Richard Clarke
Regarding the ongoing fiasco with the unfortunately named Richard (Dick) Clarke and the 9-11 commission. First of all the entire thing is crap. Clarke isn't a democrat. He's not trying to get a job in Kerry's administration, he's not weak on terrorism. He was hired by Reagan, worked for Bush I, and worked for Clinton. Shrub thought enough of the guy to make him his go-to fella on Counter-terrorism until CLARKE RESIGNED. He wasn't fired, he quit because Bush wanted to bomb Iraq since he came into office. The disagreement wasn't whether or not to bomb someone, it was WHO to bomb. Clarke wanted to bomb the Taliban, not Iraq. He was pissed about it, so he quit. Also, concerning the timing. Clarke's book was delayed not by him or his publishers, but by the Shrub White House who dragged their feet on clearing the book for publication.
But in the end, all of this is pretty much crap. I'll be the very first to admit, if Bush or Clinton would've unilaterally attacked Afghanistan pre-9-11they would've been crucified politically so all this talk about how Shrub "wasn't doing enough" to fight pre 911 terrorism is so much smoke up the butt. Post 9-11, that's a completely different story. And as Clarke pointed out, in 15 hours of testimony he was asked exactly ZERO questions about Iraq. That's the real story, not what happened before 911 but what happened afterward. The fact that Shrub and his gaggle of bitches USED 911 to attack Iraq is ridiculous and disgusting and is why no person who claims to be "in favor of the war on terrorism" should vote for him. All this stuff about how we could prevent something no one in their right mind expected is nothing more than 20 20 hindsight. Still, the Iraq question looms, and the Shrub factory just keeps lying, which is entertaining, but sad. It's no surprise Condi didn't testify, that chick opens her mouth and bullshit comes out like blood in a George Romero movie. They're not going to let her say shit on the record becuase statements like that are impeachable... same thing with Cheney and Shrub himself.
If you want to follow a truly terrific political blog stop by Atrios.
Friday, March 26, 2004
Saturday, March 20, 2004
War Protests and War Coverage
2 quick things. First, I went to the anti-war protest in Chicago today. (Worldwide there were millions marching today) The crowd wasn't as big as last year, I'd guess 10-20,000 people, it's hard to estimate, but I do know we filled the streets from end to end for 8-9 city blocks, it wasn't as big as the protest a year ago, but it was a beautiful day, people were nice, and the cops, although dressed like Storm Troopers (or as one speaker described them Hockey Players) behaved themselves and curbed any neandrathal tendencies they may have felt. Also, I met Jessie Jackson. Not extensively, he walked by I shook his hand and said hello, he said, "Have a good day." Still, it was pretty neat.
Second, I wrote the other day about Chomsky, and how Chomsky's understanding of the media makes deconstructing the crap they put on CNN easier. The crux of his argument concerns the self-censorship that has so brilliantly been woven into our system. Now a reporter, a brave guy named Harvey Rice explains exactly how it worked for him in his coverage of the Iraq war, but don't listen to me, read it for yourself.
2 quick things. First, I went to the anti-war protest in Chicago today. (Worldwide there were millions marching today) The crowd wasn't as big as last year, I'd guess 10-20,000 people, it's hard to estimate, but I do know we filled the streets from end to end for 8-9 city blocks, it wasn't as big as the protest a year ago, but it was a beautiful day, people were nice, and the cops, although dressed like Storm Troopers (or as one speaker described them Hockey Players) behaved themselves and curbed any neandrathal tendencies they may have felt. Also, I met Jessie Jackson. Not extensively, he walked by I shook his hand and said hello, he said, "Have a good day." Still, it was pretty neat.
Second, I wrote the other day about Chomsky, and how Chomsky's understanding of the media makes deconstructing the crap they put on CNN easier. The crux of his argument concerns the self-censorship that has so brilliantly been woven into our system. Now a reporter, a brave guy named Harvey Rice explains exactly how it worked for him in his coverage of the Iraq war, but don't listen to me, read it for yourself.
Friday, March 19, 2004
MSNBC and "Photo Propoganda"
Check out this bit of political propoganda.
You'll notice there are no American casualties. The only Iraqi casualty shown was killed by a terrorist bomb. Out of 30 pictures: 8 show US troops being either brave or compassionate. The only Iraqi body killed by us is showing only the hands. The one US casualty that's mentioned shows a family member reacting to the news. No mention there was 571 other phone calls last year for the same reason. Not one picture of one of our own wounded of which there's been 3,254 as of 3/19. The truth is that war isn't in any way glorious. There is no victory. Only the succession of violence. If you haven't read Chomsky on why these are the pictures MSNBC chose, you can here.
