Political Games - Where the fuck’s the reset button?

So recently I stumbled across a story on Google News which stated that 64% of Americans “side with Bush on NSA monitoring terrorists.” This story, which can be found online at the National Ledger reports that a Rasmussen poll shows that:

“Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.”

I’m not about to argue that the results on this poll are false, though I will say that the results of this poll are very misleading. It fails to ask, if the government should do this without a warrant which is the key issue here. The question doesn’t ask about the illegal wiretaps, it just asks about wiretapping in general. No one is saying the government shouldn’t try and prevent a terrorist attack on the US, we’re saying they should have to actually follow the law! But as I traversed the internet this poll was paraded by conservatives as proof that the American public supports the illegal wiretapping ordered by GWB, and that once again Democrats misunderstand the American voter. Well… this just isn’t true.

Another “argument” I’ve been seeing more of from conservatives is “if you aren’t doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear.” Sure that sounds nice, but the concern here is the abuse of the law and constitution, the balance of power between the branches of government, and the right to privacy. It may be easy to say “if you aren’t doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear,” but this simpleminded response doesn’t really address any of the real problems. You could say the same thing in the Soviet Union.

There are other arguments such as “Clinton did it too,” and some crap about the liberal media making it up (didn’t Bush admit to an impeachable offense? I guess the liberal media made him do it). Guess what? If Clinton illegally spied on US citizens, he’s just as guilty. Only one problem with this argument: there is nothing to back it up. Time and time again I’ve seen people say “oh liberals don’t care that Clinton did it.” Really? I just don’t see any evidence that he did. You can’t just make something up and expect it to hold water… just saying it doesn’t make it true! I’m not going to stand here and say he did or didn’t do it, because honestly… I don’t know, but I’m not about to give legitimacy to speculation. But I do find it strange how conservatives so easily blame Clinton for doing this, when after 9-11 they were blaming Clinton for not doing enough to prevent terrorism. It seems the “blame Clinton” talking points of conservative America still have a long way to go before they die out.

In conslusion, it seems to me that conservatives really haven’t come up with a good defense for the NSA wiretapping scandal. Blaming the liberal media and Clinton are old tactics we’ve been hearing for years. It’s becoming more apparent that 2006 is going to be a good year for Democrats, and a bad year for the scandal ridden Republicans.

Thought of the Day:

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent”

- Thomas Jefferson

~Justin

Share This

First, on a personal note: I had a lovely secular Christmas yesterday. I didn’t get much [mostly clothes, but it was all ND gear!], but that’s not what Christmas [religious or secular] is about. I had a great time though.

So, on to the meat of my post. A commenter on the original post pretty much confirmed my point: the conservative movement has snapped. They consider those statements [which I’m going to knock down one by one, btw] as perfectly sane, reasonable, and factual [just a tad “harsh” or some similar qualifier]. Bullshit. And here’s why.

Former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett: “[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” [Salem Radio Network’s Bill Bennett’s Morning in America, 9/28/05]

Now, before I go into a specific rebuttal, a clarification. “Crime rate” means how much crime is committed in terms of a population. Ok? So we’re clear on that. It does not mean the number of crimes actually committed. Because if you were to abort a section of a population [be it black, white, Asian, purple, whatever], then yeah, odds are the total crime would go down. Since, duh, you’re preventing an entire segment of society from reproducing. However, the argument presented here is crime rate.

Put simply, there is no data or research to support such an argument. Media Matters explains:

Bennett’s remark was apparently inspired by the claim that legalized abortion has reduced crime rates, which was posited in the book Freakonomics (William Morrow, May 2005) by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. But Levitt and Dubner argued that aborted fetuses would have been more likely to grow up poor and in single-parent or teenage-parent households and therefore more likely to commit crimes; they did not put forth Bennett’s race-based argument.

Or, in Blitz: The League terms: Bitchslapped! Next!

Pat Robertson: “If [Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez] thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.” [Christian Broadcasting Network’s The 700 Club, 8/22/05]

Well besides the crazy part of it [if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, we should confirm his conspiracy theories!], there’s also the moral and legal implications. Last I checked, it was still illegal to assassinate the leader of a nation, much less a duly-elected leader. Next!

