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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

hero or zero?

it must be difficult for george w. bush, to think that as a two term president he is still unsure what his lasting legacy will be. will he be a real american hero or will everything catch up with him and show his administration to be the most screwed up to date?

it is no wonder that he is so insistently pushing social security reform. iraq had no wmd's. i'll give bush the benefit of the doubt and say saddam was sneaky and moved them elsewhere, even with the leway i give him, he still has an unsolved war on his hands, one that is only going to get worse. (link)

if he is to be remembered as a great president, he will need to turn iraq into a functioning middle eastern democracy, whether it wants to or not, or fix social security, whether it needs to be fixed or not. according to msnbc (link) the president basically is telling untruths and is pushing overly hard. why wouldn't he? he has to be remembered for something other than being a screw up.

i read an interesting article in my new bathroom reading material book, "best american political writing of 2004". is an article by bruce reed from march 2004 in the washington monthly. "bush's war against wonks". the topic? how the bush administration fervently pushes politics before policy, there is little focus on policy. karl rove is in it to win, what you tell the american people to win is one thing, the best way to do it, or if it was even a good idea in the first place doesn't matter. think about it, last four years... hasn't that been true?

my conclusion. bush doesn't want history books to show him as a two term failure who won on an empty promise populist type deal. he wants to come out on top, be the man who forever fixed social security.

in other news, it seems bank of america has decided that oursourcing to india is the way to go and they set up a subsidiary there and are beginning to shift jobs there. more than likely my mom's out of a job. bush is right, we are creating jobs, just not american ones.

torture, partisanship, and good people.

I've been watching the Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general nominee Alberto Gonzalez all morning. As with everyone there will be the good and there will be the bad. Thankfully for America, Gonzalez as possible leader for the Department of Justice he seems to have a lot of care for the law and seems on the exterior to be as independent a council as the current Bush administration is going to appoint. His disagreement with a lot of leading senators is grounded in law and not what seems to be a malicious dodging of the truth, they are fundamental differences of belief. He honestly seems to be a good man who is perhaps going to put a halt to the shadowy four years that Ashcroft left as his legacy.

I believe the most telling voice today was that of Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. He like the Bush administration and Gonzalez believe that terrorists such as Al-Qaida are not covered by the provisions of the Geneva Convention. Bush, the dept. of justice, and Gonzalez are welcome to that belief because there has been a lot of examination into the issue and there are guidelines by which the geneva conventions should be applied. Lindsey despite his interpretation of the law concerning the Geneva convention retrospectively believes that Secretary Powell was right in saying we should apply the provisions of the Geneva convention to everyone.

Why? For reasons of protection for our own soldiers, we do not want our soldiers to be captured and tortured for information. so it is a military tradition, one that is written into their interrogation manual that military personnel are strictly forbidden to torture people. We believe we should take a moral highground so as to be respected in the world and have the same courtesy shown to us. I can see however how the Bush administration would feel like terrorists should not be shown this courtesy as they would not respect moral high grounds as they have been beheading people left and right, but why should we compromise American values as a means to an end, if we are conducting "operation enduring freedom" or whatever convoluted name we gave it, how are we to lead by example if we are suspending our morality in the face of an unknown and unforgiving enemy.

It irks me that the Bush administration came out and accused Senator Kerry of denigrating the troops during the Presidential debate. The Republicans jumped all over Kerry, Guiliani jumped all over him, then what has happened? It is easier to accuse first. Bush spokesmen have called the troops incompetent over the missing weapons issue, so did Guiliani and most recently with the leak of the torture memo to the Washington press, once again, torture was not a confusion created by a Gonzalez/Dept. of Justice memo that created a hazy view of torture [torture is defined in that memo as the equivalent of death or deadly harm to bodily organs], but it was the product of a few bad apples in the military, the bad people of the Abu Ghraib night shift. The military is very strict, I've seen my friends that have gone through training and officer's school, the marines, the navy, etc. There is a strict guiding principle that they instill in you, I'm sure that they all learned the basic tenets that is in the military manual that tells you that you WILL NOT torture as we discussed above. Where is the accountability in this administration. I will not be so quick as to blame Gonzalez as I do not think he was intentionally setting a precedent for the President allowing torture nor was President Bush, but accountability must be served to some one other than prison guards.

