Monday, August 15, 2005

the extreme right....

The extreme right is so far to the right that they should be careful of falling off of the page altogether. If they continue to claim to be indicative of the majority of our nation then we need to do some serious self-examination.

All we have to do is look at today's Washington Post. If you're conservative, forget the notion that the Washington Post is some liberal hate machine spreading vile propaganda. What I pulled out of the article are just the words from the horse’s mouth. Let us read:

"Rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork warned that the high court has defined homosexuality as "a constitutional right . . . and once homosexuality is defined as a constitutional right, there is nothing the states can do about it, nothing the people can do about it.""

First of all, homosexuality IS a constitutional right. If you are gay, I'd advise you to call your senator or congressman, or Bork for that matter and get an apology. This is just unacceptable rhetoric, forget the liberal bias machine, this is just base pandering to further brainwashing people. We should turn to our First Amendment, as so many people like to do.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

Oh look there it is. Right under Amendment I, Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Homosexuality is not explicitly written into the constitution, it shouldn't have to be, nor will it ever be. I don't think anybody needs to turn this into serious discussion, it's not even a deep first amendment issue, it's pretty cut and dry. Moving on.

"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said "activist courts" are imposing "state-sanctioned same-sex marriage" and "partial-birth abortion" and are "ridding the public square of any mention of our nation's religious heritage" in what amounts to "judicial supremacy, judicial autocracy."

At times I wonder at Tom DeLay. Who is he kidding, I mean really. Our nation's religious heritage was one of deism. The founding father's, the majority of which were either atheist or deist, strictly wrote into the first amendment that we have a freedom of religion but also one where congress does not respect an establishment of religion. This was because Christianity's own troubles of having more flavors of Jesus than Coca Cola. We have a heritage of tolerance if anything. If by ridding the public square of our religious heritage we mean not imposing Christianity on everybody in the United States and their kid sister, of putting up statues of Moses and the 10 commandments in front of government buildings (where the constitution actually says that the government wasn't going to favor one over the other). To say that we have a history of religion that we should respect is to hide the true motive of the religious right. One should be hesitant of simply calling them "religious", they are extremist Christians. If a history of religion is signified by no more than a tacit mentioning of 'God' than... they might want to go look for something new to throw out there. Respect for religious history is not being truthful; it means a broader stranglehold on the United States' religious demographic, which includes Muslims, Jews, Scientologists, etc. If there is one thing that is scary is that the Christian PAC's are so strong, while at the same time we advocate a culture of religious tolerance. May we be weary that Jesus be written into law and "Moses is god's prophet" be cause for federal crime. That is a little outrageous, but that is the direction we are heading in. Serious nominees for the Supreme Court, our nation's highest court, should even in the strictest most literal reading of the Constitution, should know that the advocacy by the extreme religious right would not be sound legal policy in anyone stroke of life.


In Supreme Court rulings, DeLay said, "rights are invented out of whole cloth. Long-standing traditions are found to be unconstitutional. Moral values that have defined the progress of human civilization for millennia are cast aside in favor of those espoused by a handful of unelected, lifetime-appointed judges."

I think perhaps Mr. DeLay may want to apologize for these sorts of comments too. To say that long-standing traditions are found to be unconstitutional is saying what? What sorts of traditions in America have been found to be unconstitutional? Slavery? oh oh oh I got one, segregation? Wait... no. These are the words of Rep. John Lewis who puts it better than I ever could:

"Where would we be as a nation if Congress in 1954, fifty years ago, had radically amended our constitution to uphold segregation or the separate but equal doctrine? I further ask: Where would we be as a nation if Congress in 1967 made it unconstitutional for interracial couples to marry?”

Well shit. I can't think of anything else that has been found to be unconstitutional if not slavery, separate but equal, segregation, or interracial marriage. I can't tell if DeLay is just pandering to the Christian base or if he is a white supremacist... or maybe he's just hinting that these "activist judges" would turn over some other tradition... He was probably talking about abortion (I know I know) ... then again anti-abortion wasn't exactly an American tradition.

Speakers compared the civil rights movement of the 1960s to demands now by Christian groups for restoration of traditional morality. "It's time we move to the front of the bus and that we take command of the wheel," said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League.

In light of the last two quotes, one by DeLay, one by Donohue, I think it is important to remember that our societal ethics was largely decided not by Christian religion, but by common sense secularism. If we were following by the book bible morality, we'd be stoning women to death, taking the rod to our children, and generally just killing everyone who didn't agree with us. I'd rather Bill Donohue not have Bill Donohue pretending that he is anyone similar to Rosa Parks. There is a weird belief that is becoming pervasive in American society that believes that Christians are somehow the minority in the country, that they are the intellectually, economically, everything-ally repressed. They forget that they compose 80% at last census of 288 million people. This could be why I and most other people can't help but wonder with that big incredulous look on our faces when we are told that they are "at the back of the bus".

Newsflash to Tom DeLay: You're about to be fired, and Patrick J. Fitzgerald is coming after everybody else.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

religion is god's population control

A few weeks ago, I wrote an email to conservative AM radio talk show host Michael Graham for his comments on Islam. He had said that we were at war with Islam, that Islam because of the actions of extremists should be labeled a terror organization. He likened this rationale to the Boyscouts of America, if two boyscouts were suicide bombers than the BSA would consequently be a terror organization. Obviously this logic is flawed, but over the past few weeks his premise, that we are at war with Islam, still bothers me and just may be true.

I've had my problems with the Church since my mom started taking me when I was in middle school. We went to Presbyterian church for a few years before it became tiresome to show up every Sunday and the message didn't hit very hard. Was I to believe that human beings are born sinners and that by supernatural forces Jesus died for my sins thus absolving human beings from their inherent troubled nature? Every sunday was a play from the Jesus Christ rule book, while there were often mentions of church members ongoing missionary and humanitarian efforts in Africa, the rest of the time was spent on how to get to Heaven, how not to goto hell, how we should let go and put our faith in god. How long has religion, spirituality, been about avoiding hell at all costs and not about a personal relationship with god? This has to be the most basic premise of religion, one that seems to have been avoided, or not examined very deeply, who/what is god. Without having a concrete understanding of what we believe to be God, it seems difficult to have faith in anything else that we are simply supposed to 'have faith' in. God; omnipotent, omniscient, bondless.

This is difficult to come to terms with. There is one undeniable, regardless of god, evolution, nature, etc. human beings have the unique ability to reason and express reason, our brains are built to cognize environmental stimuli and this information is processed to allow us to walk, to see, to build vast capitlist empires, to engineer bridges that span the seas, to travel to distant planets. Our greatest faith, is our faith in ourselves, in our ability to take advantage of our mental abilities and put them to use. I've been a student of science and philosophy for almost eight years now, my day to day job is to apply my knowledge of physical phenomena to useful application. My mind like everyone elses function by means of reason. Science has taught me verifiability, philosophy to analyze belief, history to look at our past,and anthropology to determine how we as a species got to where we are today. In the end I have every reason to dismiss the traditional faith based conception of god as the man in the sky, constantly imposing judgement on me and placing me on the scale of postmortem destination. I've had to ask myself for a long time, why do you still believe in god? you have every reason not to, yet you cling, faith defies reasonability and has effectively placed itself above questioning.

