Stupidity: It's What's for Dinner...
Poor John Edwards. He is destined to be remembered, if at all, as the democratic party's answer to Dan Quayle. On a day when Janet Reno sticks her foot in her mouth vis-a-vis terrorism, we now find Mr. Edwards similarly enjoying a podiatric fest with regards to the new democratic party bugaboo: Wal-Mart.
Turns out that while Mr. Edwards chants the party line about how Wal-Mart is unfair to it's workers (who, as far as I know, haven't been chained to their workstations), he's been working the old network to extort (allegedly) a new Sony PlayStation 3 from Wal-Mart. James Lileks has the GREATEST explanation of the whole kerfuffle here:
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/lileks112206.html
However, with reagards to Edwards, and a whole new generation of democrats like him: the old "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" argument lost it's lustre a long time ago. This is the 21st century, for better or worse, and it's very difficult in this day and age to be both a "principled champion of the common man" and a fucking hypocrite at the same time. You are under surveilance 24/7. There are reporters who treat your very words as divine manna fromt he heavens, bloggers who scour the net for reports of what you have said (going all the way back to your position on allowing the Huns to move into Dalmatia as a means of cutting the Roman military budget). You are under constant video surveilance by the media, by YouTube, by any jerk with a cellphone. Why, oh why, is it that when you know this sort of scrutiny is applied to you 24/7/365. do you believe that you can get away with being a hypocrite, a liar , and a moron?
It's either an incredible strain of stupidity, an arrogance beyond the capacity of the rational man to comprehend, or a deep-rooted belief that the "common man" that you "fight" so much for is, at heart, a drooling idiot with an attention span measured in RPM's.
Part of me leans towards the third alternative, because all the evidence points that way. But number two is quite popular amongst the democratic bigwigs, as well.
So, Wal-Mart is a pox upon the land, unless you want something unavailable elsewhere and can twist an arm or two? How convenient.
John Edwards can reliably be expected to be a liar and a cheat (he is, after all, a trial lawyer who made a fortune "channeling the spirits" of dead/disabled children as a courtroom tactic), and now he can add "historical irrelevancy" to his resume. Short of screaming "lesbian" a few times during his debates with Dick Cheney, he has no qualification for anything. Edwards is a confirmed mental and political lightweight, who should just pack it in already.
The American people no longer have any excuse: we have more sources of information, now instantaneously delivered, than any generation in the history of the world. Why we don't use it properly, to sift the thieves and hypocrites,from our political process, for example, is beyond me.
Unless, of course, John Edwards is right, and we're all really just drooling idiots with attention spans measured in RPM's.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Of Feet and Gaping Maws...
I wouldn't have believed it, if I hadn't had seen it. Janet Reno, she of the Seige of Waco and the pre-dawn Raid on Elian Gonzales, had the AUDACITY to criticize the Bush Administration about it's anti-terrorism policies. Said hysterical rant may be found here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101259_pf.html
Now, what makes this sooo fucking rich is that Janet Reno probably has more blood on her hands than Ted Bundy. If I recall, 80 people died when the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, mysteriously burned to the ground after a 51-day seige by federal agents and local law enforcement. I say "mysteriously" because at the time, Ms. Reno swore on a stack that absolutely NO pyrotechnic or explosive device was used against the Davidians, a statement which was later proven to be false. Those people were burned to death, and whether it was purposely done or not, the FBI and ATF and the rest of them, bear responsibility because they were boneheaded and unimaginative (and I say this depsite the fact that I believe David Koresh to have been guilty as sin of whatever he was accused of, and the Davidians morons for thinking they could long defy the power of the Fed'ral Leviathan). Janet Reno bears responsibility because she was the bonehead's boss.
But that's supposed to be forgotten because, you know, at the end of the whole thing, Janet explained that they had to storm the house because "children were being abused". Unfortunately, they had to be killed in order to save them from further abuse. Fifty-one days after telling the public about the Davidian's vast arsenal of illegal weapons, about what a rotten human being David Koresh was, it was all , in the end, about the children.
Everything in the Clinton Era was "about the children...."
Even Elian's televised kidnapping. It was for his own good, you know. What can you say about someone who takes to the airwaves on a holiday weekend (I believe it was Easter weekend), and announces publicly that although there is a "dispute" between the boy's American family and his obviously-being-controlled-by-Castro father, the US government would take no action with regards to Elian, and would let the courts continue to sort it out?
Of course, when Janet Reno says "do nothing" she really means "we're preparing the stormtroopers".
Behind a cloud of tear gas and extensive use of fire extinguishers, Federal Jackboots stormed the Gonzalez house and found the six year old cowering in a closet, he was taken out at gunpoint, although I remember listening for days as Clinton schills tried to explain how a man photographed with a machine gun pointed in Elian's direction, really didn't have the child at gunpoint.
In my opinion, Janet Reno is an accessory to murder. She is a liar. She is an expert on terrorism simply because she has presided over the use of terrorism right here in the United States and called it "law enforcement". Fact of the matter is that Janet Reno never enforced a law at all (if she had, her boss would have been in prison). Janet Reno is no expert on terrorism, unless that terrorism involves the Federal Government terrorizing it's own citizens.
So, shut the fuck up, Janet!
I wouldn't have believed it, if I hadn't had seen it. Janet Reno, she of the Seige of Waco and the pre-dawn Raid on Elian Gonzales, had the AUDACITY to criticize the Bush Administration about it's anti-terrorism policies. Said hysterical rant may be found here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101259_pf.html
Now, what makes this sooo fucking rich is that Janet Reno probably has more blood on her hands than Ted Bundy. If I recall, 80 people died when the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, mysteriously burned to the ground after a 51-day seige by federal agents and local law enforcement. I say "mysteriously" because at the time, Ms. Reno swore on a stack that absolutely NO pyrotechnic or explosive device was used against the Davidians, a statement which was later proven to be false. Those people were burned to death, and whether it was purposely done or not, the FBI and ATF and the rest of them, bear responsibility because they were boneheaded and unimaginative (and I say this depsite the fact that I believe David Koresh to have been guilty as sin of whatever he was accused of, and the Davidians morons for thinking they could long defy the power of the Fed'ral Leviathan). Janet Reno bears responsibility because she was the bonehead's boss.
But that's supposed to be forgotten because, you know, at the end of the whole thing, Janet explained that they had to storm the house because "children were being abused". Unfortunately, they had to be killed in order to save them from further abuse. Fifty-one days after telling the public about the Davidian's vast arsenal of illegal weapons, about what a rotten human being David Koresh was, it was all , in the end, about the children.
Everything in the Clinton Era was "about the children...."
Even Elian's televised kidnapping. It was for his own good, you know. What can you say about someone who takes to the airwaves on a holiday weekend (I believe it was Easter weekend), and announces publicly that although there is a "dispute" between the boy's American family and his obviously-being-controlled-by-Castro father, the US government would take no action with regards to Elian, and would let the courts continue to sort it out?
Of course, when Janet Reno says "do nothing" she really means "we're preparing the stormtroopers".
