Monday, July 31, 2006
Oh, Mel
So, yeah. I must be the last person on Earth to post about Mel allegedly getting his anti-Semitism on. All I can say is I'm surprised by how utterly not surprised I am.
So. Think Disney will go ahead with that whole Holocaust miniseries thing he's putting together?
So. Think Disney will go ahead with that whole Holocaust miniseries thing he's putting together?
Sunday, July 30, 2006
The Middle East Touches Home
I'm still trying to find the words to talk about this story. I know this man does not speak for all Muslims, and I know that this will probably be an isolated incident. Still. I'm just a little afraid of either copycat cases that result in a higher body count, or some bigots reciprocating against Muslims who've done nothing wrong.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
We'll Do It Anyway
So, the Administration is seeking to legally enshrine the tribunal system, under which anyone suspected of terrorism can be thrown in jail for as long as the government damn well pleases without receiving either a trial or a court martial. Which would conveniently get around the fact that the Supreme Court said they couldn't.
Once again, Bush and his ilk turn around, drop trou, and shit all over America.
Once again, Bush and his ilk turn around, drop trou, and shit all over America.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Of Course, You Realize, This Means War
Ever since I've come out of the closet and paid attention to what the pundits say to me, I have dealt with insult after insult. I have been told that I am promiscuous and incapable of monogamy. I have been told that I am disease-prone and disease-ridden. I have been told that I am likely a drug fiend, an alcoholic, and a scat fiend. I have been told that I am likely a child molester. I have been told that I pervert the America family just by existing. I have been told that I am not worthy of government resources that could prevent me from killing myself after being told all of this. I have been told I will die at 42. I have been told I will go to Hell. All of this, I have taken in stride.
But in all my time, no one has called me a "fag" on national media and gotten away with it. Except for Ann Coulter, apparently, because she exudes pheromones that render most media personalities incapable of outrage.
Not that this is Ms. Coulter's first brush with epithets, of course. And, like with the "raghead" comment, I doubt she will get any serious upbraiding for this one-- save from the left wing blogosphere, of course, but whoever pays attention to us? All I ask is that, when I am told that I am subhuman, that I am told with some degree of dignity. But Ann Coulter can't even give me that. Once again, she proves herself to be the unrestrained id of the far right.
But in all my time, no one has called me a "fag" on national media and gotten away with it. Except for Ann Coulter, apparently, because she exudes pheromones that render most media personalities incapable of outrage.
Not that this is Ms. Coulter's first brush with epithets, of course. And, like with the "raghead" comment, I doubt she will get any serious upbraiding for this one-- save from the left wing blogosphere, of course, but whoever pays attention to us? All I ask is that, when I am told that I am subhuman, that I am told with some degree of dignity. But Ann Coulter can't even give me that. Once again, she proves herself to be the unrestrained id of the far right.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Don't Pursue, Don't Harass
Well, look at that. Another gay Arabic linguist has had his ass kicked out of the army for being gay. That makes 55 now, according to the article. Still, a blatant disregard for the War on Terror is to be expected in pursuit of the enforcement of Don't Ask Don't Tell. What makes this so different?
Well, for one thing, they asked. Repeatedly:
Shortly after Copas was appointed to the 82nd Airborne's highly visible All-American Chorus last May, the first e-mail came to the chorus director.
"The director brought everyone into the hallway and told us about this e-mail they had just received and blatantly asked, 'Which one of you are gay?'" Copas said.
Copas later complained to the director and his platoon sergeant, saying the questions violated "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
"They said they would watch it in the future," Copas said. "And they said, even specifically then, 'Well, you are not gay are you?' And I said, 'no.'"
The accuser, who signed his e-mails "John Smith" or "ftbraggman," pressed Copas' superiors to take action against him or "I will inform your entire battalion of the information that I gave you."
On Dec. 2, investigators formally interviewed Copas and asked if he understood the military's policy on homosexuals, if he had any close acquaintances who were gay, and if he was involved in community theater. He answered affirmatively.
Wow. Community theater. I'm surprised they didn't make him walk a straight line to see if he pranced.
I don't know if this an one-time incident, or just one more in a series of blatant offenses. Either way, the military is not upholding its end of DADT, still dwelling in the ways of dishonorable discharges and gay witch hunts. They've likely forgotten the last part of the policy: Don't Pursue, Don't Harass.
Well, for one thing, they asked. Repeatedly:
Shortly after Copas was appointed to the 82nd Airborne's highly visible All-American Chorus last May, the first e-mail came to the chorus director.
"The director brought everyone into the hallway and told us about this e-mail they had just received and blatantly asked, 'Which one of you are gay?'" Copas said.
Copas later complained to the director and his platoon sergeant, saying the questions violated "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
"They said they would watch it in the future," Copas said. "And they said, even specifically then, 'Well, you are not gay are you?' And I said, 'no.'"
The accuser, who signed his e-mails "John Smith" or "ftbraggman," pressed Copas' superiors to take action against him or "I will inform your entire battalion of the information that I gave you."
On Dec. 2, investigators formally interviewed Copas and asked if he understood the military's policy on homosexuals, if he had any close acquaintances who were gay, and if he was involved in community theater. He answered affirmatively.
Wow. Community theater. I'm surprised they didn't make him walk a straight line to see if he pranced.
I don't know if this an one-time incident, or just one more in a series of blatant offenses. Either way, the military is not upholding its end of DADT, still dwelling in the ways of dishonorable discharges and gay witch hunts. They've likely forgotten the last part of the policy: Don't Pursue, Don't Harass.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
If Not Now, When?
John at AmericaBlog has an interesting post up about a $250,000 campaign by prominent gay rights groups, which involves airing full page ads for marriage equality in fifty national newspapers. John's not happy:
Now, I'm all for helping change the culture, and doing things to win over the hearts and minds of Americans on various gay issues. And ad campaigns are an important part of that goal. And an ad campaign showing loving gay couples who have been together, in one case, for 53 years, is great PR. But, again, I'm still not sure why this campaign is running right now when America is rightly focused on the fall elections, and that election is increasingly about George Bush's incompetence in Iraq and at home and the Republicans having lost their minds. Why would we want to help shift the debate from all of that to gay marriage?
Then when, John? When do we talk about it?