My definition of god is not the grand master smiling to you from the sky. God, I believe, is that which is outside of human beings ability to cognize in the brain. Many philosophers spoke of seeing objects. but not knowing if we were actually seeing what was actually there. Does the world actually exist as we interpret it, I think that is beyond our ability to cognize, we are only able to understand the world and function in it as far as we see it through our eyes, but pragmatically this is all that matters. In pursuit of truth, what we can't see seems to be the higher truth, the truth we are oblivious to, limited by our biological construction.

Why do I call this beyond human capability of reason and brain function God? That's a good question, why reason that this is my definition of god rather than just call it what I see it as, reality outside of our cognitive ability. It never had to be "god", but why maintain that I believe in god if I really don't in the traditional sense, perhaps it's a social conditioning to be weary of atheism.

As I was researching/writing my previous thoughts down on religious fundamentalism in the sphere of sexual contraceptives, the more I read the more I was surrounded by lack of fundamentalism by self described fundamentalists. http://www.columbia.edu/~sfw2003/journal/2005/08/religion-always-finishes-second-but
I think it was only natural that I stumbled onto a book last week, that I hope will answer a lot of questions of my own 'faith' or at least affirm what has been stewing in the back of my mind for the past few years. I read an article on www.huffingtonpost.com the other week by author Sam Harris, a Stanford philosophy graduate now working on a neuroscience doctorate. I ran out to by his book, "The End of Faith: Religion, Terrorism, The end of Reason".

Three chapters into Harris' book and looking back on my life, I am convinced that it is a product of social conditioning that leads us to religion. I was brought up in the South, Jacksonville, Florida isn't the deep south, but it has its own part as a breeding ground for conservatism and souther baptists. Being Christian and believing in God was something that gets instilled in kids from the day they are born. My family was never deeply religious, my mother and her mother did not turn to God (although my Mom shares the same critical attitude and disillusion with organized religion that I do) until my grandfather died, a man from the Billy Graham organization visting alongside the rest of the family. Elementary school kids ask you what Church you goto, it's almost a given that you goto church. Highschool and middle school all the cool kids goto 'Young Life', a Christian youth group, a group that is well... more of a group to find hot girls,boyfriends, and go on ski trips than it is to worship god. If you were atheist you were most likely that weird kid that didn't talk much in the back of the room, a product of the hot topic phenomenom, or you were the dirty old school punk rock kid with the "A" for anarchy drawn in white-out on your backpack. Everything in the south devolves into a stereotype, either you believe in god, or... you're somewhere on the fringe of adolescent society.

Fundamentalism is bred from social conditioning and family tradition. Conviction to that degree requires literal interpretation to be drilled into your head. Literal interpretation that is only if we think about it, literal for purposes of hate and bigotry, other more unacceptable passages conveniently skipped over. The danger Harris says, is that we as a society, especially that of religious moderates have been led to believe that it is taboo to criticize the religious belief of others. This comes from our high minded Constitutional first amendment giving everyone, or rather, recognizing our freedom of free speech, excercise of religion, and freedom of expression. This constitutional right was written to protect religious persecution, the unwritten acknowledgement that religion dictated a foundation of morals and ethical structure that would guide our society. Belief that the Constitution is not a living document, one in which interpretation is (not) subject to the evolution of society like Biblical literalism is dangerous for the rights of American citizens and global status quo. The constitution is a document to preserve our rights, not systematically deny them, I would hope that people remember this.

If I told you that Oregon was a state on the east coast, disease was caused by bad humours in the body, or that the Earth moves on a plane of ether in the galaxy, your brain would automatically critically analyze my statements and assert that I was incorrect. My statements were not conjecture, they were simply not true. Alternatively discussion in the realm of religion does not reach this point of discourse, some part of our minds in having been conditioned suspends critical analysis of religious statements. We see this all the time on the floor of the Senate, Congress, and from the President. Religion is the final word in every argument. Harris sees this as a free pass, and I'm incline to believe him, as religion has largely supplanted itself in the American consciousness and has survived better than a roach during a nuclear storm. Religion is kept afloat by the belief that it provides a sense of community, a foundation of morality, spiritual experience that cannot be gotten from anywhere else; it has avoided widespread criticism by pushing religious violence and war to human conditions of greed and self interest. I think as students of a wide range of study we can see this is simply untrue in both cases. Ethics and morals are products of secularism and humanism and have functioned as such probably from the emergence of our race. Relegious wars? I think we can easily categorize the Crusades, Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, Sudan, Northern Ireland, Serbia/Bosnia, and the United States/War on Terror....aka Struggle against Religious Extremists, into the wars of religion category.

So are we at war with Islam? I think the larger issue is that we are at an ideological crossroads, we are struggling with religious fundamentalism on all fronts. On the American Christian front we are struggling with Christian fundamentalists trying to assert more influence to divert our country far more conservative than it already is. The Bible is literally interpreted to provide ethical basis for attacking abortion, gay marriage, contraceptive use, stem cell research, and a host of other issues. Though the Bible is not literally interpreted to provide a basis of acceptability for slavery, stoning adulterers, killing those who sway you from god or to false idols. Our absolution of these beliefs is a product of secular belief and as Harris says, scriptural ignorance, most people who are religious and consider themselves moderates(not fundamentalist) have taken the good parts of religious texts putting themselves in the strange position of not being true to their faith (which god says in many books to take his word as presented in the bible to be truth and to be followed to a T) or their reasonable mind. We don't stone children or women, we don't keep slaves, these sorts of things in modern day America are totally unacceptable and unethical. Thank secularism for seeing that killing off people that indiscriminantly is probably not the best way to have a functioning society. Effectively people have the same situation as myself, we have taken aspects of religion as a framework for our secular livelihood, yet in our secular application we remain devoted to the idea of god. It that vein we must wonder why we don't apply rational scrutiny to relgious beliefs, if fundamentalists have already made so many concessions to their own 'literal' interpretations of the bible, are they still fundamentalists? How is it that perfectly rationale people even become fundamentalist, from science and history we have the facts, the bible wasn't written by god(this is obvious, why would an omniscient, omnipotent being write a book in the first place?), it is written in far too many writing styles to be the product of one pie in the sky man. If anything, the Bible was written by man, and at the farthest stretch, their writing was divinely inspired by god; even still man is imperfect and subject to interpretation and thus cannot be directly the word of god. Religious tradition is also an area of contention as there are few religions if any on this planet that are completely of their own. Christian religion at its heart is an amalgation of religious and secular/pagan tradition that it has processed to its own benefit and growth. The 'truths' that you learn about the 10 commandments in church is after examination not as clear cut as the church would like you to believe, religious scholars to this day are at odds trying to reconcile the multiple appearances of the 10 commandments in the Bible, which are... quite different from one another. Even Jesus himself is disturbingly similar to the Shakyamunk Buddha, egyptian god Horus (the similarities which are... if only by coincidence is too close to immediately dispel), Mithra of Persia, krishna of india, but this is all neither here nor there. http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

