Thursday, November 24, 2005

"We will win and they will lose"

Here is a letter to the editor in a local paper which was portraying ‘diversity’ as a negative thing, something that we should not tolerate, something that only leads to trouble.
I saw in this argument so much of what is going wrong in our political climate today — fundamentalism. Religious ‘puritans’ of varying types, Islamic, that are willing to kill innocent people & wantonly destroy anything which could further their goal to topple everything non-Muslim, revert back to the 800’s, and create a strict Islamic law for all to follow. Or Christian Fundamentalists who also wish to create a theocracy, to make war on those that don’t agree ideologically, or don’t fit into the Judeo-Christian mold, to create a strict Christianized law of morality, and oppress everything and everyone who doesn’t follow a warped and primitive concept of ‘right and wrong’, ‘family values’.

I decided to take this person to task, to say frankly but in a civilized manner that this agenda, this way of thinking, that Religious Fundamentalists of any type are righteous in subjecting the rest of us to their ideologies and lifestyles, was not even remotely acceptable.

The following is the letter to the editor against diversity:
Diversity is not the answer for us

I come here often, in that my wife's relatives live here. This is one of the best places to live in the country. A low crime and unemployment rate help make it so. We in Texas once had a similar situation, but that has changed.

A large part of the reason is that many have fallen for the politically correct buzzword "diversity."

I would remind all that the folks that made this country great were not very diverse. They were God-fearing men and women who came here to find freedom.

Mostly these were Christians who had been persecuted in Europe. They worked hard and many lost their lives making this country what it is today.

Tolerance is another buzzword. We have become tolerant of gangs of all types and religions that want to kill us.

Our borders are wide open to all. We send our work to communist countries who hate our very being. We are educating their kids in our schools and they go home and talk about how rotten we are.

Being diverse is not the answer. Closing our borders is the answer.
Dwight Graham, Tyler, Texas

The following is my response, which was also published in the same paper the following day:

Fundamentalists bring persecution

Mr. Dwight Graham brings up the persecution of Christians in Europe while ignoring the current fundamentalist push to persecute everyone who isn't Christian or adherent to their so-called "family values."

Religious or not, this country was founded foremost upon freedom; an end to persecution. Not just religious persecution, but persecution overall. That's what makes it such a great and noble concept.

Perhaps tolerance is a bad idea. After all, fascism, more specifically Nazism, cannot be tolerated in a society where people seek to be equal and free to live their own lives, make their own choices, have their own values and beliefs without being dictated to about purity, decency, and morality.

When it comes to fundamentalist types who advocate war, work to erect a theocracy, and push to legislate their brand of "morality" — in a word to propagate fascism — this country simply isn't big enough for the ideologies of freedom and oppression to coexist.

To quote Christopher Hitchens remarking about 9/11: "Here we are then... in a war to the finish between everything I love and everything I hate. Fine. We will win and they will lose."

Yes, those of us who can "live and let live" will win, those who cannot, will lose.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Making our way toward the front of the bus...


So Rosa Parks, the woman who chose not to give up her seat on a bus for a white man, died yesterday at age 92. She is considered a hero to many for having the courage to stand up to an unfair system & unwittingly helped further the Civil Rights movement significantly. Her courage was no doubt heroic, but today we find ourselves confronted with another issue that puts millions of American's at 'the back of the bus' and that is the struggle for homosexual equality.

Mainstream America didn't consider Rosa Parks a hero some 50 years ago, it took decades of gradual but often monumental change for our culture to see just how unfair and clearly un-Constitutional this system of having second class citizens was, and how courageous it was to stand up for such basic rights we now take for granted. This is true also today as those who are fighting for homosexual equality aren’t often considered heroic, even though they are.

Today it seems unimaginable that people would be so set apart simply because of their race — the color of their skin — simply because of who they are & were designed to be. Many today can't imagine how average people could have allowed such disgusting discrimination to take place just a few decades ago. Ironically, many of these same people can also find a range of justifications as to why a person who is aesthetically, romantically, & sexually attracted to the same sex should similarly be denied equality. There are a range of issues in which homosexuals are denied the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals, from the right to marry & have legal benefits as a couple, to the right to adopt kids or raise a family, to being protected from discrimination in employment, To being able to serve in the military, or even until recently being legally able to consent to sexual relations with one another.

It is every bit as heinous to discriminate against homosexuals, but they have their reasons. Religious values, homosexual relations are seen as a sin and they feel it is their duty to uphold 'God's law', no matter the separation between church and state, no matter the debate among theologians on what religion/god's intent on homosexual relations really is, no matter that many non-homosexuals do not abide by certain religious laws anyway. Homosexuality is seen as unnatural, in spite of the fact the American Psychiatric Association no longer considers homosexuality a disease or dysfunction, which more and more homosexual individuals and couples are proving everyday. The notion of homosexuality being unnatural also ignores the fact that homosexuality is practiced widely in nature even at the exclusion of heterosexual relations, and that there is increasing evidence to suggest it is biological or possibly a behavioral trait developed at very young ages among healthy and well adjusted children.