BRING OUR PEOPLE HOME. IMPEACH BUSH/CHENEY 2004.
Check out this bit of political propoganda.
You'll notice there are no American casualties. The only Iraqi casualty shown was killed by a terrorist bomb. Out of 30 pictures: 8 show US troops being either brave or compassionate. The only Iraqi body killed by us is showing only the hands. The one US casualty that's mentioned shows a family member reacting to the news. No mention there was 571 other phone calls last year for the same reason. Not one picture of one of our own wounded of which there's been 3,254 as of 3/19. The truth is that war isn't in any way glorious. There is no victory. Only the succession of violence. If you haven't read Chomsky on why these are the pictures MSNBC chose, you can here.
BRING OUR PEOPLE HOME. IMPEACH BUSH/CHENEY 2004.
THE ANNIVERSARY
Bush's Speech about Iraq and Terrorism on 3/19/2004
He's about to begin, I'm gonna assume what he says is going to be stupid. Let's see, shall we?
He's standing in front of a whole bunch of world flags, like he's talking to the UN.
He says anyone not with us isn't worried about terrorism. Idiot.
Terrorists "Murder at random and without remorse." Yes, so do cluster bombs and Depleted Uranium Munitions.
He's kissing Spains ass. "The civilized world is at war." "THEY've targeted Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan." Not us, them; we've not targeted Muslims.
Each attack must be answered...with greater determination. deeper resolve and bolder action."
He keeps saying "fight" and "destroy."
Says Terrorists give less value on life while we have AN ENTIRE ARMY occupying a 2 countries.
"We must be certain of convictions. We do love life." Who's he trying to convince? Himself?
"There's no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, life and death." ORWELL ORWELL ORWELL.
He still hasn't learned why they're mad at us. "No accomodation will satisfy their endless demands." That's crap. Ask the IRA.
He's trying to link AlQueda to every terrorist on the whole planet, like they have tea together or something.
He keeps listing countries that are our "allies" like Howard Dean listing the states in his infamous speech. WHoo HAAA.
He mentions that Pakistan sold nuclear stuff to Iran, yet they're our allies?!
He's trying to say that things aren't a total mess in Afghanistan. It's a nightmare there. The government only exists in the capital city Kabul. Everything else is controlled by warlords. "That nation has a democratic government????? Warlords are democratic now?
Says we entered Iraq to uphold UN sanctions. Does he say they had WMD? NO. No he did not. FUCKER! This man is such a lying asshole, I can't even stand it. Why aren't people throwing tomatoes at him?
"There's still violent thugs and murderers in Iraq." Yeah. Us. "Do we want the oppressors back in the palaces?" They are, only now they're us. Against our will.
He's listing all our allies again. (This happens 3 times in a half hour speech) Britain, Poland? El Salvador, Macedonia? Khazakstan? Estonia? Is he fucking kidding? He's blaming the continuing problems on AlQueda, refuses to even suggest the idea that the Iraqi's might not want an occupying army driving around their country in tanks.
Now there's a "intercepted terrrorist planning document" Sounds like fake intelligence again. Not surprisingly we're supposed to be EVEN MORE AFRAID than we're already supposed to be.
He keeps listing countries to give the impression that we're not alone. We are. Period. Britain alone does not the world make.
He's talking about places where a democratic movement took hold and changed a region of the world. Democracy in Poland leading to Eastern European democracies. The difference? Poland didn't have another country come in and FORCE them to have "democracy." There's a difference between an INTERNAL democratic movement and a EXTERNAL FORCED ONE.
"May God bless our efforts." Your God sucks buddy, please keep him to yourself.
Bush's Speech about Iraq and Terrorism on 3/19/2004
He's about to begin, I'm gonna assume what he says is going to be stupid. Let's see, shall we?
He's standing in front of a whole bunch of world flags, like he's talking to the UN.
He says anyone not with us isn't worried about terrorism. Idiot.
Terrorists "Murder at random and without remorse." Yes, so do cluster bombs and Depleted Uranium Munitions.
He's kissing Spains ass. "The civilized world is at war." "THEY've targeted Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan." Not us, them; we've not targeted Muslims.
Each attack must be answered...with greater determination. deeper resolve and bolder action."
He keeps saying "fight" and "destroy."
Says Terrorists give less value on life while we have AN ENTIRE ARMY occupying a 2 countries.
"We must be certain of convictions. We do love life." Who's he trying to convince? Himself?