What we as people in the modern world must be conscious of is that religious fundamentalism has trumped science. Many will tell you that the President's approach to say Stem Cell research is ethical and in everyone's best interest. I believe this is the correct approach as well, but not to the degree that he and others are sidestepping science. Many have advocated that they would be willing to accept abortion if presented with scientific facts. The truth is that the scientific facts exist, it is debate on "human-ness" that needs to be debated, but the conversation has been stifled by religious fundamentalists and the half and half religiousity of religious moderates. To be very blunt, there will be no adequate conversation about the ethical-ness of abortion until we abandon the notion of a soul, for when we bring the idea of a soul into the conversation that is the end of the conversation. It is true that science does not have all the answers, everything that we as scientists can hope to do is put up theory and conjecture, because like insulation within the realm of the reasonability of our cognitive brain functions, we can only prove factuality to such a degree, to be cliche, there is no absolute truth. This is where science is flexible though, science is pragmatic and is always able to adjust, if we one day find more reason to believe that electricity isn't the product of the moving potentials of electrons than with adequate evidence we can embrace a new understanding of the world. The foundation of science is progressiveness, when we embrace religious fundamentalism, this is at its root and impediment to progressive thinking. For religions in all of its spouting of truth, has no answers. Religion is at best a method (a foundationless method) of critique that proposes no answers aside from faith in the almighty.

What the suspension of reason in religious conversation has done is a paved way for violence. In the United States the limits of religious fundamentalism and extremism is set by our legal system. A legal system, which I would argue has more of a foundation in the Sumarian code of Hammurabi than it does the 10 commandments. It has been made clear by the law that freedom of expression does not include excercising a literal interpretation of religious texts that gives you freedom to endanger the lives and welfare of others. We may see the occasional abortion clinc bomber and scores of church goers bringing their five year old children in front of football stadiums on sundays with signs saying "AIDS is the only cure for homosexuality", but that is about the worst we see. This is because to some degree our secular humanism has created an ethic that regulates through law, religious extremism. Religious moderates myself included have been accepting of other religions, and why not? Unless your local jewish rabbi or student of the Koran is threatening to blow up your house, there is nothing that compels you to impose your faith. But it is also the truth that we accepting individuals, who ascribe to our Bibles, Torahs, Korans, look at non-believers and those of other faiths and smile, cringing at the fact that our religion damns them to hell. This is a strange nuance of society, we must interact for our livelihoods, yet spiritually there is such a divide that it is amazing that anything gets done. Islam like Christianity has much in it that applauds martyrdom. Unlike in American however, Islamic extremists and their followers find it acceptable to take their own lives in a suicide bombing. This is dangerous as we are fighting a war in Iraq, trying to systematically eliminate our opposition with secular weapons. Islam is so uncriticized in terms of possible interpretation that I fear for the future of our global society, where the only future I envision is more religious moderate Muslims making the conversion to fundamentalism and joining the extremist cause. When fighting the extremist wing of the second largest religion on the planet, one has to be weary of an unending source of struggle.

Global progress depends on our re-embracing of reason. Without it, our progress in the sciences, in diplomacy, etc. are stymied. I find it unoptimistic that only 20% of Americans believe in evolution as the source of our existence. Truth be told, evolution may not be the end all origin of species, but at least it has a foundation of proof. I find it difficult to believe that my origin is directly from God, the timeless being stopping into discrete time to make me in god's image. Me, a descendent of Adam and Eve, who were forced to cover their bodies, not for protection from the weather and environment but because they ate an apple for a snake. This is coming from a society that believes God's birthing from clam shells and throwing lightning bolts is silly. I have yet to completely let go of my belief in god, but if God does exist he has quite the sense of humor. The only way that I can rationalize god is that he gave us powerful minds that would change our physical environments, change them to the point where natural evolution has been trumped by our ingenuity to change our environments and not ourselves. If got does exist he unleashed opposing beliefs and religions upon the human race for the purpose of population control. He knew that we would eventually triumph over disease, take sex as a pleasurable recreational activity, the only way to effectively have a reliable means of population control is to let us kill each other by means of the unreasonable.

Monday, August 01, 2005

religion, always finishes second but gets the gold medal

For the last few days I've been trying to reconcile fundamentalist Christian views with scientific progress. More specifically the question of what is natural and what is not, in terms of sex.

If we look back through the years, it has always taken the Church and its more ardant supporters a long time to embrace scientific discovery. Although science is not mentioned often in the Bible, somehow the the church was able to establish its own acceptable explanations for unknown phenomena; everything revolved around the Earth, the world is flat, sickness is bad humours in the body or the devil manifesting himself through you, and the list goes on and on.

This policy seems rather familiar if you pay attention to the daily news and politics. Come up with a definitive answer now, prove or disprove later, but try your hardest to defend your original claim. The lag between claiming and proving are those people hoping to apply their moral relativism in a way that is no hypocritical to their faith, to not blur doctrinal lines, to maintain that one book has all of the answers.

The hardest thing for me to understand is fundamentalist views on sex. The policy advocated by the President as well as the Church is abstinence before marriage. The extreme being, that such things as birth-control, condoms, etc. are not to be used and are unnatural and not the way god intended for man and woman... or man and man, woman and woman for that matter, to have sex. I am not sure where this extrapolation comes from as I don't believe there is a chapter in the Bible called Sex Education 1:1.

The Bible never mentions birth control and sexual protection because... well it didn't exist at the time. What is natural? The human body was designed to repopulate the earth, post-... 'other species like dinosaurs' time. Over-population wasn't a concern as much as repopulating was, how many examples are there in the Bible of kings having at least a dozen children? The conditions and culture they lived in was best accomodated by reproducing as frequently as possible, to maintain the status quo of the rich and to preserve the family legacy.

The Bible is not the US Constitution, it is not persay a living document as much as it is a representation of the moral and ethical values of the time and people it was written for. As a religion however, it must be able to adapt, a strict reading gives too many oppportunities for clashing with modern day values.

As humans built upon the technology of each previous generation, we arrived at where we are now. We have arrived at a junction point where many have began to create a societal backlash against the progressiveness of the new era. God they say, did not intend for us to hinder the miracle of life with rubbers and latex, pills that regulate hormone cycles. How can we operate on the premise that human technology and progress is not normal, when our daily lives and pragmatic morals are deviations from the "normal" that is presented in the Bible. One cannot expect to be living 2000 years in the past, that is what is unnatural.