Bill O’Reilly to San Francisco: “[I]f Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. … You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.” [Westwood One’s The Radio Factor with Bill O’Reilly, 12/8/05]

What did San Francisco do to trigger O’Reilly[’s warped mind] to invite Al Qaeda to attack it? They passed a ballot measure urging public high schools and colleges to prohibit on-campus military recruiting. If you want to criticize the city’s democratic decisions, fine. But to then tell the group that murdered three thousand Americans that they can now attack that city? That’s scum. Next!

Bill O’Reilly, agreeing with caller that illegal immigrants are “biological weapon[s]”: “I think you could probably make an absolutely airtight case that more than 3,000 Americans have been either killed or injured, based upon the 11 million illegals who are here.” [Westwood One’s The Radio Factor with Bill O’Reilly, 4/15/05]

Another from the twisted brain of O’Reilly. Do I even have to argue this? Supposedly, illegal immigrants are biological weapons, responsible for more American deaths than Al Qaeda? Why? Because they’re illegal? Well that wouldn’t make them disease-ridden… is it because they’re “dirty immigrants”? If so, why single out illegal immigrants? According to that, all immigrants are “biological weapons”. Dumbass. Next!

Rush Limbaugh: “Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.” [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/12/05]

I thought it was established because women weren’t being given equal societal opportunities way back, oh I dunno, during the Enlightenment? Ignorant dittohead. Learn some history. Next!

Rush Limbaugh on the kidnapping of peace activists in Iraq: “I’m telling you, folks, there’s a part of me that likes this.” [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/29/05]

Yeah, see, when I hear about anyone being kidnapped, or dying in Iraq, or elsewhere due to my government’s occupation of it, I tend to be saddened. In fact, all those flashes that I link to on Bushflash.org? They include Americans, Iraqis, Brits, Italians… anyone who’s lost their life. And I cry for all of them. Apparently, the conservatives of today don’t give a shit. Next.

Ann Coulter: Bill Clinton “was a very good rapist”; “I’m getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties”; “I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning.” [New York Observer, 1/10/05]

Clinton was a bad husband. That doesn’t make him a rapist, jackass. See the previous one about the conservative movement’s apathy about human live [post-birth]. And, wow, that would go over so well, wouldn’t it? In order to stop irresponsible regimes from gaining nuclear weapons, we’re going to irresponsibly use a nuclear weapon! Weee, circular logic. Next!

Ann Coulter: “Isn’t it great to see Muslims celebrating something other than the slaughter of Americans?” [Syndicated column, 2/3/05]

“Isn’t it great to see American Christians celebrating something other than the death of brown people?” Yeah, they’re equally ridiculous. Next!

Radio host Glenn Beck: “[Y]ou know it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims’ families? Took me about a year.” [Premiere Radio Networks’ The Glenn Beck Program, 9/9/05]

Does this even require commentary? Glenn Beck started hating the families of victims of the worst terrorist attack in the United States before I started hating the Bush Administration for screwing up catching those responsible. How fucked up is that? Next!

Tucker Carlson: “Canada is a sweet country. It is like your retarded cousin you see at Thanksgiving and sort of pat him on the head. You know, he’s nice, but you don’t take him seriously. That’s Canada.” [MSNBC’s The Situation with Tucker Carlson, 12/15/05]

There go the intellectuals of the conservative movement again. There’s a difference between “joking” and “insensitive, cruel, and stupid”. This is the latter. For what reasons? Oh, I dunno… for calling an entire nation [which for the record currently has a higher quality of life than the U.S.] “retarded”, and, to get the two-fer, insulting everyone who has a mentally-challenged person in their family. Way to go, cockbite. Next!

American Family Association president Tim Wildmon: Liberals “don’t have the kind of family responsibilities most people have, and certainly not church responsibilities.” [American Family Radio’s Today’s Issues, 5/11/05]

Hey, fuck you. I might not be religious, but I know plenty of liberals who are you jackass. And furthermore, I’d like to have Mr. Wildmon meet my primarily-Democratic-voting extended family who, despite our different religious beliefs and geographic locations, had dinner together last night. Next!

David Horowitz on Cindy Sheehan: “It’s very hard to have respect for a woman who exploits the death of her own son and doesn’t respect her own son’s life. … She portrays him as an idiot.” [MSNBC’s Connected: Coast to Coast, 8/16/05]

As opposed to a President who exploited the death of three thousand Americans to lie about his real reasons for invading Iraq, or about an ex-NFL star’s death to spew forth propaganda. And furthermore, Mrs. Sheehan has portrayed her son as somebody who went to Iraq despite his private objections to it. That makes him a good soldier, you asswipe. And her a good mother. Next!