I'm not going to deny that this campaign runs the risk of reopening Pandora's Box, making gay marriage into some issue that it shouldn't be. But we need to make a statement. We waited for the Human Rights Campaign to do something about campaigning for marriage equality. They didn't. We waited for the Democratic National Committee to fight for marriage equality. Howard Dean went on Pat Robertson's show and lied about their agenda supporting hetero-only marriage. We waited for our straight friends to do something about marriage equality. They went out and voted to enshrine discrimination in the state constitution, not stopping to read about the bans on civil unions.
Today, Washington, like New York earlier this month, handed down a ruling upholding the state's ban on gay marriage. And like New York, they used language about how marriage between a man and a woman was in the best interests of children. This is what inaction has bought us. We've waited for people to stand up and fight our battles since Massachusetts made marriage legal, and as a result, the religious right noise machine has seized control of the dialogue and made it look like we are unfit parents.
And even if we do let this go, there is no way the religious right will not. The Federal Marriage Amendment failed in 2004. The Federal Marriage Amendment failed this year. And yet, they will keep bringing it back. They will keep tossing out the same talking points. They will keep trying to paint us as unfit for marriage. They will keep trying to push us to the back of the bus. Unless we-- not interest groups, not politicians, not straight people-- do something about it.
Yes, we can risk letting them kick us to the curb again. Or maybe, just maybe, this time, we can actually stand up for ourselves and not wait for some great white mainstream knight to come to our defense. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Now, I'm all for helping change the culture, and doing things to win over the hearts and minds of Americans on various gay issues. And ad campaigns are an important part of that goal. And an ad campaign showing loving gay couples who have been together, in one case, for 53 years, is great PR. But, again, I'm still not sure why this campaign is running right now when America is rightly focused on the fall elections, and that election is increasingly about George Bush's incompetence in Iraq and at home and the Republicans having lost their minds. Why would we want to help shift the debate from all of that to gay marriage?
Then when, John? When do we talk about it?
I'm not going to deny that this campaign runs the risk of reopening Pandora's Box, making gay marriage into some issue that it shouldn't be. But we need to make a statement. We waited for the Human Rights Campaign to do something about campaigning for marriage equality. They didn't. We waited for the Democratic National Committee to fight for marriage equality. Howard Dean went on Pat Robertson's show and lied about their agenda supporting hetero-only marriage. We waited for our straight friends to do something about marriage equality. They went out and voted to enshrine discrimination in the state constitution, not stopping to read about the bans on civil unions.
Today, Washington, like New York earlier this month, handed down a ruling upholding the state's ban on gay marriage. And like New York, they used language about how marriage between a man and a woman was in the best interests of children. This is what inaction has bought us. We've waited for people to stand up and fight our battles since Massachusetts made marriage legal, and as a result, the religious right noise machine has seized control of the dialogue and made it look like we are unfit parents.
And even if we do let this go, there is no way the religious right will not. The Federal Marriage Amendment failed in 2004. The Federal Marriage Amendment failed this year. And yet, they will keep bringing it back. They will keep tossing out the same talking points. They will keep trying to paint us as unfit for marriage. They will keep trying to push us to the back of the bus. Unless we-- not interest groups, not politicians, not straight people-- do something about it.
Yes, we can risk letting them kick us to the curb again. Or maybe, just maybe, this time, we can actually stand up for ourselves and not wait for some great white mainstream knight to come to our defense. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Let It Burn, Wanna Let It Burn
This is the man who decides our environmental policy, for fuck's sake. I've never seen such cross purposes since... well, James Watt's quote of dubious origins.
Indeed, Inhofe insists that he feels even stronger about taking on what he sees as the current hysteria about global warming than he did several years ago when he first uttered that now-famous hoax statement.
In an interview, he heaped criticism on what he saw as the strategy used by those on the other side of the debate and offered a historical comparison.
"It kind of reminds . . . I could use the Third Reich, the big lie," Inhofe said.
"You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their strategy."
Yay for another Godwin's Law violation.
I've heard this meme over and over again in the past few months. Global warming is like Nazi propaganda, Gore is like Goebbels. Why are people like Inhofe so opposed to this idea? When 928 out of 928 abstracts in scientific journals do not disagree with the premise that global climate change is man-made, why do they stick their heads in the sand and continue to deny that nothing is going on, everything will be okay, it's all the fault of those dirty hippies? Can they really not stand the idea that we'll need to rejigger the economy?
Or are they just unable to admit that the earth is not their bitch?
Indeed, Inhofe insists that he feels even stronger about taking on what he sees as the current hysteria about global warming than he did several years ago when he first uttered that now-famous hoax statement.
In an interview, he heaped criticism on what he saw as the strategy used by those on the other side of the debate and offered a historical comparison.
"It kind of reminds . . . I could use the Third Reich, the big lie," Inhofe said.
"You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their strategy."
Yay for another Godwin's Law violation.
I've heard this meme over and over again in the past few months. Global warming is like Nazi propaganda, Gore is like Goebbels. Why are people like Inhofe so opposed to this idea? When 928 out of 928 abstracts in scientific journals do not disagree with the premise that global climate change is man-made, why do they stick their heads in the sand and continue to deny that nothing is going on, everything will be okay, it's all the fault of those dirty hippies? Can they really not stand the idea that we'll need to rejigger the economy?
Or are they just unable to admit that the earth is not their bitch?
Monday, July 24, 2006
Some Civilians Are More Civilianny Than Others
I swear to God, Alan Dershowitz actually says this.
The Israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones. Those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit. Some — those who cannot leave on their own — should be counted among the innocent victims.
If the media were to adopt this "continuum," it would be informative to learn how many of the "civilian casualties" fall closer to the line of complicity and how many fall closer to the line of innocence.
Every civilian death is a tragedy, but some are more tragic than others.
Yes, because everyone who doesn't move out of a region that is right in the area of disaster is automatically complicit in that disaster, and had it coming to them. Who cares if they're too poor to move, or don't want to give up their lives to risk having to move from place to place for somewhere to stay, not knowing whether they'll either regain their old lives. After all, we learned sweet fuck all from Katrina.
I can only quote what John Rogers said about this: the fact that someone can try and weasel away at one of the iron-clad truths of war-- that civilian casualties are detestable and must be avoided at all costs-- makes me sick to my fucking stomach. Yes, some of these people have likely worked with Hezbollah and Hamas. Does that really mean we should play Pin the Tail on the Donkey with human lives?
The Israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones. Those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit. Some — those who cannot leave on their own — should be counted among the innocent victims.
If the media were to adopt this "continuum," it would be informative to learn how many of the "civilian casualties" fall closer to the line of complicity and how many fall closer to the line of innocence.
Every civilian death is a tragedy, but some are more tragic than others.