Jesus did not deal with overpopulation. People died in natural manners, disease, poor hygiene, infection, etc. all things that modern man has learned to combat (save overpopulation). Through science that lifespan of man has increased by at least 30-40 years. Disease is treatable, soap is plentiful, and overpopulation can be controlled by sexual protection. Sex and orgasm is pleasureful because it was meant to be done as much as possible, spreading the seed is the goal, from single cell organisms to the spores on a dandeliion and to man, we reproduce, that's our thing. But there is always a trade off. Disease is natural, in exchange for having the science to ward off disease, nature's natural overpopulation control has been trumped in a sense. The only thing that nature may rely on is death from aging as humans struggle to live longer and die less frequently. Without disease weeding out the weak like the occasional wild brush fire clearing out the forest, we continue to push on at a rabid pace. To control overpopulation we as a species must rely on what got us in this situation in the first place, science, ingenuity, and a bit of judicious behaviour.

For 'moral' pharmacists, who will not only not dispense the morning after pill, but not dispense simple birth control pills, they are doing the world a disservice. If we are to live the "natural" god intended life than we should do away with processed foods, we should do away with vaccines, we should do away with organ transplants and muscular reconstructions. To claim unnatural you must be willing to accept the entirety of the picture, the scope of your statement, I don't know of many that are willing to take that leap. If say god invented plaque, who are you to brush it away, to remove the natural decay that was intended for you? You can't pick and choose how fundamentalist you want to be, if you want to live in the world you must adapt to that world.

With this sort of attitude, you may be thinking that you could justify just about anything like this. A lot of people would be at odds with how do you apply science like abortion, are we able to just kill fetuses at whim for the sake of population control? Morality has always been a product of society, not of the Bible. In the end, it is science that drives morality forward as new invention always strains the question of is this acceptable, are we ok with this.

The fallacy... no no... difficulty lies in the belief in a soul. Through science you can draw a line, however grey between what is and what isn't a person. At one stage the developing bundle of cells is nothing more than a bundle of disorganized cells, comparable to a finger nail that you nervously chew off as you go about your day. During the first trimester and before the second, organ systems begin to form, there is a semblance of a brain, by the second trimester a discernable brain can be seen and perhaps neural activity. In my opinion you could call this too much of a person to abort. However, before? There is room to abort a blob of cells. But, if you introduce the wild card of a soul, you are forever without an answer.

The other day, there was a comment on www.huffingtonpost.com where a man wrote in saying that many pro-lifers would be willing to cross the line to pro-choice if science was able to withold some facts and answers about person-hood. The fact is science yields many answers that you could base your viewpoint on, the difficulty is the soul. If the soul is within the 'baby' at consumation, then you're stuck. To my best knowledge, soul=person. Until people are willing to put faith into sciences hands, while maintaining natural society created morality than science will be forever at odds with religion. Religion forever playing a game of catch up, trying to dig out morality and immorality at every turn. Fundamentalism is a hinderance on any sort of progress.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Islam is a terror organization

"If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 Scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization. If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder --and the scoutmasters responded by
saying 'Could be' -- the Boy Scouts would have been driven out of America long ago.
Today, Islam has whole sects and huge mosques that preach terror. Its theology is openly used to give the murderers their motives. Millions of its members give these killers comfort. The question isn't how dare
I call Islam a terrorist organization, but rather why more people do not." - Michael Graham 630 WMAL ( I don't know... some radio station that carries Bill O'Reilly, Mr. Graham, and Rush Limbaugh.)


[To Michael Graham at michaelgraham@630wmal.com]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Read it back to yourself and ask yourself if you actually believe the words that come out of your mouth. If 10/1000 boyscouts practiced suicide bombings they would not be considered a terrorist organization, they would be called terrorists who happen to be boyscouts. Your logic is impeccable. "If the boyscouts refused to kick them out, that would make the case stronger... handbook, justified, blah blah blah driven out of
america". Ok maybe. To call the BSA terrorists because of 1% of their scouts is stupid and irresponsible. It is an entirely different story if their handbook justified murder in some way, but it wouldn't matter as boyscouts and Islam are completely different. Apples and oranges, your middle school english teacher should have given you an F.

Why not compare Islam to something comparable. How about Christianity? So you're saying that if 10/1000 Christians practiced suicide bombings they would be considered terrorists? Are you saying that? What aboutthe abortion clinic bombers we hear about every now and then that pop up in the news? How about the good Christian boys that murder people because of their sexual orientation? Are they murderers and their entire religious community as well? Of course not. But that's what you're saying. So Perhaps it would make the argument stronger if the
Bible had language that defended murder, etc., and priests responded by saying 'Could be', would they have been driven out of America a long time ago?

[from google search, you can check the Book references references, sure they are out of context, a different place, a different time, but isn't that the case with Islam? Extremists?]

1) In Leviticus 25:44-46, the Lord tells the Israelites it's OK to own slaves, provided they are strangers or heathens.

2) In Samuel 15:2-3, the Lord orders Saul to kill all the Amalekite men, women and infants.

3) In Exodus 15:3, the Bible tells us the Lord is a man of war.

4) In Numbers 31, the Lord tells Moses to kill all the Midianites, sparing only the virgins.

****5) In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill
anyone who worships a different god or who worships the Lord differently.****

6) In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their
disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law.

7) In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.

It's a shame that people actually listen to people like you and take what you say to heart. Your arguments do nothing to form an American cohesion or stabilize touchy social relations, if you wanted to say that Islamic Organizations haven't done enough to condemn terrorism, just say it. If you want to say every Islamic organization should issue a fatwa against Osama Bin Laden and followers, just say that.

Don't call Islam a terrorist organization. Like I said, I hope you don't take yourself seriously; I hope you're just doing it to pick up your dwindling ratings. Nobody could be that stupid.

Stephen Wang
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen,

Thanks for the thoughtful email and for giving my stuff a read. I appreciate it.

So, since you've dismissed out of hand the idea that Islam is in any way linked to terrorism, how do YOU explain why every single suicide bomber from 9/11 to today is Muslim?

Coincidence?

Thanks for listening!

Michael Graham
630 WMAL
9am-Noon Weekdays
(link)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael,

Thank you for replying. I'm starting to wonder if that response you gave me was a cookie cutter one that was sent back to anyone with a tinge of disagreement in their email.

Let's take a step back. Before I get to your question, how did you come to the conclusion that I have dismissed the idea that Islam is in any way linked to terrorsim?

It is hard if not impossible to dimiss the link between Islam and the terrorists we have been at war with. I have not dismissed the link, what I do not believe is that Islam is a terror organization as you so brazenly stated. The suicide bombers are extremists of the Islamic faith, I think we can agree on that. There are approximately 1.3 billion muslims in the world, that is about 20% of the world's population, for you to say that an extremist sect of Islam defines an entire religion, mind you the second largest religion in the world, is
not only wrong but irresponsible.