Many don't think we are stable enough to handle relationships, they selectively choose examples of promiscuous homosexuals, particularly famous ones that have been very unsuccessful at monogamy or emotionally healthy relationships totally ignoring the far greater number of promiscuous heterosexuals leading decidedly hedonistic and dysfunctional lifestyles, not to mention the fact that one in two heterosexual marriages fail and it's been like this for decades. There are also those who see this as a public health issue, because homosexuals are perceived to be far more promiscuous and more likely to have STD's like HIV/AIDS, and therefore it is a risk to society at large to allow us to lead our 'lifestyle' and encourage us to do so freely. This glosses over the fact that HIV is also passed among heterosexuals, and the incidence rate is growing, in 2003 there were nearly twice as many HIV cases in Blacks as in Whites yet most wouldn’t dare use this to justify banning sex or marriage among Blacks or any other minority group that was statistically at risk. It also ignores the fact that lesbians are inherently the safest group from contracting AIDS.

People need to understand there is a very important parallel here. Those who believed 'whites only' bathrooms & fountains, backrooms in cafeterias or restaurants, back of the bus seating, etc. was justified — they also had their reasons. It wasn't just an attempt to be cruel for the sake of being cruel. To many of the time it was a system put in place for many of the same reasons that homosexuals should be kept apart today: religion, morality, health, nature, tradition, decency, for the good of the children.

There is another very important parallel to consider. At one time interracial marriage as well as interracial sexual relations in general were forbidden by community standards and local and state laws. Those guilty of attempting to intermarry were often charged with adultery or fornication, just as in recent times sodomy laws have been used to persecute homosexuals. Fortunately the Supreme Court overturned laws against intermarrying, in Loving vs. Virginia the court ruled, "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the 14th Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has not yet made such a ruling on homosexual marriage, but they clearly should. As the court ruled, marriage is a basic civil right, fundamental to our existence, by banning gay-marriage they have effectively banned homosexual individuals the right to marry, period. One could no more argue that homosexuals have the option of heterosexual marriage than one could have argued people have the option to marry within their race therefore they don’t have a need for a right to intermarry.

Someday our society will take yet another step forward, as it becomes a more mainstream ideology that homosexuals should have the same rights & privileges to the pursuit of happiness as heterosexuals do. In that time, homosexual marriages/unions, while still not the ‘norm’, won’t seem any more unnatural as interracial marriages seem now. While not ideal, because racial prejudice still exists today and sexual prejudice will certainly exist then, it will still be a great achievement, and in that time those who are fighting for homosexual equality today, will be the ‘Rosa Parks’ of tomorrow.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Free speech? The price is harassment...

The draconian tactics of this administration never ceases to amaze me.

"Go fuck yourself Mr. Cheney"

Hell ya! Amen, brother, for having the balls! I'd love to give a big "FUCK YOU" to Bush and Cheney and at least half the Administration!


Saturday, August 13, 2005

Yeah, thanks morons...

Thanks for all you've done

Thanks, Bush voters.


Our nation has you to thank for gasoline prices of $2.56 a gallon.


We owe you a debt of gratitude for the deaths of thousands of American GIs and the further destabilization of the Middle East.


Our children can credit you with dismantling the Constitution and imposing an Orwellian society devoid of personal liberties and the restriction of free speech.


Thank you for your tireless efforts to relieve the American public of choice and individualism.


Thanks, Bush voters, for helping to promote America as a punch line in the international community.


Thanks for: Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, homegrown John Ashcroft (maven of modesty, champion of decency). Thanks for Matt Blunt, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News and a culture of complacency. Thanks.


Martin W. Roubik, Springfield

A-freakin'-men Brother! Our own citizens with the best of intentions have sold us out for safety, tradition, 'family values', 'dignity', and religious ideologies. They have sold us cheaply to the personification of modern day evil - cold, heartless greed & lust for power. And most of them are so skewed by their warped perspectives that they don't have a clue just what they have done. They look around and they simply don't see. And they won't see until it is far too late. Even then they will cast the blame last at the ones who deserve it the most. So pathetic, the simple minded and the all too easily persuaded.

Friday, July 29, 2005

Round up them muslims...

Here is an article from Cal Thomas, a long time popular syndicated op-ed Christian conservative columnist and currently political columnist for Faux News, go figure. He is also very much a fascist Christian fundamentalist bigot, and Neocon propagandist. All of this is quite obvious when you read his articles or listen to his absurd blather on the major news networks, particularly Faux News (We Distort, You Comply). As usual he’s preaching more Christian right-wing garbage.

I actually got this from the editorial page of the local newspaper and wrote a brief opinion about it of my own, which I submitted to the paper, but I have not heard back from them so apparently it didn’t meet approval to be published. C’est la vie.

Jihadist propaganda fools U.S., Britain
DOLGELLAU, Wales — Thank goodness for those history channels that bring back the generals and politicians of the past who, by contrast, make many of today's leaders look indecisive.


I saw President Harry Truman on one of them last week. In a speech to the nation near the end of World War II, Truman rejected suggestions that the Allies seek accommodation with Japan, rather than victory. Truman would have none of it, saying only Japan's "unconditional surrender" would be acceptable.


Contrast that with the conciliatory blather of today. Prime Minister Tony Blair invited British and Muslim leaders to a meeting Tuesday at 10 Downing Street where he urged worldwide action to uproot what he has called the "evil ideology" and "twisted teaching" that lay behind the London bombings.


Here's what Blair should have said to the Muslim leaders: "The onus is on you guys. You find and shut down the terrorists and their network. You turn those who incite, plan and encourage violence over to the authorities. If you don't act, we will by closing and bulldozing the mosques and schools that incubate and instruct the killers, prosecuting the terrorists we find and deporting them and their clerics, and closing our borders to anyone from countries that harbor and teach terrorists. Those who are British citizens will be stripped of their citizenship."