Yes, because everyone who doesn't move out of a region that is right in the area of disaster is automatically complicit in that disaster, and had it coming to them. Who cares if they're too poor to move, or don't want to give up their lives to risk having to move from place to place for somewhere to stay, not knowing whether they'll either regain their old lives. After all, we learned sweet fuck all from Katrina.
I can only quote what John Rogers said about this: the fact that someone can try and weasel away at one of the iron-clad truths of war-- that civilian casualties are detestable and must be avoided at all costs-- makes me sick to my fucking stomach. Yes, some of these people have likely worked with Hezbollah and Hamas. Does that really mean we should play Pin the Tail on the Donkey with human lives?
The Perfect Drug
Please God, let this be true.
IN a world first, Melbourne scientists have developed a once-a-day pill that they claim may cure Alzheimer's disease. Human trials of the drug start next month.
The drug -- called PBT2 -- was developed by a team from the Mental Health Research Institute of Victoria in collaboration with Melbourne-based Prana Biotechnology.
"It is a major breakthrough and very much a Melbourne discovery," said Prof George Fink, the director of the Mental Health Research Institute.
"Though much depends on the next phase of human clinical trials . . . early results indicate this drug offers hope to people with Alzheimer's disease," he said.
The revolutionary drug stops the buildup of a protein called amyloid.
Many scientists accept amyloid is a major cause of Alzheimer's as the protein is thought to cause the brain to "rust".
Prof Fink said the drug could significantly prevent Alzheimer's developing or delay the on-set of the brain disease for many years.
Early clinical testing has confirmed the drug is fast-acting. Levels of amyloid dropped by 60 per cent within 24 hours of a single dose.
It found also that PBT2 suppresses the impairment of memory function.
More human studies begin in Sweden next month and Australians will join a major international trial of the drug next year.
Alzheimer's is a progressive and fatal brain disease. It is the major form of dementia, a disease that affects one in four Australians over the age of 60.
Prof Fink said the institute was optimistic about the results of clinical trials and said the drug could be on the market within four years.
This had better not be some fluke, or some guy in a boardroom fucking with us. Alzheimer's is a horrible, debilitating disease that leaves the afflicted and their families slowly suffering. If there's a cure for it... well, then maybe there's a little hope in this world.
IN a world first, Melbourne scientists have developed a once-a-day pill that they claim may cure Alzheimer's disease. Human trials of the drug start next month.
The drug -- called PBT2 -- was developed by a team from the Mental Health Research Institute of Victoria in collaboration with Melbourne-based Prana Biotechnology.
"It is a major breakthrough and very much a Melbourne discovery," said Prof George Fink, the director of the Mental Health Research Institute.
"Though much depends on the next phase of human clinical trials . . . early results indicate this drug offers hope to people with Alzheimer's disease," he said.
The revolutionary drug stops the buildup of a protein called amyloid.
Many scientists accept amyloid is a major cause of Alzheimer's as the protein is thought to cause the brain to "rust".
Prof Fink said the drug could significantly prevent Alzheimer's developing or delay the on-set of the brain disease for many years.
Early clinical testing has confirmed the drug is fast-acting. Levels of amyloid dropped by 60 per cent within 24 hours of a single dose.
It found also that PBT2 suppresses the impairment of memory function.
More human studies begin in Sweden next month and Australians will join a major international trial of the drug next year.
Alzheimer's is a progressive and fatal brain disease. It is the major form of dementia, a disease that affects one in four Australians over the age of 60.
Prof Fink said the institute was optimistic about the results of clinical trials and said the drug could be on the market within four years.
This had better not be some fluke, or some guy in a boardroom fucking with us. Alzheimer's is a horrible, debilitating disease that leaves the afflicted and their families slowly suffering. If there's a cure for it... well, then maybe there's a little hope in this world.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
But What Will We Do If Aliens Invade?
Last winter, James A. Hansen, a scientist at NASA, claimed that the Bush Administration was doing their best to try to hush up any research that might prove that global warming was a threat to the earth that was being made worse by greenhouse gas emissions. When Hansen spoke out, he claimed his authority came from the first part of the NASA mission statement: "To understand and protect our home planet." Bush took notice, and has dealt with the problem directly.
By removing said phrase from NASA's mission statement.
It's not as if I'm expecting environmental consciousness from this current administration, but this is just fucking ridiculous. Bush has embraced a degree of apathy, nay, malice towards the environment unseen since Captain Planet went off the air. Get his sleazy ass out now.
By removing said phrase from NASA's mission statement.
It's not as if I'm expecting environmental consciousness from this current administration, but this is just fucking ridiculous. Bush has embraced a degree of apathy, nay, malice towards the environment unseen since Captain Planet went off the air. Get his sleazy ass out now.
Friday, July 21, 2006
"Please? We Need Help Controlling Everything We See!"
Frank James at the Chicago Tribune received an e-mail from the National Republican Congress Committee this weekend. The e-mail details perfectly the utter contempt the Republican Party shows for journalism and the media:
At least one passage in the e-mail struck me as particularly noteworthy. "I realized you need to know about some of our all-star Republican candidates running for Congress. The liberal media will not help our candidates, so we are taking matters into our own hands," said the passage.
Now, I'm a big ol' lefty. I realize that the media currently lets us down, often times framing us as if we're wild, unrestrained, and not above using intimidation. But let's say they turned around. Let's say that, one day, they suddenly offered to "help" us. You know what I would say? "No."
And that is the lesson that escapes many of those who use the "liberal media" bulwark, and which James calls them on the carpet for: if you are in power, the media is not here to "help" you. The media is there to examine your position, looking for flaws with all the scrutiny of hungry sharks sniffing for a drop of blood. If you want "help" from the media, then you're going to have to present a position that is the best goddamn thing since sliced bread. Then they'll give you a pass, and that's if you're feeling lucky.
Mind you, our current media has forgotten it at times. Still, it's not like they've fully remembered that it's there, and just decided to take a massive shit on it. Because that's what aspects of the Republican Party-- especially those in the White House-- would prefer they do. But that's just a little bit too much.
At least one passage in the e-mail struck me as particularly noteworthy. "I realized you need to know about some of our all-star Republican candidates running for Congress. The liberal media will not help our candidates, so we are taking matters into our own hands," said the passage.
Now, I'm a big ol' lefty. I realize that the media currently lets us down, often times framing us as if we're wild, unrestrained, and not above using intimidation. But let's say they turned around. Let's say that, one day, they suddenly offered to "help" us. You know what I would say? "No."