The link as I said, is difficult to dimiss. I implore you to say what you mean and not add some firestarter at the end of it. Had you said that the Koran or the teachings of Islam give room for extremist interpretation would have been debatable. Had you said international Muslim leadership isn't doing enough to denounce Islamic radicalism, that would be debatable.

What you have spread to the american public is known as a syllogistic fallacy.

To answer your question, every single suicide bomber from 9/11 to today is muslim because we are at war with radical Islamic militants. Whether our presence in Iraq is supressing it or fueling its growth among the non-extremist Islamic community is something that YOU should be focusing on, not making irresponsible comments like Islam is a terror organization. Is this fact a coincidence? No, it's a moot point. It is not a coincidence because we are at war with terrorism, more specifically with Islamic radicals. Were you trying to get at a deeper meaning, because that was a stupid question. That's just like asking why all of the gorillas fighting in the Vietnam War were Viatnamese. There are no other suicide bombers because nobody else is
in conflict or you just don't hear about it on the news.

So what is your deeper point? The IRA isn't bombing the UK because of successful police action in the past and they aren't quite as active as they were in the past. Is there violence elsewhere in the world? Of course. Is there violence in Darfur and the Sudan? Sure. Is their violence and bombings in Haiti? Sure. The more I think about it, the
more I realize you have no idea what you're arguing about.

How do you explain why every single abortion clinic bomber is right wing Christian? Is Christianity a terror organization, a religion that promotes that folowers eliminate sinners? Come now, nobody is that irresponsible, the people who bomb abortion clinics are extremists. People who take their own interpretation of their religion and mold it to fit their own socio-political agenda are extremists, just like the suicide bombers.

Do some math. Abortion clinic bombers, say there are about 100. 100 out of a couple of billion is a tiny tiny percent. Islamic terrorists, say there are about 10000 that's still about a thousandth or a percent of the whole.

So what are you trying to say when you say Islam is a terror
organization? What do you want to do? Deport all muslims? Should we interrogate US citizens who are muslims? Should be infringe people's civil liberties because they are Muslim? Do you want to put all Muslims in jail? Because that is what you are saying. You are saying, Islam is a terror organization, all muslims are terrorists. Think before you spout something else out that is blatantly ridiculous. It's sad that people believe you. You are priveleged to be in a position
where you can spark discussion, but you turn it into some kind of post 9/11 witch hunt. great job.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, July 14, 2005

color relations

"They gonna drive out the black element to make the galaxy quote/unquote safe for white folks. And Jedi's the most insulting installment. Because Vader's beautiful black visage is sullied when he pulls off his mask to reveal a feeble, crusty, old white man. They trying to tell us that deep inside, we all wants to be white!" - hooper x

And so it goes, that's all I heard for years in Florida while I was growing up, people trying to be something they are not. Asians wanting to be black, blacks wanting to be white. Where the truth is there isn't such thing as 'being white' or 'being black', well at least in my opinion (they are social constructs, yeah). So you have people psycho-analyzing Michael Jackson, Kanye rapping about people saying he's too white, examples are all out there.

I was walking through Union Square last weekend with Matt when we stumbled upon basically a public demonstration comdemning Israel's actions in the West Bank against Palestine. We walked into the massive crowd that was growing around the orators, one man in his organizations blue t-shirt was arguing with a young couple, one guy with long really knotty hair that could have turned into dreads if he fumbled with it a bit more and his girlfriend. They both could have been your average hipster punk nyc amalgamation that you always see in Union Square, the conversation turned to race and history. The Phoenecians, Hamurabi, Jesus, etc. all black the blue t-shirt man said, "you sir, Israeli, not a caucasion". I got the finger though, pointed right at my face, "he's a caucasion".

And so for the next 45 minutes until we got too hungry Matt and I listened to this man talk about not about how the black man wants to be white, but how the white man is jealous of the black man and how culture is entirely derivative of the blacks, how the moors civilized spain, how the Phoenecians civilized everyone with law and culture.

The crowd got some choice lines.

"I hate liberals more than anyone else. A republican will come up to my face and say fuck you nigger. A liberal he will try to identify with me, try to tell me that my color doesn't matter. I would much rather be a nigger than for you to take marginalize my color. Liberals like that Israeli girl who was just here will try to identify, 'Oh I like rap and hip hop music too, bitch I don't give a fuck what you like'. White people always want to be black, look at your cultural history. Baggy pants? the black man. Rock and roll? Jazz and the black man. Many countries even advocated being fairer skin, but not America, not the white man, getting a tan, being blacker is the aesthetic. everyone wants to be black, they are all jealous".

I don't think anybody is denying the impact that anyone has had in America, surely all minority groups contiributed in some part.

Enter, two older guys, must have been late 30s.

"Man you don't know what you're talking about, I don't want to be black, I'm fine just the way I am"

"Do you know what Melanin is? Do you know what Melatonin is? I'll give you 5 bucks, goto the bookstore and educate yourself so I don't waste my time talking to you"

After a while it comes out that those 2 guys are doctors. I'm skeptical because it didn't seem like they knew shit.

"Of course I know what Melanin is, it comes from your skin cells"

"But mother fucker, melanin is produced by melatonin which is created by the pyneal gland. white people don't have any melanin, they sell this shit in bottles now, where do you think they harvested it from? the black man!"

"But sir, you're talking about two different things, I think you're getting confused"

"mother fucker, go ask for a refund, you didn't learn shit in med school. do you know who epycurious is?"

"why? does it matter? who is lskjdflksjdf? i don't give a fuck"

"these guys are doctors and don't know who epicurious is, didn't you guys take the hypocratic oath? do you know who hypocrates is"

"sure, do no harm"

"you took the oath but you don't know who epycurious is"

"you don't have to take the oath anymore"

"you don't take the oath? these fuckers don't know who hypocrates is"

"wait but i do..."

"tell me what the first 5 lines of the hypocratic oath are, I bet you can't do it"

"I don't know what they are, it doesn't matter, can you recite to me the first 5 lines of the US constitution? how many more trivia questions are you going to give me"

"First 5 lines of the Constitution? I don't' give a fuck. It's all bullshit anyways. You white people have no accomplishments save two things, colonialization and disease. They say AIDS/HIV came from Africa, NO! where did it come from? 1967 it was created in a lab, the human retrovirus. Black people reproduce too quickly, gay people don't reproduce at all, the white man just wanted to even the playing field because he couldn't keep on pace with the black man".

Ok it was at this point that I got too hungry and we left.
If you go on the internet there are quite a number of articles detailing congress asking for a virus that shuts down the human immune system in a defense appropriations bill. all the population control sounds like way left-field conspiracy, but it is entirely possible, in my opinion that AIDS was created by accident. There are numerous accounts of people trying to study similar diseases in sheep and monkeys in an attempt to protect against something similar and in many cases they thought they discovered something new only to find out their experiment was contaminated by samples from the blood they did with the monkeys. Laboratory testing was not anybody's strong suit at that time. They were trying to cure Hepatitis B at the time, could some HIV contaminated stuff gone into the vaccine for hepatitis, i don't think anyone would have thought to check for it or known what to look for, but it's entirely possible that when they gave immuninazation shots to the gay populace of nyc that they inadvertantly passed them AIDS. all conspiracy theory, but... the more you read, the more a few main ideas seem entirely plausible.