These questions of torture, they are discussable. That is why there is a confirmation hearing today where Gonzalez can explain things and show the Senate committee why he is an appropriate candidate for a job that desperately needs to be filled. I think everyone there is convinced that he is an honest man that will do a much better job than Mr. Ashcroft. Other questions to me are pretty simple, I think that it is partisanship that is creating the block to getting things done.

Besides torture and Gonzalez, what is the biggest issue right now facing American politics and society. Well besides the recount in Ohio (which is purely for the sake of making sure people's votes count, because every way you look at it Kerry lost), is Social Security.

Democrats say that social security needs to be reformed but it is alright and will be strong until at least the year 2060 or so.

Republicans have a fire in their pants and say if we do not fix social security right now the sky will fall and we retirees will have a crisis on their hands.

Which is it? This is something that is seemingly very black and white, either we do or we don't have enough money. Either or structure is able to self sustain itself indefinately or it is not. How could something that we have all of the facts on be so polarized? Our nation is in debt, a lot of debt. Democrats have been pushing that social security is a fixable problem but is not an issue for another 50+ years, our real problem is prescription drug costs from Medicare and Medicaid that is a definite immediate problem that threatens to push us further into debt. These things that people are putting on the table seem to me to be empirically verifiable truths. Either we need to take care of social security now or we don't. Either we need to fix a more immediate problem like prescription drug costs and Medicare or we don't. There shouldn't be a polarized problem like this. If the Bush administration wants to be remembered for something other than creating a disaster of a war in Iraq than he should do what's best for America. If he wants to be the big hero and fix social security at the expense of screwing America and sidestepping more immediate problems than he needs to be far more realistic and humble. But if that's not the case then by all means, Bush should keep on pushing social security reform (with discussion of course because social security privatization is the DUMBEST idea ever, especially everyone is speculating that because of weakening of the American dollar 2005 will be economically flat, and we will sink to new lows in 2006). BUT whatever the case, this issue should be black and white. Either we need to fix it or we don't. Which is it? Politicization must stop if the American people are going to succeed. The weakening of the dollar is scarier than most think.

What else should be black and white? The Bush administration after the 2000 election said that they were going to fix the election process. Being in Florida, we saw first hand how mishandled the election was and I hoped that 2004 would be clean. 2004 was clean in a sense, the sense that any kind of conspiracy theory craziness that there was mishandling of ballots is rendered irrelevant when you view the margin of victory. My question to the Bush administration is what do they have to hide? They pledged to fix elections. Katherine Harris our director of elections in Florida had 4 years to fix things, 6 months before the 2004 election there were still problems, many precincts didn't have updated polling processes and what did Harris say? "we don't have enough money". NOT ENOUGH MONEY? NOTHING IS DIFFERENT?! Black leaders pushed her to open more early voting precincts near black neighborhoods instead of being an hour across town. Her answer? "not enough money, no time". Absolutely ridiculous. We are one of the largest cities in Florida, not enough money for us but enough to open 3 early voting precincts in a tiny town south of us? Of course, after pressed and pressed she caved and opened a few more. I guess the money came from somewhere. Or maybe she was trying to avoid public embarassment.