As part of its continuing disinformation campaign in America (reminiscent of Nazi, Soviet and Japanese propaganda of the not-too-distant past), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is providing public service announcements to American television stations titled "Not in the Name of Islam." A CAIR press release says the spots are designed to "highlight the Muslim community's condemnation of terrorism and rejection of those who carry out terror attacks."


Just who are these spots designed to influence? Does CAIR wish us to believe the jihadists in America will see them and convert to democratic ideals, or is this Tokyo Rose propaganda designed to keep our guard down?


It is helpful to quote what two prominent senators have said about CAIR: "(CAIR is) unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect," said Richard Durbin, Illinois Democrat. "We know (CAIR) has ties to terrorism," added Charles Schumer, New York Democrat.


The terrorists benefit from Western self-indulgence, ignorance about history and aversion to war.


Western secularists cannot comprehend people who link their private faith to public actions. Too many think terrorists can be dissuaded from their bloody goals by using Western logic and trying to "understand why they hate us."


I don't want to understand why they hate us, anymore than my father's generation sought to understand Nazis, or the ideological slaves of Hirohito. Like that generation, since the jihadists have declared war on us, I want to kill them before they kill me.


To make us feel better and allow us to "get on with our lives," we make believe the jihadists are a tiny minority and not "mainstream Islam." But what if they are mainstream — part of an elaborate conspiracy designed to dupe the West while the infiltration of Britain, America and all of Europe continues unabated?


Wake up, America and Britain! The jihadists are after us and they will stop at nothing until we all live under the banner of Islam, either by fear or by force.



— Cal Thomas


Thank goodness Cal doesn’t make public policy. As usual, Cal is ranting about the evils of Islam, generalizing an entire race & religion as guilty because of the actions of some. Propaganda indeed! So I guess we're supposed to round up Muslims like Jew hating Nazis... Do we bulldoze all the mosques and schools, or just the ones we have legitimate evidence against? He should remember the Nazis and Soviets oppressed people because of race & religion and yet he is proposing the same.

It's absurd that Cal declares that Mosques who don't fight terrorism should be bulldozed, yet when Islamic organizations use media to condemn terrorism he dubs it disingenuous. Obviously the man cannot be appeased.

Considering Cal is a right-wing Fundamentalist Christian bigot who would love to see Christianity as the only religion in the world, and would welcome the bulldozing of every temple, mosque and synagogue anyway, I think we know where to file his Nazi-like approach.

Cal's lack of trying to understand 'why they hate us' is part of the problem. We don't want to examine where and why all the hate & resentment started, but until we do, all the bombs, intolerance, & 'Patriot Acts' in the world will not stop it.

Sunday, July 24, 2005

The 'sanctity' of marriage?

Funny how little marriage can mean to many of those who are allowed to have it, freely, and how much it can mean to many of us who cannot participate in it yet it is denied to us in order to "protect the sanctity of marriage"...

This may be the real Bush legacy, genuine discrimination written into the document that is supposed to grant freedom & equality...
Someday, maybe...?

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

The Supreme Court & politics as usual

Bush has made his pick for the Supreme Court, and he's picked a young (50yo) conservative leaning white male judge. Apparently his record is vague & not extreme enough to make him easy for liberals to rip into, though they will no doubt try in vain. There is so much behind this selection, more than meets the eye, and most of it is just common sense.

Should we be surprised at his selection of a non-moderate? I'm certainly not. I admit, I'd never heard of the guy before, and I am still not sure what to expect from him, but I have to give the Bush Administration credit, they have yet again made a move that was astute and clever. Now by praising their abilities I'm not saying they do it all the time, I mean the Bush Administration has blundered BIG TIME, like the Iraq war. That was a major blunder. I don't mean for going, they had reasons for going to war in Iraq and they're getting much of what they want from it, oh no, their big SNAFU in Iraq was in being unprepared, not having a good exit strategy, & not planning for what comes after you bomb the shit out of the place. Add this with not being more careful about coming up with a more solid case for why we had to go there, truly illustrates just how massive the incompetency of the Bush Administration can be. But, as I was saying before, they also can be very clever, like conning the American people into going to war in the first place, and winning elections by creating & exploiting extremely controversial hot button issues like abortion & gay rights, which done in a judicious way brought maximized results, which allowed an idiot spoiled brat 'cowboy' from Texas to win when he shouldn't have made it through the primaries.

So why was it such a wise choice to pick Judge John Roberts Jr. for the replacement of Justice O’Connor? They picked someone who they know they can count on to lean to the right, he doesn't have much of anything in his record to justify the title of 'right-wing extremist', so that ensures he's not going to get knocked down by the democrats, and to top it all off, he's very young. All of this means that if he becomes a Supreme Court Justice, which is all but assured, that he will be there doing his part to ensure the court will lean to the right for 20 to 30 years.

I have to admit it could have been worse, he could have been a fire breathing socially conservative prick, and apparently Judge Roberts isn't all that militantly conservative. It’s a good thing, because that could be disastrous for civil rights & social issues in general. But then again, in a way Bush's selection makes it even worse. As I said, it ensures that he will be appointed, there just isn't enough against him to justify not appointing him. Furthermore, as it stands, some of the most controversial cases have been decided by one or two votes - votes that Sandra Day O'Connor had voted in the non-conservative. And while this Judge might not 'tow the conservative line' on every case, more often than not he will. So now, when these issues are revisited (and they will be revisited rest assured), there will undoubtedly be a different outcome. By picking a 'right leaning' guy like Roberts rather than a staunch conservative, Bush has accomplished more for social conservatism than he probably could have otherwise.

