any respect. Idiot.
13 July 2005
Why aren't today's young professional sports stars better citizens?
I was reading the news that The Tennessee Titans first round pick Adam "Pac Man" Jones (who BTW has the second dumbest nickname in sports ever, behind only "He Hate Me") was arrested on assault and vandalism charges. The charges were leveled after a nightclub fight. Okay, we've all been a little too rowdy in a bar once or twice. The guy is a young man, and it happens.
Then I read the reason the fight broke out. The owner of the bar testified that he asked two of Jones' friends to leave because "they were smoking drugs". WHAT?!? You were just drafted by an NFL team in the first round. That means HUGE money for playing a game that you probably love, and at the very least beats a 9-5 somewhere in the "real world". Yet you would jeopardize that by hanging out with people who would be brazen enough to smoke pot (I'm assuming it was marijuana) in a semi public place. Then instead of thanking the man for not calling the cops to arrest their dumb asses, you grab the man by the shirt and punch him and break his necklace. Wow. Just Wow. What a role model. What a citizen. What an ass.
To Mr. Jones and all the other athletes who aren't living up to the expectations placed on public figures: Please realize that you are one of a very few privileged people who get paid anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to play a game. With that privilege comes responsibility. You have to play that game in front of the public, and that's not a bad thing. Without that public you have no career. You have a responsibility to live better than your friends who may not be in the public eye. At the very least you owe that sports franchise, they've paid you to not only play a game to the best of your ability, but to not become a liability to them on or off the field.
Take a good look around and look at all your peers (and their are many) who are starting organizations to help children, or golf tournaments with proceeds going to charity, even simple visits to a hospital or fan event. For that matter the guys who are starting companies and employing people are being much better citizens than those who would flaunt their money and perceived position by acting like a common street thug.
I was reading the news that The Tennessee Titans first round pick Adam "Pac Man" Jones (who BTW has the second dumbest nickname in sports ever, behind only "He Hate Me") was arrested on assault and vandalism charges. The charges were leveled after a nightclub fight. Okay, we've all been a little too rowdy in a bar once or twice. The guy is a young man, and it happens.
Then I read the reason the fight broke out. The owner of the bar testified that he asked two of Jones' friends to leave because "they were smoking drugs". WHAT?!? You were just drafted by an NFL team in the first round. That means HUGE money for playing a game that you probably love, and at the very least beats a 9-5 somewhere in the "real world". Yet you would jeopardize that by hanging out with people who would be brazen enough to smoke pot (I'm assuming it was marijuana) in a semi public place. Then instead of thanking the man for not calling the cops to arrest their dumb asses, you grab the man by the shirt and punch him and break his necklace. Wow. Just Wow. What a role model. What a citizen. What an ass.
To Mr. Jones and all the other athletes who aren't living up to the expectations placed on public figures: Please realize that you are one of a very few privileged people who get paid anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to play a game. With that privilege comes responsibility. You have to play that game in front of the public, and that's not a bad thing. Without that public you have no career. You have a responsibility to live better than your friends who may not be in the public eye. At the very least you owe that sports franchise, they've paid you to not only play a game to the best of your ability, but to not become a liability to them on or off the field.
Take a good look around and look at all your peers (and their are many) who are starting organizations to help children, or golf tournaments with proceeds going to charity, even simple visits to a hospital or fan event. For that matter the guys who are starting companies and employing people are being much better citizens than those who would flaunt their money and perceived position by acting like a common street thug.
Everyone wants Liberty....even the Muslims. Go figure.
This article should be read to every "extremist" and "Hardline [insert religion here]" before they spout off that the people they are "defending" want the government to control every aspect of their lives.
We all want the same things out of life. The right to choose our path. Think "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." No one wants their government to become intertwined in every little thing they do, except of course the governments themselves.
From the Associated Press:
Palestinian Poet Lashes Out at Militants
By MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH, Associated Press Writer
It's been a hot summer on the Palestinian arts scene: gunmen broke up the concert of a popular West Bank singer after he refused to limit his repertoire to political songs, and a Hamas-run town banned a music festival to prevent mingling of the sexes.