And that is the lesson that escapes many of those who use the "liberal media" bulwark, and which James calls them on the carpet for: if you are in power, the media is not here to "help" you. The media is there to examine your position, looking for flaws with all the scrutiny of hungry sharks sniffing for a drop of blood. If you want "help" from the media, then you're going to have to present a position that is the best goddamn thing since sliced bread. Then they'll give you a pass, and that's if you're feeling lucky.
Mind you, our current media has forgotten it at times. Still, it's not like they've fully remembered that it's there, and just decided to take a massive shit on it. Because that's what aspects of the Republican Party-- especially those in the White House-- would prefer they do. But that's just a little bit too much.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Isn't It Funny? I Want You Dead!
Last Friday, on the wake of the colorful macaws of the right wing blogosphere launching a weeks-long orchestra of eliminationist rhetoric against the New York Times, someone at the mail room of the Times opened a letter, only to find a mass of white powder and an editorial defending the Times's recent actions Xed out with marker. Are any of the people who launched the storm of hard-boiled attacks against the Times contrite? Sorry?
Oh, hell, no. That would require shame. Rather, Ann Coulter has the gall to joke about how she was the one who made visions of anthrax dance in their heads:
"'So glad to hear that The New York Times got my letter and that your friend at the Times thinks I'm funny,' she wrote back. 'Good luck in journalism and please send me your home address so we can stay in touch, too.
So not only does she joke about a honest-to-God terrorist threat against one of the establishments of the press in this nation, she jokes about sending another such "letter" to the one who actually called her out on the carpet for it. This is the great conscience of the right wing fear engine. Anything that happens to your enemies-- any threat, any attack, anything that would have them fearing for their lives-- is a big fat fucking joke.
I agree with Jill. Someone needs to show Ann Coulter that it's not funny.
Oh, hell, no. That would require shame. Rather, Ann Coulter has the gall to joke about how she was the one who made visions of anthrax dance in their heads:
"'So glad to hear that The New York Times got my letter and that your friend at the Times thinks I'm funny,' she wrote back. 'Good luck in journalism and please send me your home address so we can stay in touch, too.
So not only does she joke about a honest-to-God terrorist threat against one of the establishments of the press in this nation, she jokes about sending another such "letter" to the one who actually called her out on the carpet for it. This is the great conscience of the right wing fear engine. Anything that happens to your enemies-- any threat, any attack, anything that would have them fearing for their lives-- is a big fat fucking joke.
I agree with Jill. Someone needs to show Ann Coulter that it's not funny.
And What Are You Going To Do About It?
Alberto Gonzales openly admits that Bush was the one who killed the Justice Department investigation into the wiretap scandal. But it's okay, says Tony Snow, because independent councils aren't necessary when the very people who helped to orchestrate this are making sure everything's okay:
Later, at the White House, spokesman Tony Snow said the eavesdropping program is reviewed every 45 days by senior officials, including Gonzales. The president did not consider the Justice unit that functions as a legal ethics watchdog to be the "proper venue," Snow said.
"What he was saying is that in the case of a highly classified program, you need to keep the number of people exposed to it tight for reasons of national security, and that's what he did," Snow said.
And apparently, that number of people does not include investigators trying to determine the legality of the program.
At this point, it doesn't get more blatant without Bush holding a press conference where he literally points at the camera and laughs.
Later, at the White House, spokesman Tony Snow said the eavesdropping program is reviewed every 45 days by senior officials, including Gonzales. The president did not consider the Justice unit that functions as a legal ethics watchdog to be the "proper venue," Snow said.
"What he was saying is that in the case of a highly classified program, you need to keep the number of people exposed to it tight for reasons of national security, and that's what he did," Snow said.
And apparently, that number of people does not include investigators trying to determine the legality of the program.
At this point, it doesn't get more blatant without Bush holding a press conference where he literally points at the camera and laughs.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
In Case of Rapture...
When I first realized that war in the Middle East was truly and honestly breaking out, I approached my mother and guaranteed her one thing. "Somewhere out there," I said, "a good number of fundamentalist Christians are currently creaming their undies."
And oh, how right I was. Now, the mysterious topic keeps vanishing-- perhaps the Rapture Ready people gained something vaguely approaching shame-- but I've flipped through the topic myself while it was still up, and I can tell you that a lot of that is true.
I'll admit, I bought the Rapture thing when I was young and stupid. Now, I view all this eschatological cheerleading as disgusting and ultimately pathetic. While there's the occasional expression of remorse for the "very likely 10's [sic] or 100's [sic again] of millions of people" who are likely going to get plowed over during the Tribulation, these losses are compared to childbirth. Yes, folks, the death and possible damnation of billions is comparable to labor pains in God's great scheme.
In the book Good Omens, there's a part where the angel Aziraphale, having been disembodied, temporarily takes possession of the body of a televangelist and utterly deflates his ideas about the Rapture, asking what kind of morally right person puts such weight in escaping up to Heaven while his fellow men die suffering down on Earth. The Rapture is escape plan as prophecy, the fundamentalist worldview in miniature with the "righteous" getting out of pain and suffering and everyone else getting it in boatloads. If my fellow men are going to suffer, then I'd rather think that I'd be down here with them, fighting off the devil by their sides until I'm called home, and not stuck up in God's skybox.
And oh, how right I was. Now, the mysterious topic keeps vanishing-- perhaps the Rapture Ready people gained something vaguely approaching shame-- but I've flipped through the topic myself while it was still up, and I can tell you that a lot of that is true.
I'll admit, I bought the Rapture thing when I was young and stupid. Now, I view all this eschatological cheerleading as disgusting and ultimately pathetic. While there's the occasional expression of remorse for the "very likely 10's [sic] or 100's [sic again] of millions of people" who are likely going to get plowed over during the Tribulation, these losses are compared to childbirth. Yes, folks, the death and possible damnation of billions is comparable to labor pains in God's great scheme.
In the book Good Omens, there's a part where the angel Aziraphale, having been disembodied, temporarily takes possession of the body of a televangelist and utterly deflates his ideas about the Rapture, asking what kind of morally right person puts such weight in escaping up to Heaven while his fellow men die suffering down on Earth. The Rapture is escape plan as prophecy, the fundamentalist worldview in miniature with the "righteous" getting out of pain and suffering and everyone else getting it in boatloads. If my fellow men are going to suffer, then I'd rather think that I'd be down here with them, fighting off the devil by their sides until I'm called home, and not stuck up in God's skybox.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Boom, Boom, Boom
So, it's all gone to hell. War, or something very much like it, has broken out between Israel and Hezbollah/Hamas. Israel is currently bombing the hell out of Lebanon, and Hezbollah is responding in turn.