"There's no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, life and death." ORWELL ORWELL ORWELL.
He still hasn't learned why they're mad at us. "No accomodation will satisfy their endless demands." That's crap. Ask the IRA.
He's trying to link AlQueda to every terrorist on the whole planet, like they have tea together or something.
He keeps listing countries that are our "allies" like Howard Dean listing the states in his infamous speech. WHoo HAAA.
He mentions that Pakistan sold nuclear stuff to Iran, yet they're our allies?!
He's trying to say that things aren't a total mess in Afghanistan. It's a nightmare there. The government only exists in the capital city Kabul. Everything else is controlled by warlords. "That nation has a democratic government????? Warlords are democratic now?
Says we entered Iraq to uphold UN sanctions. Does he say they had WMD? NO. No he did not. FUCKER! This man is such a lying asshole, I can't even stand it. Why aren't people throwing tomatoes at him?
"There's still violent thugs and murderers in Iraq." Yeah. Us. "Do we want the oppressors back in the palaces?" They are, only now they're us. Against our will.
He's listing all our allies again. (This happens 3 times in a half hour speech) Britain, Poland? El Salvador, Macedonia? Khazakstan? Estonia? Is he fucking kidding? He's blaming the continuing problems on AlQueda, refuses to even suggest the idea that the Iraqi's might not want an occupying army driving around their country in tanks.
Now there's a "intercepted terrrorist planning document" Sounds like fake intelligence again. Not surprisingly we're supposed to be EVEN MORE AFRAID than we're already supposed to be.
He keeps listing countries to give the impression that we're not alone. We are. Period. Britain alone does not the world make.
He's talking about places where a democratic movement took hold and changed a region of the world. Democracy in Poland leading to Eastern European democracies. The difference? Poland didn't have another country come in and FORCE them to have "democracy." There's a difference between an INTERNAL democratic movement and a EXTERNAL FORCED ONE.
"May God bless our efforts." Your God sucks buddy, please keep him to yourself.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
YOU MUST WATCH THIS.
Rumsfeld got totally busted out on Meet the Press. Bold faced lie, thrown up in his face. It's totally classic! WATCH IT HERE
Rumsfeld got totally busted out on Meet the Press. Bold faced lie, thrown up in his face. It's totally classic! WATCH IT HERE
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Howard Stern
I'm gonna say straight away, I'm not a Stern booster. He's a smidge funny, but just a smidge. For the most part I think he's a misogynist jerk. I liked when he went off on Rosie for attacking Tom Sellick about gun control when she did KMART commercials and they sell guns and ammo. I also liked when he passed the law that said no roadwork was allowed before 10pm. Good common sense stuff.
Then Stern started to criticize his holiness the surpassed and his administration about their handling of the Iraq war. All of a sudden Clear Channel decides to throw him off the air. Out of the clear blue sky.
Coincidence? Nope. And the next thing Bush knows he's got Stern all the way down his throat. When Howard gets on something he's not kidding around. And thank God, for once he's picked a soap box worth climbing onto.
Now he's rabidly going after Bush like a pitbull on a steak bone.
To a caller on Tues the 16th of March, "Your so called President has admitted to branding people in his fraternity. I mean that's the equivalent of burning people with cigarettes. You know who else burns people with cigarettes? Serial Killers!"
That hilariously snarky comment aside, for the most part Stern's looking at the big picture. High gas prices, tax hikes for the rich, sweetheart deals for Halliburton, and the fact that the War on Terrorism is being fought in the least responsible way possible. He's pulling this different threads together and arguing against Bush to people that usually wouldn't hear such information. If Shrub's gigantic war chest fails him then I think Stern will have something to do with it. Karl Rove knows this too, Stern's been pulled from several battleground states, including Florida. Again, coincidence? I think not. This is one to watch no doubt.
I'm gonna say straight away, I'm not a Stern booster. He's a smidge funny, but just a smidge. For the most part I think he's a misogynist jerk. I liked when he went off on Rosie for attacking Tom Sellick about gun control when she did KMART commercials and they sell guns and ammo. I also liked when he passed the law that said no roadwork was allowed before 10pm. Good common sense stuff.
Then Stern started to criticize his holiness the surpassed and his administration about their handling of the Iraq war. All of a sudden Clear Channel decides to throw him off the air. Out of the clear blue sky.
Coincidence? Nope. And the next thing Bush knows he's got Stern all the way down his throat. When Howard gets on something he's not kidding around. And thank God, for once he's picked a soap box worth climbing onto.
Now he's rabidly going after Bush like a pitbull on a steak bone.
