Friday, July 30, 2004
Michael Wiener on Maya Angelou
Michael Wiener (aka Michael Savage) insulted one of the country's greatest poets, Maya Angelou, on his radio show on the 27th of July, after Maya Angelou spoke at the Democratic National Convention. Here is what he said:
First of all, the disrespect this man showed to Maya Angelou was beyond chutzpah. To call her a dirtbag is just... Wow, Michael wiener is a big arse.
The only thing I can surmise is that Michel wiener is threatened by Maya Angelou's success as a writer and poet. I can only guess that he is jealous of the fact that he will never achieve the success Maya has. Oh, he has a radio show and he has written a book or two, but I bet Maya's books have been read by more people than his books have or ever will. Michael wiener rants about Maya Angelou's honourary degrees. I thought no matter where you got your degree from, it was purchased. It is called tuition. Sure, you have to show up for class, but basically, you buy it with hard work and money. Honourary degrees are earned as well. They are earned for work done in a field during one's lifetime. Yes, they are not "real" degrees, but they come from genuine institutions like Harvard, Yale, and the like. I think that green-eyed monster called jealousy is rearing its ugly head in Michael wiener again because Maya has more honourary degrees than he can evrer hope to get.
Poor, poor Michael Wiener. He cannot be as liked or as popular as Maya Angelou, so he calls her names. Aww, pobrecito!
Michael Wiener (aka Michael Savage) insulted one of the country's greatest poets, Maya Angelou, on his radio show on the 27th of July, after Maya Angelou spoke at the Democratic National Convention. Here is what he said:
ANGELOU: "Do not always crush the weak. And the dream of democracy is not in the sole possession of the strong."
SAVAGE: Who does she think she's talking to, a college group of junkies? Boo, hiss -- get the cane for this liar. Get her off the stand, this moron. You fraud. Fifty-thousand dollars a pop for this crap at colleges.
ANGELOU: "That every American everywhere."
SAVAGE: Aw, shut up! We all have freedom! Or else a dirtbag like you wouldn't be up there! ... They make $50,000 a speech to a bunch of junkie college students, they scream about no freedom and oppression in America! Fifty-thousand dollars, running around to all the potheads around America. Oh oppression, oh oppression -- oooohhh Klu Klux Klannnnn, oh bring me home ... oh Ku Klux Klan that man from Texas ... oooh the white sheets are rustling ... oh gimme the freedom ... ooooh Ku Klux Klan ... $50,000, please. On to the next college. ...You know she has a lot of guts to get up there, knowing that she's not a poet, knowing she's conning the world -- Doctor Maya Angelou -- my dog has a bigger doctorate than she does. They granted her a fake degree, an honorary deg -- an honorary degree you buy. They give you one, I earned a real one from a great university, so I know what it is to earn a real doctorate, and I respect 'em. But I spit on people with honorary degrees. They're worthless. They're like mail-order degrees but cheaper.
First of all, the disrespect this man showed to Maya Angelou was beyond chutzpah. To call her a dirtbag is just... Wow, Michael wiener is a big arse.
The only thing I can surmise is that Michel wiener is threatened by Maya Angelou's success as a writer and poet. I can only guess that he is jealous of the fact that he will never achieve the success Maya has. Oh, he has a radio show and he has written a book or two, but I bet Maya's books have been read by more people than his books have or ever will. Michael wiener rants about Maya Angelou's honourary degrees. I thought no matter where you got your degree from, it was purchased. It is called tuition. Sure, you have to show up for class, but basically, you buy it with hard work and money. Honourary degrees are earned as well. They are earned for work done in a field during one's lifetime. Yes, they are not "real" degrees, but they come from genuine institutions like Harvard, Yale, and the like. I think that green-eyed monster called jealousy is rearing its ugly head in Michael wiener again because Maya has more honourary degrees than he can evrer hope to get.
Poor, poor Michael Wiener. He cannot be as liked or as popular as Maya Angelou, so he calls her names. Aww, pobrecito!
Thursday, July 29, 2004
What Will They not Let You Do Next?
A woman, Stephanie Willett, was arrested in Washington DC for eating a PayDay candy bar! I could not believe what I had read on Yahoo! News. From the article, Willett was the second person arrested this year for eating or drinking. In addition, police have issued 58 tickets and given more than 300 written warnings. I find that completely amazing. For eating or drinking? What will they prevent next? Talking?
I can understand trying to secure the Washington Metro, but food or drinks are not going to contribute to terrorism. They may contribute to trash, but then those who leave the trash can be cited for littering. I just think this is one of the dumb laws we have in this country. Instead of watching for food and drinks, the Transit Police should be watching for guns, knives, and bombs.
A woman, Stephanie Willett, was arrested in Washington DC for eating a PayDay candy bar! I could not believe what I had read on Yahoo! News. From the article, Willett was the second person arrested this year for eating or drinking. In addition, police have issued 58 tickets and given more than 300 written warnings. I find that completely amazing. For eating or drinking? What will they prevent next? Talking?