Thing is, it's not likely to start here. Already, Drudge is pushing a story that Hezbollah is sending the captured Israeli soldiers to Iran. In other words, all our sabre rattling at Iran-- which seemed to have quited down for five minutes-- might possibly return in full force. And while the US government stands behind Israel (as usual), disturbing rumors are coming out that the Israeli government has told us to mind our own business when Condi asked them to show restraint.
There's a chance this may all clear up soon. But really, I'm not holding out a lot of hope.
Thing is, it's not likely to start here. Already, Drudge is pushing a story that Hezbollah is sending the captured Israeli soldiers to Iran. In other words, all our sabre rattling at Iran-- which seemed to have quited down for five minutes-- might possibly return in full force. And while the US government stands behind Israel (as usual), disturbing rumors are coming out that the Israeli government has told us to mind our own business when Condi asked them to show restraint.
There's a chance this may all clear up soon. But really, I'm not holding out a lot of hope.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Ex Cathedra
Steven Bradbury, chief legal counsel at the Justice Department: "The president is always right."
No. No, he is not. No man or woman on this planet is always 100% right. There's a reason why the Pope doesn't sit on that chair every single waking minute-- because some things are meant to be the word of God, and some things are just fallible human logic.
Bush, however, has built himself up as more than a man. He has people on all sides, telling him that he can make it all happen. And by God, it seems like he believes it. And we're all along for the ride.
No. No, he is not. No man or woman on this planet is always 100% right. There's a reason why the Pope doesn't sit on that chair every single waking minute-- because some things are meant to be the word of God, and some things are just fallible human logic.
Bush, however, has built himself up as more than a man. He has people on all sides, telling him that he can make it all happen. And by God, it seems like he believes it. And we're all along for the ride.
Hey, It's A Camel Going Through The Eye Of A Needle!
What the fuck?
The Reverend Dr. Bill Lawson compared Lay with civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus Christ, and said his name would eventually be cleared.
"He was taken out of the world right at the right time," he said. "History has a way of vindicating people who have been wronged."
It gets worse:
The Rev. Bill Lawson, pastor of Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church, likened Lay to James Byrd, an African-American man who was dragged to death in a racially motivated murder near Jasper eight years ago.
"Ken Lay was neither black nor poor as James Byrd was," Lawson said. "But I'm angry because he was the victim of a lynching." Lawson, who also spoke at Lay's Colorado memorial service, likened the businessman to President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Jesus — all of whom, the minister said, were wrongly victimized.
Lawson noted that Lay was rich and powerful and gave to many political campaigns over the years. "He was a lover of people," Lawson said.
"Those who did not like him have had their say, and I'd like to have mine," Lawson said. "And I don't care what you think."
Lawson's comments brought applause.
Let's get the facts straight on Ken Lay before the powerbrokers of postmodern politics completely rewrite everything: Ken Lay was a rich, well-off white man who made cursory political donations. At best, he should have paid more attention while those beneath him drove his company into the ground and denied thousands of employees their well-earned pensions. At worst, he was directly responsible for sqaundering the retirement money of others for a few more million.
He was not dragged behind a truck because of the color of his skin.
He did not fight for the advancement of a suppressed minority, only to be struck down by an assassin's bullet.
Most importantly of all, he did not come to this planet to redeem the sins of man and to preach acceptance for all peoples.
Ken Lay was a rich man who loved his family, donated to political causes, and likely gave money to charity. But he also likely destroyed the livelihoods of thousands, was found guilty in a court of law along with his former business partner, and died before he could serve his sentence.
He was no god, no martyr, no saint. At the best, at the very best... he was just a man.
Get it straight, people.
The Reverend Dr. Bill Lawson compared Lay with civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus Christ, and said his name would eventually be cleared.
"He was taken out of the world right at the right time," he said. "History has a way of vindicating people who have been wronged."
It gets worse:
The Rev. Bill Lawson, pastor of Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church, likened Lay to James Byrd, an African-American man who was dragged to death in a racially motivated murder near Jasper eight years ago.
"Ken Lay was neither black nor poor as James Byrd was," Lawson said. "But I'm angry because he was the victim of a lynching." Lawson, who also spoke at Lay's Colorado memorial service, likened the businessman to President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Jesus — all of whom, the minister said, were wrongly victimized.
Lawson noted that Lay was rich and powerful and gave to many political campaigns over the years. "He was a lover of people," Lawson said.
"Those who did not like him have had their say, and I'd like to have mine," Lawson said. "And I don't care what you think."
Lawson's comments brought applause.
Let's get the facts straight on Ken Lay before the powerbrokers of postmodern politics completely rewrite everything: Ken Lay was a rich, well-off white man who made cursory political donations. At best, he should have paid more attention while those beneath him drove his company into the ground and denied thousands of employees their well-earned pensions. At worst, he was directly responsible for sqaundering the retirement money of others for a few more million.
He was not dragged behind a truck because of the color of his skin.
He did not fight for the advancement of a suppressed minority, only to be struck down by an assassin's bullet.
Most importantly of all, he did not come to this planet to redeem the sins of man and to preach acceptance for all peoples.
Ken Lay was a rich man who loved his family, donated to political causes, and likely gave money to charity. But he also likely destroyed the livelihoods of thousands, was found guilty in a court of law along with his former business partner, and died before he could serve his sentence.
He was no god, no martyr, no saint. At the best, at the very best... he was just a man.
Get it straight, people.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
If Only There Were Someone To Apply a Proper Curbstomping
All right, so, maybe I am a bit too caught up on Lee Siegel and others pointing to the lefty blogosphere as a mass of unhinged political rabble. But I'd just like to give Siegel the dictionary definition of "fascism":
A political regime based on strong centralized government, suppressing through violence any criticism or opposition of the regime, and exalts nation, state, or religion above the individual
And, by way of those darling rationalists at Cold Fury, I bring you fascism in action (ganked from Amanda):
Maybe the way to nullify these Lefty zombies is to get good and righteously pissed at their dishonesty and manipulation, and take whatever action that anger warrants. Maybe it really is going to come down to violence against these people in the end.