Now, Palestinian national poet Mahmoud Darwish is striking back, saying fanatics have no right to deprive Palestinians of beauty in their lives. "There are Taliban-type elements in our society, and this is a very dangerous sign," Darwish told a gathering of artists and intellectuals this week.
It's not just an argument over artistic freedom, but over whether a future Palestinian state will be a theocracy or a pluralistic democracy.
Compared to other Arab societies, the Palestinians were once largely secular and tolerant of Western customs, even with Islam as the majority religion. Many Palestinians have strong ties with the West, including relatives living abroad or years spent studying in foreign universities.
However, more than four years of Israeli-Palestinian fighting have led some Palestinians to seek solace in religion or return to tradition, also a reflection of a regional trend.
Islamic fundamentalists, meanwhile, have become increasingly assertive. The militant Hamas group scored several victories in local elections in recent months, and expects to pull even with Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas' secular Fatah movement in future parliamentary elections.
In the West Bank town of Qalqiliya, Hamas won local elections earlier this year with promises of better government services, but also with assurances it would not impose its religious beliefs. However, two weeks ago, Hamas banned a one-day music festival in town, arguing that the mingling of men and women at such an event was "haram," or forbidden by Islam.
Mustafa Sabri, spokesman for the Qalqiliya municipality, said the ban was democratic because it reflected the wish of the majority.
"We are not like the Taliban," Sabri said, referring to the Islamic fundamentalists who enforced harsh religious laws during their rule of Afghanistan. "But we respect them (the Taliban) because they chose something suitable for their people."
Mohannad Ghneim, 30, an ambulance driver from Qalqiliya who had hoped to attend the concerts, said he fears Hamas will increasingly try to meddle in his life. "Today, they ban a concert. Tomorrow they might ban satellite TV," he said.
Last week, music lovers got another jolt when gunmen broke up the concert of popular singer Amar Hassan at An Najah University in the West Bank city of Nablus. Hassan shot to local fame last year after he came in second in a Lebanese TV version of "American Idol," a competition of aspiring artists in which fans vote for their favorites.
Before the Nablus show, militants from the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades came to Hassan's hotel room. They told him he must sing only political songs, and cut love songs from his repertoire. The Al Aqsa gunmen, who have ties to Fatah, told Hassan that light-hearted entertainment is forbidden as long as Israel occupies the West Bank.
Hassan said he ignored the demands, and started his concert before a crowd of 6,000. During his show, dozens of gunmen and hundreds of protesters rallied outside the university's walls. Gunmen fired in the air and threw stun grenades, eventually forcing Hassan to break off the performance. As concertgoers left the campus, the protesters barged in, throwing chairs and scuffling with those leaving.
Hassan said in an interview Tuesday that he would not be silenced. "These people (the militants) don't want us to be happy.They want us to sit in the ruins and cry," he said. "We will wage a creative war against them, with more poems, more art, more singing."
A local Al Aqsa leader, Ahmed Al-Taki, said the group will continue to ban concerts.
On Monday, Darwish, a Palestinian cultural icon who has eloquently described his people's struggle for independence, rallied to Hassan's side, inviting him to a meeting with Palestinian intellectuals and artists in Ramallah. Darwish told participants "we all have to resist" attempts to restrict artists.
Darwish's comments were published Tuesday in the Palestinian newspaper Al Ayyam. The reclusive poet, who lives in Ramallah, was not available for comment.
The concerts in Qalqiliya and Nablus had been part of an attempt to restore a sense of normalcy after more than four years of fighting, said organizer Iman Hamouri. The summer concert series began in 1994, but was suspended during the Palestinian intefadeh.
Hassan Khader, a cultural affairs commentator for Al Ayyam, said Hamas is powerful enough now to impose its beliefs, but that he believes such attempts will eventually backfire at the polling booth. "If Hamas wants to be a political power, it can't force people to adopt its ideology," he said.
This article should be read to every "extremist" and "Hardline [insert religion here]" before they spout off that the people they are "defending" want the government to control every aspect of their lives.
