I'm in marginal pain at the moment.
So i'm back to three Kung Fu classes every week. I couldn't make friday nights for pretty much the last several months. The problem is that Friday nights are the hard classes. We do conditioning on Friday night. Basically, it's a two-hour torture-test where we find new and creative ways of abusing our bodies with the aim of building muscle, endurance, and physical strength.
I haven't been to a Friday night class in several months. I guess that comes from working on a fricking PhD. thesis. Side effect of sitting in front of a computer for 16 hours a day is that you get out of shape rather quickly.
So I went to class last night, and as most Fridays are, I brutally abused myself for three hours. But as the evening drew to a close, I figured that I wasn't in as bad shape as I thought I was. Oh, I was hurting, naturally. You don't push yourself for that hard, and that long without some body part voicing an objection or two; but it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. I thought I'd be vomiting by the time the class was half-over.
So I thought I was in better physical condition than I feared I would be.
Then I woke up this morning.
Nope. Turns out that I'm in as bad shape as I thought I was. Pretty much everything hurts at the moment.
I'm gonna have to do something about that.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Saturday, October 21, 2006
America needs Edward R. Murrow
On the 19th of October, a small minority of the American people may have seen something which has been absent from the newscasts for far too long. A man speaking with true passion to the masses.
In the '50s, a relatively minor newscaster stood up to announce that the country he loved dearly was destroying itself from within. He stood to speak with passion about the systematic persecution of people who had, at the time, committed no illegal action. He stood to speak in defense of those who were permitted none. He stood to speak on behalf of those who had no voice.
America needs that passion again. It needs people who are willing to say that something's wrong with the country. It needs people who can speak passionately about the country that they love, and what they love about it.
It needs dreamers. It needs idealists. It needs people who see the world through rose-colored glasses. It needs people who aren't willing to compromise on things like compassion, liberty and equality.
Recently, the US government passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. In particular, the writ of Habeas Corpus is denied to non-US citizens.
For those of you who aren't familiar with the term Habeas Corpus is the right of every person to stand in court and get an answer to one very simple question: "Hey, why am I in prison?" While technically this is only denied to non-US citizens, there's a rather disturbing loophole: if the American Government decides you are not a US citizen, with Habeas Corpus no longer applying; you have no way to challenge the claim.
In short, democracy is dead in America. As Olbermann puts it in his special commentary, the president has been given a blank check. He has the power to arbitrarily place someone in jail, hold them without trial, and convict them with evidence they are not allowed to see.
Edward R. Murrow once said: "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home." While I doubt he knew at the time how prophetic his words would be, we need to remember his words now; for they are as true now as they were during the red scare.
America needs that passion again. It needs people who still believe in the idealism of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It needs dreamers who dare to believe in the great society that America once was; and who believe that it can be so again. We need idealists, not pragmatists. We need people who see what principles the country was founded upon, and seek them again.
We need Edward R. Murrow; but until then, Keith Olbermann will do.
I have included an embedded video of Olbermann's speech, if you have about ten minutes to watch it; it is truly worth seeing.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Collateral Damage
It's official: the American people elected a total asshat into the whitehouse in 2004.
Good ol' Dub-ya has, after six years of presidency, exercised his first-ever veto of a bill passed through congress.
And what, you may ask, was such a horrendous threat to the world that our illustrious president decided to block a bill that had already received congressional assent? What was so terrible that Dub-ya felt that for the first time in his entire presidency, he had to stop it from happening? What could possibly make Bush exercise the Presidential veto that the past three presidents never once used in their entire times in office?
Stem cell research.
Yes, our great and illustrious president decided that Stem Cell research was such a horrid threat that he'd veto a bill which would have allowed it.
Yep, Bush thinks that life is so sacred that he's blocking research performed on invisible clumps of cells; which he apparently thinks is the equivalent of walking up to someone and shooting them in the head.
'Course, when it's dropping bombs on Iraqi civilians, it's "collateral damage."
And, lest we forget, while Governor of Texas, Bush shattered all records across the country for most death row inmates executed while under his charge. But that's "justice."