I'd like to also provide Mr. Siegel with another definition: hate crime. A hate crime is any crime against a religious, ethnic, racial, or sexual group that is motivated mainly by the target's race/ethnicity/religion/sexuality, as well as the attacker's need to deliver a "message" to other members of said race/ethnicity/religion/sexuality to not act like the target-- that is, to just shut up and vanish. If the actions suggested in said statement were applied to any of those said groups-- that is, if violence was used against "those people" to get them to just shut up-- it would be considered a hate crime. But instead, it's aimed towards liberals, so it's just politics.
I may be getting too attached to this. Still, as far as I know, neither Atrios nor Kos nor John Aravosis nor James Wolcott has made any statement akin to believing that violent retaliation is the only way to sort out anyone on the right. All I ask is that we not be treated like we're the ones who are undermining society.
A political regime based on strong centralized government, suppressing through violence any criticism or opposition of the regime, and exalts nation, state, or religion above the individual
And, by way of those darling rationalists at Cold Fury, I bring you fascism in action (ganked from Amanda):
Maybe the way to nullify these Lefty zombies is to get good and righteously pissed at their dishonesty and manipulation, and take whatever action that anger warrants. Maybe it really is going to come down to violence against these people in the end.
I'd like to also provide Mr. Siegel with another definition: hate crime. A hate crime is any crime against a religious, ethnic, racial, or sexual group that is motivated mainly by the target's race/ethnicity/religion/sexuality, as well as the attacker's need to deliver a "message" to other members of said race/ethnicity/religion/sexuality to not act like the target-- that is, to just shut up and vanish. If the actions suggested in said statement were applied to any of those said groups-- that is, if violence was used against "those people" to get them to just shut up-- it would be considered a hate crime. But instead, it's aimed towards liberals, so it's just politics.
I may be getting too attached to this. Still, as far as I know, neither Atrios nor Kos nor John Aravosis nor James Wolcott has made any statement akin to believing that violent retaliation is the only way to sort out anyone on the right. All I ask is that we not be treated like we're the ones who are undermining society.
Monday, July 10, 2006
And What Do Vacuums Do? They Suck.
Apparently, John Podhoretz wants to tell us that he realizes that he'll eventually have gay marriage, and that we should be very happy and just give up the legal battle right now and let the majority wait to approve it (ganked from Alicublog, which also does a great job on calling Podhoretz out).
Now, I could write about how disingenious this whole thing is. I could write about how, even though Podhoretz admits that he is not a fan of gay marriage, he seems to be admitting defeat without exploring the ramifications of said change of mind. I could write about how he distinctly ignores the fact that maybe, just maybe, Brown v. Board of Education helped to lead the way for the passing of acts that effectively killed institutional segregation. I could write about the fact that he blatantly ignores the 23-year gap between Loving v. Virginia and interracial marriage actually being approved of by a majority of the population.
Rather, I find the scariest part of this article is that Podhoretz does not care. As he says, he's not a big fan of gay marriage. According to him, it's inevitable that gay marriage will be here. But there's got to be a reason he's opposed to gay marriage, right? I mean, why else would he be so entrenched in an issue if he doesn't think that nothing of importance will come to pass of it if his result is not achieved?
And hence is the disingeniousness of Podhoretz revealed. If he's truly just admitting defeat and telling us to wait, then it tells us that he thinks that issues-- at least, issues like gay marriage-- exist in a vacuum. It's no big deal whether gay marriage gets approved down the line, or doesn't get approved at all. And this is the poison of politics. Forgoing the people at the end of an issue-- hell, forgoing the importance of the issue-- in favor of focusing on the pure politics of the issue. When you forget that an issue is more than polling points or dollars, then you stop being a politician or political commentator and become a whore.
Of course, it's more likely that Podhoretz is being a different sort of disingenious by hinting that he just doesn't care when he really, really does. Still, if he just says, "Eh," on an issue like this... well, it doesn't say a lot about his sense of politics, does it?
Now, I could write about how disingenious this whole thing is. I could write about how, even though Podhoretz admits that he is not a fan of gay marriage, he seems to be admitting defeat without exploring the ramifications of said change of mind. I could write about how he distinctly ignores the fact that maybe, just maybe, Brown v. Board of Education helped to lead the way for the passing of acts that effectively killed institutional segregation. I could write about the fact that he blatantly ignores the 23-year gap between Loving v. Virginia and interracial marriage actually being approved of by a majority of the population.
Rather, I find the scariest part of this article is that Podhoretz does not care. As he says, he's not a big fan of gay marriage. According to him, it's inevitable that gay marriage will be here. But there's got to be a reason he's opposed to gay marriage, right? I mean, why else would he be so entrenched in an issue if he doesn't think that nothing of importance will come to pass of it if his result is not achieved?
And hence is the disingeniousness of Podhoretz revealed. If he's truly just admitting defeat and telling us to wait, then it tells us that he thinks that issues-- at least, issues like gay marriage-- exist in a vacuum. It's no big deal whether gay marriage gets approved down the line, or doesn't get approved at all. And this is the poison of politics. Forgoing the people at the end of an issue-- hell, forgoing the importance of the issue-- in favor of focusing on the pure politics of the issue. When you forget that an issue is more than polling points or dollars, then you stop being a politician or political commentator and become a whore.
Of course, it's more likely that Podhoretz is being a different sort of disingenious by hinting that he just doesn't care when he really, really does. Still, if he just says, "Eh," on an issue like this... well, it doesn't say a lot about his sense of politics, does it?
Saturday, July 08, 2006
They're Gonna Kill Us All!
All I can say is: Duck. Seriously. Get under a desk, cover your head, and pray for death.
Somehow, I don't see Lee Siegel writing a big scary expose about this one. But really, this is the greatest threat to America the lefty blogosphere has to offer.
EDIT: But what kind of blogger would I be if I didn't catapult a diseased dog over their castle wall?
Somehow, I don't see Lee Siegel writing a big scary expose about this one. But really, this is the greatest threat to America the lefty blogosphere has to offer.
EDIT: But what kind of blogger would I be if I didn't catapult a diseased dog over their castle wall?
Thursday, July 06, 2006
The Different Casing Is So Worth the Racist Overtones
If the $600 PS3 didn't convince you, then I offer irrefutable proof that Sony hath lost their goddamned minds. And if that doesn't work for ya, how about entreaties to suicide and a delightful message of, "I saw your girlfriend's poon"?
So this is what a tailspin looks like.
EDIT: All right, I dug a little deeper and got some sense of perspective. Second of all, I found out that the billboard isn't actually in America; it's in Holland. While I still don't think it was the wisest ad in the world, I can see it relatively stripped of racial connotations in a place like Holland, where the black/white divide is a lot more muted than over here.