So where did this clever idea come from? Well, who knows for sure... But I'd bet the house it was Karl Rove. Again, so many of the 'clever' moves Bush has made have been Rove's handy work. It's when Bush tries to think on his own, or lets the Neocon's pulling his strings like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, et al. make the decisions that the true DUMBASS moments come up. This latest clever move is just more reason why I hope Rove ends up with his nuts in a sling.

Well, all this "genius" talk aside, some are outraged that a 'conservative' rather than a 'moderate' was picked. Agree. But then let’s be realistic here. Afterall, we knew Bush wasn't about to pick a liberal! And while I have to admit, if Bush were truly trying to be fair and if he were truly concerned about picking a judge that would actually uphold the Constitution & follow the law (as he claims) rather than have a particular agenda, then he would have picked a moderate wouldn't he? Indeed. But alas, he did not.

I must say, I suppose I can't blame him for picking a conservative. He has to look out for his interests, and he had an obligation to give the (fascist) Christian Fundamentalists that voted for him just what they wanted - that their intolerant views on social issues & religious 'values' would be promoted & given the State’s seal of approval.

If I would have been Prez I would have been compelled to pick a liberal judge. I say this not because I'm particularly liberal, because I'm not, but rather I would have picked a more liberal judge to make up for the conservative nature the court already has (Sodomy Laws, Flag Burning, Roe Vs Wade & 10 Commandments cases notwithstanding). I think the Court needs more balance right now. Idealistically I would rather pick a moderate, or a 'libertarian' judge, because that is precisely what the Supreme Court needs! It doesn't need agendas, it doesn't need activists – it doesn't need liberal or conservative. The Supreme Court should not promote ideologies, it needs to interpret & uphold the law, to protect liberties; it needs to ensure the Constitution isn't just a piece of paper, & it needs to keep things simple. The Supreme Court serves to strike down overreaching laws the president and the congress (who do have & promote particular agendas) when they go too far and violates the very basic freedoms & rights that this country was founded upon and is supposed to ensure for its citizens, everlasting. But it seems so many have lost sight of that fundamental need.

It's a shame really that so many seem to have lost an understanding for what purpose the Supreme Court was intended to serve, & moreover that it is imperative that they do. For some time now we’ve been hearing much whining, mostly from conservatives, including Bush, about 'activist' judges, or 'legislating from the bench'. These are cutesy phrases that can be quickly thrown around when a judge makes a decision that doesn't set well with the lawmakers who had a particular agenda they had wanted promoted or upheld. The fact is, if it wasn't for so-called 'activist’ judges, most of the civil and social change this country has seen would never have taken place. Civil rights for women and blacks granted in the Bill of Rights & the more recently added Constitutional Amendments were meaningless until the Supreme Court gave them meaning by using them to strike down legislation that defied equality. If it wasn’t for so called ‘activist judges’, free speech, religious freedom, gun ownership to name but a few would not exist today.

The conservatives who are so opposed to judges ‘legislating from the bench’, should keep in mind that Congress has the power to legislate our most basic freedoms, like freedom of speech, or the press, freedom of religion, at will at any time. In fact, they’ve attempted to do so before, and it was the Supreme Court that struck such legislation down.

It may seem inconvenient to these conservatives that the same Supreme Court that is keeping us from having our freedoms tossed aside at the whim of the Legislative & Executive branches, has also played a part in upholding liberties that allow or protect ‘godlessness’ & ‘indecency’.

It may be inconvenient that the same 1st Amendment that allows Christians to espouse bigotry, attend the church of their choosing, and subscribe to the beliefs they desire without government intrusion also upholds “a wall of separation between church & state” by restricting religious symbols from state buildings, banning forced or coerced prayer in public schools, and putting the pledge of allegiance back to where it used to be (no ‘under god’ phrases). It may seem unpatriotic that the 1st amendment which grants us the right to freedom of speech, has also upheld the exercise of free expression which can include profanity, vulgarity, pornography, political satire, and even flag burning – a ‘crime’ in countries such as China, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, & North Korea. And of course it is such a ‘shameful disgrace’ that the Supreme Court understands an implied ‘right to privacy’ which has lead to the repeal of sodomy laws, and granting women the right to choose abortion if they deem it necessary.

These decisions may not fit the agenda of Christian fundamentalists and social conservatives, but they have been reached by the same body, indeed the very ‘activist judges’ which have protected our freedom from the perennial attempts at removing freedoms which our Founding Fathers forged together, and which we supposedly have sacrificed so many of our own citizens lives for. Furthermore it is in the same spirit of protecting our most basic, cherished freedoms that these controversial decisions were reached. Protecting freedom means protecting freedom for all, it also means sometimes the things we might as a majority find unacceptable must be protected, or we risk losing so much more.

Does the Supreme Court ever overstep its bounds; does it ever base decisions on ideologies & agendas? It certainly does sometimes, most particularly when politics come into play. Having liberal or conservative judges ensures that there are times when decisions that could be bad for the country, bad for liberty, bad for its citizens are reached. It is because of this that picking moderates for the Supreme Court is not just a good idea, it is imperative. Sadly, as was expected, Bush has ensured that ‘partisan’ will remain a part of the Supreme Court for a long time to come.