To a caller on Tues the 16th of March, "Your so called President has admitted to branding people in his fraternity. I mean that's the equivalent of burning people with cigarettes. You know who else burns people with cigarettes? Serial Killers!"
That hilariously snarky comment aside, for the most part Stern's looking at the big picture. High gas prices, tax hikes for the rich, sweetheart deals for Halliburton, and the fact that the War on Terrorism is being fought in the least responsible way possible. He's pulling this different threads together and arguing against Bush to people that usually wouldn't hear such information. If Shrub's gigantic war chest fails him then I think Stern will have something to do with it. Karl Rove knows this too, Stern's been pulled from several battleground states, including Florida. Again, coincidence? I think not. This is one to watch no doubt.
Democracy in Action
Hey! I voted today. I love voting, especially since I consistently back the losing guy. For example, I voted for Dennis Kucinich for everything. He should win, but he's not gonna. Still, it feels good to vote my conscience and not just for the "sure thing" like all the folks who don't really like Kerry but are going to vote for him anyway. He's got the thing locked, we should vote for a candidate, not against one.
I was a little bummed I couldn't vote Green locally and Democratic nationally, but oh well.
Hey! I voted today. I love voting, especially since I consistently back the losing guy. For example, I voted for Dennis Kucinich for everything. He should win, but he's not gonna. Still, it feels good to vote my conscience and not just for the "sure thing" like all the folks who don't really like Kerry but are going to vote for him anyway. He's got the thing locked, we should vote for a candidate, not against one.
I was a little bummed I couldn't vote Green locally and Democratic nationally, but oh well.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
The Price of Dissent
Here's a list of stuff the Shrub White House has done to intimidate those who dissent against it's authority. There's quite a few with links to the original stories.
Here's a list of stuff the Shrub White House has done to intimidate those who dissent against it's authority. There's quite a few with links to the original stories.
In Rememberance of the Election of 2004.
For those who don't remember (or don't know) how The Shrubster stole the Florida election, here's a reminder.
For those who don't remember (or don't know) how The Shrubster stole the Florida election, here's a reminder.
Saturday, March 13, 2004
HAITI UPDATE
It's taken long enough, but it seems that the Shrub Administration might finally have to answer some of the lingering questions about Haiti thanks to the Congressional Black Caucus and Senate Dems. Let's hope so. Full story, HERE
It's taken long enough, but it seems that the Shrub Administration might finally have to answer some of the lingering questions about Haiti thanks to the Congressional Black Caucus and Senate Dems. Let's hope so. Full story, HERE
Friday, March 12, 2004
The Proofs Are Here!
In a personal note, I've decided to print up 500 copies of my novel Portal (Click to read 1st three chapters.) to sell at music festivals this summer. I just received the proofs for the book and it looks as nice as I hoped it would. Once they arrive and I get them printed I'm planning on selling them on the website as well. If all goes as well as I hope I'll do the same thing for my other 2 books at the end of the summer.
In other book notes, my latest novel, titled Ialtaboath, is going very well and should be finished (barring unforeseen development problems) by the end of May/ Beginning of June.
In a personal note, I've decided to print up 500 copies of my novel Portal (Click to read 1st three chapters.) to sell at music festivals this summer. I just received the proofs for the book and it looks as nice as I hoped it would. Once they arrive and I get them printed I'm planning on selling them on the website as well. If all goes as well as I hope I'll do the same thing for my other 2 books at the end of the summer.
In other book notes, my latest novel, titled Ialtaboath, is going very well and should be finished (barring unforeseen development problems) by the end of May/ Beginning of June.
The Gateway Definition and Does Scalia Have Any Scruples?
If you've been near a TV in the last couple of days you've probably heard the new lastest argument being put forward by those who are afraid that someone, somewhere is having sex of a nature they don't like. They are saying, "OHH NOO. It's not that we're closed minded bigots intent on re-introducing Jim Crowe Laws into America. It's not gay marriage at all. It's just if we open the door to re-defining marriage in a new way we'll slide into arnarchy. Why, if we define Marriage as being able to include homosexual relationships it will open the door to people marrying their children, their pets, and (as I heard one guy say) even a rock!"
Can you believe it? That argument is in the running for the most stupid argument in the history of public debate. My buddy John put it best. These yutzes are trying to say that Gay marriage is like pot. It's not so bad in itself, but it can lead to really bad things. Gay Marriage is a gateway term. Like pot, if we legalize it the next thing you know people will be trying to marry a needle of heroin. Or something. Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.
Same topic, different angle. He's at it again.