Still doesn't stop the other ads from being dumb as all hell, though.
So this is what a tailspin looks like.
EDIT: All right, I dug a little deeper and got some sense of perspective. Second of all, I found out that the billboard isn't actually in America; it's in Holland. While I still don't think it was the wisest ad in the world, I can see it relatively stripped of racial connotations in a place like Holland, where the black/white divide is a lot more muted than over here.
Still doesn't stop the other ads from being dumb as all hell, though.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
The Politics of Personal Intimidation
We are, slowly yet surely, slipping back to the Dark Ages.
The Dobrich family of Indian River, Delaware, felt like their children were being excluded in school for a very simple reason: they were Jewish. According to the Dobriches, the school board- and keep in mind that this is a public school system- focused strictly on a Christian point of view. Students who were part of the school's Bible club got special privileges, Bibles were distributed to students, prayer was common at sporting events, and often teachers would talk about Christianity at the exclusion of other religions. And when the family actually spoke up and threatened legal action-- well, it got worse:
The district board announced the formation of a committee to develop a religion policy. And the local talk radio station inflamed the issue.
On the evening in August 2004 when the board was to announce its new policy, hundreds of people turned out for the meeitng. The Dobrich family and Jane Doe felt intimidated and asked a state trooper to escort them.
The complaint recounts a raucous crowd that applauded the board's opening prayer and then, when sixth-grader Alexander Dobrich stood up to read a statement, yelled at him "take your yarmulke off!" His statement, read by Samantha, confided "I feel bad when kids in my class call me Jew boy."
A state representative spoke in support of prayer and warned board members that "the people" would replace them if they faltered on the issue. Other representatives spoke against separating "god and state."
A former board member suggested that Mona Dobrich might "disappear" like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the atheist whose Supreme Court case resulted in ending organized school prayer. She disappeared in 1995 and her dismembered body was found six years later.
The crowd booed an ACLU speaker and told her to "go back up north."
In the days after the meeting the community poured venom on the Dobriches. Callers to the local radio station said the family they should convert or leave the area. Someone called them and said the Ku Klux Klan was nearby.
The Dobriches finally had to move away after Nedd Karieva of the Stop the ACLU Coalition published their address for all to see. Here's Nedd's take on his little ploy:
Pogrom? I'm not sure I want to call it that. That is not an appropriate term, however, I am pleased that we had an effect in this case. We have others we want to put up on the site to shame them but have not gotten around to it. And I'm not so sure I can take credit for it. However, if an ACLU speaker was booed, that's music to my ears.
I would appreciate it if you would sign your actual name rather than JC Christian.
Regards,
Nedd Kareiva
Director
Translation: "Boy, we sure showed that Jew boy, didn't we? And we'll show anyone else who dares worship anyone but our Lord and Savior. After all, that's what He would have done."
I keep telling myself that this is the 21st century, a time of enlightenment, and that this is America, a land of religious freedom. And yet, I keep seeing all this evidence to the contrary.
The Dobrich family of Indian River, Delaware, felt like their children were being excluded in school for a very simple reason: they were Jewish. According to the Dobriches, the school board- and keep in mind that this is a public school system- focused strictly on a Christian point of view. Students who were part of the school's Bible club got special privileges, Bibles were distributed to students, prayer was common at sporting events, and often teachers would talk about Christianity at the exclusion of other religions. And when the family actually spoke up and threatened legal action-- well, it got worse:
The district board announced the formation of a committee to develop a religion policy. And the local talk radio station inflamed the issue.
On the evening in August 2004 when the board was to announce its new policy, hundreds of people turned out for the meeitng. The Dobrich family and Jane Doe felt intimidated and asked a state trooper to escort them.
The complaint recounts a raucous crowd that applauded the board's opening prayer and then, when sixth-grader Alexander Dobrich stood up to read a statement, yelled at him "take your yarmulke off!" His statement, read by Samantha, confided "I feel bad when kids in my class call me Jew boy."
A state representative spoke in support of prayer and warned board members that "the people" would replace them if they faltered on the issue. Other representatives spoke against separating "god and state."
A former board member suggested that Mona Dobrich might "disappear" like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the atheist whose Supreme Court case resulted in ending organized school prayer. She disappeared in 1995 and her dismembered body was found six years later.
The crowd booed an ACLU speaker and told her to "go back up north."
In the days after the meeting the community poured venom on the Dobriches. Callers to the local radio station said the family they should convert or leave the area. Someone called them and said the Ku Klux Klan was nearby.
The Dobriches finally had to move away after Nedd Karieva of the Stop the ACLU Coalition published their address for all to see. Here's Nedd's take on his little ploy:
Pogrom? I'm not sure I want to call it that. That is not an appropriate term, however, I am pleased that we had an effect in this case. We have others we want to put up on the site to shame them but have not gotten around to it. And I'm not so sure I can take credit for it. However, if an ACLU speaker was booed, that's music to my ears.
I would appreciate it if you would sign your actual name rather than JC Christian.
Regards,
Nedd Kareiva
Director
Translation: "Boy, we sure showed that Jew boy, didn't we? And we'll show anyone else who dares worship anyone but our Lord and Savior. After all, that's what He would have done."
I keep telling myself that this is the 21st century, a time of enlightenment, and that this is America, a land of religious freedom. And yet, I keep seeing all this evidence to the contrary.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
I Love This Land
I may hate all the crap that has happened to America over the last few years. The neutering of the media. The silencing of dissent. The fact that our politicians value corporations over the people. A war that has resulted in much more bad than good. A preisdent who seems determined to pervert the US Constitution.
But damnit, despite all this, I love America. And that's why I fight so hard. That's why I scream as loud as I can with this tiny voice. It's why I don't run for Canada or somewhere else. Because I love America, as it was, and I will gladly fight to see it restored.
Happy Fourth of July, everyone.
But damnit, despite all this, I love America. And that's why I fight so hard. That's why I scream as loud as I can with this tiny voice. It's why I don't run for Canada or somewhere else. Because I love America, as it was, and I will gladly fight to see it restored.
Happy Fourth of July, everyone.
"Oh, Yeah? Well... Screw You Guys!"
Joe Lieberman: "I'll run no matter how much you think I kiss Bush's ass, you puny Dems."
"I've been a proud, loyal and progressive Democrat since John F. Kennedy inspired my generation of Americans into public service and I will stay a Democrat, whether I am the Democraitic party's nominee or a petitioning Democratic candidate on the November ballot," Lieberman said.