I can understand trying to secure the Washington Metro, but food or drinks are not going to contribute to terrorism. They may contribute to trash, but then those who leave the trash can be cited for littering. I just think this is one of the dumb laws we have in this country. Instead of watching for food and drinks, the Transit Police should be watching for guns, knives, and bombs.
Convention
I have a television. It is a really nice one. I do not use it to watch television, though. I mostly use it for my computer and for watching movies. Even if I did watch television, the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB, and UPN) will not be carrying much of either the Democratic or Republican National Conventions. The major networks leave that up to their cable subsidiaries.
I think that is a shame. The major networks broadcast over the public airways. I think they should broadcast at least four hours of the Conventions. Let Americans see what happens at the Conventions. Let Americans see how their democratic process works. True, the ratings for the Conventions may be low. However, I think showing two Conventions every four year would not hurt the major networks all that much.
Just think, you could have something like, "The Republican Convention is brought to you by..." "Watch as Democratic Convention delegates..."
I have a television. It is a really nice one. I do not use it to watch television, though. I mostly use it for my computer and for watching movies. Even if I did watch television, the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB, and UPN) will not be carrying much of either the Democratic or Republican National Conventions. The major networks leave that up to their cable subsidiaries.
I think that is a shame. The major networks broadcast over the public airways. I think they should broadcast at least four hours of the Conventions. Let Americans see what happens at the Conventions. Let Americans see how their democratic process works. True, the ratings for the Conventions may be low. However, I think showing two Conventions every four year would not hurt the major networks all that much.
Just think, you could have something like, "The Republican Convention is brought to you by..." "Watch as Democratic Convention delegates..."
Monday, July 26, 2004
Riding and Bush
I think it is good President Bush is doing some form of cardiovascular exercise. He gave up jogging because his knee was giving him problems. So he started taking up the bicycle. He just needs to learn to stay on the darn thing.
ABC News tells a heart-pumping story about President Bush's most recent tumble off his mountain bike. This is, I think, the second or third time he's fallen off the bike. I guess in his case, you can forget how to ride a bike.
It is not just bikes he cannot stay on. I remember he could not even stay on a Segway! Those things (after they were fixed) were supposed to be next to impossible to fall off. Yet, President Bush did the next-to-impossible. He fell off.
I wonder if this is indicative of how he handles the country. He crashes it just to get back on and crash it all over again. And this is the man some people want for four more years?
I think it is good President Bush is doing some form of cardiovascular exercise. He gave up jogging because his knee was giving him problems. So he started taking up the bicycle. He just needs to learn to stay on the darn thing.
ABC News tells a heart-pumping story about President Bush's most recent tumble off his mountain bike. This is, I think, the second or third time he's fallen off the bike. I guess in his case, you can forget how to ride a bike.
It is not just bikes he cannot stay on. I remember he could not even stay on a Segway! Those things (after they were fixed) were supposed to be next to impossible to fall off. Yet, President Bush did the next-to-impossible. He fell off.
I wonder if this is indicative of how he handles the country. He crashes it just to get back on and crash it all over again. And this is the man some people want for four more years?
Margaret Cho: A Class Act
Here is the verbatim text from Margaret Cho regarding her being disinvited from the Unity 2004 event:
Here is the verbatim text from Margaret Cho regarding her being disinvited from the Unity 2004 event:
I am very disappointed not to be going to the Democratic National Convention, as I wholeheartedly believe that this election is vital to the future of our nation, and no one has more emotionally invested in the outcome than I.
Although I don't believe it was the right decision, I am not angry with the HRC for withdrawing their invitation for me to perform. I will continue to support them, for we must remain united. Divided, we are of little use to each other. Unfortunately, I hear they have felt the destructive power of division as a result of their actions.
I regret any harm that may have been done to them, and to the important cause of democracy. I believe in the right for all Americans to be equal, and for us to be treated with decency and respect, no matter who we are. As long as we reside within these borders, and call ourselves citizens of this great nation, we have a responsibility to uphold that greatness.
I will continue to do my part, to rise above the unjust and unfair always, even when that justice and fairness is being withheld by my own people.
I think Margaret Cho is a class act. I agree we all have to be united to get this current administration out of power. However, I am still not happy with the decision HRC made to remove her from Unity 2004.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
HRC
I have been a member of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for the past couple of years. Every year at Pride, I renew my membership. I had great respect for the organisation until I read something over at dKos.
It really pisses me off that the HRC would unilaterally uninvite Margaret Cho from their (and other's) Unity 2004 event. She was the headliner. You don't drop the headliner unless they do something wrong and go to jail, become ill, or have some other emergency that would prevent them from performing.
That is not what appears to have happened. The HRC did not have the balls to stand up to the "potential media firestorm." Fuck the media firestorm. It's not like the HRC is selling weight loss shakes. Margaret Cho has been an outspoken supporter and defender of gays and lesbians for quite a while. Did no one at the HRC watch any of her previous shows? You cannot tell me that they were ignorant of the fact that she is very edgy. If they were, then they are in worse trouble than I can imagine.
