Wednesday, January 25, 2006
For Symmetry's Sake: It Kept Me Up Last Night, Again
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Support the Troops?
Hey, why the hell should I support people who are carrying out the whims of a president I don't like. They chose to sign up for the military; hopefully they were well informed on their duties before registering (otherwise I pity them). So for all intensive purposes, I believe my answer is no. No I do not support the troops. I support our men and women insofar as I don't wish to see them maimed or killed. I support their right to do with their lives whatever they wish. I respect their decision to put their lives in the hands of our president. However, because I don't support the war in any of its aspects or on any of its fronts, I cannot support the troops or their actions abroad at this time. If the war was just, sure I'd support them. I'd even fly one of those mini flags on my mail box or bumper sticker the back of my car to hell. Only of course, if the war was just.
Now I know what some people are going to say, republicans mostly, and those who can't think outside the box, or for themselves. "You're not being patriotic!" To this I can only reply, "NO SHIT." If being patriotic means supporting all of my country's endeavors into other nations, regardless of intent, endangering the lives of our service men and women, and making my country the laughing stock of the rest of the world, then yes I am un-patriotic in your eyes.
I like to see it as I am being more patriotic by choosing to express my true feelings instead of waving my rights in an effort of bipartisan camaraderie. I am patriotic, I use my rights on a daily basis. I fight for what I see as the best route for this country to take. I believe that when our leaders have veered off course, that is the responsibility of every citizen to help correct them. I am a Patriot.
Furthermore, I don't fly flags and I don't pledge allegiance to any symbol. That's what they are, symbols. I think George Carlin put it best. He said that "it's best to leave symbols to the simpleminded." If there was a pledge to the freedoms of speech, religion, press, petition, etc. I'd sure as hell pledge to that. But I won't pledge my allegiance to a country, if in doing so I pledge myself to unfailing support for it's leaders. Will I stand for the National Anthem? Yes, that's different. Instead of concerning yourself with singing it next time you're at a ballgame (though I am in support of that too) just listen to the words and see what this country was founded on and the sacrifices of the men and women who made it so.
Then they say that this is the same thing, that support for our Founding Fathers and support for our troops today requires the same commitment, that I'm a hypocrite. Unfortunately, if you really think those thoughts through you'd see the difference. (I support the troops from WWI and WWII too if it matters.) It is humanly possible to believe in one war and not another because of the reasons behind it. The way I see it is that you people who decide that capital punishment is okay but euthanasia or abortion is not are the ones being hypocrites.
Yet I know, maybe you have reasons too. Then again, once your dead, there's no reparation for a crime, there's no suffering, unless you believe in hell that is. By the way, it's also considered a sin to believe that someone is going to hell. Did you know that? Of course, frying someone is much better than making them labor out the rest of their lives building us shit, being a productive member of society and all. Besides, who gave the government the right to end a person's life? But I digress, this has little to do with the troops.
If you want to support our troops why not do them a favor and bring them home. How about this, instead of buying flags or yellow ribbons, send them a couple of dollars so they can properly equip themselves. Now that's supporting the troops. Hell I'd even do that; I don't want them to die after all. Besides, I'm sure they'd be more grateful for flak jackets than they would for yellow ribbons and flags (left out in the rain or tied to a car and progressively shredded). Then again, maybe some of them are simpleminded too just like the rest of you. Me, I'm practical. To me, helping the troops has to be something tangible, something that will keep them alive on the battlefield.
But hey, I know what you're thinking. I'm nuts right. Sure as Hell I am. Besides, what's a democrat to do? Actually fighting a war would be too much, right? Funny thing is, I am fighting a war, you're just to simpleminded to figure it out.
PROOF POSITIVE... Something in the last paragraph can be taken two ways. Do you see it?
Now I know what some people are going to say, republicans mostly, and those who can't think outside the box, or for themselves. "You're not being patriotic!" To this I can only reply, "NO SHIT." If being patriotic means supporting all of my country's endeavors into other nations, regardless of intent, endangering the lives of our service men and women, and making my country the laughing stock of the rest of the world, then yes I am un-patriotic in your eyes.
I like to see it as I am being more patriotic by choosing to express my true feelings instead of waving my rights in an effort of bipartisan camaraderie. I am patriotic, I use my rights on a daily basis. I fight for what I see as the best route for this country to take. I believe that when our leaders have veered off course, that is the responsibility of every citizen to help correct them. I am a Patriot.