Other notes. the guy is a whack job. Melanin and Melatonin are completely not related, at least in the way he was talking about. Melanin is produced by skin cells, melatonin isn't even for skin coloration, it's for sleep regulation and wake/sleep rhythm. Even if they got melatonin from somebody and put it in a pill, the more melatonin you have the less melanin your body produces. Just goes to show, you can tell a crowd anything if you have a loud enough voice and you tell your opposition to shut the fuck up a couple of times.

Welcome to Union Square. Where everyone has something to say, but hardly half know what they are talking about.

Friday, June 24, 2005

tom cruise and the idiocy of scientology

what is it about human beings that requires them to grasp onto the irrational and treat it as if it is the rational? i used to have to write paper after paper about this phenomena in barbara kitcher's class that examined kant's critique of pure reason. recently this sort of thing has been popping up in the daily news, the culprit? tom cruise.

what is scientology anyways. if scientology is a philosophy so be it, but it is not, and that is the root of the problem. what scientology tries to present itself as is one man's legacy of melding science with religion, making the world a better place, it strives that we must purge our minds of irrationality, but that's exactly what it is, an irrational body of thought. it's like a dog chasing it's own tail.

scientologists promote their religion by saying they are striving to make the world a better place. that's fine if that's true, but there must be something that sets them apart, every religion to some degree wants to make the world a better place, woopeteefuckingdoo. here's the kicker, apparently some of the truths that you learn after donating about $10,000 is that a long time ago our galaxy became overpopulated and they sent the overpopulated masses to earth and hydrogen bombed them, the souls of these beings entered humans and are the cause of all misfortune, etc. first of all that statement itself has all sorts of unfounded inconsistencies and has lunancy written all over it.

i think it is perfectly rational to believe that aliens visited our planet, you might even go so far as to saying that perhaps they kick started the absolute miracle that turned amino acid soup into organisms. scientology's science fiction is hardly believable. first of all, they present themselves as a tax exempt religion, religion usually has to be based on something, a dusty book, scrolls in a time capsule, the bible, something. scientology is based on the lifeswork of a professor/sci-fi writer, a mr. hubbard. how can the supposed fastest growing religion maintain its members if you are presenting something like alien genocide and invasion of the body snatchers that is based off of 0 factual proof, just one man's 'theory'. people give enough of a bad rap to christianity for following the world's greatest history book, but this? this is insane.

first of a belief in souls is irrational, it is faith. scientology is supposed to be rooted in the science that developed the atomic bomb (as they say on their website, they also claim he was a physicist and war hero). second of all, if their was an overpopulation problem, why send them to earth and bomb them? why not send them to the sun, why not burn them alive, why bother sending them to earth? overpopulation for the galaxy, that's going to be A LOT of organisms. a hydrogen bomb blast killing them off would have to be pretty ginormous, so where is the explosion remnants. oh i get it, it killed off the dinosaurs.

in an interview with matt lauer on the today show he went nuts on him about people using anti-depressants and any kind of drug. "By his account, Tom Cruise owes his cool head, defeat of dyslexia and, in a way, his unstoppable stardom to Scientology."

ok. a. cool head, jumping on a coach on oprah saying your in love with katie holmes is not a cool head.
b. there are two kinds of dyslexia he could have had or still have. primary dyslexia which is a dysfunction of the left side of the brain, which does not change with maturity and is genetic, and secondary dyslexia which is caused by hormone imbalance during fetal development that diminishes during maurity.
it is impossible for scientology to cure dyslexia, taking vitamins and breathing in and out and whatever the hell they do, does not cure gene related dysfunctions. they can be dealt with by alternative learning processes but you don't persay learn like everyone else does. If it was a hormonal imbalance, sorry tom, it wasn't scientology, you just got older.

either way, he is speaking of the impossible, it wasn't a miracle either, there are no miracles in science. the fact that 8 million people are scientologists is disturbing, the fact that their teachings are so secretive is disturbing. why would a religion not want to be public with it's beliefs, while touting it is the fastest growing religion in the world?

this all feels disturbingly similar to the doomsday Aum cult that was responsible for the sarin nerve gas attack in tokyo subway in 1995. how many normal japanese professionals and college students were sucked into that, paying for stupid things that their "guru" said would lead them to further enlightenment, such as a vial of his piss to drink. their uptight workaholic culture prompted that but it is no answer for how rational people gave in to the teachings and beliefs of someone who fabricated the entire thing for monetary gain. we're seeing it again, who are the scientologists and why are so many people believing what they have to say? i don't want to be a conspiracy theorist but i hope that this is a product of tom cruise and his hollywood associates being stupid and not some sort of masterminded plan where our mental faculties are weakened by something in the water.

i dedicate this journal to freeing katie holmes from the clutches of shorty mcshortsalot tom cruise.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

new jersey

people from new jersey often complain about their situation in life. they complain that they are shunned as secondary citizens by their neighbors in new york city, they complain that they are unfairly stereotyped as less intelligent than their jcrew clad counterparts, and they complain that people don't give new jersey enough credit, that it isn't the stink hole that people who have never even been there attribute to it.

i never really liked new jersey that much, i don't have some blind hatred for it, my mother's entire side of the family resides around verona and bloomfield so i visit every now and then, but it's not paradise. for the next 3 months i have become a new jersey resident. i live in mercerville, new jersey. it's only been 6 days total, 3 days of working and i'm already starting to hate it. it's really only two things: the people and the scenery.

we'll start with the scenery. maybe it's because i'm unfortunately in mercerville. i think you can judge how civilized a place is by how many starbucks are around you. in new york city there is one just about every 2 blocks. ok maybe not 'civilized' but developed, even in jacksonville, fl there is a starbucks dotted around the place. my house in mercerville is very old, i live above a dentist's office and everything about it screams out old. the electrical outlets are two-pronged, which means i have to find adapter plugs for all my surge protectors, etc that have the additional grounding plug. there is high speed internet in the house but a. the office is locked from the rest of the house and i can't see how it's set up b. there is a wireless router but the guy living there says that the man who set it up forgot the network password? c. i can't get into the office and reset the wireless whachamahoozits.

in my desperate search for internet i have begun to rely on my cell phone for receiving instant messages. it's pretty pathetic and it gives me headaches as it does persay "chat" it text messages me an alert every time I have a response and i follow the hyperlink and i get to my message. yesterday i went crazy. i decided to search for the only civilization that i knew, starbucks. i knew starbucks would most likely have wireless internet, it is a haven, albeit a haven with bad coffee. i drove and drove and drove, at one point i almost ended up in philadelphia accidently and the other i ended up back around work in princeton. no starbucks. was i going crazy? tonight the search continues.