I was asked to volunteer again for an HRC dinner here in San Antonio. I initially accepted. I will now volunteer for other GLBT organisations. I will also not be renewing my HRC membership next year. They are a pathetic and spineless organisation. They need to stop being appeasers of people who wouldn't give us the time of day.
Until they apologise to Margaret Cho and put her back on the show, I will have nothing more to do with the HRC. Oh. I will support other GLBT organisations, just not HRC. Hell hath not fury as a Cho Beau scorned.
I have been a member of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for the past couple of years. Every year at Pride, I renew my membership. I had great respect for the organisation until I read something over at dKos.
It really pisses me off that the HRC would unilaterally uninvite Margaret Cho from their (and other's) Unity 2004 event. She was the headliner. You don't drop the headliner unless they do something wrong and go to jail, become ill, or have some other emergency that would prevent them from performing.
That is not what appears to have happened. The HRC did not have the balls to stand up to the "potential media firestorm." Fuck the media firestorm. It's not like the HRC is selling weight loss shakes. Margaret Cho has been an outspoken supporter and defender of gays and lesbians for quite a while. Did no one at the HRC watch any of her previous shows? You cannot tell me that they were ignorant of the fact that she is very edgy. If they were, then they are in worse trouble than I can imagine.
I was asked to volunteer again for an HRC dinner here in San Antonio. I initially accepted. I will now volunteer for other GLBT organisations. I will also not be renewing my HRC membership next year. They are a pathetic and spineless organisation. They need to stop being appeasers of people who wouldn't give us the time of day.
Until they apologise to Margaret Cho and put her back on the show, I will have nothing more to do with the HRC. Oh. I will support other GLBT organisations, just not HRC. Hell hath not fury as a Cho Beau scorned.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Franken Beats O'Reilly
I listen to Air America Radio via my Sirius satellite radio on my drive in to work. I like Morning Sedition with Mark Riley and Marc Maron. Then I go in to my work place and have to enjoy the silence since I work in the middle of my building and I cannot listen to streaming audio because of bandwidth limitations.
It was awesome to hear that the O'Franken Factor beat Bill O'Reilly's radio show in New York. Yahoo News! reports that the O'Franken Factor beat Bill O'Reilly's radio show with a 2.6 share versus a 1.1 share in the 24-54 age group. Any way you look at it, that is a resounding clobbering! I bet Bill O'Reilly is going to spin the numbers and say that he is on across the US. I guess once Air America radio, which is a fledgling station, goes nation-wide, we will see much of the same across the country.
I listen to Air America Radio via my Sirius satellite radio on my drive in to work. I like Morning Sedition with Mark Riley and Marc Maron. Then I go in to my work place and have to enjoy the silence since I work in the middle of my building and I cannot listen to streaming audio because of bandwidth limitations.
It was awesome to hear that the O'Franken Factor beat Bill O'Reilly's radio show in New York. Yahoo News! reports that the O'Franken Factor beat Bill O'Reilly's radio show with a 2.6 share versus a 1.1 share in the 24-54 age group. Any way you look at it, that is a resounding clobbering! I bet Bill O'Reilly is going to spin the numbers and say that he is on across the US. I guess once Air America radio, which is a fledgling station, goes nation-wide, we will see much of the same across the country.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Would Jesus Approve?
I think religion, as long as it is used for positive, constructive purposes is good. When religion is used to persecute, harass, and worse, then people have to start asking questions. The Pilgrims and other early settlers traveled to America to escape religious persecution. We can no longer flee from the powers that be to a new land.
President Bush makes it a point to mention that he is a born-again Christian. I think the brand of Christianity he and others on the religious right would be nothing that Jesus Christ would recognise.
Jesus preached love of one's neighbour and forgiving them. He lived among the poor, the mistreated, and the pariahs of society. He spoke to people, like the Samarian woman, even though custom and her circumstances would have prevented even his own disciples from speaking to her. The early church worked for the common good of every one. The members sold their possessions and goods and gave to anyone as they had need. (Acts 2:44-45 )
They accepted Gentiles (people the early Christians did not fully include, initially, because of their Jewish upbringing) into their flock. Even the Book of Matthew has some insight:
What I see with the several churches now is greed. A few churches have become money-making machines. They have become corrupt and pervert the teachings of Jesus. They preach hate, acquisition of wealth, and persecution of groups that do not share their points of view. They have become like the Pharisees and Sadeucees of Jesus' time.
I am not sure how much of the Bible Bush has read. He has said he does not like to read. The Bible has quite a few words. It may be too much for him. If he has read the Bible, he may have only read parts. He may prefer for the preacher to tell him what is in it every Sunday, as he does when he gets his Presidential Daily Briefings. I say to you that Bush and the religious Right are not following the teachings of Jesus properly. If they were, they would help the poor more. If they did, they would follow teachings as in Luke:
As soon as people realise that the Religious Right is neither religious nor right, things in this country will change - for the better.