"As the Supreme Court was weighing a landmark gay rights case last year, Justice Antonin Scalia gave a keynote dinner speech in Philadelphia for an advocacy group waging a legal battle against gay rights."
"A month after the dinner, he sharply dissented from the high court's decision overturning the Texas law."
Full Story Here
The Texas law in question made having homosexual sex a crime. What does he have to do to get a hearing about this stuff, stand up in the middle of testimony and pee on opposing council?
If you've been near a TV in the last couple of days you've probably heard the new lastest argument being put forward by those who are afraid that someone, somewhere is having sex of a nature they don't like. They are saying, "OHH NOO. It's not that we're closed minded bigots intent on re-introducing Jim Crowe Laws into America. It's not gay marriage at all. It's just if we open the door to re-defining marriage in a new way we'll slide into arnarchy. Why, if we define Marriage as being able to include homosexual relationships it will open the door to people marrying their children, their pets, and (as I heard one guy say) even a rock!"
Can you believe it? That argument is in the running for the most stupid argument in the history of public debate. My buddy John put it best. These yutzes are trying to say that Gay marriage is like pot. It's not so bad in itself, but it can lead to really bad things. Gay Marriage is a gateway term. Like pot, if we legalize it the next thing you know people will be trying to marry a needle of heroin. Or something. Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.
Same topic, different angle. He's at it again.
"As the Supreme Court was weighing a landmark gay rights case last year, Justice Antonin Scalia gave a keynote dinner speech in Philadelphia for an advocacy group waging a legal battle against gay rights."
"A month after the dinner, he sharply dissented from the high court's decision overturning the Texas law."
Full Story Here
The Texas law in question made having homosexual sex a crime. What does he have to do to get a hearing about this stuff, stand up in the middle of testimony and pee on opposing council?
Thursday, March 11, 2004
John Kerry's "Offhand" Remarks
In a positive development for news junkies John Kerry has found himself a Carl Rove. (Carl Rove being the evil mastermind behind the spin machine of the Shrub administration. He's a political genius from Hell. Like Lee Atwater before him.)
From the Boston Herald:
"Kerry, speaking to a supporter in Chicago who urged him to take on Bush, said, ``We're going to keep pounding. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary.''
The comments, picked up on a microphone Kerry was wearing, marked the toughest talk yet in an escalating early war of words between the presumptive Democratic nominee and Bush."
Kerry claims he didn't know he was on camera and was speaking "off the record." He just "happened" to be wearing a mic? Don't want to get a bad audio feed of the comment you weren't planning to make. Yeah right. He knew he was on video and audio. That's why he said it.
Kerry's not a great candidate. He's a big money politician with an atrocious voting record. But this was a nice trick, which means he's hired some decent group of "lying cheating bastards" to run against Shrub's lying cheating bastards. It's a tough act to top, Bushy boy has one of the best propaganda machines in history behind him. This "off the record" trick was smooth. I hope we see more on both sides. Politics, if it's not going to be for the good of anyone except a few rich elites, should at least be entertaining.
In a positive development for news junkies John Kerry has found himself a Carl Rove. (Carl Rove being the evil mastermind behind the spin machine of the Shrub administration. He's a political genius from Hell. Like Lee Atwater before him.)
From the Boston Herald:
"Kerry, speaking to a supporter in Chicago who urged him to take on Bush, said, ``We're going to keep pounding. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary.''
The comments, picked up on a microphone Kerry was wearing, marked the toughest talk yet in an escalating early war of words between the presumptive Democratic nominee and Bush."
Kerry claims he didn't know he was on camera and was speaking "off the record." He just "happened" to be wearing a mic? Don't want to get a bad audio feed of the comment you weren't planning to make. Yeah right. He knew he was on video and audio. That's why he said it.
Kerry's not a great candidate. He's a big money politician with an atrocious voting record. But this was a nice trick, which means he's hired some decent group of "lying cheating bastards" to run against Shrub's lying cheating bastards. It's a tough act to top, Bushy boy has one of the best propaganda machines in history behind him. This "off the record" trick was smooth. I hope we see more on both sides. Politics, if it's not going to be for the good of anyone except a few rich elites, should at least be entertaining.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Evil Vs. Free Will
I've been thinking a lot about the problem of free will vs. the problem of evil. Mainly because it's become the center theme of the novel I'm working on right now. The argument, for those not familiar, has been bandied about for centuries. The non-believer in God says, "If God is omniscient (a universally accepted charectaristic of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God commonly referred to as Jehovah) then I cannot do evil because everything I do is predetermined and pre-known by God." But, "God can't do evil because he is, by definition, good and loving." So how is there evil?