We all want the same things out of life. The right to choose our path. Think "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." No one wants their government to become intertwined in every little thing they do, except of course the governments themselves.
From the Associated Press:
Palestinian Poet Lashes Out at Militants
By MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH, Associated Press Writer
It's been a hot summer on the Palestinian arts scene: gunmen broke up the concert of a popular West Bank singer after he refused to limit his repertoire to political songs, and a Hamas-run town banned a music festival to prevent mingling of the sexes.
Now, Palestinian national poet Mahmoud Darwish is striking back, saying fanatics have no right to deprive Palestinians of beauty in their lives. "There are Taliban-type elements in our society, and this is a very dangerous sign," Darwish told a gathering of artists and intellectuals this week.
It's not just an argument over artistic freedom, but over whether a future Palestinian state will be a theocracy or a pluralistic democracy.
Compared to other Arab societies, the Palestinians were once largely secular and tolerant of Western customs, even with Islam as the majority religion. Many Palestinians have strong ties with the West, including relatives living abroad or years spent studying in foreign universities.
However, more than four years of Israeli-Palestinian fighting have led some Palestinians to seek solace in religion or return to tradition, also a reflection of a regional trend.
Islamic fundamentalists, meanwhile, have become increasingly assertive. The militant Hamas group scored several victories in local elections in recent months, and expects to pull even with Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas' secular Fatah movement in future parliamentary elections.
In the West Bank town of Qalqiliya, Hamas won local elections earlier this year with promises of better government services, but also with assurances it would not impose its religious beliefs. However, two weeks ago, Hamas banned a one-day music festival in town, arguing that the mingling of men and women at such an event was "haram," or forbidden by Islam.
Mustafa Sabri, spokesman for the Qalqiliya municipality, said the ban was democratic because it reflected the wish of the majority.
"We are not like the Taliban," Sabri said, referring to the Islamic fundamentalists who enforced harsh religious laws during their rule of Afghanistan. "But we respect them (the Taliban) because they chose something suitable for their people."
Mohannad Ghneim, 30, an ambulance driver from Qalqiliya who had hoped to attend the concerts, said he fears Hamas will increasingly try to meddle in his life. "Today, they ban a concert. Tomorrow they might ban satellite TV," he said.
Last week, music lovers got another jolt when gunmen broke up the concert of popular singer Amar Hassan at An Najah University in the West Bank city of Nablus. Hassan shot to local fame last year after he came in second in a Lebanese TV version of "American Idol," a competition of aspiring artists in which fans vote for their favorites.
Before the Nablus show, militants from the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades came to Hassan's hotel room. They told him he must sing only political songs, and cut love songs from his repertoire. The Al Aqsa gunmen, who have ties to Fatah, told Hassan that light-hearted entertainment is forbidden as long as Israel occupies the West Bank.
Hassan said he ignored the demands, and started his concert before a crowd of 6,000. During his show, dozens of gunmen and hundreds of protesters rallied outside the university's walls. Gunmen fired in the air and threw stun grenades, eventually forcing Hassan to break off the performance. As concertgoers left the campus, the protesters barged in, throwing chairs and scuffling with those leaving.
Hassan said in an interview Tuesday that he would not be silenced. "These people (the militants) don't want us to be happy.They want us to sit in the ruins and cry," he said. "We will wage a creative war against them, with more poems, more art, more singing."
A local Al Aqsa leader, Ahmed Al-Taki, said the group will continue to ban concerts.
On Monday, Darwish, a Palestinian cultural icon who has eloquently described his people's struggle for independence, rallied to Hassan's side, inviting him to a meeting with Palestinian intellectuals and artists in Ramallah. Darwish told participants "we all have to resist" attempts to restrict artists.
Darwish's comments were published Tuesday in the Palestinian newspaper Al Ayyam. The reclusive poet, who lives in Ramallah, was not available for comment.
The concerts in Qalqiliya and Nablus had been part of an attempt to restore a sense of normalcy after more than four years of fighting, said organizer Iman Hamouri. The summer concert series began in 1994, but was suspended during the Palestinian intefadeh.