I think religion, as long as it is used for positive, constructive purposes is good. When religion is used to persecute, harass, and worse, then people have to start asking questions. The Pilgrims and other early settlers traveled to America to escape religious persecution. We can no longer flee from the powers that be to a new land.
President Bush makes it a point to mention that he is a born-again Christian. I think the brand of Christianity he and others on the religious right would be nothing that Jesus Christ would recognise.
Jesus preached love of one's neighbour and forgiving them. He lived among the poor, the mistreated, and the pariahs of society. He spoke to people, like the Samarian woman, even though custom and her circumstances would have prevented even his own disciples from speaking to her. The early church worked for the common good of every one. The members sold their possessions and goods and gave to anyone as they had need. (Acts 2:44-45 )
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. (Acts 4:32-34)
They accepted Gentiles (people the early Christians did not fully include, initially, because of their Jewish upbringing) into their flock. Even the Book of Matthew has some insight:
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:21-24).
What I see with the several churches now is greed. A few churches have become money-making machines. They have become corrupt and pervert the teachings of Jesus. They preach hate, acquisition of wealth, and persecution of groups that do not share their points of view. They have become like the Pharisees and Sadeucees of Jesus' time.
I am not sure how much of the Bible Bush has read. He has said he does not like to read. The Bible has quite a few words. It may be too much for him. If he has read the Bible, he may have only read parts. He may prefer for the preacher to tell him what is in it every Sunday, as he does when he gets his Presidential Daily Briefings. I say to you that Bush and the religious Right are not following the teachings of Jesus properly. If they were, they would help the poor more. If they did, they would follow teachings as in Luke:
"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. (Luke 6:27-36)
As soon as people realise that the Religious Right is neither religious nor right, things in this country will change - for the better.
No Response from Senators
I wrote to my Senators, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn,on the 9th of July via the forms on their web sites. I have yet to even get even an e-mail back. Here is my letter to them:
I wrote to my Senators, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn,on the 9th of July via the forms on their web sites. I have yet to even get even an e-mail back. Here is my letter to them:
I realise you and your office may have been inundated with telephone calls, e-mail messages, and letters concerning the Federal Marriage Amendment. That may be why I did not even get a cursory response. I used your web site to send my initial message to let you know how at least on of your constituents feels.
In this age of automated offices and electronic messaging, I find it quite disappointing that you and your office could not even send a simple "We received your message. Thank you for your input."
I am also disappointed that you cosponsored the Federal Marriage Amendment. I am still further disappointed that you decided to vot for cloture to bring the proposed Amendment to the floor.
In my previous message to you I voiced my opinion that the Federal Marriage Amendment would enshrine discrimination against people like me into the Constitution. That you would be against equality for all Americans is amazing to me. Marriage is not threatened by people who want the same rights as the rest of Americans. Marriage is threatened by easy divorce, quick marriages, and unwillingness for people to commit to one another.
I have many gay and lesbian friends who have been in long-lasting, committed, monogamous relationships. Their relationships have lasted far longer than many of my straight friends' marriages. That they and I cannot enjoy the same rights that my straight friends can is what is wrong with the entire agenda being pushed.
I hope that you do not disappoint me again.
Sincerely,
Activist Judges
I am happy that the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) did not even get a simple majority of votes to have a cloture vote. It lost 48 to 50. Yay!
I am disappointed in my representatives, Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn. I sent them, via their web site, a note voicing my opposition to the FMA. I did not even get back a simple response stating something to the effect, "Thank you for your concerns. The Senator receives many messages from constituents per day. As soon as the Senator gets a chance, you will get a reply." I mean, if I can get an automated response when I order items online, shouldn't I be able to get a simple form e-mail? To me, that means my elected representatives do not care to hear another side of the story. They have made up their minds, stuck their fingers in their ears, and said, "La, la, la, la... La, la, la, la..."
Now, the Republicans in the House of Representatives want to get in on the "Let's not give gays and lesbians equal rights" action. Yahoo! News has an article about House Republicans pushing forward a bill that would make sure federal courts don't order states to recognize same-sex unions sanctioned outside their borders. So they are going to limit the judiciary's right to enforce the Constitutional rights of Americans? I wonder if these same people would have limited the activist judges who desegregated schools. I wonder if these same people would have limited activist judges who helped women gain many important rights they now have.
These people piss me off so much. They cannot even get the votes needed to vote on the Federal Hate Amendment, so they are going to try to circumvent judges duties and responsibilities to protect Americans from laws that are not Constitutional. Are these the people Americans want representing them?
I am happy that the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) did not even get a simple majority of votes to have a cloture vote. It lost 48 to 50. Yay!
I am disappointed in my representatives, Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn. I sent them, via their web site, a note voicing my opposition to the FMA. I did not even get back a simple response stating something to the effect, "Thank you for your concerns. The Senator receives many messages from constituents per day. As soon as the Senator gets a chance, you will get a reply." I mean, if I can get an automated response when I order items online, shouldn't I be able to get a simple form e-mail? To me, that means my elected representatives do not care to hear another side of the story. They have made up their minds, stuck their fingers in their ears, and said, "La, la, la, la... La, la, la, la..."