Radio host Neal Boortz on the execution of Stanley “Tookie” Williams: “[T]here will be riots in South Central Los Angeles and elsewhere. … The rioting, of course, will lead to wide scale looting. There are a lot of aspiring rappers and NBA superstars who could really use a nice flat-screen television right now.” [Boortz.com, 12/12/05]

Well, there weren’t riots. And the reason this is ridiculous is his implication that current rappers and NBA superstars are/were criminals, because they share something in common with the hypothetical would-be rioters [hint: it’s not eye color]. Next!

Pat Buchanan: “Our guys” in Iraq “have got every right to have good news put into the media and get to the people of Iraq, even if it’s got to be planted or bought.” [MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, 12/1/05]

Apparently, it’s ok to lie if it’s for TheTroops[TM], especially if we use funds that should be used to build schools and restore power and improve the lives of the people whose nation we’re occupying. Things like that. Next!

National Review editor Rich Lowry: Given EPA-mandated “small-flush” toilets, “[h]ow is it possible to flush a Quran down the toilet?” [Young America’s Foundation speech, 8/5/05]

This is just stupid. Let me spell it out for Mr. Dumass over here. They. Gave. The. Qurans. Swirlies. You know, the kind of things bullies do to the heads of nerds? Yep, same thing. Next!

Neal Boortz, suggesting that a victim of Hurricane Katrina housed in an Atlanta hotel consider prostitution: “I dare say she could walk out of that hotel and walk 100 yards in either direction on Fulton Industrial Boulevard here in Atlanta and have a job. What’s that? Well, no, no, no. … Well, you know what? [laughing] Now that you mention it … [i]f that’s the only way she can take care of herself, it sure beats the hell out of sucking off the taxpayers.” [Cox Radio Syndication’s The Neal Boortz Show, 10/24/05]

The moral values of the Conservatarian Movement strike again! See, it’s better that a 16 year-old girl become a prostitute and suck cock than the government help her after her entire city was destroyed. Fucktard. Next!

Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson: Same-sex marriage would lead to “marriage between daddies and little girls … between a man and his donkey.” [Focus on the Family radio program, 10/6/05]

No, see, making government-recognized marriage unbeholden to the gender-structured marriage of the past doesn’t do away with the consent laws which allow us to prosecute pedophiles and zoophiles. That would still be illegal. Next!

Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid: “Have you noticed that many news organizations, in honor of former ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings, have embarked on a quit smoking campaign? So why don’t our media launch a campaign advising people to quit engaging in the dangerous and addictive homosexual lifestyle? … It appears that the homosexual lifestyle is as addictive as smoking.” [Accuracy in Media column, 12/14/05]

Firstly, there is no such thing as the “homosexual lifestyle”. Those who date people of the same gender are as unique as me or you or my parents or George Bush or John Kerry. They are their own person. Secondly, homosexuality doesn’t kill people. Unprotected sex kills people, so actually they should be launching a “quit having unprotected sex campaign” by offering free condoms and dental dams at their local affiliates. But that wouldn’t go over too well with conservatives, would it? Because that would be promoting promiscuity… which, they argue, leads to a rise in STD rates. Which would be lowered by increased access to condoms and dental dams… which would lead to… well you get the idea. They’re inconsistent.

That was the last outrageous quote. I can’t believe I had to actually go through them and show why they’re outrageous… but, it had to be done.

As a quick preview, I’ve got a personal-political post in the works [some shocking details will be in it, I assure you] as well as some thoughts I had recently on the whole gay marriage thing. Stay tuned.

And remember: 2006 is just around the corner. Let’s make this our 1994.

Share This

So a while back, I made a promise to try to make posts around holidays, including ones I don’t celebrate. Instead, I ended up not posting about any holidays, even the ones I celebrate. So, here’s my effort to wish everyone peace on earth.

To those who have already celebrated their holiday [Solstice, Ramadan, Festivus, etc], I hope you had a wonderful time, and that you spent time with those you love.

For those celebrating a holiday religiously tomorrow or soon after [Christmas, Hanukkah, etc], may you celebrate your God, find inner peace, and feel the love of your friends and families.

For those celebrating a holiday secularly tomorrow or soon after [like me; secular Christmas!], may you find hope and peace in the world, celebrate one another, and spend quality time with your loved ones.