Yes, because I'm sure "progressive" Democrats are: opposed to gay marriage; utterly fixated on the censorship of video games and rap songs; for the war in Iraq; and likely to be pecked on the cheek by Bush.
Here's hoping Lamont makes something of this.
"I've been a proud, loyal and progressive Democrat since John F. Kennedy inspired my generation of Americans into public service and I will stay a Democrat, whether I am the Democraitic party's nominee or a petitioning Democratic candidate on the November ballot," Lieberman said.
Yes, because I'm sure "progressive" Democrats are: opposed to gay marriage; utterly fixated on the censorship of video games and rap songs; for the war in Iraq; and likely to be pecked on the cheek by Bush.
Here's hoping Lamont makes something of this.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
You're Damn Right I'm Angry
Over the past few months, I've seen mainstream media sources talking about the "anger" of blogs. In their eyes, however, this is not a righteous anger at the current state of our nation, but an indiscriminate all-consuming rage that can only destroy our nation. And what do you know; apparently, it's mostly present in left wing blogs.
I've seen articles focusing on how left wing blogs rage about the state of America and use foul language, not really talking about the points that take up the space between the rage and the swear words. Michelle Malkin gets a book published about how the liberal blogosphere is full of nutjobs, which quotes mostly from anonymous comments on certain blogs. Lee Siegel of The New Republic paints Kos and his associates as fascistic viligantes.
And yet, I'm sure they'll all be rushing to either point out or denounce this disgusting mess:
So, in the school of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, we are providing this link so YOU may help the blogosphere in locating the homes (perhaps with photos?) of the editors and reporters of the New York Times.
Let’s start with the following New York Times reporters and editors: Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger Jr. , Bill Keller, Eric Lichtblau, and James Risen. Do you have an idea where they live?
Go hunt them down and do America a favor. Get their photo, street address, where their kids go to school, anything you can dig up, and send it to the link above. This is your chance to be famous - grab for the golden ring.
So, a blogger- not an anonymous poster, but a fucking blogger- has called on his posters to stalk a writer, a photographer, and their families, as well as put their personal lives up on the Internet for all to see, just because they belong to the New York Times and have reported on information that has already been reported by fucking NewsMax, of all sources. Keep in mind, of course, that this isn't the first time the right wing blogosphere, which holds itself high above those liberal moonbats, has resorted to enabling death threats to make a point.
Dear press: this is what an unhinged, unrestrained political rabble looks like.
UPDATE: Apparently, a commenter thought that it would be good if the flow of information went both ways, and published the personal info of the blogger who provided the personal info of the Times reporters. I swiftly deleted his ass. I won't see this horrendous offense against free speech turned into a race to the bottom. Any questions?
I've seen articles focusing on how left wing blogs rage about the state of America and use foul language, not really talking about the points that take up the space between the rage and the swear words. Michelle Malkin gets a book published about how the liberal blogosphere is full of nutjobs, which quotes mostly from anonymous comments on certain blogs. Lee Siegel of The New Republic paints Kos and his associates as fascistic viligantes.
And yet, I'm sure they'll all be rushing to either point out or denounce this disgusting mess:
So, in the school of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, we are providing this link so YOU may help the blogosphere in locating the homes (perhaps with photos?) of the editors and reporters of the New York Times.
Let’s start with the following New York Times reporters and editors: Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger Jr. , Bill Keller, Eric Lichtblau, and James Risen. Do you have an idea where they live?
Go hunt them down and do America a favor. Get their photo, street address, where their kids go to school, anything you can dig up, and send it to the link above. This is your chance to be famous - grab for the golden ring.
So, a blogger- not an anonymous poster, but a fucking blogger- has called on his posters to stalk a writer, a photographer, and their families, as well as put their personal lives up on the Internet for all to see, just because they belong to the New York Times and have reported on information that has already been reported by fucking NewsMax, of all sources. Keep in mind, of course, that this isn't the first time the right wing blogosphere, which holds itself high above those liberal moonbats, has resorted to enabling death threats to make a point.
Dear press: this is what an unhinged, unrestrained political rabble looks like.
UPDATE: Apparently, a commenter thought that it would be good if the flow of information went both ways, and published the personal info of the blogger who provided the personal info of the Times reporters. I swiftly deleted his ass. I won't see this horrendous offense against free speech turned into a race to the bottom. Any questions?
Saturday, July 01, 2006
FOX News: Your Official Voice For Big Brother
You'll be glad to know that FOX News has cast aside any pretentions of being anything other than this administration's Pravda:
HILL: What about -- in the past, we have had, at times, an Office of Censorship, where people review what is about -- is something that was -- it's going to be big, you've got to run it through and say, "OK. Does this hurt our country or is it of, you know, news value?
"And y'know, it needs a good name. Something that inspires trust... how does 'Ministry of Truth' sound?"
I know that is very unlikely that any men or women of the press are reading this blog, but I speak to you now. These people want to eat you alive. The administration, the pundits, the so-called "journalists" who are all in favor of sending the editor of the New York Times to the gas chamber-- they want you neutered, on a leash, and barking at their discretion. And they keep getting heard. Don't tell Ann Coulter that "it's always good having you" when she calls her earlier "jokes" about bombing the New York Times "prescient". Don't give Melanie Morgan a space to blather when she thinks that you should be sent to the Ninth Circle for reporting a story that has already been made public. If they want to see you made to say what the government wants you to say, then for God's sake, speak for yourselves and say "no".
HILL: What about -- in the past, we have had, at times, an Office of Censorship, where people review what is about -- is something that was -- it's going to be big, you've got to run it through and say, "OK. Does this hurt our country or is it of, you know, news value?
"And y'know, it needs a good name. Something that inspires trust... how does 'Ministry of Truth' sound?"
I know that is very unlikely that any men or women of the press are reading this blog, but I speak to you now. These people want to eat you alive. The administration, the pundits, the so-called "journalists" who are all in favor of sending the editor of the New York Times to the gas chamber-- they want you neutered, on a leash, and barking at their discretion. And they keep getting heard. Don't tell Ann Coulter that "it's always good having you" when she calls her earlier "jokes" about bombing the New York Times "prescient". Don't give Melanie Morgan a space to blather when she thinks that you should be sent to the Ninth Circle for reporting a story that has already been made public. If they want to see you made to say what the government wants you to say, then for God's sake, speak for yourselves and say "no".