As pleased as social conservatives may be with themselves if abortion is all but banned outright, and homosexual couples are once again criminalized for being intimate together, what societal good they believe they are achieving is nothing more than a myth, but even more so, the threat to our most basic inalienable rights far outweighs the perceived gains in ‘morality & values’.

The only silver lining for those of us who have so much to lose in the near future, is that someday new judges will have to be appointed, and when that day comes perhaps a more progressive executive & legislative branch will be deciding who those judges will be. Hopefully they will choose moderately, but perhaps it will be time to undo some of the damage the right-wing court has done. Just remember, what comes around goes around; the pendulum is not static, and Republicans will not always be in charge.

"Democracy is not a static thing. It is an everlasting march."
— Franklin D. Roosevelt

"History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency,
when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure."
— Justice Thurgood Marshall

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with its shield of protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances... (The Framers) foresaw that troublous times would arise, when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper; and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril, unless established by irrepealable law."
— (Supreme Court 1866)

Sunday, July 17, 2005

Lynch the "Turd Blossom"

I am so glad that Karl Rove is getting in deep shit over his involvement in this leaking of the CIA agent’s identity. It appears that Rove used his power for political gain for himself and/or his boss. It’s definitely obvious that, as usual, anyone that disagrees with or exposes the agenda of this White House will be smeared, fired, punished – whatever methods can be employed legally or otherwise. And while all that is going in this case is of great concern and the man should lose his job over it, all that aside, this country would be better off having Rove in a position of less influence.

Perhaps the single most important reason Bush has been as successful as he has been, in stealing his first election, winning his second one, in victories for ‘conservative’ (fundamentalist) agendas can be credited to Karl Christian Rove. There is a reason he has been given the title of "the Architect". This man has been the influence & in fact the genius behind the ignorant man chimp who would become president, or as Bill Maher used to refer to him, ‘the little Bush kid’. Karl is the reason why a total moron like Bush has been as unfathomably successful in politics as he has, because the man obviously is a bumbling idiot. The only time he’s ever been successful at anything is when other people do it for him. He is just a meat-puppet for the Neocons & Christian Fundamentalist Nazis to manipulate. They decide his policies, advise where he should be going, what to do next, what the big picture is, write his speeches, etc.

When you catch him off guard & unrehearsed you get witty verbal vomit like this. There is no way such a man would or could be as successful as he has been to be as clearly stupid as he is. His speech aside, policy decisions illustrates this just as plainly. It is a testament to just how uninformed & pathetic the masses are that so many voted for him, and still today he enjoys the approval rating that he does. (one which is FINALLY starting to get lower & lower)

Ok ok, enough about Bush, let’s get back to Rove. He has been with George ‘Dubya’ since the 70’s. He was apparently the one that advised Bush to run for Governor in Texas, and even claimed that his office had been tapped with some sort of listening device, which was never proven, but the claim & debate that followed no doubt helped to land Bush the victory.

It was Rove who is said to have advised the President on which divisive issues to get involved with, and the opportune times for it. For instance, making gay marriage & abortion corner stones for why he should be elected, as well as new Supreme Court justices, the war on Terrorism, etc. It’s as if he were fighting for the soul of America, against the feminists, atheists, queers, & bleeding heart liberals in general. And masses of older, conservative voters who didn’t even vote in the election of 2000, showed up at the polls.

The Republican Party as a whole went out of its way to make sure several states were voting in Nov. about anti-gay marriage legislation. These bastards knew the only people that were really going to show up in droves on issues like this are social conservatives, and who else would a bunch of Christian fundamentalist types vote for but a Republican. I believe Rove was behind a lot of this too. He is a political genius, he knows what he’s doing & he’s unscrupulous about doing it. And, to his credit it has paid off. I mean really, I have to give credit where credit is due, the Repuglican’s have been clever, the efforts have worked, the Democrats have lost, big time! However it’s tactics like this that make politics such the manipulative farce that it is. It further illustrates the sad truth that politics is grossly unjust & disingenuous in general.

It would seem the "architect" has probably been put into the position he has for the past several decades by the hand of socially conservative Nazis and Neocons that got Reagan & Bush Sr. into office in the 80’s, Bush Sr. as Prez in late 80’s & 90’s, thus Desert Storm, and naturally Bush Jr. along with the War On Terrorism, perhaps the greatest single achievement in gaining true right-wing power. This has been in the works for decades, and so far things seem to be going according to plan. So many of the pet projects, the secret wish lists of Neoconservatives & social conservatives are coming true, at the peril of the rest of us, most particularly the weak – the poor, the minority, the oppressed, the innocent. It’s been a steady climb to more power, more money, and more control over world governments & economies.

I’m curious to see how all this is going to turn out. I want shame & political ruin to consume these corrupt & ruthless bastards, but I know how unlikely such things are. They are in high places, they have a lot of power, and it seems Bush always gets his way, one way or another. It’s unlikely that anything serious will come of this in terms of Rove & the Bush administration in general. But we can hope. Probably even if Rove were to get in deep shit over this and lose his job, he would still be advising the president in some other position.

Like...

Sunday, July 10, 2005

We hate you too!

I thought I'd post a disgraceful letter to the editor in a local paper (I've read other editorials from this mindless meatpuppet - he gets more and more hateful all the time) I just had to post it since, it almost defies belief.

"Yes, I do hate. I hate the flooding of my country by more than 10 million non-white illegal aliens. I hate the abortion murders of over 30 million innocent white babies. I hate race mixing, which is destroying my race. I hate the exporting of millions of millions of American jobs to Third World nations. I hate 'affirmative action' because it gives black people preference over mine. I hate the Iraq war because it's waged to defend Israel.