now the people in new jersey are terrible. i'm not sure what is their general attitude problem. i can understand new york, people in new york really just don't give a damn about you and mind their own business. in new jersey everyone wants to be up as close as they can be to you and tell you your business. they are just plain mean. i saw my dad's head about to explode as the realtor for potential studio in princeton gave him attitude. my dad grew up in small towns and has always lived in small town mentality, everyone is nice and no one gives you your business. i knew there was trouble when this realtor strode around with his sweater preppily tied around his shoulders as he sashayed towards spring st. "are you trying to blow your son's chances at getting this apartment?" oh god guy, you're dead, god have mercy on your soul, my dad is not the person to speak to like that.

the house i'm staying at has two parking spaces. after office hours, the family from ghana in the house moves their car to one of the spaces and the dentist has the other one until she pulls out for the day. i came home early yesterday and found both occupied. not knowing the area and it being my second day of driving in nj, i pulled into the street next to the house where the day before i saw a sign indicating it was fine to park on the side. as i turned into the street i noticed a car coming at me, i looked to the side and discovered it was a one way st. not a big deal really as it was a small street behind a grocery store. i did my best to pull to the far right of the easily 3 car width wide street and waved for them to go around me as i couldn't back up into traffic. the first car drove right at my grill and proceeded to give me the MOST angry looks and mouth of to me in his car. you'd think i killed his dog or something.

the next car was driven by a white haired old man. immediately as he saw me he decided to pull directly in front of me insteading of going around me as he had been on track to do. was it senility? no. the first guy did the same thing. only in jersey. when people do that in my town we just drive around them, hoping the driver becomes unlost.

on monday, i met tim and matt in princeton and we went out to watch a movie. it was about 10 pm and there were 2 other people in the theater. we were excited because we had driven all over the place to find this hidden AMC and had just run through the rain to get in (jersey's road system is the dumbest and most... whack thing i've ever seen in my entire life). for most of the movie they talked. this isn't the normal kind of 'loud black people yelling at the movie'or whispering to each other, as i was used to, this was fat white people that decided the theater was their living room and they could talk alongside with the dialogue.

only in jersey. somehow in the middle of their talking i snapped and told them to shut up. the girl turned and looked at us and said 'hey boooys'. she then proceeded to continue talking as her boyfriend shushed her. then he started talking with her again.

here's another anecdote. while i was shopping in wal-mart with my dad to get all the basic things i needed to move into my new home, a funny thing happened. i pushed my cart along the aisles as i searched for pillows. i left my cart parallel to one of the aisles as i searched, i went up to each pillow fluffing them out and seeing which would be the best for me. as i returned to my cart, i discovered someone had stolen one of my bath towels that i had put in my cart. i angrily got another one and checked out. it wasn't until the next day that i found out that someone had stolen the other bath towel too. what the fuck?

if i wasn't going to new york on the weekends i think i may go crazy. no offense to the wonderful people of jersey that i know at columbia, but i will never raise a family in jersey. i couldn't live with myself if i did.

Thursday, March 31, 2005

am i the only one who thinks this entire thing is ridiculous?

Being a student at Columbia University gives you the privilege to be a part of the protest or quietly sit as a spectator. During last year's uproar over alleged racism in one of the Fed's cartoon's you could sit back and understand why many were outraged and we could sympathize. This year we have another campus implosion, turning Columbian against Columbian. We have the New York Sun doing play by play on our every move, actively trying to paint our University with a dark secret: anti-Semitism and then we have the New York Times adding their two-cents every now and then.

As a spectator, am I the only one that finds the allegations of anti-Semitism absolutely ridiculous? This is where our story begins. Ding. Turn the page.

Allegations of anti-Semitism. Students who believed they were being intimidated by the professors in the MEALAC department decide to take part in a documentary put together by The David Project. They claim to be trying to present an objective view of academic freedom in the classroom, but all you really hear about are accusations of he did this and he did that. Granted, I wasn't in the classroom, what really happened remains in the confines of the minds of the professors and those in the classroom. [now that I think about it, wouldn't it be easily verified what statements were made? theses classes must have at least 20-30+ people in them, surely more than the alleged victims would be able to remember a story that in context is blatantly offensive]. The story has become a circus. Everybody and their mother has their own opinion about what happened and what should happen in the MEALAC dept. because the Sun and the David Project have turned the situation into a medieval crusade... or a witch hunt. The ad-hoc committee’s report was released today, no anti-Semitism, but the grievance policy is terrible.

Our story continues. I was sitting in image processing reading the Spec's articles and as soon as I finished the articles last sentence I think something in my brain snapped.

"I was disturbed because we wanted so badly to heal the Columbia community and get past this and we think at the very least the people that see that report would be the Columbia students."- Bari Weiss '07"

There had been something that had disturbed me about this entire anti-Semitism "scandal" and I could never really put my finger on it till now.

Heal the Columbia Community... I realize that there are students on this campus that feel like they were hurt somehow. I don't mean the portions of the Jewish community and others who have been following the proceedings and have taken a stance on it in their own detached sort of way, I mean the people that were in the classrooms, the ones that asked a question and had a wake up call answer that they probably didn't expect to be thrown at them. Perhaps I'm being insensitive, but I don't exactly feel like this has rocked Columbia to the foundation of its being.

Every semester I sit at my desk and with my advisors I pick about 5 classes to take. I believe the reason we go to university and take classes is for the purpose of learning. We go to university to get a deeper perspective on issues, to question beliefs that we have held all our lives that have not yet been subject to rigorous intellectual debate.

It struck me while I was reading the newspaper that everyone that has been mentioned as having grievances with MEALAC has been Jewish and in a class pertaining to the Arab world. I had to ask myself, why are you in that class. I believe that everyone's motive was to get an alternative perspective to the world that is adjacent to what they hold dear to their hearts (Israel); they want to know about Arabs and Palestine. I think that is a worthy cause, find the root of all the controversy; why has the hatred and fighting become so ingrained in the modern consciousness of both involved parties. The deviation I believe that occurred with those making the majority of grievances is that while they allowed themselves to listen to an alternative perspective, they did not allow themselves to give any consideration to the opposition view.

The problem with academic freedom is not between the student and the teacher; it is within the student.

I am going out on a limb but it seems logical that while enrolled in Massad's class, some of his students could not accept or at least give consideration to what he was teaching. Prejudice is a difficult barrier to get past. There is an over used adage that says that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink from it, this couldn't be closer to the truth.

Students in this conflict claim they have been verbally intimidated in the classroom. It would be virtually impossible, especially at a school of prestige at Columbia for a professor to circle the room and pick somebody out for intimidation. Massad did not go around the room and look for a Jewish person to get into heated debate with. Tomy Schoenfeld did not ONLY tell Massad that he had served in the Israeli army to illicit a response of "Well if you served in the military, then why don't you tell us how many Palestinians have you killed?" I don't understand why the context of the question was left out. I don't want to go so far as to say these students brought it upon themselves. That is unfair and wrong, what they did bring upon themselves is a sharp response from most likely an equally sharp question, an answer that was probably meant to make them think about their beliefs.