From all [two] of us here at Political Games… have a Happy Holidays.

Share This

I just want to take a moment to say a few words on the current Whitehouse wiretapping scandal. It’s frightening to see such abuse of power, and yet have as many people as there are defending this abuse.

First of all, I’m sick of this image that the media is painting that the wiretapping debate is between people who want to prevent another terrorist attack and people that care about civil liberties. This isn’t the case! And if we’re fighting a war in the name of “freedom” we should all care about civil liberties. Those of us that are frightened by the president not getting warrants for wiretapping realize that if he wanted to he could very well get a warrant for any and all wiretapping that needs to be done in the name of national security, and it can be done in a matter of minutes or even retroactively. With such a system put in place to not only effectively let the government do its job of protecting its citizens physically, and the courts protecting their rights, it’s curious to see that the president has bypassed such a system.

If congress doesn’t act on this it will be setting a dangerous precedent for the future, and we may see the power of the executive branch extend beyond its intended reach. We have a check and balance system for a reason, and if congress lets this go for political reasons they will be failing their sworn duty to uphold the constitution. I’m not saying impeach the guy, (though I’m not saying that’s not an option… just saying that the thought of President Cheney is a thought that keeps me up at night) I’m just saying that there should be an investigation on this matter, and it shouldn’t take 3 years and get nowhere. This is a serious breach of presidential power, and it needs to be acted on without delay.

Media Matters for Today has composed a good list of myths on this topic.

Thought of the Day:

“They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin

~Justin

Share This

I know, that if someone from the right sees this, and comments, I’m going to get the “they aren’t representative of the conservative movement” apology. Well hypothetical conservative, unfortunately, they are. Every single one of these conservatives were defended by mainstream conservatives; hell, most of them ARE mainstream conservatives.

I’m doing my part to expose these nutcases for what they are. Why aren’t you?

So, from Media Matters… Most Outrageous Statements of 2005:

* Former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett: “[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” [Salem Radio Network’s Bill Bennett’s Morning in America, 9/28/05]

* Pat Robertson: “If [Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez] thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.” [Christian Broadcasting Network’s The 700 Club, 8/22/05]

* Bill O’Reilly to San Francisco: “[I]f Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. … You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.” [Westwood One’s The Radio Factor with Bill O’Reilly, 12/8/05]

* Bill O’Reilly, agreeing with caller that illegal immigrants are “biological weapon[s]”: “I think you could probably make an absolutely airtight case that more than 3,000 Americans have been either killed or injured, based upon the 11 million illegals who are here.” [Westwood One’s The Radio Factor with Bill O’Reilly, 4/15/05]

* Rush Limbaugh: “Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.” [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/12/05]

* Rush Limbaugh on the kidnapping of peace activists in Iraq: “I’m telling you, folks, there’s a part of me that likes this.” [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/29/05]

* Ann Coulter: Bill Clinton “was a very good rapist”; “I’m getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties”; “I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning.” [New York Observer, 1/10/05]

* Ann Coulter: “Isn’t it great to see Muslims celebrating something other than the slaughter of Americans?” [Syndicated column, 2/3/05]

* Radio host Glenn Beck: “[Y]ou know it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims’ families? Took me about a year.” [Premiere Radio Networks’ The Glenn Beck Program, 9/9/05]

* Tucker Carlson: “Canada is a sweet country. It is like your retarded cousin you see at Thanksgiving and sort of pat him on the head. You know, he’s nice, but you don’t take him seriously. That’s Canada.” [MSNBC’s The Situation with Tucker Carlson, 12/15/05]

* American Family Association president Tim Wildmon: Liberals “don’t have the kind of family responsibilities most people have, and certainly not church responsibilities.” [American Family Radio’s Today’s Issues, 5/11/05]

* David Horowitz on Cindy Sheehan: “It’s very hard to have respect for a woman who exploits the death of her own son and doesn’t respect her own son’s life. … She portrays him as an idiot.” [MSNBC’s Connected: Coast to Coast, 8/16/05]

* Radio host Neal Boortz on the execution of Stanley “Tookie” Williams: “[T]here will be riots in South Central Los Angeles and elsewhere. … The rioting, of course, will lead to wide scale looting. There are a lot of aspiring rappers and NBA superstars who could really use a nice flat-screen television right now.” [Boortz.com, 12/12/05]