Behind a cloud of tear gas and extensive use of fire extinguishers, Federal Jackboots stormed the Gonzalez house and found the six year old cowering in a closet, he was taken out at gunpoint, although I remember listening for days as Clinton schills tried to explain how a man photographed with a machine gun pointed in Elian's direction, really didn't have the child at gunpoint.
In my opinion, Janet Reno is an accessory to murder. She is a liar. She is an expert on terrorism simply because she has presided over the use of terrorism right here in the United States and called it "law enforcement". Fact of the matter is that Janet Reno never enforced a law at all (if she had, her boss would have been in prison). Janet Reno is no expert on terrorism, unless that terrorism involves the Federal Government terrorizing it's own citizens.
So, shut the fuck up, Janet!
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
I Have My Answers...
With regards to the questions I posed the other day:
*Can Rudy Gulianin get past the God, Guns and Gays Coalition and win a nomination in the Republican party for President of the United States?
Short answer: no. From what I have been reading and chatting about lately, there is but one, slim chance of this happening: Guliani would have to backpeddle on his pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-gun control stances, and then some MIGHT consider voting for him. That fact that this would make the man a hypocrite, plain as day for all to see, matters not. All that those who might consider the possibility wish to see is their personal views justified and approved, and reflected in a candidate who's only virtue then, is that he can beat HillaryAND kow-tow to them. In effect, their problem with Guliani is not so much his views, per se , as it is their belief that ideology must be adhered to, even if it makes you a hypocrite. The PARTY, and it's appearance of ideological purity, is all that matters, and if your own personal peeeve is acknowledged, so much the better.
Then there are those for whom no amount of backpeddling would suffice. Most of these are either principled, thinking people (who could be reasonably expected to be able to smell hypocrisy a mile off) or those perpetually-brain dead masses, that short of a divine intercession, still wouldn't vote for him because their preacher said not to.
The stunning thing about the debate over Rudy and Republicanism is not that the proponents/opponents so easily fall into quantifiable and identifiable categories; it is that there is SO MUCH invested in censorship of Guliani the man, rather than Guliani the governing philosphy.
Rudy Guliani cannot get a fair hearing because:
1. There are some preternaturally disposed (either by religion or ignorance) to believe he has nothing to say,
2. There are those who are actively frightened by the prospect that HE MIGHT have the opportunity to speak at all, and perhaps cause people to think differently, thus threatening cherry-picked parts of conservative ideology. And
3. Those who cannot get past petty distinctions and irrelevancies (He's divorced, he once wore a dress as a gag, he once had gay roommates, etc) to even admit that he MIGHT have something to add to the national debate.
He's not given a fair hearing because certain interests have decided against hearing what he might have to say.... before he says it. This censorship has thus far expressed itself in a series of articles, usually quoting a single far right source (and, as always, a single, democratic agent provacateur. Can't accuse the conservative press of not being "balanced", even when that balance is contrived for political purposes) to insinuate that Guliani's social views negate his political ones. The argument is: he's far too "liberal" socially for you to stand, therefore, he has nothing to say to you that you might like to hear or which might otherwise condition your views.
He might well find himself in the position of being the only person in a hypothetical, crowded theatre, aware of a dangerous and deadly fire, who can't warn his fellow patrons because they insist on clapping their hands over their ears, and can't hear the alarm. If this continues much longer, then the republican party deserves electoral exile. It will simply stagnate because it has refused to listen to any ideas whatsoever, especially those that might be considered heretical.
With regards to the questions I posed the other day:
*Can Rudy Gulianin get past the God, Guns and Gays Coalition and win a nomination in the Republican party for President of the United States?
Short answer: no. From what I have been reading and chatting about lately, there is but one, slim chance of this happening: Guliani would have to backpeddle on his pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-gun control stances, and then some MIGHT consider voting for him. That fact that this would make the man a hypocrite, plain as day for all to see, matters not. All that those who might consider the possibility wish to see is their personal views justified and approved, and reflected in a candidate who's only virtue then, is that he can beat HillaryAND kow-tow to them. In effect, their problem with Guliani is not so much his views, per se , as it is their belief that ideology must be adhered to, even if it makes you a hypocrite. The PARTY, and it's appearance of ideological purity, is all that matters, and if your own personal peeeve is acknowledged, so much the better.
Then there are those for whom no amount of backpeddling would suffice. Most of these are either principled, thinking people (who could be reasonably expected to be able to smell hypocrisy a mile off) or those perpetually-brain dead masses, that short of a divine intercession, still wouldn't vote for him because their preacher said not to.
The stunning thing about the debate over Rudy and Republicanism is not that the proponents/opponents so easily fall into quantifiable and identifiable categories; it is that there is SO MUCH invested in censorship of Guliani the man, rather than Guliani the governing philosphy.
Rudy Guliani cannot get a fair hearing because:
1. There are some preternaturally disposed (either by religion or ignorance) to believe he has nothing to say,
2. There are those who are actively frightened by the prospect that HE MIGHT have the opportunity to speak at all, and perhaps cause people to think differently, thus threatening cherry-picked parts of conservative ideology. And
3. Those who cannot get past petty distinctions and irrelevancies (He's divorced, he once wore a dress as a gag, he once had gay roommates, etc) to even admit that he MIGHT have something to add to the national debate.
He's not given a fair hearing because certain interests have decided against hearing what he might have to say.... before he says it. This censorship has thus far expressed itself in a series of articles, usually quoting a single far right source (and, as always, a single, democratic agent provacateur. Can't accuse the conservative press of not being "balanced", even when that balance is contrived for political purposes) to insinuate that Guliani's social views negate his political ones. The argument is: he's far too "liberal" socially for you to stand, therefore, he has nothing to say to you that you might like to hear or which might otherwise condition your views.
He might well find himself in the position of being the only person in a hypothetical, crowded theatre, aware of a dangerous and deadly fire, who can't warn his fellow patrons because they insist on clapping their hands over their ears, and can't hear the alarm. If this continues much longer, then the republican party deserves electoral exile. It will simply stagnate because it has refused to listen to any ideas whatsoever, especially those that might be considered heretical.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Silly Season Begins...
Last week, it was John McCain. Today, it's Rudolph Guliani.
With the formation of "exploratory committees" the first two potential republican candidates for President in 2008 have stepped forward. I'll put together something later on all of this, but for now, ask yourself the following questions:
1. How does Guliani get past the religious zelots and flamthrowers-for-all crowd, and achieve a nomination in what is, for all intents and purposes, a party machinery dominated by concern for the sensibilities of the Religious Right?
2. How long will it be before John McCain's propensity to self-destruct makes itself apparent?
Seems I have some things to think about....
Last week, it was John McCain. Today, it's Rudolph Guliani.
With the formation of "exploratory committees" the first two potential republican candidates for President in 2008 have stepped forward. I'll put together something later on all of this, but for now, ask yourself the following questions:
1. How does Guliani get past the religious zelots and flamthrowers-for-all crowd, and achieve a nomination in what is, for all intents and purposes, a party machinery dominated by concern for the sensibilities of the Religious Right?
2. How long will it be before John McCain's propensity to self-destruct makes itself apparent?
Seems I have some things to think about....
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Mark This on Your Calendar...