As of this writing, there are approximately 400,000 embryos on ice in the United States of America. Until this bill was vetoed, those embryos could have been used to find cures for Parkinsons, Diabetes, paraplegia, MS, ALS, severe brain damage... Stem cells could mean an end to organ shortages. Now that this bill has been vetoed, those embryos can be either used for InVitro Fertilization, or destroyed. This bill would have allowed those slated for destruction to be used for research. Apparently, according to the Pro-Life brigade in the US, this would be the equivalent of mass murder.
Now, for some reason that is somewhat beyond my capacity to grasp, Bush decided to announce his vetoing of this bill while surrounded by "Snowflake Babies," their term, for the record, not mine. These babies were formed from embryos which were frozen; exactly the type of embryos that would have been used for this research. The irony is that none of these babies would exist if it weren't, literally, for decades worth of research performed on human embryonic cells; but Bush is going to studiously ignore that one, methinks.
Oh, and let's not forget, IVF requires implantation of several blastocysts in the hope that just one of them will grow into a full fledged human being.
All the others, I guess they're just "collateral damage."
Good ol' Dub-ya has, after six years of presidency, exercised his first-ever veto of a bill passed through congress.
And what, you may ask, was such a horrendous threat to the world that our illustrious president decided to block a bill that had already received congressional assent? What was so terrible that Dub-ya felt that for the first time in his entire presidency, he had to stop it from happening? What could possibly make Bush exercise the Presidential veto that the past three presidents never once used in their entire times in office?
Stem cell research.
Yes, our great and illustrious president decided that Stem Cell research was such a horrid threat that he'd veto a bill which would have allowed it.
Yep, Bush thinks that life is so sacred that he's blocking research performed on invisible clumps of cells; which he apparently thinks is the equivalent of walking up to someone and shooting them in the head.
'Course, when it's dropping bombs on Iraqi civilians, it's "collateral damage."
And, lest we forget, while Governor of Texas, Bush shattered all records across the country for most death row inmates executed while under his charge. But that's "justice."
As of this writing, there are approximately 400,000 embryos on ice in the United States of America. Until this bill was vetoed, those embryos could have been used to find cures for Parkinsons, Diabetes, paraplegia, MS, ALS, severe brain damage... Stem cells could mean an end to organ shortages. Now that this bill has been vetoed, those embryos can be either used for InVitro Fertilization, or destroyed. This bill would have allowed those slated for destruction to be used for research. Apparently, according to the Pro-Life brigade in the US, this would be the equivalent of mass murder.
Now, for some reason that is somewhat beyond my capacity to grasp, Bush decided to announce his vetoing of this bill while surrounded by "Snowflake Babies," their term, for the record, not mine. These babies were formed from embryos which were frozen; exactly the type of embryos that would have been used for this research. The irony is that none of these babies would exist if it weren't, literally, for decades worth of research performed on human embryonic cells; but Bush is going to studiously ignore that one, methinks.
Oh, and let's not forget, IVF requires implantation of several blastocysts in the hope that just one of them will grow into a full fledged human being.
All the others, I guess they're just "collateral damage."
Friday, July 21, 2006
Marshall McLuhan was wrong.
I should probably make clear at the outset that I'm against censorship of any kind.
I'm against censoring what we watch on TV, I'm against censoring the use of some specific words, I'm against censoring what is available to be viewed or heard.
I'm against censorship; especially in an era where if you don't like what you see or hear, you can change the channel or walk away.
But free expression means, practically by definition, sooner or later, someone is going to say something, or do something, or express themselves in some way that offends you. You can't have it both ways. You can either have free expression, or you can expect never to be offended. You cannot, in a free society, expect to have both. To do so is naive and, frankly, silly.
George Carlin did a famous comedy routine where he spoke about the seven words which were specifically prohibited on television. Seven, he said, out of approximately 400,000 words in the English language. "What a ratio that is," he said in his famous routine, "399,993 to seven. They must really be bad. They'd have to be outrageous to be separated from a group that large." He then went on to list the seven dirty words; shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits; on national television.
But seriously, what is it about some words, one specific sequence of sounds that we find so utterly offensive? "Truck" is an utterly inoffensive word, but somehow, when we replace the "TR" with "F," that word suddenly becomes vile?
And what makes a word offensive anyway? How do we decide that one specific sequence of sounds is horrendous and vile? What makes that switch turn on in our brains that says "oh, no, that's a bad word?" It would be trivial for me to offend you or spew the most vile of sentiments using the "cleanest" of words. Conversely, I could express the most gentle and noble of sentiments using the most vulgar profanity.