* Pat Buchanan: “Our guys” in Iraq “have got every right to have good news put into the media and get to the people of Iraq, even if it’s got to be planted or bought.” [MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, 12/1/05]

* National Review editor Rich Lowry: Given EPA-mandated “small-flush” toilets, “[h]ow is it possible to flush a Quran down the toilet?” [Young America’s Foundation speech, 8/5/05]

* Neal Boortz, suggesting that a victim of Hurricane Katrina housed in an Atlanta hotel consider prostitution: “I dare say she could walk out of that hotel and walk 100 yards in either direction on Fulton Industrial Boulevard here in Atlanta and have a job. What’s that? Well, no, no, no. … Well, you know what? [laughing] Now that you mention it … [i]f that’s the only way she can take care of herself, it sure beats the hell out of sucking off the taxpayers.” [Cox Radio Syndication’s The Neal Boortz Show, 10/24/05]

* Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson: Same-sex marriage would lead to “marriage between daddies and little girls … between a man and his donkey.” [Focus on the Family radio program, 10/6/05]
* Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid: “Have you noticed that many news organizations, in honor of former ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings, have embarked on a quit smoking campaign? So why don’t our media launch a campaign advising people to quit engaging in the dangerous and addictive homosexual lifestyle? … It appears that the homosexual lifestyle is as addictive as smoking.” [Accuracy in Media column, 12/14/05]

Apparently, they tried to limit these to a Top 10 list, but “it was simply impossible”. Hell, I’m impressed they narrowed it down this much! They forgot Barbara Bush’s “people in the Astrodome are better off now than before”, Boy-King George’s “Treasury bonds are worthless IOUs”, and a million others. But I guess they didn’t want to kill too much bandwith…

Share This

In a nutshell, this is it. The key highlights:

“A capitalist liberal (libertarian) democracy is merely a theory that is unsustainable under threat of war or terrorism”

I strongly reject this terrible message and I urge you and the Democratic Party to do the same. I sternly reject the notion perpetrated by Bush and his cronies that somehow American’s admired liberal democratic traditions cannot be sustained in wars and in the fight against terrorism. President Bush, in his words and actions, has demonstrated that he is always quick to raise the white flag of surrender and cut and run from America’s fundamental governing principles and philosophies. The words and actions of Bush and his blind supporters in Government and the media, regrettably, help America’s enemies perpetrate the myth that people worldwide should abandon dreams of liberal democracy because such democracy is not possible under threats to the people’s security. I simply and soundly reject this false notion and act of surrender to terrorists and communist dictators everywhere, an act that also deceives all our children - the future of America - into believing that you cannot have a liberal democracy in this world as long as there are terrorists around.

Read here, here, and here for my takes on it [the second is Justin, but he sums up my feelings nicely].

The Bush [and the pseudo-libertarians and conservative apologists who follow him] idea is that he has the authority to do WHATEVER he wants, unchecked by any other branch or authority, so long as he claims he is furthering the war on terror. When asked what checked him, he said “his oath to uphold the Constitution”.

That is bullshit. The Legislative Branch is suppose to check the power of the executive. The Judicial Branch is suppose to check the power of the executive. And vice versa, all the way around. But now we have a President of the United Fucking States claiming he can do whatever he wants. The only check on him is his word. I trust President Bush about as far as I can throw him: not at all [the Secret Service wouldn’t let me near him]. The man has lied, repeatedly. He said, on numerous occasions, that the intelligence community still had to get a court warrant in order to get wiretaps. He said this throughout 2004 and 2005 when he was asked about the Patriot Act. All the while, he was knowingly ordering wiretaps against American citizens without getting these orders. Because, apparently, when it comes to terrorism, our laws and our civil liberties mean jack shit. They don’t matter one damn bit, because the President has the authority to do anything to win the war on terror.

Bush has argued that the NYT people who broke this story have compromised national security. If so, John at Americablog asks, did Bush have the authority to assassinate the editors of the NYT to prevent the story from being leaked? If not, why not? If Bush has the authority to break a law forbidding him to wiretap, why does he not have the authority to break the law against assassination [or murder, or any law]? Are some laws more equal than others?

Are we a nation of laws, of principles… or are we a nation of men, of cults of personality?

Share This

So a couple of weeks ago I went on a tirade about being called a traitor and a terrorist, saying that if I really was, then they should have me arrested. Little did I know that the Bush Administration has been treating me like a terrorist for the past 4 years.