The dingbats are out today. Somehow, the republican electoral loss brought this out:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1735679/posts
Nostradamus predicted it!
Now, maybe it's just me, but if Nostradamus was really a friggin' genius, then why don't these morons come out of the woodwork with a prophecy BEFORE it's needed? That fact that Nostradumus usually only makes sense in HINDSIGHT does not necessarily mean he had any FORESIGHT.
The dingbats are out today. Somehow, the republican electoral loss brought this out:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1735679/posts
Nostradamus predicted it!
Now, maybe it's just me, but if Nostradamus was really a friggin' genius, then why don't these morons come out of the woodwork with a prophecy BEFORE it's needed? That fact that Nostradumus usually only makes sense in HINDSIGHT does not necessarily mean he had any FORESIGHT.
It Just Gets Worse...
The 'net is buzzing today with disgruntled Christians mightily upset that the republican party has been handed it's collective ass in the mid-term elections. Mostly, this is understandable; many of the same disgruntled religious masses crying in their Holy Water these last few days feel taken advantage of. They believed that politicians who took their money and votes would somehow act the way they wanted them to, neglecting the inconvenient truths about human nature and the fallibility of man.
But the tenor of much of this self-flagellation is eerily frightening.
The main point being discussed today seems to be that America is being overtaken by an evil cabal of gays, libertines, thieves and minor Anti-Christs who are leading us down the path to utter destruction by the Almighty as punishment for our collective sins. Some are wailing that even more strenuous efforts are required to prevent this (great, just what we need; more self-appointed hall monitors. Oh wait! We elected a bunch of them the other day!), and quite a few more are actively hoping for it (the Rapture crowd). Like the Muslims, defeat to this particular group of Christians, in any sense, is not attributible to rational, logical means, it is ALWAYS a sign of divine indignation. The results, and they are usually grisly results, are our just desserts.
However, the strongest undercurrent of discontent seems to be revolve around a contradiction that can only be ignored oreven understood, if one has faith (i.e. one has given ujp the ability to use his braincells and is willing to be told what to do by someone given that authority by his ability to memorize the bible, chapter and verse).
You see, God created man with free will. Free Will, according to most people's concept of the idea, is that man has the ability to do whatever he pleases, when and how he pleases. God gave him that power. That the worst results of this rampant "I can do what I want" mentality is restrained by mostly-invisble social restraints: it is not conducive to a peaceful, prosperous society to have people running around randomly killing each other, stealing from each other, or abducting each other's wives. Religion restrains such impulses by making them "sinful", attaching a stigma and sense of shame to them with implications in the eyes of God, and "the law" restrains them by raising the prospect of punishment by society as a whole. The same can be said for things that exist in both the religious and legal realms: marriage, for example.
However, it gets a little dicey when you start to apply the concept of God-given-Free Will with the concept of God-given-Rights. Mental gynmastics are now required to make sense of any of it.
So, if God gave man the Free Will to be gay, and the Constitution guarentees the God-given right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", what exactly is the difference or the conflict? God, apparently, has sanctioned both, has he not? Well, OF COURSE NOT, you COMMUNIST! God gave us Free Will only to exercise HIS will, and while God granted your constitutional rights, there's nothing that says he can't revoke them any goddamned time he pleases, or, kill a few million of us in a terrible way to remind us that we are not exercising our Free Will or Rights in a way in which he approves. God can, and will, punish you for taking advantage of a "defect" he built into you in the first place? My, and I thought he was perfect and infallible?
No wonder religious conservatives are mostly unhappy, kill-joy types of folks. How do you reconcile the God-given-Constitutional-Right to Free Speech with God-given-Free Will when the result is someone saying "God doesn't exist", or worse, exercising those rights in such away as to make a mockery of everything else God said? It seems that God gave us the bullets with which to shoot holes in him. You have to choose: is your loyalty to your Creator or to your Country? It has to be either because it can't be both, because very often, they conflict badly.
Now, God can say "Thou shalt not kill", and we are supposed to take that as a rule by which to live, immutible wisdom, an insight which cannot be argued against or trifled with, a gift from the Almighty engraved on stone tablets. No sooner does God pass on this commandment, then the Israelites march into "the Promised Land" and have to kill everyone they find living on that land already. If God can gainsay his own commandment then, then he should be able to gainsay them whenever he wants to, so the religious kook might argue. Killing is, of course, when it can be applied to those who aren't members of the group. So, Jews might kill non-Jews, Muslims can kill whoever they want based on sect and political belief, Christians can kill muslims, and despite the fact that we are "all God's Children", God can sanction this or that bout of killing for his "selected" few whenever he sees fit,or for his own benefit when it comes to "killing the infidel".
If this is in fact true, that God is a hypocrite (or at the very least, a very bad contract writer), then why-oh-why would I have any confidence in him to "save the country" or make the proper decision on who should be saved and who shall be passed on to the torments of Hell? God seems ot be making the rules up as he goes along, changing this to suit his needs, allowing that when it's to his advantage, prohibiting this when he doesn't like it, and in the process, stampeding all over his "gift" of Free Will and his "grant" of Inalienable Rights.
I'll tell you this much: I've already decided that God, if it exists, must be a woman. Because only a woman could make THAT many contradictions and leave that kind of logical chasm and still be convinced of her righteousness,and have others either swallow them whole or throw their hands up in resignation (it's easier to subit than argue). I guess this explains why most Eveangelicals these days believ you can be "re-virginated" if you pray hard enough, huh? To argue for or against is simply too stupid and exhausting because the ground upn which your arguments stand can always be shifted by God the menstrual woman.
So, what becomes in one realm, Americans exercising their constitutionally-guarenteed, God-given rights to being gay or choosing to have an abortion, becomes in another realm the misuse of God's gifts, which he/she/it regularly contradicts, and which are given on condition that they only be used in the "right" (Good Churchkeeping Seal of Approval) way, despite the existance of Free Will?
Ah, yes it all makes sense now.
No wonder we lost the election: look at who we depended upon to vote!
I'm glad I'm an agnostic, because otherwise I'd have a raging heroin habit.
** Discalimer: I neither support the ridiculous notion of "Gay Rights" (what they seek is more rights than the rest of us, to be a protected species, like the Spotted Owl, untouchable by the legal system or the unwritten laws of polite society) or the disgusting process by which human beings are vacuumed from their mother's wombs for the sake of convenience and avoidance of personal responsibility. I simply refuse to be taken in by religious arguments which are contradictory, perposely obfuscatory and espoused by obvious mental patients.
The 'net is buzzing today with disgruntled Christians mightily upset that the republican party has been handed it's collective ass in the mid-term elections. Mostly, this is understandable; many of the same disgruntled religious masses crying in their Holy Water these last few days feel taken advantage of. They believed that politicians who took their money and votes would somehow act the way they wanted them to, neglecting the inconvenient truths about human nature and the fallibility of man.
But the tenor of much of this self-flagellation is eerily frightening.