The point is that if you're not offended by the message I'm sending, it seems to me that it's ridiculous that you'd be offended by the words I use to send it. Kinda like recieving the present you always wanted for Christmas, then complaining about the gift-wrap. It's as if they don't care if you speak with hate, as long as you use appropriate wording to do so. As if the words you use are what make the discourse hateful or distasteful.
Marshall McLuhan was wrong. The message is the message.
I'm against censoring what we watch on TV, I'm against censoring the use of some specific words, I'm against censoring what is available to be viewed or heard.
I'm against censorship; especially in an era where if you don't like what you see or hear, you can change the channel or walk away.
But free expression means, practically by definition, sooner or later, someone is going to say something, or do something, or express themselves in some way that offends you. You can't have it both ways. You can either have free expression, or you can expect never to be offended. You cannot, in a free society, expect to have both. To do so is naive and, frankly, silly.
George Carlin did a famous comedy routine where he spoke about the seven words which were specifically prohibited on television. Seven, he said, out of approximately 400,000 words in the English language. "What a ratio that is," he said in his famous routine, "399,993 to seven. They must really be bad. They'd have to be outrageous to be separated from a group that large." He then went on to list the seven dirty words; shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits; on national television.
But seriously, what is it about some words, one specific sequence of sounds that we find so utterly offensive? "Truck" is an utterly inoffensive word, but somehow, when we replace the "TR" with "F," that word suddenly becomes vile?
And what makes a word offensive anyway? How do we decide that one specific sequence of sounds is horrendous and vile? What makes that switch turn on in our brains that says "oh, no, that's a bad word?" It would be trivial for me to offend you or spew the most vile of sentiments using the "cleanest" of words. Conversely, I could express the most gentle and noble of sentiments using the most vulgar profanity.
The point is that if you're not offended by the message I'm sending, it seems to me that it's ridiculous that you'd be offended by the words I use to send it. Kinda like recieving the present you always wanted for Christmas, then complaining about the gift-wrap. It's as if they don't care if you speak with hate, as long as you use appropriate wording to do so. As if the words you use are what make the discourse hateful or distasteful.
Marshall McLuhan was wrong. The message is the message.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Have Food Dehydrator, Will Travel
So I bought myself a food dehydrator, which, interestingly enough, costs less than half the cost of the food April and I bought for the West Coast trail.
Suffice it to say that I think April and I are both sick of our insta-meals in the backcountry, and would like to have something that is a wee bit more edible. So I bought a dehydrator so that we can make something a little more gourmet, that doesn't require us to carry a huge amount of stuff, or require a lot of preparation on the trail.
I'll let you know how that turns out.
Suffice it to say that I think April and I are both sick of our insta-meals in the backcountry, and would like to have something that is a wee bit more edible. So I bought a dehydrator so that we can make something a little more gourmet, that doesn't require us to carry a huge amount of stuff, or require a lot of preparation on the trail.
I'll let you know how that turns out.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Flag Desecration
So, my other country came within a hair's bredth of a constitutional ban of flag burning.
The last time this was brought up was in 2004. Also, incidentally, an election year.
Coincidence? Um, no.
But let's talk about this ban for a second. The United States of America wanted to ban the burning of the flag.
Here's the catch tho: the Flag Code of the United States of America specifically requires a flag to be ceremonially burned if it becomes soiled or damaged or has otherwise outlived its useful life.
Apparently, that kind of burning is okay, but burning it in protest is not.
In other words, the current administration is not trying to regulate the behaviour of burning the flag, so much as the sentiment voiced by said burning.
Seems to me that there was something in that whole constitution thing about some "free expression" somethingorother, wasn't there?
Now, I understand that some people are offended by the idea of flag burning. Freedom of speech, by definition, means that you're going to be offended. It means that you're going to hear things that you don't like, and don't want to hear. It means that a Neonazi can stand in the center of the village square proclaiming his hatred of all non-aryan races without fear of reprisal from the government. Freedom means acknowledging someone who stands at center stage proclaiming at the top of his lungs what you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.
In short, the first amendment of the constitution is meant to protect all speech, not just the speech you agree with.
The last time this was brought up was in 2004. Also, incidentally, an election year.
Coincidence? Um, no.