Furthermore, I don't fly flags and I don't pledge allegiance to any symbol. That's what they are, symbols. I think George Carlin put it best. He said that "it's best to leave symbols to the simpleminded." If there was a pledge to the freedoms of speech, religion, press, petition, etc. I'd sure as hell pledge to that. But I won't pledge my allegiance to a country, if in doing so I pledge myself to unfailing support for it's leaders. Will I stand for the National Anthem? Yes, that's different. Instead of concerning yourself with singing it next time you're at a ballgame (though I am in support of that too) just listen to the words and see what this country was founded on and the sacrifices of the men and women who made it so.
Then they say that this is the same thing, that support for our Founding Fathers and support for our troops today requires the same commitment, that I'm a hypocrite. Unfortunately, if you really think those thoughts through you'd see the difference. (I support the troops from WWI and WWII too if it matters.) It is humanly possible to believe in one war and not another because of the reasons behind it. The way I see it is that you people who decide that capital punishment is okay but euthanasia or abortion is not are the ones being hypocrites.
Yet I know, maybe you have reasons too. Then again, once your dead, there's no reparation for a crime, there's no suffering, unless you believe in hell that is. By the way, it's also considered a sin to believe that someone is going to hell. Did you know that? Of course, frying someone is much better than making them labor out the rest of their lives building us shit, being a productive member of society and all. Besides, who gave the government the right to end a person's life? But I digress, this has little to do with the troops.
If you want to support our troops why not do them a favor and bring them home. How about this, instead of buying flags or yellow ribbons, send them a couple of dollars so they can properly equip themselves. Now that's supporting the troops. Hell I'd even do that; I don't want them to die after all. Besides, I'm sure they'd be more grateful for flak jackets than they would for yellow ribbons and flags (left out in the rain or tied to a car and progressively shredded). Then again, maybe some of them are simpleminded too just like the rest of you. Me, I'm practical. To me, helping the troops has to be something tangible, something that will keep them alive on the battlefield.
But hey, I know what you're thinking. I'm nuts right. Sure as Hell I am. Besides, what's a democrat to do? Actually fighting a war would be too much, right? Funny thing is, I am fighting a war, you're just to simpleminded to figure it out.
PROOF POSITIVE... Something in the last paragraph can be taken two ways. Do you see it?
Monday, January 23, 2006
Our Neighbors to the North Among Other Things
Today might not seem like that big of a day in the life of average Americans, but it is for our friends to the north. Today is Canada's election day. Let me be the first person to congratulate the apparent winner, Stephen Harper. And allow me if you will to provide you with a brief description of his qualifications... He graduated from the University of Calgary with a masters degree in economics, founded the Reform Party, was elected to the House of Commons (1993-1997), leader of the Canadian Alliance in 2002, united them with the Progressive Conservative Party, and in 2004 was selected to lead the new Conservative Party for which his presently ran for Prime Minister.
That said, what does it matter to us here in the States?
Simple, he is a hardline conservative compared by competitors to the likes of George W. Bush and Pat Robertson. Of course, you can take that for a grain of salt if you wish. They are competitors after all.
Paul Martin, the present Prime Minister, used this tactic because Canadians don't like George W. Bush or American politics in general. The only reason Harper may be elected is because the Liberal Party has been under scrutiny as of late. A couple of bad apples are going to ruin the political pie for Canada for the next couple of years. Again, if you're conservative you wouldn't mention this. Of course if it were the other way around, I'm sure there are some liberals who wouldn't mention it either. (Again, the grain of salt thing.)
All I can hope is that the polls are wrong (and they have been in the past), that Martin will win and Stephen Harper, Jack Layton, and Gilles Duceppe will lose. I am after all against most of what these people believe.
Canada just passed a law allowing civil unions -- as close to gay marriage as semantic-driven simpleminded people could be expected to agree upon. (Not just in Canada but in the U.S. too.)
I don't believe in civil unions, but so long as simpleminded fools are in charge, so be it. I believe that everyone is equal. Not because a document tells me they are, not because God tells me they are, but because I believe that to expect fair treatment one must return fair treatment. I expect to be treated fairly, therefore I treat others fairly. I do not believe that it is right to alienate or ostracize anyone for their beliefs, feelings, or opinions and likewise expect that others will do the same for me. If they don't then fuck them. They can believe whatever they want, but I won't respect them for it. I may respect them for other reasons, but that's beside the point. (Not everyone's perfect, but we're making progress.)