First up, we learn that the FBI has been investigating Greenpeace, PETA, and the Catholic Workers for terrorist activities. Now before you go off about “eco-terrorism”… that would be the Earth Liberation Front and its buddy, the Animal Liberation Front. They’re nuts. And they do occasionally engage in violent crimes to “spread their message” or whatever bullshit they come up with. Whatever. This isn’t want the FBI investigated. They were looking into GREENPEACE [which is a nonviolent organization] and PETA [ok, so I think they’re misguided on a lot of issues, and wacky from time to time, but they are not violent] as if they were the next Osamas. You may be wondering, “but why the hell are they investigationg Catholics?!” Well the article provides an answer: the FBI considers the Catholic Workers to have a “semi-communistic ideology”. Ok FBI, sure… I’ve got a list of 120 Communists in the State Department I’d be willing to sell you if you believe that load of horseshit.

And this brings us to our next group of “terrorists”. I’ll give you three guesses. No, it’s not Neo-Nazis and other fascists in the Militia Movement who caused rioting in Toledo a few months ago or who are threatening acts of vigilanteism against brown people along the U.S.-Mexico border. No, it’s not people who advocate the assassination of national leaders and then conversion of whole nations to their religion. And no, it’s not people who advocate “getting rid” of almost all the liberals, but leaving a few on campuses, like a living museum.*

Naturally, it’s gay people! I’m not even close to kidding. I seriously suggest reading the whole thing, but here’s the line that stands out to me:

A UC-Santa Cruz “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” protest, which included a gay kiss-in, was labeled as a “credible threat” of terrorism.

Just in case you missed it, here it is again. The PENTAGON considered A GAY KISS-IN to be a “credible threat” of TERRORISM.

What. The. Fuck.

This is ridiculous. Uh… just… what?! You would have to be on an insanely high number of drugs [as in large number of drugs and high doses!] to even remotely think that. I mean, what, are they going to attack us with their Kisses of Mass Gayness?

Is this what America stands for now? Peaceful environmental, animal rights, workers rights, and gay rights groups are now considered terrorists?

When are the grown-ups taking charge? I’m tired of having these immature, paranoid megalomaniacs make me and my fellow citizens look like a bunch of… of… douchealouches! How can anyone continue to vote Republican? I don’t even understand the mindset anymore…

If you’re against privacy, the environment, cute furry animals, workers, Catholics, and gays, and you’re pro-torture, pro-martial law, and pro-theocracy, then please keep voting Republican.

If not, stop. now.

*The second guess was a combination of Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter. The third was Rush Limbaugh. “joking” my ass.

Share This

So says the judge on the Dover case. It’s about time this faux-science got tossed out. Here’s the best part.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

[snip]

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources. [emphasis mine]

Pwn3d!

Share This

No, that Tom Delay quote wasn’t about this lovely story, but it might as well have been. House Republicans invoke “martial law”, do away with rules for a day to pass 700-page bill in 4 hours.

The House leadership is using a parliamentary gambit to evade a longstanding House rule that is supposed to ensure that this kind of obfuscation does not occur. That House rule (Rule XIII(6)(a)) provides that a resolution (called a rule) reported by the Rules Committee cannot be considered by the House on the same legislative day that the rule is reported (except by a two-thirds vote of the House). This is supposed to ensure that Members of the House and the public have at least one day to examine and analyze what is in the legislation to be considered before they have to debate and vote on it.

To maneuver around this House rule and rush the revised reconciliation bill and defense appropriation bill to a vote before they have been fully examined, the Rules Committee reported a rule (H.Res. 632) on the legislative day of Saturday, December 17, that would waive the application of Rule XIII(6)(a). Instead, it would allow the Rules Committee to wait until the last minute — and not to report the rules governing consideration of the reconciliation and defense appropriations conference reports, or to release the conference reports themselves, until immediately before debate and votes on the rules and the legislation commences. This despite the fact that the budget legislation is expected to be hundreds of pages long.

This extraordinary procedure is known as a “martial law�? rule because it suspends the normal procedures and safeguards and allows the House Leadership to operate in a more authoritarian fashion. It enables the Leadership to seek to ram a bill or conference report through before the Members have the opportunity to fully understand what they are voting on.