"Free will." Is the answer.
"But how do we have free will if God knows everything? Can you honestly tell me I have a choice if there is anyone anywhere who can guarantee with 100% certainty what I'm going to do? That doesn't sound very free to me."
And so we spin and spin in circles.
Still, there are more people in America who believe in this version of God than don't.
I don't believe in it, but the Gnostic conception of the same God is much more interesting, and I think satisfying. In this version, God isn't actually God. He's a flawed, angry creature who is the manifestation of the smallest bit of the real God. That's why we die. That's why there's sin. We've been worshiping the wrong God all this time. Jehovah created the world of matter to try to recreate his hazy memories of the true realm of God. He's insane and basically evil. He's jealous becuase humans were given the "breath of life" (a soul) by the parent as consolation for being created out of matter and having to go through the trauma of living and dying.
What are the charectaristics of the Gnostic God, a figure referred to in their writings as "The Parent?" It's all about balance and the harmony of opposites. It favors neither opposite but chooses the middle path, all things at rest, calm like a pond. In other words, it's Buddhist.
There have been exactly ZERO wars started by Buddhists. What if the Western conception of God had been Buddhist instead of what it is. Everything would be different. I imagine it would be better but there's no real way to say one way or the other. (The grass is always greener after all, and Buddhist priests are hardly beyond the kind of petty corruption found everywhere in everything.) Of course, the fact that things are the way they are might not be the result of our choices. We could easily be on invisible strings that we can no more fight than the urge to pee. I don't think so, but he'd want me to think that wouldn't he?
I think I'll be done with the novel by June 2004 so I'll probably have more to say on this subject once the story works itself out.
I've been thinking a lot about the problem of free will vs. the problem of evil. Mainly because it's become the center theme of the novel I'm working on right now. The argument, for those not familiar, has been bandied about for centuries. The non-believer in God says, "If God is omniscient (a universally accepted charectaristic of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God commonly referred to as Jehovah) then I cannot do evil because everything I do is predetermined and pre-known by God." But, "God can't do evil because he is, by definition, good and loving." So how is there evil?
"Free will." Is the answer.
"But how do we have free will if God knows everything? Can you honestly tell me I have a choice if there is anyone anywhere who can guarantee with 100% certainty what I'm going to do? That doesn't sound very free to me."
And so we spin and spin in circles.
Still, there are more people in America who believe in this version of God than don't.
I don't believe in it, but the Gnostic conception of the same God is much more interesting, and I think satisfying. In this version, God isn't actually God. He's a flawed, angry creature who is the manifestation of the smallest bit of the real God. That's why we die. That's why there's sin. We've been worshiping the wrong God all this time. Jehovah created the world of matter to try to recreate his hazy memories of the true realm of God. He's insane and basically evil. He's jealous becuase humans were given the "breath of life" (a soul) by the parent as consolation for being created out of matter and having to go through the trauma of living and dying.
What are the charectaristics of the Gnostic God, a figure referred to in their writings as "The Parent?" It's all about balance and the harmony of opposites. It favors neither opposite but chooses the middle path, all things at rest, calm like a pond. In other words, it's Buddhist.
There have been exactly ZERO wars started by Buddhists. What if the Western conception of God had been Buddhist instead of what it is. Everything would be different. I imagine it would be better but there's no real way to say one way or the other. (The grass is always greener after all, and Buddhist priests are hardly beyond the kind of petty corruption found everywhere in everything.) Of course, the fact that things are the way they are might not be the result of our choices. We could easily be on invisible strings that we can no more fight than the urge to pee. I don't think so, but he'd want me to think that wouldn't he?
I think I'll be done with the novel by June 2004 so I'll probably have more to say on this subject once the story works itself out.
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Censorship
MoveOn.Org has had a rough year. First they had their commercial censored from the Superbowl even though they were willing to pony up the ridiculous amont of cash necessary to run it. Instead we got tits and horse farts and old people erection pills.
Now the Republican National Committee wants to ban MoveOn's newest set of ads as a violation of campaign finance laws. The RNC who steals Democratic files illegally? Yeah, that RNC. The article is here.
Everyday its something. Yeesh.
MoveOn.Org has had a rough year. First they had their commercial censored from the Superbowl even though they were willing to pony up the ridiculous amont of cash necessary to run it. Instead we got tits and horse farts and old people erection pills.
Now the Republican National Committee wants to ban MoveOn's newest set of ads as a violation of campaign finance laws. The RNC who steals Democratic files illegally? Yeah, that RNC. The article is here.