The main point being discussed today seems to be that America is being overtaken by an evil cabal of gays, libertines, thieves and minor Anti-Christs who are leading us down the path to utter destruction by the Almighty as punishment for our collective sins. Some are wailing that even more strenuous efforts are required to prevent this (great, just what we need; more self-appointed hall monitors. Oh wait! We elected a bunch of them the other day!), and quite a few more are actively hoping for it (the Rapture crowd). Like the Muslims, defeat to this particular group of Christians, in any sense, is not attributible to rational, logical means, it is ALWAYS a sign of divine indignation. The results, and they are usually grisly results, are our just desserts.
However, the strongest undercurrent of discontent seems to be revolve around a contradiction that can only be ignored oreven understood, if one has faith (i.e. one has given ujp the ability to use his braincells and is willing to be told what to do by someone given that authority by his ability to memorize the bible, chapter and verse).
You see, God created man with free will. Free Will, according to most people's concept of the idea, is that man has the ability to do whatever he pleases, when and how he pleases. God gave him that power. That the worst results of this rampant "I can do what I want" mentality is restrained by mostly-invisble social restraints: it is not conducive to a peaceful, prosperous society to have people running around randomly killing each other, stealing from each other, or abducting each other's wives. Religion restrains such impulses by making them "sinful", attaching a stigma and sense of shame to them with implications in the eyes of God, and "the law" restrains them by raising the prospect of punishment by society as a whole. The same can be said for things that exist in both the religious and legal realms: marriage, for example.
However, it gets a little dicey when you start to apply the concept of God-given-Free Will with the concept of God-given-Rights. Mental gynmastics are now required to make sense of any of it.
So, if God gave man the Free Will to be gay, and the Constitution guarentees the God-given right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", what exactly is the difference or the conflict? God, apparently, has sanctioned both, has he not? Well, OF COURSE NOT, you COMMUNIST! God gave us Free Will only to exercise HIS will, and while God granted your constitutional rights, there's nothing that says he can't revoke them any goddamned time he pleases, or, kill a few million of us in a terrible way to remind us that we are not exercising our Free Will or Rights in a way in which he approves. God can, and will, punish you for taking advantage of a "defect" he built into you in the first place? My, and I thought he was perfect and infallible?
No wonder religious conservatives are mostly unhappy, kill-joy types of folks. How do you reconcile the God-given-Constitutional-Right to Free Speech with God-given-Free Will when the result is someone saying "God doesn't exist", or worse, exercising those rights in such away as to make a mockery of everything else God said? It seems that God gave us the bullets with which to shoot holes in him. You have to choose: is your loyalty to your Creator or to your Country? It has to be either because it can't be both, because very often, they conflict badly.
Now, God can say "Thou shalt not kill", and we are supposed to take that as a rule by which to live, immutible wisdom, an insight which cannot be argued against or trifled with, a gift from the Almighty engraved on stone tablets. No sooner does God pass on this commandment, then the Israelites march into "the Promised Land" and have to kill everyone they find living on that land already. If God can gainsay his own commandment then, then he should be able to gainsay them whenever he wants to, so the religious kook might argue. Killing is, of course, when it can be applied to those who aren't members of the group. So, Jews might kill non-Jews, Muslims can kill whoever they want based on sect and political belief, Christians can kill muslims, and despite the fact that we are "all God's Children", God can sanction this or that bout of killing for his "selected" few whenever he sees fit,or for his own benefit when it comes to "killing the infidel".
If this is in fact true, that God is a hypocrite (or at the very least, a very bad contract writer), then why-oh-why would I have any confidence in him to "save the country" or make the proper decision on who should be saved and who shall be passed on to the torments of Hell? God seems ot be making the rules up as he goes along, changing this to suit his needs, allowing that when it's to his advantage, prohibiting this when he doesn't like it, and in the process, stampeding all over his "gift" of Free Will and his "grant" of Inalienable Rights.
I'll tell you this much: I've already decided that God, if it exists, must be a woman. Because only a woman could make THAT many contradictions and leave that kind of logical chasm and still be convinced of her righteousness,and have others either swallow them whole or throw their hands up in resignation (it's easier to subit than argue). I guess this explains why most Eveangelicals these days believ you can be "re-virginated" if you pray hard enough, huh? To argue for or against is simply too stupid and exhausting because the ground upn which your arguments stand can always be shifted by God the menstrual woman.
So, what becomes in one realm, Americans exercising their constitutionally-guarenteed, God-given rights to being gay or choosing to have an abortion, becomes in another realm the misuse of God's gifts, which he/she/it regularly contradicts, and which are given on condition that they only be used in the "right" (Good Churchkeeping Seal of Approval) way, despite the existance of Free Will?
Ah, yes it all makes sense now.
No wonder we lost the election: look at who we depended upon to vote!
I'm glad I'm an agnostic, because otherwise I'd have a raging heroin habit.
** Discalimer: I neither support the ridiculous notion of "Gay Rights" (what they seek is more rights than the rest of us, to be a protected species, like the Spotted Owl, untouchable by the legal system or the unwritten laws of polite society) or the disgusting process by which human beings are vacuumed from their mother's wombs for the sake of convenience and avoidance of personal responsibility. I simply refuse to be taken in by religious arguments which are contradictory, perposely obfuscatory and espoused by obvious mental patients.
This Just In...
The first, I think, documented insinuation of "Christian Voter Intimidation":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1735629/posts
So, I guess cries of discrimination are not just for minority democrats anymore, but disappointed social conservatives, who should know better, too.
It's getting to the point where the solution to all of life's little disappoinments is to cry "discrimination" and drag the lawyers into it.
Hell, I haven't won the lottery yet, there must be some nefarious conspiracy at work! Get me a mouthpiece!
The first, I think, documented insinuation of "Christian Voter Intimidation":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1735629/posts
So, I guess cries of discrimination are not just for minority democrats anymore, but disappointed social conservatives, who should know better, too.
It's getting to the point where the solution to all of life's little disappoinments is to cry "discrimination" and drag the lawyers into it.
Hell, I haven't won the lottery yet, there must be some nefarious conspiracy at work! Get me a mouthpiece!
The Aftermath...
Short version: Democrats took back the House of Representatives, Senatorial disaster was narrowly averted. Donald Rumsfeld took the fall, the libertine press took the opportunity to gloat at a Presidential presser yesterday, and the spectre of a Speaker Pelosi has panty-bunched conservatives from coast to coast. Vast quantities of Kaopectate, Alka Seltzer and Johnny Wlaker Black have been consumed by those who had not only an electoral, but an emotional, stake in the outcome of Tuesday night. Finally, Karl Rove has proven to be human, and it should be funny watching the press that has accused him of being the Prince of Darkness, in league with the forces of the Underworld, busily write retractions and try to explain how such a tactical genius, master manipulator, uber-propagandist and politican magician utterly failed. Don't hold your breath waiting for those articles and columns, though.
Afetr all, Rove served his purpose as strawman, and now can be safely ignored. But anyway...
What does this all mean?