Legislation that has far-reaching implications for millions of Americans deserves to be considered under a more democratic process. Waiting until the last minute to reveal what is in these two bills, and then “spinning�? or potentially mischaracterizing changes to the reconciliation bill without Members of the House or the public having an opportunity to obtain a more objective review of what the legislation does, would be unfair to Members of the House. It also would be unfair to the millions of Americans whose lives could be altered by this legislation. It would represent a step toward reducing the degree of transparency and democracy in how this country is governed and how decisions are made.

This was posted before the vote… and after:

As predicted in this statement, the House Republican leadership did use the “martial law�? gambit to rush the House to a vote on the spending cut reconciliation bill before Members (much less the press or the public) had a reasonable chance to examine the legislation and understand what it would do.

* Just before midnight on Sunday, December 18, the House adopted the “martial law rule�? that allowed the leadership to bring up the conference report on the reconciliation bill shortly after the conference report was finalized, without waiting until the next legislative day as required by House rules.

* At 1:12 a.m. on Monday, December 19, the 774 page conference report on the reconciliation spending cut bill was filed in the House.

* At 5:43 a.m. Monday morning, after less than 40 minutes of debate on the measure, the House began the final vote on the reconciliation spending cut bill.

This isn’t democracy, this isn’t freedom, this isn’t liberty. This isn’t what America is supposed to stand for; what any nation should want to stand for!

Tired of it? Don’t support this? Then for the last fucking time, stop voting Republican.

Share This

How can we say we are fighting for freedom while we subvert civil liberties? Is it just me, or does this make no sense at all?

I watched a video earlier of Condi Rice trying to defend the president’s illegal actions in ordering spying on American citizens without court oversight. Apparently according to Rice, “the president has constitutional authority and he has statutory authorities,” to give such an order. To which Russert replied:

“What Democrats and Republicans in Congress are asking, what is the authority that you keep citing? What law? What statute? Where in the Constitution does it say that the President can eavesdrop, wiretap American citizens without a court order?”

Good question. Well, I did learn alittle about Constitutional law back in the day, and although I am aware this hardly makes me an expert, I would like to shed light on the areas of law I assume I have learned enough of to comment. First of all, the president has the power to give executive orders, and a law put in place in the 1970’s allows the president to do this on issues of national security. This law was put in place to bypass the sometimes slow paced Congress in times that required speedy action in defense of our nation. Though from what I understand, Congress must approve such actions within 60(?) days for the president’s orders to still remain in effect. Rice repeatidly said that the wiretap programs we reapproved every 45 days, but who was reapproving the program? Congress is in an uproar, and the courts certainly didn’t approve anything… which is exactly the problem. Let us refer to that old document… the Constitution. Brought to you by, Cornell University’s Law School.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Interesting. It’s also true that no part of an Executive Order may be illegal or unconstitutional. Ooopsy! I think spying on American citizens without court oversight might just be breaking the 4th Amendment… and it is!

MR. RUSSERT: …President Nixon tried to wiretap American citizens and the Supreme Court ruled he violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans.

SEC’Y RICE: Tim, let’s remember that we are talking about the ability to collect information on the geographic territory that is the United States. Some people are American citizens; others are not. What the president wants to prevent is the use of American territory as a safe haven for communications between terrorist operating here or people with terrorist links operating here and people operating outside of the country.

What strikes me odd about this is that Rice is saying that we don’t want America to be a safehaven for communications between terrorists. Interesting. I’m really not sure how that would happen since courts rarely turn down a request for wiretapping a suspected terrorist.…And now that I read on I see Russert has pointed this out.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, the courts very, very seldom turn down a request. He could have gone to a court to make sure that constitutional rights were protected for all American citizens.

Read the full Transcript HERE.

Also in President Bush’s weekly radio address he said that those orders were: “fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities.” (New York Times) But I’m still not clear on how violating the 4th Amendment is keeping with his constitutional responsiblities. Someone please explain this one to me.

~Justin

Share This

So this is the big surprise to my blog. I have a new poster, besides me! Justin has some similar viewpoints as I do [ok, a lot], but he often takes a different approach to things, and he has a different “voice”. I’m not expecting him to post more than I do [rarely], but when he does post, pay attention; he’s usually got something important to say.

Usually :-p

Share This

Hello everyone, I’ve tried 3 times with a long introductory post explaining alittle about me, but that didn’t work so here it goes. My name is Justin and I am a freshman at Drexel University. That’s all you need to know because I’m not writing a book again.