Everyday its something. Yeesh.
Anthony Scalia is a Rat
I know this story isn't exactly brand new but I just came across it and it too falls under the "Why the hell isn't this on the front page of every newspaper in America" column.
Dick Cheney has refused for a couple of years now to so much as release a list of people he met with in creating the W administration's energy policy. It is a well known secret that most of the people his Lord Voldemort talked to were multinational energy corporations who many groups have accused of literally writing the energy policy. (There are too many to link to, just google search Dick Cheney Energy Policy controversy.)
Cheney keeps getting sued over it and in January the Supreme Court upheld the idea that he didn't have to release the records. Anthony Scalia, Supreme Court Justice was apparently playing golf with Cheney A WEEK before he ruled on the case. Bad enough, apparently he then did the same thing with another guy, a Kansas Law School Dean.
Scalia was also one of two justices, Clarence Thomas being the other, who had family members who directly benefitted from W stealing the election. Impeachment proceedings should be well on their way. But they're not, and they surely won't be for some time. Are there any non-criminals in government right now?
I know this story isn't exactly brand new but I just came across it and it too falls under the "Why the hell isn't this on the front page of every newspaper in America" column.
Dick Cheney has refused for a couple of years now to so much as release a list of people he met with in creating the W administration's energy policy. It is a well known secret that most of the people his Lord Voldemort talked to were multinational energy corporations who many groups have accused of literally writing the energy policy. (There are too many to link to, just google search Dick Cheney Energy Policy controversy.)
Cheney keeps getting sued over it and in January the Supreme Court upheld the idea that he didn't have to release the records. Anthony Scalia, Supreme Court Justice was apparently playing golf with Cheney A WEEK before he ruled on the case. Bad enough, apparently he then did the same thing with another guy, a Kansas Law School Dean.
Scalia was also one of two justices, Clarence Thomas being the other, who had family members who directly benefitted from W stealing the election. Impeachment proceedings should be well on their way. But they're not, and they surely won't be for some time. Are there any non-criminals in government right now?
Saturday, March 06, 2004
The Meatrix
I'm not a super big animal rights activist, more because I think we have humanity problems that should take priority. But I definitely am not in favor of factory animal production. I came across this site called "The Meatrix." It's really clever and gets it's point across without feeling the need to show you nasty slaughtered animal remains.
I'm not a super big animal rights activist, more because I think we have humanity problems that should take priority. But I definitely am not in favor of factory animal production. I came across this site called "The Meatrix." It's really clever and gets it's point across without feeling the need to show you nasty slaughtered animal remains.
Friday, March 05, 2004
The Shrubster cashes in on other people's pain
Bush's new "campaign ads" (Read- propaganda campaign) have the gall to show footage of 9-11. This is hardly surprising. I can absolutely guarantee they're going to use that fake-ass picture of Saddam Hussein too.
Still. I think this is important. Let's look at what our President actually did when he heard a plane crashed into the world trade center. This man has a hazier sense of reality than Nixon did. Yet the country is split 50/50 over the man. Apparantly half of us are crazy. Good times.
Bush's new "campaign ads" (Read- propaganda campaign) have the gall to show footage of 9-11. This is hardly surprising. I can absolutely guarantee they're going to use that fake-ass picture of Saddam Hussein too.
Still. I think this is important. Let's look at what our President actually did when he heard a plane crashed into the world trade center. This man has a hazier sense of reality than Nixon did. Yet the country is split 50/50 over the man. Apparantly half of us are crazy. Good times.
Watergate Reloaded
Remember Watergate? Nixon's gestapo broke into the Democratic offices at the now infamous hotel. THis led, eventually, to Nixon's downfall. Well it turns out our friends in the GOP have been at it again.
" A three-month investigation by the Senate's top law enforcement officer found a systematic downloading of thousands of Democratic computer files by Republican staffers over the past few years as well as serious flaws in the chamber's computer security system. " According to the Washington Post.
Again, somehow this isn't news. I wonder how many gay marriages were performed today?
Remember Watergate? Nixon's gestapo broke into the Democratic offices at the now infamous hotel. THis led, eventually, to Nixon's downfall. Well it turns out our friends in the GOP have been at it again.
" A three-month investigation by the Senate's top law enforcement officer found a systematic downloading of thousands of Democratic computer files by Republican staffers over the past few years as well as serious flaws in the chamber's computer security system. " According to the Washington Post.
Again, somehow this isn't news. I wonder how many gay marriages were performed today?