"And above all I hate the federal government because it's no longer ruled by, for, or in the interest of white people.


"Yes, I hate. I thrive on hate. Hate gets me through my days. I love to hate because there is plenty to hate. Reality compels hatred. And whites without hate are cowardly slaves, content with slavery and the genocide of their own people."
— Frazier Glenn Miller

Yeah, clearly there is much hate in this world... And you don't have to go too far to find it. The fact such people live among us who believe such insanity (and they live everywhere - in every town, every state, every country) is very disconcerting.

What leads someone to reach a level of such a twisted mentality of blind hate I can't imagine. I just hope the fucker stays back in the woods where he belongs, or that he comes to the city and runs his mouth off... after dark.


"Yes, I hate."

I guess I hate too... I'm finding it easier and easier to despise those who blindly hate the innocent. I hate ignorant, bastard, socially conservative pricks like this fascist fuckwad who is a waste of human tissue. I hate their very existence, and that I have to share the same air with them.

"I thrive on hate."

That much is obvious. And that thirst for hate makes him an evil son of a bitch.

"Hate gets me through my days."

And that's why he's so irrational and finds it so easy to hate so much. Love gets me through my days, but for scum like this, I have none.

"I love to hate because there is plenty to hate."

I don't love to hate at all, in fact I hate to hate. I hate that scum like this & others give me feelings of such an anger & disdain for some fellow humans, and that escaping such people is not possible.

"Reality compels hatred."

Indeed. In looking at people like this, Fred Phelps, & the cowards that killed Matthew Sheppard, among many others. the reality of this world & the evil within it does compel one to hate with a vengeance. But the difference between my hate and his is that I hate what people stand for, not so much the person; I don't hate indiscriminately, I hate where it's deserved; I hate violence, oppression, & bigotry, but I don't hate peace, tolerance, equality, justice, or the innocent. What's more I wouldn't deny him his right to exist, even though I would rather he didn't; I don't call for him to be put into a prison & have his freedom taken away, though he obviously deserves it; I wouldn't demand he be silenced, even though his beliefs make me want to rip out his tongue.

I think this guy is further proof that being intolerant of race, religion, & sexual orientation truly does make one a hateful bigot whose ideologies should die off like the dinosaurs that possess them. They try to blend in, pretend to be good, upstanding citizens who just want what's best for everyone, and that they don't advocate violence (or hate) but rather 'righteousness', 'morality', 'decency', but the truth is they really do hate, blindly; they really are bigots. This guy at least has the nerve to admit he hates so many things and people that he clearly shouldn't, but even those who claim otherwise while suggesting similar ideologies (like those that support racism, sexism, or homophobia) are just as sick, twisted, and evil inside as those who so militantly proclaim pure, blind hate and/or violence.

I'm wondering, how did he actually figure out that there have been 30 million 'white' babies aborted? I wonder how far back he went into the genealogy of the parents of each aborted fetus to determine just how 'white' they were. Afterall, there are few of us anymore that don't have some mixing somewhere. I'm a mix of Native-American, Irish, German, & Welsh. I would think that makes me a mixed breed, along with at least 90% of the rest of the 'white' population. But I guess since none of those were of Asian, African, or even Spanish decent that makes me OK. I wonder what he is? Pure Aryan? I very seriously doubt the possibility of that. Afterall, even Hitler himself, Aryan race advocate extraordinaire, had some Jew in him.

Well, all his ranting about hating this and that, I'm just amazed he didn't blast all the 'commie pinko bleeding heart liberals', and of course the 'perverse disease infested homosexuals' that are 'weakening the country'. I know he has to hate queers too, along with everyone else that isn't whatever he perceives 'white' to be.

It's sad but this provides yet another reason as to why abortion is and should be legal, it's just a shame his mother didn't see him coming & take the plunge beforehand.

Friday, July 08, 2005

Silencing the Ignorance of Bigots

I saw an article the other day that was covering the protests in Spain over the gay-marriage and equality laws. Apparently there were groups of so called ‘pro-traditional family’ protesting the passing of the legislation. What truly pissed me off about this, was not only the rantings about how this was an assault on the 'traditional family' (how very Fundamentalist Christian/Republican of them) as well as calling it 'a disgrace', but the fact they paraded children around in masks with tape over the mouths while declaring that 'traditional family has been silenced!' — that is what truly outraged and disgusted me. How could they begin to twist the granting of equal rights to gay citizens as silencing non-gay families!? It makes no sense whatsoever. It's positively absurd and bigoted. If anyone, ANYONE has been silenced and has ANY legitimate right to be bitching, it's the Spanish citizens who have been denied the right of equality; denied the right to marry the partner of their choosing, even having to live in the closet. Those are the ones who have long been silenced, until now.

The people that have the audacity to whine and bitch because gay citizens finally getting some equal treatment should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. It would be a fitting justice for them to loose many of their rights for a few years; give them a taste of it and see what they have to say when other's judge, insult & assault them because of who they love, and desire to have sexual & romantic relations with! That would be sweet justice.

I think it is fairly obvious though what is implied here by their claim that the granting of equal rights for gays is 'silencing the traditional family' — these people once enjoyed an exclusive status, heterosexuals could couple together, marry, have kids, and so forth. Now they have to share that right with others. Their exclusivity has been taken away from them. And apparently when you have exclusive status and that status is removed & replaced with equality with a group, lifestyle, or people that are seen as inferior, it is viewed as an insult. I can understand not wanting to share their power & prestige, they're selfish that way, but it’s completely unjustified and unfair.