I have a question: does anyone else think Bill O’Reilly is an asshat? The whole “war on christmas” thing is such bullshit. Are people still listening to this guy? I’ve heard so much crap about how the ACLU and Political Correctness are destroying christmas. Did anyone ever stop to think that bitching and moaning about people saying “happy holidays” isn’t contributing to the real meaning of christmas. Where in the Bible did Jesus say “and thou shall purchase only from thee retailer that says christmas.” I think Jesus’ message was more about peace and love. I think if Bill O’Reilly wants to make a true Christmas gesture he should go to a soup kitchen and serve those less fortunate. It’s stupid things like this that distract people from what’s really important. I’m sure Jesus would like it more if someone said happy holidays and was generous and made others around them feel like family, as compared to someone who is upset by 2 words and uses his position as a talk show host to try and scare the “holiday” out of us all… and at the same time boost his ratings. I did stumble upon this comic, which I thought put things into perspective. Oh and this and this were amusing.

Anyway, so this HOLIDAY season, relax, and try to make sure that you don’t get caught up in all this bullshit. Because it’s my feeling that if we start worrying about little insignificant stuff like this, then we’re no better than Bill O’Reilly. And no one wants to be Bill O’Reilly… because that guy is an assclown.

EDIT-
My girlfriend found this and I found it very amusing, and relevant to the topic above.

“Douchealouche - (n.) A super douche. A douche which exceeds standard douche qualifications.”

Oh Bill, you douchealouche.

Share This

One last post before I head home for my month-long break. WOOT!

Some background on this story. For the past 2 years, during every White House gaggle, the official Administration talking point has been that the President would not comment on the CIA leak case because “it was an on-going investigation”. This week, however, President Hypocrite opened his mouth and commented on the on-going investigation into Tom “The Hammer” Delay. As you can imagine, the WH press pool was a bit… upset.

Q But it’s hypocritical. You have a policy for some investigations and not others, when it’s a political ally who you need to get work done?

MR. McCLELLAN: Call it presidential prerogative; he responded to that question. But the White House established a policy –

Q Doesn’t it raise questions about his credibility that he’s going to weigh in on some matters and not others, and we’re just supposed to sit back and wait for him to decide what he wants to comment on and influence?

MR. McCLELLAN: Congressman DeLay’s matter is an ongoing legal proceeding –

Q As is the Fitzgerald investigation –

MR. McCLELLAN: The Fitzgerald investigation is –

Q — As you’ve told us ad nauseam from the podium.

MR. McCLELLAN: It’s an ongoing investigation, as well.

Q How can you not — how can you say there’s differences between the two, and we’re supposed to buy that? There’s no differences. The President decided to weigh in on one, and not the other.

MR. McCLELLAN: There are differences.

Poor Scotty. The press got tired of sucking your collective dicks. They’ll be challenging you for the next 3 years.

Have fun with that.

Share This

On the eve of war, our “president” uttered the following:

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly — yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.

Remember that… we invaded because our purpose [SINGULAR!] was to keep us and our friends and allies safe from a regime who had “weapons of mass murder”. Now let’s see what President Douchebag has to say today.

BUSH: I said I made the right decision. Knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision.

HUME: So, if you had had this — if the weapons had been out of the equation because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call?

BUSH: Absolutely.

Right. So even if the sole purpose for invading Iraq had not existed, you would have done it. Those thirty thousand innocent civillians [or 195 thousand, whichever] who are dead SOLELY BECAUSE OF YOU would have died even if there had been 0 evidence of it?! So Mr. “President”, were you lying in March 2003, or are you lying now?

Or are you just out of your fucking mind?

Link.

Share This

Well this is just lovely. Our government is spying on us. Alright small government libertarians, you gonna complain? You going to challenge the administration? You going to go against George “Jesus Lincoln” Bush?

*crickets*

I’ll be waiting…

We’ll probably just get pathetic apologetic excuses though… “national security” and what not…

A number of years ago, I argued with a woman that the U.S. under the Patriot Act was moving towards a police state. She laughed and said if I thought this was a police state, I should move to China. But she missed my point… this is how it always starts… “security”… “protection”… and the restrictions will get worse if we don’t do something.

If you don’t want the government spying on you, whether it be for your politics or for what you and consensual others do with your genitals, stop voting Republican.

Share This