"Criticizing professors does not violate their academic freedom or stifle debate. It only adds to it. Professors can think and say and write whatever they wish. But they do not have the right to be free from criticism." -Bari Weiss

You're right Bari, they aren't free from criticism. What is appalling though is that sheltered Columbia students think they ARE free from criticism, that they came voice dissenting opinions and expect professors to baby them and say, "You know what, I’ve studied this for 2 decades and lived directly in the heart of the conflict, you know... you have a good point". This entire issue is blown greatly out of proportion. I wish Lee Bollinger spent more time doing other things than writing me emails so I feel like I'm not being alienated.

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

america doesn't care pt. 2

president george w. bush has decided that the state of the union... or the economy is not strong. he realizes that while he was accusing john kerry of proposing to spend a lot of money, he himself was actually spending a lot of it.

how shameful does this become when the things that the president used to get re-elected (see education) he very quickly has proposed to cut. department of education "he would kill 48 of its programs worth $4.3 billion and cut two others.". sure you could say, oh hogwash, these are programs that were useless and just wasting money anyways. that'd be completely legitimate, except that if you look at the 48 programs most of them are pretty legitimate sounding to me.

oh...
adult education state grants
teacher quality enhancement program
supported employment
projects with industry
vocational rehan
some scholarships
elementary and secondary school counseling
literacy programs for prisoners
women's educational equity
arts in education
civic education
interest subsidy grants
foreign language assistance
dropout prevention program
drug free school grants
interest subsidy grants
tech prep state grants
there's more and more and more and more and more

tell me mr. bush, you went to my town in front of a large crowd and talked about how community colleges were a pillar. how our economy requires people to get 21st century education for 21st century jobs. touted grants and scholarships, touted tons of things that are just proposed to be cut.

what's the best part.
america doesn't care. america elected him because they thought he was the real deal. he was pedro, he offered them their wildest dreams, and a statue of santa anna.

now the fairy tale is over and who's going to care. tommorow's conservative talking points.
-bush did what he had to do.
-bush is decisive, he saw our economy was in trouble and he made necessary cuts despite everyone's wearyness to do so.
-bush is realistic.

what is realistic though? fine i won't blame bush completely for sending the economy down the shithole. dennis schmelzer can post-election ass kiss all he wants to give reasons for economic craptasticness. what i will blame him for is for spending so much when he knew he couldn't do it. he wants to join hands and bring the nation back to fiscal responsibility?

what about spending so much money on everything? republicans touted how much of an increase education had when he was elected. war in iraq... yea that costs a lot. tax cuts... yea that costs a lot too. we forget that although the government is taking less out of our pockets, now the government has less money to do things. things that cushy americans loved. too bad. fiscal responsibility though... who cares about that when you can talk about social security blowing a godzilla sized hole in kansas come 2042.

in a week we'll all forget that Bush wanted to cut so many programs that are ridiculous. he wants to improve everything. he wants to improve airline security. OBVIOUSLY cut funding to FAA. loves veterans. OBVIOUSLY cut their veterans business development corporation. Loves small businesses. OBVIOUSLY cut their microloan program. environmentalists. well he never liked them, that's why water quality funds are proposed to be cut, epa protection for inuit villages... he loves mexicans. OBVIOUSLY cut migrant worker training programs. cut international labor affairs bereau, cut office of disability employment?

sure these may seem frivalous until you realize that real americans fall into these categories.

and nobody will care. ms. betty crocker white america will sit at home watching her soap operas and making her brownies smiling, knowing that her bush did what needed to be done. who cares that what needs to be done now could have been avoided. you can't be credited for achievement went it is to counter-act a failure. that puts you at even, skewed to the unhappy side. yet, for once, america only wants to hear the good parts. dumb asses.

america doesn't care pt. 1

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 06:27 AM EST (37 views)

every day i read something new that has come to light out of the secrecy that is the bush administration. and the more we see and the longer we wait to observe the reactions, the clearer it becomes that the bush administration will never be held accountable for anything.

haliburton pulls out of iran. iran is part of the axis of evil. haliburton subsidiary makes big new deal with iran. this may not directly correlate with the administration, but this is exactly the kind of thing that the american media reading public eat up and ignore. it's bait and switch. 'oh haliburton is ethical, they are getting out of iran because that place is a bastion of unamerican-ness and a harvesting ground for terrorists'. nobody cares about anything past that.

with the latest on the story about jeff gannon, as reported by keith olbermann, what is that, the 4th 'reporter' that we have discovered in the past few months that has been funded by the bush administration. nobody cares about this because they have more important things on their mind, things that are made incredibly one-sided as you have seemingly smart people with the credentials advocating 'bush is great, listen to the man' at every turn.

they will never be held accountable. of course they won't. although you may observe bush pushing privatization of social security now and calling everyone a sissy face that doesn't agree with him, first it's not going to work and democrats are going to be viewed as an obstruction to the democratic process. second, bush won't be able to privatize anything because it doesn't withstand the scrutiny of the democrats and those in the republican party. this doesn't matter because whatever is pushed through congress will ultimately be the doing of the bush administration (in the eyes of the public). right now bush has said that he is thinking about raising the payroll tax of those who make more than $90,000.

doesn't anyone remember him calling john kerry silly for wanting to increase any sort of taxes in order to be fiscally responsible? now bush says it's something to think about. bush won't be seen as a stubborn asshole who uses everything to his political advantage, he will be seen as somebody who accepts a wide variety of possibilities for every situation. the truth is that he lambasts opposition views, but if his policy does not work, he will stubbornly adobt the opposition view and take credit for it.

it's happened before and it will happen again. bush will probably go down in history as some sort of saviour of america. and he will not have earned it, he will have stolen it.

politics is a stupid game. you can't ever prove your right unless you have the political leverage. if you have the political leverage, then you can be right, wrong, lie, cheat, steal, completely make things up, obstruct liberty, control various aspects of the 'objective' media and you always come out on top.

and the best part is the american system that perpetuates this will never be fixed. unless people start caring then it's not going to happen. and america won't ever start caring because politics happen once every 4 years. the rest of the time we spend trying to figure out what to buy next and how to get the money to buy it.

why is john kerry reaching across the aisle for bipartisan effort? sissy. democrats need to stand up and say, fuck you, you guys are dead ass wrong, you manipulate the system to the point of not following within the confines of constitutional freedom. you cannot work for bipartisanship when there is no such thing. bipartisanship is a facade that only serves to make it seem as if the republicans care what everyone thinks. obviously they don't.

welcome to american politics. it's been in the shitter for a long long time.
for further lessons in ridiculousness turn to brit hume on fox news who claims that FDR supported privatization of social security. way to go fox. twist and turn a dead man's words. that's almost sick.