Now, the Republicans in the House of Representatives want to get in on the "Let's not give gays and lesbians equal rights" action. Yahoo! News has an article about House Republicans pushing forward a bill that would make sure federal courts don't order states to recognize same-sex unions sanctioned outside their borders. So they are going to limit the judiciary's right to enforce the Constitutional rights of Americans? I wonder if these same people would have limited the activist judges who desegregated schools. I wonder if these same people would have limited activist judges who helped women gain many important rights they now have.
These people piss me off so much. They cannot even get the votes needed to vote on the Federal Hate Amendment, so they are going to try to circumvent judges duties and responsibilities to protect Americans from laws that are not Constitutional. Are these the people Americans want representing them?
Monday, July 12, 2004
Republicans and Beastiality
First, Rick Santorum, Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, said:
Now one of the my representatives, Republican Senator John Cornyn from Texas says advocating a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in a speech Thursday to the Heritage Foundation:
What is it with Republicans and beastiality? Are they telling us something about their sex lives on the sly? First of all, they are called human rights. The last time I checked, dogs and box turtles were not human. The box turtle's not even a mammal!
I think the Republican Senators are making the most extreme, inane arguments one can make. They do not even make sense. I think they are making these types of arguments because they have no valid argument on which to debate. It may be that they are just jealous. Rick and John sex lives may be dull and boring. The missionary style must get boring for them. Maybe they should read the Kama Sutra.
Whatever the case may be - boring sex lives, subtly-expressed interest in beastiality, or jealousy of gay and lesbians who have sex without inhibitions, Senators like Rick Santorum and John Cornyn just need to treat other people like they would like to be treated. I doubt that will happen any time soon.
First, Rick Santorum, Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, said:
"It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."
Now one of the my representatives, Republican Senator John Cornyn from Texas says advocating a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in a speech Thursday to the Heritage Foundation:
"It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbour marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. . . . Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife."
What is it with Republicans and beastiality? Are they telling us something about their sex lives on the sly? First of all, they are called human rights. The last time I checked, dogs and box turtles were not human. The box turtle's not even a mammal!
I think the Republican Senators are making the most extreme, inane arguments one can make. They do not even make sense. I think they are making these types of arguments because they have no valid argument on which to debate. It may be that they are just jealous. Rick and John sex lives may be dull and boring. The missionary style must get boring for them. Maybe they should read the Kama Sutra.
Whatever the case may be - boring sex lives, subtly-expressed interest in beastiality, or jealousy of gay and lesbians who have sex without inhibitions, Senators like Rick Santorum and John Cornyn just need to treat other people like they would like to be treated. I doubt that will happen any time soon.
Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Bush, according to Yahoo! News, said:
I guess that's like the police busting down your door and saying, "Although we didn't find the cocaine, we were right to go into your house." Pre-emptive wars require rock-solid evidence. Rock solid evidence is hard to come by. Your sources have to be reliable.
The sources and evidence Bush had were not rock-solid (or as George Tenet called them, "a slam dunk). Enough voices in the US were asking for better evidence. They were asking for more evidence. Those voices, though, were drowned out by the beating of the September 11th drums. Bush and his administration have tried (and Dick Cheney is still trying) to link September 11th and Iraq to call them one item. They are not. They never have been. Two separate reports, one from the September 11th Commission, the other from the Senate, have said Iraq and September 11th are not related.
In the US we have a presumption of innocence. We should employ the same presumption of innocence when dealing with other countries. If we have irrefutable evidence a country is in violation, they should be able to respond to our accusations. If they cannot or will not, then we have the right to appeal to the world as a whole and proceed with actions. Those actions should start small and escalate. Sanctions and inspections should happen before fighting and wars.
Bush, according to Yahoo! News, said:
Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq.
I guess that's like the police busting down your door and saying, "Although we didn't find the cocaine, we were right to go into your house." Pre-emptive wars require rock-solid evidence. Rock solid evidence is hard to come by. Your sources have to be reliable.
The sources and evidence Bush had were not rock-solid (or as George Tenet called them, "a slam dunk). Enough voices in the US were asking for better evidence. They were asking for more evidence. Those voices, though, were drowned out by the beating of the September 11th drums. Bush and his administration have tried (and Dick Cheney is still trying) to link September 11th and Iraq to call them one item. They are not. They never have been. Two separate reports, one from the September 11th Commission, the other from the Senate, have said Iraq and September 11th are not related.
In the US we have a presumption of innocence. We should employ the same presumption of innocence when dealing with other countries. If we have irrefutable evidence a country is in violation, they should be able to respond to our accusations. If they cannot or will not, then we have the right to appeal to the world as a whole and proceed with actions. Those actions should start small and escalate. Sanctions and inspections should happen before fighting and wars.
Friday, July 09, 2004
Letters to Senators
Here is the text of the messages I sent to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Senator John Cornyn:
I know they have already made their minds up and will vote for the amendment; they have said so on their websites. After they do vote for the amendment, I will do what I can to see that they are not re-elected or elected to another office. If that means voting for a Republican in a primary against them, I will. If that means voting for a Democrat, I will. If that means voting for anyone else, I will.