Well, to begin with, you can now look forward to a Congress that will do even less than the one just voted out. Whatever the Democrats believe they can accomplish, they will be hindered and hampered by their own hubris; they will trip all over themselves launching investigations and scandal hunts designed to hurt any republican nominee in 2008, assuring an easy coast for Hillary Rodham Clinton, the presumptive nominee. While they egage in this sort of activity, they will a) fail to focus on anything resembling regulation, b) potentially turn off a whole slew of independant voters that they will desperate need two years hence by ripping the government apart, and c) be following the script of the Howard Dean/Tie-died-and-tattooed wing of the Democratic party, making themsleves fairly unattractive in the future.
That, ultimately, is to the public good. Politicians preoccupied with petty turf and political battles are simply too preoccupied to screw with the rest of us. Oh, you'll be giving back that tax cut that GWB got passed a few years ago, certainly, but the regulatory monster that is the US Government will be put into hibernation while the Democrats engage in the politics of personal destruction. Of course, the 800-pound gorilla in the room will be the Clinton Machine, which will ensure that when Nancy Pelosi and Chuckie Schumer get too rambunctious, their leashes will be forcibly and abruptly yanked. They will not be permitted to stray too far formt he reservation. The keyword for Democrats is: maintain the status-quo until the Hildebeest wins. Don't rock the boat too severely.
You can also look forward to the Republicans fight tooth and nail for everything the Democrats do manage to bring to the plate that doesn't have anything to do with GWB or Haliburton. So, we're pretty safe from intrusive meddling from either extreme. Conservatives (who more and more cease to exist in the true sense of the word) will cry, wail and gnash their teeth, feelingmore and more alienated in a wilderness that is becoming ever-more moderate and ever-more interested in what their politicians actually do.
As to why the Republicans lost Tuesday nioght, well, even a democrat (small 'd' intentional) can figure that out; other than "stay the course", "don't let the terrorists win", and "the other side is worse", they had nothing to offer. This last congress has achieved nothing of consequence, and in the last six years has done nothing but violate every republican/conservative principle from lack of fiscal restraint, to arrogance in the performance of their duties, from the outright taking of bribes to the sexual harrassment of teen-aged males in he very corridors of Congress.
The lesson that should be learned is simply that you cannot continue to cry "terrorist" 24 hours a day (even if it is necessary), while in the background, you fail to accomplish everything you've set out in your agenda and expect to stay in power, or even worse, expect to be invulnerable. The Republicans counted on the national security card, but failed to recognize that after five years of all-terrorist-all-the-time, that the people were sick of hearing it. They already get it. So, now how about you do something about rampant spending, escalating entitlement costs, keeping illegal aliens out of the country and perhaps, learn to behave like law-abiding, responsible adults?
Scanning the "Conservative" web sites these past few days, several themes centered around this electoral setback seem to be raering their ugly heads:
1. Republicans were betrayed; a cabal of libertarians and liberal republicans conspired to jump ship and voted for the democrats, hanging the poor, hassled and oppressed "real" conservative majority (the TRUE inheritors of the Reagan Legacy, dammit!) out to dry. Nothing could be further from the truth. The belief that there was a conspiracy is par for the course; when the truth is too painful to face up to (Republicans simply sucked for the last few years), point to conspiracy. It relieves you of the necessity of facing up to the truth and relieves you of the responsibility of having hijacked the nomination process which created this mess in the first place. First rule of thumb: if you build a house with rotten wood, you deserve what you get.
2. A conspiracy of the Mainstream Media and very good democratic propagandists brainwashed the masses into voting democrat, especially those easily-bribed "swing voters". Yeah, that's right: the MSM and Bob Beckel were somehow required to convince millions that what they saw happening before their very eyes was true. So now electoral loss is due to the millions of mindless sheep out there who need to be told how to think or what their personal interests are. Again, conspiracy theory is the last refuge of those preternaturally opposed to telling themselves the truth.
3. Republicans lost because America is the New Sodom. In this case, it's God's will that republicans have failed because they did not frog-march the abortionists to the ovens, institute a system of street executions for the gays, round up the illegals and impress them into slave labor and purge themsleves of immoral sexual predators (they got the last part right). This comes from much the same legion of idiots who claimed that the (/11 attacks and the shooting deaths of 8 Amish girls were God's just punishment for libertinism and rampant sin. The sooner we get these jackasses out of the republican party and into padded cells, the better. They are no better than the "Earth First" bunch on the other side, and a fair deal loonier than anything I have ever seen in my life. In a different place and time, both of these extremes would have been the people burning witches, branding people with great, big "A"'s on their foreheads, and gathering at the weekly hanging as if it were prime time entertainment.
Now what makes this particular point of view interesting (once one gets past the disgust factor) is the the conservative websites are now pasting FOREIGN anti-gay, pro-religious propaganda to bolster their case, possibly because they have lost faith in their own, domestic sources of prudishness and bigotry. Given the recent past (the Mark Foly scandal and the Republican response, and the admission by one of the leaders of the biggest Evangelical Christian group that he engaged in gay sex and drug use with a prostitute), they seem to have lost their faith in the institutions they previously looked to for guidance and sureity. Now you will find fire-and-brimstone-snake-handling baptists, Rock-solid-no-idea-that-doesn't-come-from-Scripture-will-penbetrate-my-skull Evangelicals making common cause with the CATHOLIC CHURCH and posting Catholic commentary on Conservative websites. Yesterday alone, on FreeRepublic, there were anti-gay articles posted from Israeli, Polish and Vatican newspapers,andposters that I know personally to be of the mind-set that the Catholic Church is the next-best-thing to being involved with organized crime, have now eagerly made common cause with the Church. That such things have already happened in the span of 72 hours is simply amazing, and reminds one of just how predictable and hypocritical some people really are.
4. (And this one SLAYS me) Republicans lost because we had "no outlet" for telling the truth about the democrats. This, naturally, has been posted all over the Internet (I've seen it in about 30 places, thus far), which shows just how oblivious some people really are; you've just posted, in a public forum that reaches millions, that the media is somehow denied to you and you can't "get your message out"? Rush Limbaugh, I guess broadcasts to no one from a closet? Fox News, which at least makes the effort to provide both sides of an issue, is watched by no one?Republican candidates were not allowed to purchase advertizing space and run campaign ads on TV and radio? Quite honestly, the message wasnot one people wanted to continue to hear; they've heard it for the last six years. The message was: "Yes, so I might be an all-round sonofabitch, profligate spender, accountable-to-no-one hypocrite, who won't build a border fence, can't tell you the truth about the war in Iraq, and who doesn't really care if the government agency tasked with saving your life from natural disaster doesn't work, vote for me anyway...or the terrorists will kill you."
Non-starter. The country is tired of war and terrorism, and while they don't want the Iraqi adventure to end in defeat, they certainly don't want it to continue in the present fashion; aimless, leaderless, ill-defined and apparently endless. Americans are dying for Iraq, no Iraqis are dying for it. That's a problem. Depsite all the successful thwarting of terror plots in the last five years, Usama Bin Laden is still alive (we believe) and seems to have been forgotten. Saddam Hussein my be getting hanged, but, heck, that was a foregone conclusion and it has very little to do with ending the conflict or setting the conditions for a democratic Middle East.