But let's talk about this ban for a second. The United States of America wanted to ban the burning of the flag.
Here's the catch tho: the Flag Code of the United States of America specifically requires a flag to be ceremonially burned if it becomes soiled or damaged or has otherwise outlived its useful life.
Apparently, that kind of burning is okay, but burning it in protest is not.
In other words, the current administration is not trying to regulate the behaviour of burning the flag, so much as the sentiment voiced by said burning.
Seems to me that there was something in that whole constitution thing about some "free expression" somethingorother, wasn't there?
Now, I understand that some people are offended by the idea of flag burning. Freedom of speech, by definition, means that you're going to be offended. It means that you're going to hear things that you don't like, and don't want to hear. It means that a Neonazi can stand in the center of the village square proclaiming his hatred of all non-aryan races without fear of reprisal from the government. Freedom means acknowledging someone who stands at center stage proclaiming at the top of his lungs what you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.
In short, the first amendment of the constitution is meant to protect all speech, not just the speech you agree with.
Friday, June 23, 2006
"Liberal" Science
So, I've been unwilling to jump on the Anne Coulter Hate-a-thon, largely because I figure that's exactly what the woman wants. But I was bought a copy of her latest book "Godless." Believe me, I wouldn't buy one of her books if I had a choice in the matter; but since someone had been nice enough to buy it for me, I figure it would be just impolite not to read it.
Unlike just about everybody else, I'm going to say absolutely nothing about her comments on the 9/11 widows. She's perfectly entitled to defame or abuse the memory of anybody she sees fit. That's the definition of freedom of speech. Likewise, I'm perfectly in my rights to point out that she's full of crap.
I'd like to take a moment to talk about Coulter's stance on so-called "liberal science."
There are basically two different areas that Coulter uses as evidence that liberals hate science: stem-cell research, and the theory of evolution.
Let's start with the former. Ms. Coulter claims that because liberals support stem-cell research, they obviously hate science.
First and foremost, it should be noted that a number of political conservatives also support stem-cell research. Guvernator Aaaaah-Nuld, for one; Nancy Reagan, for another.
Coulter goes on to write that "[l]iberals just want to kill humans."
Um, what?
The potential for stem-cell research to save lives is, in a word, enormous. The number of diseases which could be cured, the number of injuries which could be repaired, and the number of lives which could be saved by this one branch of scientific research is potentially numbered in the billions.
And I'm not overestimating the potential benefits of this technology in the least. If anything, I'm vastly underestimating its potential.
And yet, apparently, liberals hate science and want to kill humans.
If you can explain the logic behind that one, you're smarter than I am.
Coulter's thesis statement on evolution seems pretty damning, if you happen to be completely and utterly ignorant of the facts: "[l]iberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a tautology, with no proof in the scientists laboratory or the fossil record - and that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God." Note her subtle implication that one must necessarily be a libral (and in the US, there can be no greater insult) to accept the theory of evolution.
It should first be noted that a number of political conservatives subscribe to the theory of evolution; ergo, it cannot, by any definition of the term, be described as a "liberal creation myth." It's not liberal, it's not about creation, and it's not a myth.
Now, as for her claim that Evolution is a "make-believe story," with "no proof," there's really only one possible way to describe that claim: a lie. Either that, or she's completely ignorant of the, literally, thousands of fossil finds which support the theory of evolution. She's also completely ignorant of the thousands of lab experiments which have been performed which clearly support evolution.
In other words: she's either lying or stupid. There are really no other options; and I don't think that she's stupid. She writes too skillfully to be a complete moron.
I'd also like to talk about her claim that "liberals think evolution disproves God." There's really only one way to describe this claim, too: a lie. The late Pope John Paul II spoke in favor of the theory of evolution, offering an official papal concession that the theory is more than a wild and wacky idea, but actually a fact. As much a fact as the earth orbiting the sun, or that masses generate a gravitational pull.
Call me crazy, but I think it's a reasonably safe bet that Pope John Paul II believed in God. If he didn't, I think he probably would have sought out a different carreer. I also think it's fair to say that it's a bit of a stretch to claim that Pope John Paul II was a liberal by any conventionally-accepted definition of the term.
On the Dover, Pennsylvania trial, she goes on to say: "They didn't win on science, persuasion, or the evidence. They won the way liberals always win: by finding a court to hand them everything they want on a silver platter."