Until this year, I used to be pretty apolitical. When conservative, religious right-wingers started screaming and yelling and wanting to take away rights from me that my heterosexual counterpars received, that is when I started to become political. I may just be one person, but there are more people like me. Together, we can overturn this hateful amendment and get rid of those Senators and Representative who support it.
Here is the text of the messages I sent to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Senator John Cornyn:
I realise you have probably already made up your mind on the Federal Marriage Amendment and are going to vote for it. However, as one of your constituents, I feel it is my obligation to urge you to vote against this discriminatory amendment.
Altering the Unites States Constitution and inserting an amendment that discriminates against an entire class of people and prevents them from having the same rights and privileges as the rest of Americans, goes against everything the Founding Fathers wished. The last time an amendment was made prohibiting something (alcohol), it was later repealed by another amendment. Never in the entire history of our country has an amendment that discriminates against Americans, like the Federal Marriage Amendment, been inserted into the constitution.
The wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment,
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
"Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
would prevent people like me from even entering into civil unions. Sixty (60) percent of the American population supports allowing either full marriage or civil unions of gays and lesbians. A minority of the American population, just thirty (30) percent, would want to deny me, and people like me, that privilege.
I do not want "special rights." I simply want the same rights and privileges that people like my sister and her husband get.
I will be watching the results of the vote closely. I will be disappointed if you vote for the Amendment. I am currently Independent, but will work to see that this discriminatory amendment and its supporters fail. Please do not go down in the annals of history as a supporter of discrimination.
Sincerely,
I know they have already made their minds up and will vote for the amendment; they have said so on their websites. After they do vote for the amendment, I will do what I can to see that they are not re-elected or elected to another office. If that means voting for a Republican in a primary against them, I will. If that means voting for a Democrat, I will. If that means voting for anyone else, I will.
Until this year, I used to be pretty apolitical. When conservative, religious right-wingers started screaming and yelling and wanting to take away rights from me that my heterosexual counterpars received, that is when I started to become political. I may just be one person, but there are more people like me. Together, we can overturn this hateful amendment and get rid of those Senators and Representative who support it.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Declined to Speak
CNN reports that President Bush declined to speak at the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) convention in Philadelphia. President Bush has been the only president since Herbert Hoover to decline to speak at the NAACP convention every year of his presidency. The letter announcing the President Bush's declining to speak was not signed by him; it was signed by Melissa Bennett, his scheduler. On the other hand, John Kerry accepted the invitation to speak at the final day of the NAACP convention.
That tells me a couple of things. President Bush was "too busy" to sign his own name to a letter declining to speak at the NAACP. Second, I do not think he even cares about African-Americans. He uses African-Americans as convenient backdrops for Martin Luther King Jr Day events, then issues statements against affirmative action and the like.
This should be a clear indication to each and every African-American that President Bush is not the candidate the ought to vote for in November. While it may be true that the NAACP may not be the most supportive of President Bush, if Dubya would have at least gone to one convention he could have said he put forth some kind of effort. But he did not.
If you are white, male, Christian, and have loads of cash, Bush is your man. If you do not fit all those criteria, look elsewhere.
CNN reports that President Bush declined to speak at the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) convention in Philadelphia. President Bush has been the only president since Herbert Hoover to decline to speak at the NAACP convention every year of his presidency. The letter announcing the President Bush's declining to speak was not signed by him; it was signed by Melissa Bennett, his scheduler. On the other hand, John Kerry accepted the invitation to speak at the final day of the NAACP convention.
That tells me a couple of things. President Bush was "too busy" to sign his own name to a letter declining to speak at the NAACP. Second, I do not think he even cares about African-Americans. He uses African-Americans as convenient backdrops for Martin Luther King Jr Day events, then issues statements against affirmative action and the like.
This should be a clear indication to each and every African-American that President Bush is not the candidate the ought to vote for in November. While it may be true that the NAACP may not be the most supportive of President Bush, if Dubya would have at least gone to one convention he could have said he put forth some kind of effort. But he did not.
If you are white, male, Christian, and have loads of cash, Bush is your man. If you do not fit all those criteria, look elsewhere.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Damned if He Does, Damned if He Does Not
I do not envy the New Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi at all. According to Yahoo! News, he plans on implementing tough new security measures. The new Iraqi administration is calling the new measures, the "National Safety Law." It will provide for emergency measures such as curfews, searches and detentions in defined areas for periods of up to 60 days. Additionally, Prime Minister Allawi's government has said it also was going to bring back the death penalty. It was suspended during the U.S.-led occupation, and offer a temporary amnesty for rebels who fought the Americans.
The problem I see with implementing tough measures is that it may make Prime Minister Allawi's government appear to be no better than the previous one under Saddam Hussein. This may cause more people to join the insurgents. On the other hand, if nothing is done, the insurgents will roam the streets at will bringing with them chaos and mayhem.