Therefore, I believe in equality regardless of any factors whatsoever. Steven Harper is against gay marriage. And even if he says that he won't overturn laws allowing it, I still will not respect him for holding those views. (Though in the large view, my opinion doesn't seem to matter, in the end it's all we have, if conservatives get their way. I mean, when freedoms of press, petition, and privacy are gone, what is there to do?)
Reality check, Harper was defeated by Martin in 2004. So, in the off-years he has weaked his views on many key issues such as health insurance and immigration so that he could pick up a stronger voter base in eastern Canada. Coupled with a weakened Liberal Party, he saw an opening. The thing is, after he's in charge, who's to say which version of him the world will see. Time will tell.
Of course Harper's election could have a small impact on politics in this country. He is after all a supporter of George W. Bush. Therefore they will represent some 3/4 of the population of the North America. Unfortunately, Bush only is respected by 35-40 of the U.S. and nearly none of Canada. Likewise, very few people in the U.S. have ever even heard of Stephen Harper, unless of course they're talking of the principle on a formerly popular TV show: Boston Public.
On a personal level I understand why Canadians are (seemingly) voting for Harper even though 3 of every 4 elections in the past century in Canada have gone to liberals. They want to squash corruption in their political process. Perhaps Ian Stewart, political science professor at Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia puts it best:
"Once a generation, Canadians get exceedingly cross with Liberals' egregiously high sense of entitlement and kick them out of office for their own rehabilitation."
On the bright side, Bush will only be around for three more years and in the broad scheme of things (no offense, really) Canada doesn't have a lot to do with world politics -- lucky them. So I guess what I'm saying is that Dubya may have another crony soon, but at least compared to the others he's claimed, Harper's a minor one.
I take great satisfaction in realizing that someday I will be able to tell my grandchildren that whatever conservative group may come to power in their day, that Dubya trumped them all. Never has a more inept man come to a position of power in the history of the world. At least when Hitler killed himself, the world was able to move on -- the Holocaust was over. When Dubya leaves, I know we'll be feeling the affects of his presidency for a long time. On the bright side, though I would like a liberal to win the presidency in 2008, I won't be as annoyed if a conservative did because in experiencing the policies of Bush, I can no longer fear Hell, because I've lived it. (Not that I feared Hell before, being agnostic and all.)
P.S. If you take offence to what I have said, now or ever, then forget you ever read it. It wasn't for you in the first place. And if you didn't understand it let me clarify: I am not a bigot. I am a Democrat. If you believe in the values of the Republican Party on social issues then I'm sorry, I see you as a bigot. I'm sorry if that makes you mad. I know plenty of people who are decent otherwise, and think of them no less. I'm very sorry but I can't support hate.
Peace.
That said, what does it matter to us here in the States?
Simple, he is a hardline conservative compared by competitors to the likes of George W. Bush and Pat Robertson. Of course, you can take that for a grain of salt if you wish. They are competitors after all.
Paul Martin, the present Prime Minister, used this tactic because Canadians don't like George W. Bush or American politics in general. The only reason Harper may be elected is because the Liberal Party has been under scrutiny as of late. A couple of bad apples are going to ruin the political pie for Canada for the next couple of years. Again, if you're conservative you wouldn't mention this. Of course if it were the other way around, I'm sure there are some liberals who wouldn't mention it either. (Again, the grain of salt thing.)
All I can hope is that the polls are wrong (and they have been in the past), that Martin will win and Stephen Harper, Jack Layton, and Gilles Duceppe will lose. I am after all against most of what these people believe.
Canada just passed a law allowing civil unions -- as close to gay marriage as semantic-driven simpleminded people could be expected to agree upon. (Not just in Canada but in the U.S. too.)
I don't believe in civil unions, but so long as simpleminded fools are in charge, so be it. I believe that everyone is equal. Not because a document tells me they are, not because God tells me they are, but because I believe that to expect fair treatment one must return fair treatment. I expect to be treated fairly, therefore I treat others fairly. I do not believe that it is right to alienate or ostracize anyone for their beliefs, feelings, or opinions and likewise expect that others will do the same for me. If they don't then fuck them. They can believe whatever they want, but I won't respect them for it. I may respect them for other reasons, but that's beside the point. (Not everyone's perfect, but we're making progress.)