Unfortunately, it'sa truism that more islearned from failure than from success. What the republican party, MY republican party, must now learn is how did it all go badly, and how do we correct it? Well, the first step is going to have to take a look at how we nominate candidates. We were given a truckload of Hasterts and Frists, Lotts and DeLays, and look where it got us. We have to suffer the insufferable with John McCain and people like Newt Gingruch have been exiled for minor sins. Condoleeza Rice and Rudy Giuliani can't even get a fair hearing because they are (or might be in the case of Rice, I don't know for certain) pro-choice and separate from "the base" on a number of other social issues. "The Base" incidentally, is the problem; candidates have to be tailored to their particular pet peeves or they stay home, which gives us candidates which are politically-reliable (until the candidate can safely get away with being politically-unrliable, see the last six years), but also makes them unimaginative technocrats who managed to manipulate the party machinery, but who otherwise couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag, even if you gave them a chainsaw.
It's time for new blood and new ideas, but I'm afraid we'll get none of either in the next two years. The Right-wingers of the Buchanan stripe (the God, Guns and Gays coalition, as I call them, the American Taliban is apt, as well) will prevent it, and if they can't, they'll do what they always do: stay home or find a Ross Perot type to waste a vote on. Perhaps now is a good time for the Republican party to cut them loose. It will be painful, it might lead to electoral disaster again, but in the long run, purging the party of the lunatic fringe and the Social-Conservative-Litmus-testers,migth pay dividend by making REPUBLICANISM more attractive. This future republicanism can still draw lessons and bullet points form Conservatism (fiscal responsibility, national defense, law and order, end rampant illegal immigration, etc). Conservatism, it seems to me, was and still is a great philosophy, but it's attracting the entirely wrong sort. The problem is the proponents, not the philosophy.
Anyway, I won;t hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
In the meantime, Democrats now have two years to fix what they say they will. I have no confidence that they actually will accomplish anythign of consequence because they are, at heart, vicious little school-yard bullies and mental retards, to whom comon sense is something to be avoided like typhus. There are many who are just as small-minded and convinced of the tuth of their idiocy as the most staunch conservative. In the final analysis, both parties are being ruined by their extremes. But anyhow, it should be entertaining TV for the next two years, if nothing else, until the cut-and-run-apologize-to-Hamas-tax-everything-within-an-inch-of-it's-life party drops the ball and a few thousand Americans get killed in a horrifying terrorist attack. I don't wish for it, but I can see it happening.
Perhaps only then will the American people stop this nonsense of electing and paying heed to the extremists in both partys and start thinking about being AMERICANS first and members of a political party, second. But gioven the track record, if 9/11 only equated to a 51-49 race between Bush and Kerry, you have to wonder whether a second attack will do much more in changing minds.
To sum up: republicans lost because they deserved to. They fell asleep at the wheel, and when they weren't sleeping, they were feathering thier own nests and acting like drunken sailors on shore leave. Teh democrats now have an opportunity to prove they can be serious and grwon up, too, but will fall far short of this seemingly easy goal.
Short version: Democrats took back the House of Representatives, Senatorial disaster was narrowly averted. Donald Rumsfeld took the fall, the libertine press took the opportunity to gloat at a Presidential presser yesterday, and the spectre of a Speaker Pelosi has panty-bunched conservatives from coast to coast. Vast quantities of Kaopectate, Alka Seltzer and Johnny Wlaker Black have been consumed by those who had not only an electoral, but an emotional, stake in the outcome of Tuesday night. Finally, Karl Rove has proven to be human, and it should be funny watching the press that has accused him of being the Prince of Darkness, in league with the forces of the Underworld, busily write retractions and try to explain how such a tactical genius, master manipulator, uber-propagandist and politican magician utterly failed. Don't hold your breath waiting for those articles and columns, though.
Afetr all, Rove served his purpose as strawman, and now can be safely ignored. But anyway...
What does this all mean?
Well, to begin with, you can now look forward to a Congress that will do even less than the one just voted out. Whatever the Democrats believe they can accomplish, they will be hindered and hampered by their own hubris; they will trip all over themselves launching investigations and scandal hunts designed to hurt any republican nominee in 2008, assuring an easy coast for Hillary Rodham Clinton, the presumptive nominee. While they egage in this sort of activity, they will a) fail to focus on anything resembling regulation, b) potentially turn off a whole slew of independant voters that they will desperate need two years hence by ripping the government apart, and c) be following the script of the Howard Dean/Tie-died-and-tattooed wing of the Democratic party, making themsleves fairly unattractive in the future.
That, ultimately, is to the public good. Politicians preoccupied with petty turf and political battles are simply too preoccupied to screw with the rest of us. Oh, you'll be giving back that tax cut that GWB got passed a few years ago, certainly, but the regulatory monster that is the US Government will be put into hibernation while the Democrats engage in the politics of personal destruction. Of course, the 800-pound gorilla in the room will be the Clinton Machine, which will ensure that when Nancy Pelosi and Chuckie Schumer get too rambunctious, their leashes will be forcibly and abruptly yanked. They will not be permitted to stray too far formt he reservation. The keyword for Democrats is: maintain the status-quo until the Hildebeest wins. Don't rock the boat too severely.
You can also look forward to the Republicans fight tooth and nail for everything the Democrats do manage to bring to the plate that doesn't have anything to do with GWB or Haliburton. So, we're pretty safe from intrusive meddling from either extreme. Conservatives (who more and more cease to exist in the true sense of the word) will cry, wail and gnash their teeth, feelingmore and more alienated in a wilderness that is becoming ever-more moderate and ever-more interested in what their politicians actually do.
As to why the Republicans lost Tuesday nioght, well, even a democrat (small 'd' intentional) can figure that out; other than "stay the course", "don't let the terrorists win", and "the other side is worse", they had nothing to offer. This last congress has achieved nothing of consequence, and in the last six years has done nothing but violate every republican/conservative principle from lack of fiscal restraint, to arrogance in the performance of their duties, from the outright taking of bribes to the sexual harrassment of teen-aged males in he very corridors of Congress.
The lesson that should be learned is simply that you cannot continue to cry "terrorist" 24 hours a day (even if it is necessary), while in the background, you fail to accomplish everything you've set out in your agenda and expect to stay in power, or even worse, expect to be invulnerable. The Republicans counted on the national security card, but failed to recognize that after five years of all-terrorist-all-the-time, that the people were sick of hearing it. They already get it. So, now how about you do something about rampant spending, escalating entitlement costs, keeping illegal aliens out of the country and perhaps, learn to behave like law-abiding, responsible adults?
Scanning the "Conservative" web sites these past few days, several themes centered around this electoral setback seem to be raering their ugly heads:
1. Republicans were betrayed; a cabal of libertarians and liberal republicans conspired to jump ship and voted for the democrats, hanging the poor, hassled and oppressed "real" conservative majority (the TRUE inheritors of the Reagan Legacy, dammit!) out to dry. Nothing could be further from the truth. The belief that there was a conspiracy is par for the course; when the truth is too painful to face up to (Republicans simply sucked for the last few years), point to conspiracy. It relieves you of the necessity of facing up to the truth and relieves you of the responsibility of having hijacked the nomination process which created this mess in the first place. First rule of thumb: if you build a house with rotten wood, you deserve what you get.