Prime Minister Allawi is in an almost no-win situation. If he is to succeed, he will need to be judicious with his implementation of the "National Safety Law." I hope the best for Iraq. I foresee our troops being over in that country for quite a while to come. If we pull out of the country now, Iraq will definitely descend into chaos.
I do not envy the New Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi at all. According to Yahoo! News, he plans on implementing tough new security measures. The new Iraqi administration is calling the new measures, the "National Safety Law." It will provide for emergency measures such as curfews, searches and detentions in defined areas for periods of up to 60 days. Additionally, Prime Minister Allawi's government has said it also was going to bring back the death penalty. It was suspended during the U.S.-led occupation, and offer a temporary amnesty for rebels who fought the Americans.
The problem I see with implementing tough measures is that it may make Prime Minister Allawi's government appear to be no better than the previous one under Saddam Hussein. This may cause more people to join the insurgents. On the other hand, if nothing is done, the insurgents will roam the streets at will bringing with them chaos and mayhem.
Prime Minister Allawi is in an almost no-win situation. If he is to succeed, he will need to be judicious with his implementation of the "National Safety Law." I hope the best for Iraq. I foresee our troops being over in that country for quite a while to come. If we pull out of the country now, Iraq will definitely descend into chaos.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Doing one's job...
I was reading Jesus' General who had a link from the Rubber Nun about an article in Prevention Magazine that was about doctors and pharmacists refusing to renew prescriptions for the Pill, Norplant, contraceptive patches, etc.
First of all, these pharmacists and doctors are paid to fill prescriptions. I do not care what their politics are. Second, if they are not willing to do their job, even if it means filling prescriptions for drugs they do not approve of, then they should not work as a doctor or pharmacist and find other lines of work. If they like being a doctor or pharmacist, but do not want to dispense "controversial" medications, they need to start their own pharmacies or clinics and clearly advertise that they do not fill or write "controversial" prescriptions.
That would be like a person who had a WWJD sticker or Jesus fish decal on their car who took their car to an atheist mechanic working for Ford or GM. The mechanic may not agree with the religious views of the owner of the car, but he is being paid by the repair facility to repair cars, not deliver politics. If the mechanic refused to fix the car, the owner would have every right to be angry.
In my view, if these pharmacists want to have their politics, they can. They just need to leave it outside of work. They just need to do the job they were hired and paid to do. If they cannot fulfill that function, they need to look for employment elsewhere.
I was reading Jesus' General who had a link from the Rubber Nun about an article in Prevention Magazine that was about doctors and pharmacists refusing to renew prescriptions for the Pill, Norplant, contraceptive patches, etc.
First of all, these pharmacists and doctors are paid to fill prescriptions. I do not care what their politics are. Second, if they are not willing to do their job, even if it means filling prescriptions for drugs they do not approve of, then they should not work as a doctor or pharmacist and find other lines of work. If they like being a doctor or pharmacist, but do not want to dispense "controversial" medications, they need to start their own pharmacies or clinics and clearly advertise that they do not fill or write "controversial" prescriptions.
That would be like a person who had a WWJD sticker or Jesus fish decal on their car who took their car to an atheist mechanic working for Ford or GM. The mechanic may not agree with the religious views of the owner of the car, but he is being paid by the repair facility to repair cars, not deliver politics. If the mechanic refused to fix the car, the owner would have every right to be angry.
In my view, if these pharmacists want to have their politics, they can. They just need to leave it outside of work. They just need to do the job they were hired and paid to do. If they cannot fulfill that function, they need to look for employment elsewhere.
Friday, July 02, 2004
Adoption
The stupidity of people really amazes me. As I was reading a collection of words purporting to be an opinion by Stephen Baskerville on Worldnet Daily, I kept thinking to myself, "Is this guy really as daft as his writing makes him out to be?" My only conclusion is, sadly, yes!
He says,
Children are put up for adoption for several reasons. Some of those reasons include the parent or parents could not or would not care for the child. Sometimes children are removed from abusive parents. Sometimes they are removed from parents who neglect their needs. Sometimes the woman is not prepared to be a mother. So, if a child is up for adoption, a valid, legal reason for that adoption usually exists. In certain cases, even if the parents did not want to give up the child, it may be in the best interests of the child (neglected and abused children spring to mind) to be removed from that environment and placed in a more loving and nurturing environment.
Once children are removed from parent who abused, abandoned, or neglected them, they should be placed in another home that can provide the best environment for their upbringing. Study after study from the medical and legal organisations has shown that children who are placed in gay and lesbian homes grow up just as well as those placed in heterosexual homes. Stephen Baskerville attempts to use the boogey-man tactic of saying child abuse is overwhelmingly a phenomenon of single-parent homes. He references no legitimate study, but demonises "feminist" propaganda as his source. He also alludes to a conspiracy between judges and social services agencies to remove children from homes to be placed "in the system."