I know I'm having to say this a lot, but there's really no other way to describe this claim than to say that it is a lie.
Let's start with her claims on the court itself: Judge John Jones III, the judge presiding over the case, is a Bush Appointee, chosen specifically for his very conservative credentials. In fact, at the outset, the former members of the school board thought they had a slam-dunk case specifically for that reason. He is demonstratably not a judge with proclivities towards judicial activism, and upon reading his 139-page judgement, it is equally self-evident that his judgement is not a case of judicial activism. In fact, for him to have ruled differently than he did would have required a level of judicial activism which would have made a mockery of the American judicial system.
Actually, if one actually takes the time to read Judge Jones' judgment, it is very clear that he went to enormous lengths to understand the science which supports the theory of evolution, and to understand the history of the so called "Intelligent Design" theory. It's extremely difficult for me to imagine a judgment which is more diametrically opposed to any rational human being's definition of "Judicial Activism." Then again, though, the judgement is 139 pages long. Maybe Coulter just couldn't be bothered to read the whole thing. Or any of it for that matter.
No, the "liberals" didn't win because they had a court to hand them everything they want on a silver platter, they won because they had science, persuasion, and evidence on their side. Of course, it certainly didn't hurt that the righteous members of the school board lied repeatedly during the trial (also stated in the 139-page judgment; had Ms. Coulter read it). Details that Ms. Coulter studiously ignores. Instead, she lies about it and hopes nobody noticed. It's not like she couldn't access the trial transcripts or the judgement. I've offered a link to the judgement, and the trial transcripts are public record. A 30-second google search of "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board" produced them. And if I'm smart enough to find them, it stands to reason that Coulter is.
Now, Ms. Coulter has every right to make all of these claims; as ignorant, misinformed, dishonest and ridiculous as they are. Lying, to the best of my knowledge, is not in itself against the law, except in specific instances: libel, slander, perjury; to name a few, however writing and publishing a book which tells lies is not in itself illegal. Morally reprehensible, to be sure, but not illegal.
Ms. Coulter is certainly skilled in rhetoric, and I wouldn't like to face her in a debate, even if I had the facts on my side (which, in the instances described above, I would); and apart from being rather heavy on the dishonesty, her book is quite well-written. It is clearly written by an intelligent woman, which is why I am very specific about my claims that she is being deliberately dishonest. I don't believe she's actually dumb enough to be that ignorant.
But you never know, I could be wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
But in this particular instance, I don't think I am.
Unlike just about everybody else, I'm going to say absolutely nothing about her comments on the 9/11 widows. She's perfectly entitled to defame or abuse the memory of anybody she sees fit. That's the definition of freedom of speech. Likewise, I'm perfectly in my rights to point out that she's full of crap.
I'd like to take a moment to talk about Coulter's stance on so-called "liberal science."
There are basically two different areas that Coulter uses as evidence that liberals hate science: stem-cell research, and the theory of evolution.
Let's start with the former. Ms. Coulter claims that because liberals support stem-cell research, they obviously hate science.
First and foremost, it should be noted that a number of political conservatives also support stem-cell research. Guvernator Aaaaah-Nuld, for one; Nancy Reagan, for another.
Coulter goes on to write that "[l]iberals just want to kill humans."
Um, what?
The potential for stem-cell research to save lives is, in a word, enormous. The number of diseases which could be cured, the number of injuries which could be repaired, and the number of lives which could be saved by this one branch of scientific research is potentially numbered in the billions.
And I'm not overestimating the potential benefits of this technology in the least. If anything, I'm vastly underestimating its potential.
And yet, apparently, liberals hate science and want to kill humans.
If you can explain the logic behind that one, you're smarter than I am.
Coulter's thesis statement on evolution seems pretty damning, if you happen to be completely and utterly ignorant of the facts: "[l]iberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a tautology, with no proof in the scientists laboratory or the fossil record - and that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God." Note her subtle implication that one must necessarily be a libral (and in the US, there can be no greater insult) to accept the theory of evolution.
It should first be noted that a number of political conservatives subscribe to the theory of evolution; ergo, it cannot, by any definition of the term, be described as a "liberal creation myth." It's not liberal, it's not about creation, and it's not a myth.