2. A conspiracy of the Mainstream Media and very good democratic propagandists brainwashed the masses into voting democrat, especially those easily-bribed "swing voters". Yeah, that's right: the MSM and Bob Beckel were somehow required to convince millions that what they saw happening before their very eyes was true. So now electoral loss is due to the millions of mindless sheep out there who need to be told how to think or what their personal interests are. Again, conspiracy theory is the last refuge of those preternaturally opposed to telling themselves the truth.
3. Republicans lost because America is the New Sodom. In this case, it's God's will that republicans have failed because they did not frog-march the abortionists to the ovens, institute a system of street executions for the gays, round up the illegals and impress them into slave labor and purge themsleves of immoral sexual predators (they got the last part right). This comes from much the same legion of idiots who claimed that the (/11 attacks and the shooting deaths of 8 Amish girls were God's just punishment for libertinism and rampant sin. The sooner we get these jackasses out of the republican party and into padded cells, the better. They are no better than the "Earth First" bunch on the other side, and a fair deal loonier than anything I have ever seen in my life. In a different place and time, both of these extremes would have been the people burning witches, branding people with great, big "A"'s on their foreheads, and gathering at the weekly hanging as if it were prime time entertainment.
Now what makes this particular point of view interesting (once one gets past the disgust factor) is the the conservative websites are now pasting FOREIGN anti-gay, pro-religious propaganda to bolster their case, possibly because they have lost faith in their own, domestic sources of prudishness and bigotry. Given the recent past (the Mark Foly scandal and the Republican response, and the admission by one of the leaders of the biggest Evangelical Christian group that he engaged in gay sex and drug use with a prostitute), they seem to have lost their faith in the institutions they previously looked to for guidance and sureity. Now you will find fire-and-brimstone-snake-handling baptists, Rock-solid-no-idea-that-doesn't-come-from-Scripture-will-penbetrate-my-skull Evangelicals making common cause with the CATHOLIC CHURCH and posting Catholic commentary on Conservative websites. Yesterday alone, on FreeRepublic, there were anti-gay articles posted from Israeli, Polish and Vatican newspapers,andposters that I know personally to be of the mind-set that the Catholic Church is the next-best-thing to being involved with organized crime, have now eagerly made common cause with the Church. That such things have already happened in the span of 72 hours is simply amazing, and reminds one of just how predictable and hypocritical some people really are.
4. (And this one SLAYS me) Republicans lost because we had "no outlet" for telling the truth about the democrats. This, naturally, has been posted all over the Internet (I've seen it in about 30 places, thus far), which shows just how oblivious some people really are; you've just posted, in a public forum that reaches millions, that the media is somehow denied to you and you can't "get your message out"? Rush Limbaugh, I guess broadcasts to no one from a closet? Fox News, which at least makes the effort to provide both sides of an issue, is watched by no one?Republican candidates were not allowed to purchase advertizing space and run campaign ads on TV and radio? Quite honestly, the message wasnot one people wanted to continue to hear; they've heard it for the last six years. The message was: "Yes, so I might be an all-round sonofabitch, profligate spender, accountable-to-no-one hypocrite, who won't build a border fence, can't tell you the truth about the war in Iraq, and who doesn't really care if the government agency tasked with saving your life from natural disaster doesn't work, vote for me anyway...or the terrorists will kill you."
Non-starter. The country is tired of war and terrorism, and while they don't want the Iraqi adventure to end in defeat, they certainly don't want it to continue in the present fashion; aimless, leaderless, ill-defined and apparently endless. Americans are dying for Iraq, no Iraqis are dying for it. That's a problem. Depsite all the successful thwarting of terror plots in the last five years, Usama Bin Laden is still alive (we believe) and seems to have been forgotten. Saddam Hussein my be getting hanged, but, heck, that was a foregone conclusion and it has very little to do with ending the conflict or setting the conditions for a democratic Middle East.
Unfortunately, it'sa truism that more islearned from failure than from success. What the republican party, MY republican party, must now learn is how did it all go badly, and how do we correct it? Well, the first step is going to have to take a look at how we nominate candidates. We were given a truckload of Hasterts and Frists, Lotts and DeLays, and look where it got us. We have to suffer the insufferable with John McCain and people like Newt Gingruch have been exiled for minor sins. Condoleeza Rice and Rudy Giuliani can't even get a fair hearing because they are (or might be in the case of Rice, I don't know for certain) pro-choice and separate from "the base" on a number of other social issues. "The Base" incidentally, is the problem; candidates have to be tailored to their particular pet peeves or they stay home, which gives us candidates which are politically-reliable (until the candidate can safely get away with being politically-unrliable, see the last six years), but also makes them unimaginative technocrats who managed to manipulate the party machinery, but who otherwise couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag, even if you gave them a chainsaw.
It's time for new blood and new ideas, but I'm afraid we'll get none of either in the next two years. The Right-wingers of the Buchanan stripe (the God, Guns and Gays coalition, as I call them, the American Taliban is apt, as well) will prevent it, and if they can't, they'll do what they always do: stay home or find a Ross Perot type to waste a vote on. Perhaps now is a good time for the Republican party to cut them loose. It will be painful, it might lead to electoral disaster again, but in the long run, purging the party of the lunatic fringe and the Social-Conservative-Litmus-testers,migth pay dividend by making REPUBLICANISM more attractive. This future republicanism can still draw lessons and bullet points form Conservatism (fiscal responsibility, national defense, law and order, end rampant illegal immigration, etc). Conservatism, it seems to me, was and still is a great philosophy, but it's attracting the entirely wrong sort. The problem is the proponents, not the philosophy.
Anyway, I won;t hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
In the meantime, Democrats now have two years to fix what they say they will. I have no confidence that they actually will accomplish anythign of consequence because they are, at heart, vicious little school-yard bullies and mental retards, to whom comon sense is something to be avoided like typhus. There are many who are just as small-minded and convinced of the tuth of their idiocy as the most staunch conservative. In the final analysis, both parties are being ruined by their extremes. But anyhow, it should be entertaining TV for the next two years, if nothing else, until the cut-and-run-apologize-to-Hamas-tax-everything-within-an-inch-of-it's-life party drops the ball and a few thousand Americans get killed in a horrifying terrorist attack. I don't wish for it, but I can see it happening.
Perhaps only then will the American people stop this nonsense of electing and paying heed to the extremists in both partys and start thinking about being AMERICANS first and members of a political party, second. But gioven the track record, if 9/11 only equated to a 51-49 race between Bush and Kerry, you have to wonder whether a second attack will do much more in changing minds.
To sum up: republicans lost because they deserved to. They fell asleep at the wheel, and when they weren't sleeping, they were feathering thier own nests and acting like drunken sailors on shore leave. Teh democrats now have an opportunity to prove they can be serious and grwon up, too, but will fall far short of this seemingly easy goal.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
A More Dangerous World...
Given the obvious nuclear aspirations of Iran and North Lorea, the spread of a radical Islamic fascism, the disregard for human life shown in a million places from the enforced mass starvation of Darfur, to the killing fields of American schoolrooms, one has to wonder just what kind of future the world faces.