Hassan Khader, a cultural affairs commentator for Al Ayyam, said Hamas is powerful enough now to impose its beliefs, but that he believes such attempts will eventually backfire at the polling booth. "If Hamas wants to be a political power, it can't force people to adopt its ideology," he said.
29 June 2005
Bush Creates More Security Agencies
I was wondering what the reasons behind this were, when I read this article and it became clearer to me. This is an attempt to brush the Downing Street memo under the carpet and out of sight. It's not like this is getting a ton of attention anyway, but it must really have some potential to do damage.
The section that stood out for me was, "Bush asked for the Robb-Silberman review in early 2004 after it became clear that prewar intelligence on Iraq was flawed. After a 13-month investigation, the commission concluded the intelligence community was "dead wrong" in almost all of its prewar findings on Iraq's arsenal" This is the same intelligence that the Bush administration has been defending since day one. I remember hearing about the commission being formed, but really didn't expect anything to come of it.
While I'm glad that something is being done in what amounts to an admission that Iraq was invaded under false pretenses, what is worrisome is that more government is being created instead of cutting fat. It also seems that this will be the penance for lying to the global community, let alone the American people, over and over again. There really should be something more done. The fact that we invaded a country under the cover of lies and deceit is not being dealt with here at home, yet Congress will try and impeach a President for perjury that in no way shape or form caused any global conflicts. Maybe we should have has Bush, or Rumsfeld, or Ashcroft swear on a bible before they addressed anyone on the war in Iraq.
It's no wonder that in the eyes of the world we have so little credibility.
I was wondering what the reasons behind this were, when I read this article and it became clearer to me. This is an attempt to brush the Downing Street memo under the carpet and out of sight. It's not like this is getting a ton of attention anyway, but it must really have some potential to do damage.
The section that stood out for me was, "Bush asked for the Robb-Silberman review in early 2004 after it became clear that prewar intelligence on Iraq was flawed. After a 13-month investigation, the commission concluded the intelligence community was "dead wrong" in almost all of its prewar findings on Iraq's arsenal" This is the same intelligence that the Bush administration has been defending since day one. I remember hearing about the commission being formed, but really didn't expect anything to come of it.
While I'm glad that something is being done in what amounts to an admission that Iraq was invaded under false pretenses, what is worrisome is that more government is being created instead of cutting fat. It also seems that this will be the penance for lying to the global community, let alone the American people, over and over again. There really should be something more done. The fact that we invaded a country under the cover of lies and deceit is not being dealt with here at home, yet Congress will try and impeach a President for perjury that in no way shape or form caused any global conflicts. Maybe we should have has Bush, or Rumsfeld, or Ashcroft swear on a bible before they addressed anyone on the war in Iraq.
It's no wonder that in the eyes of the world we have so little credibility.
23 June 2005
Do we really need to Amend the Constitution for Flag burning?
So someone burns a flag? WHO CARES? What if someone torched one of those garden flags that litter the porches of so many homes? It is a piece of nylon or synthetic blend.
I know people will say, "It's a symbol of our country!". Yes, I'm quite aware of that. Think of it this way, would you get bent out of shape if someone burned a map of the US? It is a "symbol" of our country and conveys the same message. Well, I suppose some would. But really, some people are hypersensitive.
The flag should be treated with respect, in my opinion. That certainly doesn't stop a thousand and three people from wearing flag bandanas, hats, shirts, jackets, and boxer shorts because they want to show off their "patriotism". Guess what Bubba, that's just as disrespectful as burning the flag. It's against the US Flag Code. Where is the amendment for the protection of the flag against bad fashion choices? As a matter of fact, the code of the flag actually states that if a flag is in disrepair it should be burned rather than discarded as trash.
See this web page for more complete rules of respecting the Flag
Before anyone flames me (pun intended) and says "People died to protect that flag", please let me state....no they didn't. They died to protect the ideals the flag represents. One of those ideals being people should be able to state their beliefs and protest without violence in the way they choose. Providing they don't infringe on the rights of others. That is the issue at heart and is more important to me than cracking down on pyromaniacs who choose the flag as thier victim.