Therefore, I believe in equality regardless of any factors whatsoever. Steven Harper is against gay marriage. And even if he says that he won't overturn laws allowing it, I still will not respect him for holding those views. (Though in the large view, my opinion doesn't seem to matter, in the end it's all we have, if conservatives get their way. I mean, when freedoms of press, petition, and privacy are gone, what is there to do?)
Reality check, Harper was defeated by Martin in 2004. So, in the off-years he has weaked his views on many key issues such as health insurance and immigration so that he could pick up a stronger voter base in eastern Canada. Coupled with a weakened Liberal Party, he saw an opening. The thing is, after he's in charge, who's to say which version of him the world will see. Time will tell.
Of course Harper's election could have a small impact on politics in this country. He is after all a supporter of George W. Bush. Therefore they will represent some 3/4 of the population of the North America. Unfortunately, Bush only is respected by 35-40 of the U.S. and nearly none of Canada. Likewise, very few people in the U.S. have ever even heard of Stephen Harper, unless of course they're talking of the principle on a formerly popular TV show: Boston Public.
On a personal level I understand why Canadians are (seemingly) voting for Harper even though 3 of every 4 elections in the past century in Canada have gone to liberals. They want to squash corruption in their political process. Perhaps Ian Stewart, political science professor at Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia puts it best:
"Once a generation, Canadians get exceedingly cross with Liberals' egregiously high sense of entitlement and kick them out of office for their own rehabilitation."
On the bright side, Bush will only be around for three more years and in the broad scheme of things (no offense, really) Canada doesn't have a lot to do with world politics -- lucky them. So I guess what I'm saying is that Dubya may have another crony soon, but at least compared to the others he's claimed, Harper's a minor one.
I take great satisfaction in realizing that someday I will be able to tell my grandchildren that whatever conservative group may come to power in their day, that Dubya trumped them all. Never has a more inept man come to a position of power in the history of the world. At least when Hitler killed himself, the world was able to move on -- the Holocaust was over. When Dubya leaves, I know we'll be feeling the affects of his presidency for a long time. On the bright side, though I would like a liberal to win the presidency in 2008, I won't be as annoyed if a conservative did because in experiencing the policies of Bush, I can no longer fear Hell, because I've lived it. (Not that I feared Hell before, being agnostic and all.)
P.S. If you take offence to what I have said, now or ever, then forget you ever read it. It wasn't for you in the first place. And if you didn't understand it let me clarify: I am not a bigot. I am a Democrat. If you believe in the values of the Republican Party on social issues then I'm sorry, I see you as a bigot. I'm sorry if that makes you mad. I know plenty of people who are decent otherwise, and think of them no less. I'm very sorry but I can't support hate.
Peace.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Just a Thought...
Hey I bet I know where Osama Bin Laden is. Try looking in India. By the way, if I were him I would have shaved and left traditional Arabic attire behind. You'd be surprised how easily an Arab can mix in with Indians (not offense intended). It's gonna be hard to find him. Trust me. Like it or not, he is a brilliant man. He knows that the U.S. is looking for him in Afghanistan and isn't stupid enough to travel to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Iran. Pakistan is too close too. The Philippians are too far. He's in India.
Also, in his last speech he mentioned Pentagon records regarding the deaths of American soldiers on the rise. The first question I ask is why mention the Pentagon? He could just as easily have just said that deaths were on the rise without mentioning the Pentagon. In naming a specific source, I am led to believe that he has access to the Internet. It could be just a coincidence, but the way I see it, he has always chosen his words carefully, maybe this time he slipped a bit. Intelligent as I give him credit for, I don't think he's that intelligent. Or maybe it's just a very clever, multi-level ruse and he's really still in a cave somewhere. Who knows.
Also, in his last speech he mentioned Pentagon records regarding the deaths of American soldiers on the rise. The first question I ask is why mention the Pentagon? He could just as easily have just said that deaths were on the rise without mentioning the Pentagon. In naming a specific source, I am led to believe that he has access to the Internet. It could be just a coincidence, but the way I see it, he has always chosen his words carefully, maybe this time he slipped a bit. Intelligent as I give him credit for, I don't think he's that intelligent. Or maybe it's just a very clever, multi-level ruse and he's really still in a cave somewhere. Who knows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)