Now, as for her claim that Evolution is a "make-believe story," with "no proof," there's really only one possible way to describe that claim: a lie. Either that, or she's completely ignorant of the, literally, thousands of fossil finds which support the theory of evolution. She's also completely ignorant of the thousands of lab experiments which have been performed which clearly support evolution.
In other words: she's either lying or stupid. There are really no other options; and I don't think that she's stupid. She writes too skillfully to be a complete moron.
I'd also like to talk about her claim that "liberals think evolution disproves God." There's really only one way to describe this claim, too: a lie. The late Pope John Paul II spoke in favor of the theory of evolution, offering an official papal concession that the theory is more than a wild and wacky idea, but actually a fact. As much a fact as the earth orbiting the sun, or that masses generate a gravitational pull.
Call me crazy, but I think it's a reasonably safe bet that Pope John Paul II believed in God. If he didn't, I think he probably would have sought out a different carreer. I also think it's fair to say that it's a bit of a stretch to claim that Pope John Paul II was a liberal by any conventionally-accepted definition of the term.
On the Dover, Pennsylvania trial, she goes on to say: "They didn't win on science, persuasion, or the evidence. They won the way liberals always win: by finding a court to hand them everything they want on a silver platter."
I know I'm having to say this a lot, but there's really no other way to describe this claim than to say that it is a lie.
Let's start with her claims on the court itself: Judge John Jones III, the judge presiding over the case, is a Bush Appointee, chosen specifically for his very conservative credentials. In fact, at the outset, the former members of the school board thought they had a slam-dunk case specifically for that reason. He is demonstratably not a judge with proclivities towards judicial activism, and upon reading his 139-page judgement, it is equally self-evident that his judgement is not a case of judicial activism. In fact, for him to have ruled differently than he did would have required a level of judicial activism which would have made a mockery of the American judicial system.
Actually, if one actually takes the time to read Judge Jones' judgment, it is very clear that he went to enormous lengths to understand the science which supports the theory of evolution, and to understand the history of the so called "Intelligent Design" theory. It's extremely difficult for me to imagine a judgment which is more diametrically opposed to any rational human being's definition of "Judicial Activism." Then again, though, the judgement is 139 pages long. Maybe Coulter just couldn't be bothered to read the whole thing. Or any of it for that matter.
No, the "liberals" didn't win because they had a court to hand them everything they want on a silver platter, they won because they had science, persuasion, and evidence on their side. Of course, it certainly didn't hurt that the righteous members of the school board lied repeatedly during the trial (also stated in the 139-page judgment; had Ms. Coulter read it). Details that Ms. Coulter studiously ignores. Instead, she lies about it and hopes nobody noticed. It's not like she couldn't access the trial transcripts or the judgement. I've offered a link to the judgement, and the trial transcripts are public record. A 30-second google search of "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board" produced them. And if I'm smart enough to find them, it stands to reason that Coulter is.
Now, Ms. Coulter has every right to make all of these claims; as ignorant, misinformed, dishonest and ridiculous as they are. Lying, to the best of my knowledge, is not in itself against the law, except in specific instances: libel, slander, perjury; to name a few, however writing and publishing a book which tells lies is not in itself illegal. Morally reprehensible, to be sure, but not illegal.
Ms. Coulter is certainly skilled in rhetoric, and I wouldn't like to face her in a debate, even if I had the facts on my side (which, in the instances described above, I would); and apart from being rather heavy on the dishonesty, her book is quite well-written. It is clearly written by an intelligent woman, which is why I am very specific about my claims that she is being deliberately dishonest. I don't believe she's actually dumb enough to be that ignorant.
But you never know, I could be wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
But in this particular instance, I don't think I am.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
On Constitutional Amendments
I'm trying hard to decide whether these people are completely devoid of any capacity for logical thought, or simply stupid. Heck, the idea of actually having facts to back up their blind assertions is apparently completely foreign to them.
Take, for example, this couple described in this article. They spend their vacation money to go to DC to hold up signs that say: Stop Same Sex Marriage: It Endorses Masturbation.
I think I speak for the rest of America when I say: WHAT!? Frankly, I seriously doubt any Amercan who has ever masturbated (which, I imagine, is pretty much all of 'em who ever passed the age of 12), has ever said "damn, if only gay Marriage were legal, I could do this without feeling guilty."