And this bit about silencing! Cry me a river. As if these heterosexual persons and families have ever been denied anything or ever will because of this! If giving us equal rights is truly akin to ‘silencing’ these people then by all means may they carve out their tongues because obviously nothing they have to say could be of much value.

Silencing the Ignorance of Bigots

I saw an article the other day that was covering the protests in Spain over the gay-marriage and equality laws. Apparently there were groups of so called ‘pro-traditional family’ protesting the passing of the legislation. What truly pissed me off about this, was not only the rantings about how this was an assault on the 'traditional family' (how very Fundamentalist Christian/Republican of them) as well as calling it 'a disgrace', but the fact they paraded children around in masks with tape over the mouths while declaring that 'traditional family has been silenced!' — that is what truly outraged and disgusted me. How could they begin to twist the granting of equal rights to gay citizens as silencing non-gay families!? It makes no sense whatsoever. It's positively absurd and bigoted. If anyone, ANYONE has been silenced and has ANY legitimate right to be bitching, it's the Spanish citizens who have been denied the right of equality; denied the right to marry the partner of their choosing, even having to live in the closet. Those are the ones who have long been silenced, until now.

The people that have the audacity to whine and bitch because gay citizens finally getting some equal treatment should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. It would be a fitting justice for them to loose many of their rights for a few years; give them a taste of it and see what they have to say when other's judge, insult & assault them because of who they love, and desire to have sexual & romantic relations with! That would be sweet justice.

I think it is fairly obvious though what is implied here by their claim that the granting of equal rights for gays is 'silencing the traditional family' — these people once enjoyed an exclusive status, heterosexuals could couple together, marry, have kids, and so forth. Now they have to share that right with others. Their exclusivity has been taken away from them. And apparently when you have exclusive status and that status is removed & replaced with equality with a group, lifestyle, or people that are seen as inferior, it is viewed as an insult. I can understand not wanting to share their power & prestige, they're selfish that way, but it’s completely unjustified and unfair.

And this bit about silencing! Cry me a river. As if these heterosexual persons and families have ever been denied anything or ever will because of this! If giving us equal rights is truly akin to ‘silencing’ these people then by all means may they carve out their tongues because obviously nothing they have to say could be of much value.

Monday, July 04, 2005

In'dependence' Day

I was just thinking today, on this Independence Day, that our society has lost sight of some very fundamental principles. With all the flag waving, the patriotic songs & slogans, that swell of blind support for all things military or government, we should not forget that this country was fought for & founded upon principles of freedom, democracy, liberty, and equality. And supposedly the wars we've fought since that time has been to preserve that and our way of life. Yet so often these things foundations are attacked. Most notably, the Constitution, and especially the First Amendment.

We see those who seek to destroy the freedoms we hold dear for their own agendas have an increasing influence in our society. It's become mainstream, its infiltrated the mass media, it's bumper stickers and militant attitudes of a people who feel something has been taken away from them, when in reality what they had was never theirs to begin with. They have used their voting power & their voice to silence others, restrict rights - even their own. They have handed the politicians who would further these warped ideologies the reigns of our government.

There is a growing list of those who would stifle the rest, in the name of goodness, decency, the rule of law, peace, security, religion, tradition, even so called 'family values'. Religious Fundamentalists who want a theocracy; anti-abortionists who want the state to mandate health issues based primarily on religious grounds; social conservatives who would censor, limit, & restrict knowledge, art, ideas, even benign lifestyles that are deemed unfit; the frightened & ignorant masses who would gladly give up liberty in exchange for some security.

We hear more fear & hate mongering outcries at any possibility of granting more freedom to our people, of building a deeper sense of equality, as in the case of gay marriage, yet these same people would support banning an ever growing list of behaviors, ideas, and even rights. They would trample the very Constitution and all it stands for even as soldiers & innocents alike die everyday, supposedly protecting those very things we claim to be afraid of losing. Far too many, are far too eager to limit, so quick to judge, so slow to understand, so unwilling to 'live and let live' - 'mind their own backyard'.

Perhaps the most dangerous notions alive today are those of unity, patriotism, and being agreeable. The liberal minded, the libertarians, the peace advocates, the civil rights activists (and the homosexual issue is a civil one), the environmentalists - these are the people that are being shouted down, the ones who are seen as 'too radical', 'rocking the boat', 'just bad for the country'. How ironic considering in most cases, arguments of practicality & ideology aside, these ideas put forth by such people include liberties, equality, compassion, peace, non-violence, tolerance. Ideas that have apparently become dangerous to some, when if anything it is intolerance, violence, war mongering, & bigotry that are the true dangers & lead to misery.

We should remember that this country was founded by rebels, not yes-men. Perhaps one of the most unpatriotic things citizens could be doing now is supporting patriotism for patriotism’s sake; supporting the war because dissent makes us weak; supporting the President because it's war-time; living, thinking, acting in lock step with what the Administration expects from us.

If we surrender our rights of liberty, even for such comfortable things like 'peace', 'security', 'tradition', then we've lost everything worth having. Furthermore if we allow ourselves to suppress our opinions, our dissent, our ability to think & act independently, then we have become very much like a people that we once went to war with - a people that said nothing as the worst horrors of history was unleashed upon humankind by those they set in power. In this so called 'brave new world' that we have been enslaved into, our apathy & obedience is leading us ever more down that slippery slope that ends on the edge of the abyss. Soon, sooner than we know, we could very well be on the brink, and there may be no turning back.