One of my siblings was adopted. The process for my parents was a lengthy one. My parents had to be checked out to ensure the home was safe and that the needs or my siblings would be provided for. My parents had to hire a lawyer and have visits to ensure our home was fit for raising children. It was. The same process happens for most adoptions. Parents, gay/lesbian, straight, White, Hispanic,Asian, African America, Jewish, Christian, Moslem, etc. are checked out. If a the social services agency determines the home will provide a safe, nurturing environment for the child, then the child should be allowed to be adopted. Bigots like Stephen Baskerville need to go back to their bunkers, because the world is going to change for the better with or without them.
The stupidity of people really amazes me. As I was reading a collection of words purporting to be an opinion by Stephen Baskerville on Worldnet Daily, I kept thinking to myself, "Is this guy really as daft as his writing makes him out to be?" My only conclusion is, sadly, yes!
He says,
Granting gay couples the "right" to have children by definition means giving them the right to have someone else's children, and the question arises whether the original parent or parents ever agreed to part with them.
Children are put up for adoption for several reasons. Some of those reasons include the parent or parents could not or would not care for the child. Sometimes children are removed from abusive parents. Sometimes they are removed from parents who neglect their needs. Sometimes the woman is not prepared to be a mother. So, if a child is up for adoption, a valid, legal reason for that adoption usually exists. In certain cases, even if the parents did not want to give up the child, it may be in the best interests of the child (neglected and abused children spring to mind) to be removed from that environment and placed in a more loving and nurturing environment.
Once children are removed from parent who abused, abandoned, or neglected them, they should be placed in another home that can provide the best environment for their upbringing. Study after study from the medical and legal organisations has shown that children who are placed in gay and lesbian homes grow up just as well as those placed in heterosexual homes. Stephen Baskerville attempts to use the boogey-man tactic of saying child abuse is overwhelmingly a phenomenon of single-parent homes. He references no legitimate study, but demonises "feminist" propaganda as his source. He also alludes to a conspiracy between judges and social services agencies to remove children from homes to be placed "in the system."
One of my siblings was adopted. The process for my parents was a lengthy one. My parents had to be checked out to ensure the home was safe and that the needs or my siblings would be provided for. My parents had to hire a lawyer and have visits to ensure our home was fit for raising children. It was. The same process happens for most adoptions. Parents, gay/lesbian, straight, White, Hispanic,Asian, African America, Jewish, Christian, Moslem, etc. are checked out. If a the social services agency determines the home will provide a safe, nurturing environment for the child, then the child should be allowed to be adopted. Bigots like Stephen Baskerville need to go back to their bunkers, because the world is going to change for the better with or without them.
Privacy
I like my privacy. If I want to interact with people, I will. Since I like to interact with people, I often do - just on my own terms. My phone number is unlisted, I do not sign up for contests, and I rarely give out my mailing address to people or ogranisations that I do not know or trust. Like Greta Garbo, sometimes "I want to be alone."
I read in Crooked Timber that James' Dobson's Focus on the Family sent out an e-mail that included Michael Moore's home address. That is so wrong. For an organisation to publish the home address of the director of Fahrenheit 9/11 is beyond pale. This organisation is such a hypochristian organisation. This invites all the wackos and nutjob who receive the Focus on the Family's e-mail, directly or indirectly, to go to Michael Moore's house and harass him or, if they are psychotic enough (and I wouldn't put it past some people) do something far worse.
How would James Dobson and all the employees of focus on the family feel if their personal home address was available for everyone to see? Would they like the loads of hate mail they would get? Would they welcome protesters on their front lawn? Would they like to wake up one morning to a sicko staring them in the eye? These people really do not follow Jesus' teaching: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12.
I hope Michael Moore sues the pants off Focus on the Family. I hope he bankrupts that organisation and uses the money to make more movies and buy himself a new home. I hope that if he does sue, it will be a lesson to any other organisation to respect the privacy of others.
I like my privacy. If I want to interact with people, I will. Since I like to interact with people, I often do - just on my own terms. My phone number is unlisted, I do not sign up for contests, and I rarely give out my mailing address to people or ogranisations that I do not know or trust. Like Greta Garbo, sometimes "I want to be alone."
I read in Crooked Timber that James' Dobson's Focus on the Family sent out an e-mail that included Michael Moore's home address. That is so wrong. For an organisation to publish the home address of the director of Fahrenheit 9/11 is beyond pale. This organisation is such a hypochristian organisation. This invites all the wackos and nutjob who receive the Focus on the Family's e-mail, directly or indirectly, to go to Michael Moore's house and harass him or, if they are psychotic enough (and I wouldn't put it past some people) do something far worse.
How would James Dobson and all the employees of focus on the family feel if their personal home address was available for everyone to see? Would they like the loads of hate mail they would get? Would they welcome protesters on their front lawn? Would they like to wake up one morning to a sicko staring them in the eye? These people really do not follow Jesus' teaching: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12.
I hope Michael Moore sues the pants off Focus on the Family. I hope he bankrupts that organisation and uses the money to make more movies and buy himself a new home. I hope that if he does sue, it will be a lesson to any other organisation to respect the privacy of others.