If you follow what the far-right has been saying in the US, gay marriage is somehow responsible for everything from drug abuse to decline in air quality.
Now, granted, it's a little hard to study this, since exactly one state in the US has been forward-thinking enough to legalize Gay marriage we don't have much in the way of sample size, but let's see what's happening in that hellhole they call Massachusetts, why don't we? Massachusetts is a pathetic dead-last in illiteracy, a pitiful 48th in per-capita poverty, and an abysmal 49th in the number of divorces. Those poor sods in Massachusetts, how can they live in such horrid conditions?
The reason I bring this up is that our esteemed president has again tried, and failed miserably, to push a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage through congress. It fell massively short of the required 2/3 majority to create a constitutional amendment. No surprise there. Frankly, I wasn't the least bit worried that the bill might pass. But frankly, the idea that the Constitution of the United States; a document I happen to take very seriously, a document which has been perverted more by the Bush Administration than just about any other; is being used as a blatant political ploy frankly turned my stomach.
Bush desperately needs to learn that the constitution is not just a piece of paper. It's not a set of loose guidelines that you can simply ignore whenever you feel like it. And it's certainly not a document meant to be used to score political points. The constitution is the document that makes America America. It's the collection of the founding principles of the nation. It's not a symbol to be perverted whenever the current party in power is lagging in the polls.
The constitution, to those who have actually read it, is a piece of history which presents everything that the US of A is supposed to represent. Freedom from tyrrany of all kinds, freedom to express onesself in whatever manner they choose, regardless of how offensive some may find it.
Freedom to be onesself, provided that they do no harm to anyone else.
By adding an amendment to the constitution which specifically limits one freedom to one group of people, the American government not only would have perverted the very freedom that the constitution enshrines and symbolizes, but they would have sent the message to the American people that they can no longer be assured of the protection the constitution guarantees. If they can deny marriage to one group of people constitutionally, then logically they can deny freedom of speech, or religion, or belief, or any of the rights assured by the constitution. A second set of McCarthy trials could, in principle, be constitutionally assured. In short, the government would be telling the American people that they could no longer look to the one document designed to protect them from the government.
The American government is founded on a very simple principle: the Constitution doesn't trust them. The power doesn't lie in the government, it lies in the document on which that government is founded. And that document places the power in the people's hands. The people have the power to choose one government over another, to hold opinions which are in the minority, to stand at center stage proclaiming at the top of their lungs what others would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of theirs. The American government was founded on the principle that it is far, far better to have a man wrap himself in the constitution so that he can burn the flag, than one who wraps himself in the flag so that he can burn the constitution.
There is a word for all of this: freedom. And we cannot promote freedom abroad by demolishing it at home.
Take, for example, this couple described in this article. They spend their vacation money to go to DC to hold up signs that say: Stop Same Sex Marriage: It Endorses Masturbation.
I think I speak for the rest of America when I say: WHAT!? Frankly, I seriously doubt any Amercan who has ever masturbated (which, I imagine, is pretty much all of 'em who ever passed the age of 12), has ever said "damn, if only gay Marriage were legal, I could do this without feeling guilty."
If you follow what the far-right has been saying in the US, gay marriage is somehow responsible for everything from drug abuse to decline in air quality.
Now, granted, it's a little hard to study this, since exactly one state in the US has been forward-thinking enough to legalize Gay marriage we don't have much in the way of sample size, but let's see what's happening in that hellhole they call Massachusetts, why don't we? Massachusetts is a pathetic dead-last in illiteracy, a pitiful 48th in per-capita poverty, and an abysmal 49th in the number of divorces. Those poor sods in Massachusetts, how can they live in such horrid conditions?
The reason I bring this up is that our esteemed president has again tried, and failed miserably, to push a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage through congress. It fell massively short of the required 2/3 majority to create a constitutional amendment. No surprise there. Frankly, I wasn't the least bit worried that the bill might pass. But frankly, the idea that the Constitution of the United States; a document I happen to take very seriously, a document which has been perverted more by the Bush Administration than just about any other; is being used as a blatant political ploy frankly turned my stomach.
Bush desperately needs to learn that the constitution is not just a piece of paper. It's not a set of loose guidelines that you can simply ignore whenever you feel like it. And it's certainly not a document meant to be used to score political points. The constitution is the document that makes America America. It's the collection of the founding principles of the nation. It's not a symbol to be perverted whenever the current party in power is lagging in the polls.