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Rich People
Today I'd like to say a little bit about rich people. Not, gee I can afford to go out to eat every night at a fancy restaurant rich. I mean really, really rich. I mean this rich:
1. William Gates III, U.S., 48, $46.6, Microsoft
2. Warren Buffett, U.S., 73, $42.9, Berkshire Hathaway
3. Karl Albrecht, Germany, 84, $23, supermarkets
4. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud, Saudi Arabia, 47, $21.5, investments
5. Paul Allen, U.S., 51, $21, Microsoft, investments
6. Alice Walton, U.S., 55, $20, Wal-Mart
6. Helen Walton, U.S., 84, $20, Wal-Mart
6. Jim Walton, U.S., 56, $20, Wal-Mart
6. John Walton, U.S., 58, $20, Wal-Mart
6. S. Robson Walton, U.S., 60, $20, Wal-Mart
These numbers are in BILLIONS. You notice these people are almost all from the US. In the United States there are 275 billionaires whose worth combines for 908 BILLION. That's a lotta meatballs! I want to focus especially on #6. The Wal-mart family. Wal-mart sucks. They don't pay their managers shit. They refuse to allow unions. They've been responsible for the loss of literally millions of small business jobs. The family's worth combines for 100 Billion dollars. Since the current world population is around 6 billion the Wal-mart family has the cash to buy every single person on the planet earth a Value Meal at McDonalds.
Or even better. This one stupid family could end world hunger. All by themselves. It's the least they could do to make up for their staggering greed.
What will it cost to feeed the world? According to the UN it will take an estimated $5 billion a year to solve world hunger. Together they could make sure no one on the entire planet starved for twenty years!! When people complain about the tax cuts for the rich, THESE are the people we are talking about. Rich people are not a family making a combined 150,000 dollars a year. Rich is 5 million and above. Rich is Billions. And there aren't that many of these people. A few thousand in a world of billions. Are we really still so naive to even suggest there are a few thousand people who deserve to be worth a Billion dollars? They aren't. No one is.
I'm not a socialist or a capitalist. (I think there should be a hybrid. Food, clothing, shelter, health care, education is socialized, everything else can be capitalism) But we need to revoke inheritance laws for amounts over, I don't know, 20 million dollars a person. If you cannot live on 20 million, you'all can kiss my ass.
Today I'd like to say a little bit about rich people. Not, gee I can afford to go out to eat every night at a fancy restaurant rich. I mean really, really rich. I mean this rich:
1. William Gates III, U.S., 48, $46.6, Microsoft
2. Warren Buffett, U.S., 73, $42.9, Berkshire Hathaway
3. Karl Albrecht, Germany, 84, $23, supermarkets
4. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud, Saudi Arabia, 47, $21.5, investments
5. Paul Allen, U.S., 51, $21, Microsoft, investments
6. Alice Walton, U.S., 55, $20, Wal-Mart
6. Helen Walton, U.S., 84, $20, Wal-Mart
6. Jim Walton, U.S., 56, $20, Wal-Mart
6. John Walton, U.S., 58, $20, Wal-Mart
6. S. Robson Walton, U.S., 60, $20, Wal-Mart
These numbers are in BILLIONS. You notice these people are almost all from the US. In the United States there are 275 billionaires whose worth combines for 908 BILLION. That's a lotta meatballs! I want to focus especially on #6. The Wal-mart family. Wal-mart sucks. They don't pay their managers shit. They refuse to allow unions. They've been responsible for the loss of literally millions of small business jobs. The family's worth combines for 100 Billion dollars. Since the current world population is around 6 billion the Wal-mart family has the cash to buy every single person on the planet earth a Value Meal at McDonalds.
Or even better. This one stupid family could end world hunger. All by themselves. It's the least they could do to make up for their staggering greed.
What will it cost to feeed the world? According to the UN it will take an estimated $5 billion a year to solve world hunger. Together they could make sure no one on the entire planet starved for twenty years!! When people complain about the tax cuts for the rich, THESE are the people we are talking about. Rich people are not a family making a combined 150,000 dollars a year. Rich is 5 million and above. Rich is Billions. And there aren't that many of these people. A few thousand in a world of billions. Are we really still so naive to even suggest there are a few thousand people who deserve to be worth a Billion dollars? They aren't. No one is.
I'm not a socialist or a capitalist. (I think there should be a hybrid. Food, clothing, shelter, health care, education is socialized, everything else can be capitalism) But we need to revoke inheritance laws for amounts over, I don't know, 20 million dollars a person. If you cannot live on 20 million, you'all can kiss my ass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