So back to my question, what does the Bush administration have to hide? We the American public want the most accurate election results possible, we moved to electronic voting machines, why was the source code to the machines not made open source? Wouldn't it be in the best interest of everyone to allow every programmer out there who was interested to put their time in (and you know they would have) and make sure the code was as perfect as humanly possible? Why wasn't it open source? why wasn't the code at least open for the public to examine. It would have eliminated a lot of conspiracy theories and mistrust of the administration of they showed a little more good faith. Sure there might have been difficulties getting Diebold who is privatized to expose their code, but that's be serious, that code would not have been that difficult to write, they aren't going to sell it to anyone else, for something as important as the election of our United States President wouldn't the administration have put every effort into making sure there was a very low likelyhood of failure. How many instances were reported around the country from voting machines. Ones that crashed, ones that outputted the wrong vote, that is irresponsible and absolutely unacceptable to me, and it should be to everyone else.

Final thoughts. Watching the confirmation hearing gave me faith in politics, bipartisan politics. There are incredibly ridiculous people in the Senate. I like Ted Kennedy, he's incredibly sharp, but his motives are far to the right and obviously propounded by agenda of strengthening the Democratic party. Then there are Republicans like congressman JD Hayworth and John Cornyn who's actions in Congress and the Senate today have been a silly act of Republican ass kissing. But through all of it, there are people you can tell who actually care about moving politics forward and not beating up opponents on the other end of the aisle. Republican senator Lindsey Graham is a prime example. If he was running for President i'd give him serious consideration. Senator Feingold and Senator Schumer, all good people. There is far too much talk about fielding Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama in 2008. To me, that is plain stupid. There are plenty of ranking Democrats in the Senate who are worthy prospects that in my opinion are far better than jumping on the Hilary/Obama bandwagon (as much as I love them both). Also, Judge Gonzalez is a fair man who tries his best to interpret the law and follow it to a T. His problem might be not being able to see outside of this box and see implications of following it so tight for the sake of appeasing GW Bush, but I don't see any reason why he should not be confirmed. Blaming him for Abu Ghraib is ridiculous.

low key

that's exactly how i want this winter break to be, extremely low key. i'm a few weeks from 21. to some people 21 one means a whole new world opening up to them, a world where bars and clubs can be hit up with glee, a birthday party of 21 shots in 24 hours, to me it's a signal that i really need to focus.

i think i've really been spreading myself thin for the past god knows how many years. spread thin among friends, spread thin with the things i like to do, spread thin with what i want to do with myself after school. i think i'll start off the new semester thusly:

return to nyc with long bastard ass indie kid disheveled hair. write more. climb more. swim more. goto concerts again more. meet more rockstars. try not to go out with 10 girls at the same time. immerse myself in the new york culture that seems to have been hidden to me in the past few years that i am starting to see glimpses of now, if only materialistically. there are a lot of cool people out there, there is a lot of cool stuff out there, i like cool stuff. wasn't that profound?

all of this before new years... i don't like to make resolutions, resolutions are meant to be broken, especially if they are as contrived as the new years' ones are. i can see it now, there is going to be a huge influx of people into dodge gym the first two weeks of school, you will never see the again, that is of course, until next year.

i wish people would paint things for me, i had forgotten how much i like art. not your typical museum art, but art that is created out of sheer impulse of the momment, i made an amazing collage for sydney before break, it was.... (redundancy is cool) amazing.

i might just be the most random person ever or maybe i just have undiagnosed ADD. then again i don't believe in add, i just believe there is always something more interesting somewhere else some time else (some time else sounds cool, i'm going to start using that more).

and to finish off the journal, these are my favorite websites of the past few days.

- Threadless t-shirts. everyone is an amazing piece of art work. the community driven creation of shirts is just a brilliant idea. thanks to amy for steering. http://www.threadless.com/?streetteam=isuperwang

-Medium Shoes. i'm going to find a pair of these www.mediumfootwear.com

-Royal magazine. absurdly awesome, Wired was the only magazine i used to care to read, it fulfilled everything dorky about me. now there is this for artsy fartsy me. www.theroyalmagazine.com

-SHoP architecture. interesting ex-CU:architecture students' firm. www.shoparc.com

PS.....
still doing research to write an article about 'liberal' bias in the media. topic focus; if it doesn't exist, why do so many people claim it does + conceptions of liberalism.