The constitution, to those who have actually read it, is a piece of history which presents everything that the US of A is supposed to represent. Freedom from tyrrany of all kinds, freedom to express onesself in whatever manner they choose, regardless of how offensive some may find it.
Freedom to be onesself, provided that they do no harm to anyone else.
By adding an amendment to the constitution which specifically limits one freedom to one group of people, the American government not only would have perverted the very freedom that the constitution enshrines and symbolizes, but they would have sent the message to the American people that they can no longer be assured of the protection the constitution guarantees. If they can deny marriage to one group of people constitutionally, then logically they can deny freedom of speech, or religion, or belief, or any of the rights assured by the constitution. A second set of McCarthy trials could, in principle, be constitutionally assured. In short, the government would be telling the American people that they could no longer look to the one document designed to protect them from the government.
The American government is founded on a very simple principle: the Constitution doesn't trust them. The power doesn't lie in the government, it lies in the document on which that government is founded. And that document places the power in the people's hands. The people have the power to choose one government over another, to hold opinions which are in the minority, to stand at center stage proclaiming at the top of their lungs what others would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of theirs. The American government was founded on the principle that it is far, far better to have a man wrap himself in the constitution so that he can burn the flag, than one who wraps himself in the flag so that he can burn the constitution.
There is a word for all of this: freedom. And we cannot promote freedom abroad by demolishing it at home.
Friday, June 02, 2006
The innocent have nothing to hide.
A friend of mine, and long-time republican voter recently said in response to the recent wiretapping scandal in the US: "why are people really upset about this whole wiretapping thing? I mean, if they're innocent, they have nothing to hide."
The most terrifying thing about this is that he actually thought that this was a reasonable argument.
But let's address that for a second. If the innocent really have nothing to hide, then maybe it's time for the Bush administration to release their information on Dick Chaney's Energy task force, as well as the documents they've the pre-9/11 and Katrina preparedness.
And while we're on the subject, maybe it's time that they come clean on that whole Guantanimo torture scandal.
Maybe we should start talking candidly about the whole Jack Abramoff thing.
Or for that matter, maybe we should talk about the Downing Street Memo; or the no-bid contracts with Halliburton.
Perhaps they'll finally come clean about who's idea it was to release Valerie Plame's name to the media, and why it was done.
Or maybe they could release the documents from Bush Sr.'s time in office, which Bush II had sealed (without any explanation whatsoever) on his first day in office.
After all, if the innocent have nothing to hide....
The most terrifying thing about this is that he actually thought that this was a reasonable argument.
But let's address that for a second. If the innocent really have nothing to hide, then maybe it's time for the Bush administration to release their information on Dick Chaney's Energy task force, as well as the documents they've the pre-9/11 and Katrina preparedness.
And while we're on the subject, maybe it's time that they come clean on that whole Guantanimo torture scandal.
Maybe we should start talking candidly about the whole Jack Abramoff thing.
Or for that matter, maybe we should talk about the Downing Street Memo; or the no-bid contracts with Halliburton.
Perhaps they'll finally come clean about who's idea it was to release Valerie Plame's name to the media, and why it was done.
Or maybe they could release the documents from Bush Sr.'s time in office, which Bush II had sealed (without any explanation whatsoever) on his first day in office.
After all, if the innocent have nothing to hide....
Monday, May 15, 2006
No real surprises here.
Well, a little bit. I always thought of myself a little closer to the political center. Turns out I'm reasonably far to the left (which for some reason is the right on these diagrams). 'course this is pretty much by American standards, where the political spectrum has been shifted so far to the right it's ridiculous.
By Canadian standards, I suppose I'm closer to the middle.
In fairness, I did vote for Kerry in the last US federal election; but on the other hand, I voted McCain for senate. Back then, he was reasonably close to what I thought was the political center. He's been shifting rightward as the mid-term elections approach.
By Canadian standards, I suppose I'm closer to the middle.
In fairness, I did vote for Kerry in the last US federal election; but on the other hand, I voted McCain for senate. Back then, he was reasonably close to what I thought was the political center. He's been shifting rightward as the mid-term elections approach.
| You are a Social Liberal (83% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (31% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