I grew up during the height of the Cold War, where the two major superpowers pointed nuclear holhocaust at each other 24/7/365 , and where the threat of extinction hovered over every human activity you could think of. The destructive force at the command of both the American President and the Soviet Premier was held in check by a very slender set of hair-triggers, that at any moment, could fail and let loose the dogs of war. Terror maintained a balance of force on planet Earth. Neither side (although there were individuals that actively sought such a thing) was going to fry the other unless there was a good reason to do so. Reason, even in something as unreasonable as a nuclear weapon, was still in force.
Nowadays, we have some new players on the stage; Pakistan, India, China, and now North Korea and Iran. Pretty soon we'll be probably be seeing nuclear Brazil and Japan. Thatis the nature of the forcs unleashed by Messers. Einstein and Oppenheimer; once the genie is out of the bottle, and so on and so forth. And the world seems so much more unsafe now in 2006 than it did in 1976.
Of course, if you're a leftist, the reason for this is the conervative policies of the Western nations, and in particular, the United States. If you sit on the opposite side of the spectrum, the reason for this insecurity is the complete collapse of the collective security arrangements of the 20th century that ensured peace through mutual terror. This is an argument that will never be solved, if you ask me, although both sides seem to have merit in their position. The problem is not politics and policy, economics and dogma, it is human nature, a force which cannot be constrained by governments and collective organizations.
Human nature, not the policy of any nation or alliance, created Usama Bin Laden. Human nature encourages poor people who otherwise feel powerless to strive for what they construe as the measure of true power; nuclear weapons. Human nature dictates that when restraints on uncivilized behavior are removed, uncivilized behavior will result. And human nature also ensures that when minor incidents of uncivilzed behavior fail to have the intended effect (to frighten, to call attention to something, to affect the actions of others) then the scale and barbarity of such actions escalate. Hence, we go from hijacking to using airliners as weapons, from kidnapping to kidnapping/beheading on the internet. We go from postulating tenets of human rights and freedoms to sucking fetuses out of a womb via vaccuum cleaner. We advance from stupidity to stupidity, platitude to platitutde, inanity to inanity, horror to horror, and we can never, ever seem to figure out either the source or the engine.
WE are the source. WE are the engine. But to admit it is slightly embarassing. To do anything about it is even more horrible to contemplate: action is beyond the scope of most people, too self-interested as they are. Instead,they scream for "the government" to do "something" about this, that or the other crisis; so long as they can watch "Dancing with the Stars" and get gasoline at a reasonable price, why should they care if there's some Arab dude with a set of TNT boxer shorts? So long as they have the "right" to abrogate their responsibilities and surf internet porn without anyone looking over their shoulder, why should they care about philosophies and ideologies that are poisonous? So long as they can drink all the Bud Light and watch the Super Bowl, why does anyone care that there are people starving, dying of preventable diseases, who don't have freedom, who can't read, who own nothing, who have nothing and will never amount to anything, and who WILL take it out on us, given the opportunity?
Think about it. Then think about the great, unwashed masses, starving in Pyongyang, brainwashed in Tehran, struggling for decency in Baghdad, fighting to survive in Darfur, or ignorant and frustrated in Chicago.
The Cold War has ended, and in it's place a Pandora's box of hatred, stupidity, militancy, intolerance, ideology, hatred --- the entire, disgusting regime of inhumanity on display makes one gag ---- has been opened. In retrospect, it now appears that the Cold War wasn't such a bad thing, after all.
Given the obvious nuclear aspirations of Iran and North Lorea, the spread of a radical Islamic fascism, the disregard for human life shown in a million places from the enforced mass starvation of Darfur, to the killing fields of American schoolrooms, one has to wonder just what kind of future the world faces.
I grew up during the height of the Cold War, where the two major superpowers pointed nuclear holhocaust at each other 24/7/365 , and where the threat of extinction hovered over every human activity you could think of. The destructive force at the command of both the American President and the Soviet Premier was held in check by a very slender set of hair-triggers, that at any moment, could fail and let loose the dogs of war. Terror maintained a balance of force on planet Earth. Neither side (although there were individuals that actively sought such a thing) was going to fry the other unless there was a good reason to do so. Reason, even in something as unreasonable as a nuclear weapon, was still in force.
Nowadays, we have some new players on the stage; Pakistan, India, China, and now North Korea and Iran. Pretty soon we'll be probably be seeing nuclear Brazil and Japan. Thatis the nature of the forcs unleashed by Messers. Einstein and Oppenheimer; once the genie is out of the bottle, and so on and so forth. And the world seems so much more unsafe now in 2006 than it did in 1976.
Of course, if you're a leftist, the reason for this is the conervative policies of the Western nations, and in particular, the United States. If you sit on the opposite side of the spectrum, the reason for this insecurity is the complete collapse of the collective security arrangements of the 20th century that ensured peace through mutual terror. This is an argument that will never be solved, if you ask me, although both sides seem to have merit in their position. The problem is not politics and policy, economics and dogma, it is human nature, a force which cannot be constrained by governments and collective organizations.
Human nature, not the policy of any nation or alliance, created Usama Bin Laden. Human nature encourages poor people who otherwise feel powerless to strive for what they construe as the measure of true power; nuclear weapons. Human nature dictates that when restraints on uncivilized behavior are removed, uncivilized behavior will result. And human nature also ensures that when minor incidents of uncivilzed behavior fail to have the intended effect (to frighten, to call attention to something, to affect the actions of others) then the scale and barbarity of such actions escalate. Hence, we go from hijacking to using airliners as weapons, from kidnapping to kidnapping/beheading on the internet. We go from postulating tenets of human rights and freedoms to sucking fetuses out of a womb via vaccuum cleaner. We advance from stupidity to stupidity, platitude to platitutde, inanity to inanity, horror to horror, and we can never, ever seem to figure out either the source or the engine.
WE are the source. WE are the engine. But to admit it is slightly embarassing. To do anything about it is even more horrible to contemplate: action is beyond the scope of most people, too self-interested as they are. Instead,they scream for "the government" to do "something" about this, that or the other crisis; so long as they can watch "Dancing with the Stars" and get gasoline at a reasonable price, why should they care if there's some Arab dude with a set of TNT boxer shorts? So long as they have the "right" to abrogate their responsibilities and surf internet porn without anyone looking over their shoulder, why should they care about philosophies and ideologies that are poisonous? So long as they can drink all the Bud Light and watch the Super Bowl, why does anyone care that there are people starving, dying of preventable diseases, who don't have freedom, who can't read, who own nothing, who have nothing and will never amount to anything, and who WILL take it out on us, given the opportunity?
Think about it. Then think about the great, unwashed masses, starving in Pyongyang, brainwashed in Tehran, struggling for decency in Baghdad, fighting to survive in Darfur, or ignorant and frustrated in Chicago.
The Cold War has ended, and in it's place a Pandora's box of hatred, stupidity, militancy, intolerance, ideology, hatred --- the entire, disgusting regime of inhumanity on display makes one gag ---- has been opened. In retrospect, it now appears that the Cold War wasn't such a bad thing, after all.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)