At the end of the day, someone burning a flag is simply trying to convey an emotion or make a statement. It certainly isn't worth amending the Constitution over. Don't we have much bigger fish to fry in Congress? Have we really solved all the other issues?
So someone burns a flag? WHO CARES? What if someone torched one of those garden flags that litter the porches of so many homes? It is a piece of nylon or synthetic blend.
I know people will say, "It's a symbol of our country!". Yes, I'm quite aware of that. Think of it this way, would you get bent out of shape if someone burned a map of the US? It is a "symbol" of our country and conveys the same message. Well, I suppose some would. But really, some people are hypersensitive.
The flag should be treated with respect, in my opinion. That certainly doesn't stop a thousand and three people from wearing flag bandanas, hats, shirts, jackets, and boxer shorts because they want to show off their "patriotism". Guess what Bubba, that's just as disrespectful as burning the flag. It's against the US Flag Code. Where is the amendment for the protection of the flag against bad fashion choices? As a matter of fact, the code of the flag actually states that if a flag is in disrepair it should be burned rather than discarded as trash.
See this web page for more complete rules of respecting the Flag
Before anyone flames me (pun intended) and says "People died to protect that flag", please let me state....no they didn't. They died to protect the ideals the flag represents. One of those ideals being people should be able to state their beliefs and protest without violence in the way they choose. Providing they don't infringe on the rights of others. That is the issue at heart and is more important to me than cracking down on pyromaniacs who choose the flag as thier victim.
At the end of the day, someone burning a flag is simply trying to convey an emotion or make a statement. It certainly isn't worth amending the Constitution over. Don't we have much bigger fish to fry in Congress? Have we really solved all the other issues?
17 June 2005
From good news to stupid news....
Own a telephone? You're still paying for the Spanish-American War.
Article
It's alarming that not only are we still paying into a fund for a war a century gone, but that certain members of Congress want to "expand" the tax to wireless and internet usage.
Some members of Congress voted to repeal the tax, and it passed both the House and the Senate. Clinton vetoed the bill. I can't imagine why as there was no reason to keep the tax. Unless the 3% tax was being figured into his budget. Cutting that 3% from the general fund would have made his balanced budget, not quite as balanced. Good luck in getting the current President to repeal it either. Dubya's got a "war" on terrorism to fund.
If you disagree with this, or any other tax, law, or bill please, write your congressmen. They are in their positions as your representative. They are your proxy. Make your decisions, don't let them decide for you. For the people, by the people only works if the people get involved.
Own a telephone? You're still paying for the Spanish-American War.
Article
It's alarming that not only are we still paying into a fund for a war a century gone, but that certain members of Congress want to "expand" the tax to wireless and internet usage.
Some members of Congress voted to repeal the tax, and it passed both the House and the Senate. Clinton vetoed the bill. I can't imagine why as there was no reason to keep the tax. Unless the 3% tax was being figured into his budget. Cutting that 3% from the general fund would have made his balanced budget, not quite as balanced. Good luck in getting the current President to repeal it either. Dubya's got a "war" on terrorism to fund.
If you disagree with this, or any other tax, law, or bill please, write your congressmen. They are in their positions as your representative. They are your proxy. Make your decisions, don't let them decide for you. For the people, by the people only works if the people get involved.
16 June 2005
The House of Delegates votes to repeal a peice of the 'Patriot Act'
Read more about it Here
True, it only covers library searches.
True, it's a baby step.
But it's a step in the right direction, and the ultra-conservatives are pissy.
Good.
From the files of 'It's probably just me':
In what's hopefully the last chapter on the 1964 murders of three civil right's advocates in Mississippi, the defendants name is Killen and the lead prosecuting attorney's name is Hood. It's either a strange twisted justice, or incredible coincidence.
Read more about it Here
True, it only covers library searches.
True, it's a baby step.
But it's a step in the right direction, and the ultra-conservatives are pissy.
Good.
From the files of 'It's probably just me':
In what's hopefully the last chapter on the 1964 murders of three civil right's advocates in Mississippi, the defendants name is Killen and the lead prosecuting attorney's name is Hood. It's either a strange twisted justice, or incredible coincidence.
15 June 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)