Consider all of this when you’re watching the fireworks, listening to the anthems & patriotic propaganda on this July 4th.

"We cannot be sure of having something to live for unless we are willing to die for it." - Ernesto Che Guevara

"History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure." - Justice Thurgood Marshall

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." - Louis Brandeis

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised as 100% Americanism." - Huey P. Long

Sunday, July 03, 2005

Victory For Gays In Spain

I am pleased to hear that Spain has approved a bill that allows full & equal rights to homosexual couples. This is a victory not just for gay couples & individuals but for human rights in general. Why more people can't see that I just don't get. They're so blind to the notion that people in general just want to be treated equally, want equal protection under the law, and the basic human right to couple with the consenting partner of their choosing. Keeping a homosexual person from coupling with or having a union or marriage to the partner he has fallen in love with is not equality. We cannot, we should not be expected to deny our desires to have a partner.

There is no reasonable argument against legalizing gay marriages or unions. Other than people's idiotic bigotry, there is no inherent difference between people of the same or opposite sex sharing a relationship together other than anatomy. Issues of morality are relative & therefore not fit to be an argument in deciding the law. We can get 100 random people to each say they believe one thing is moral, the other is not, and have them all disagree, but do we/should we let one person, or for that matter a majority of people decide what is moral or not in the context of personal choices for all of us? Hell no! The law should be forbidding behaviors that are directly in conflict or infringe upon the rights of others. Homosexual marriages/unions & couples in general do not abridge the rights of others. Forbidding gay marriage very directly interferes with the pursuit of happiness of homosexual individuals, denying them a pursuit of sharing a life with the person of their choosing, a pursuit that heterosexual persons already enjoy freely. People that can't see that, are delusional and don't want to see it.

The notion that gay marriage should not be allowed because it is unnatural, and for that matter that gay parents raising children could traumatize them is every bit as nonsensical as the arguments that mixed race couples/marriages are immoral, unnatural, & bad for 'family' in general. A notion which some people to this day believe firmly in, but fortunately such judgmental bigots don't get to decide the law, we err on the side of equality & an individual's freedom of choice first, and people's personal beliefs about what is 'moral for society' second. Due to this we will in a more diverse society in which blacks, whites, asians, jews, christians, muslims, atheists, etc. are sharing lives together, and creating families, which makes us a better, more tolerant, & ever more human FAMILY. To limit that diversity in something as common & deep rooted as homosexual relations & inclinations are, it defies reason.

The arguments that this would make polygamy legal eventually is nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy with no grounds. Now I must say, while I don't agree with that lifestyle I also can't say for certain that polygamy should not be legalized, but either way, that's an entirely different issue. Homosexual or heterosexual, 2 people in a relationship is the core of monogamous marriage, polygamy involves more people, it's an entirely different concept all together, one that may even include some form of exploitation.

Of course it's also a slippery slope that they pull out the canards that same-sex marriage will lead to beastiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc. The legalization of gay marriage is about two consenting adults of the same sex being legally recognized & protected as a MONOGAMOUS couple. Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, or necrophilia. People that don't see that are again clearly delusional & basing their argument on ignorance and prejudice. Allowing gay marriage/unions is about tearing down the unreasonable condition that only opposing sexes should couple together. , something only those without a heart & the sense of reason would defy.

Even the arguments that we are a health menace to society is bogus. First of all the statistics that are often used are generally unfounded & exaggerated, the fact is far more STD’s are spread by heterosexual relationships than by homosexual ones, but in spite of this, even if homosexual relations do disproportionately spread disease, it is not inherent in the relationship, it is instead something that has come about largely because of the underground nature that homosexuality has had to adopt {among certain other dysfunctions} because of the psychological & sociological assaults gay youth and adults have had to face. The stigmas of being gay permeates every level of society.

It is a disservice to the majority of homosexual people out there who do practice safe sex, or who do practice strict monogamy. It is completely unjust to treat all homosexuals as ‘guilty of spreading disease’ because of the actions of a few. And besides, lesbians can’t pass many STD’s, so where is the justification for opposing this? It seems to me it should be promoted for the benefit of public healthx involving a male. And I can wholeheartedly attest that this is a HORRIFIC idea! I’m sure even straight men would have to agree that point.

If society wants to cut down on promiscuous sex in general, hetero or homosexual, (which is definitely a major public health issue) then advocating monogamous relationships is a wise choice. One way to accomplish that is encourage ALL couples to be healthy, monogamous, committed, & even married perhaps. Gay couples who show a genuine interest in being married (committed) to each other, and an interest in having a family should be supported in doing so. They shouldn't be condemned, they shouldn't be legally prevented from doing so.

What this comes down to is all persons deserve equality. And monogamous marriage as it is understood should be applied to all equally — excluding gays doesn’t allow that equality, it prevents it. Fortunately yet another nation's government has seen this logic and put it into practice. I hope that this moves forward and becomes permanent.

Some articles about the passing of Spain's new homosexual equality:
Spain defies Church to legalise gay marriage (Reuters)
Spanish MPs approve gay marriages (BBCnews.com)
Spain gives gay couples right to wed (PlanetOut.com)
Same-Sex Marriage Passes First Big Hurdle In Spain (365gay.com)