I'm trying to figure out what those people behind all the attack ads, the support of the Tea party activists, the stupid and evil rumors about Obama (choose one— he's a Moslem, he wasn't born in America, he hates white people, and etcetera, miserable etcetera) want out of this election. I mean, what more do they need? "In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth."
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
It hasn't got any better since then.
(By the way—there seems to be more than one "tea party"—Does anyone remember the Spanish Civil war, where infighting on the Republican side, (when "Republican" actually stood for something!) mostly fomented by the Communists insisting on doctrinal purity, actually led to the victory of Fascist forces and Generalissimo Franco's repressive regime? Those who work for the oligarchy's bidding will find themselves enslaved.)
What do these oligarchs want? Don't they have enough already? Do they really get so much pleasure from driving out of their gated and guarded enclaves and viewing the suckers who work for them that they have to drive those people into even more desperate straits? How much is enough? How much do you need to insure that your children and grandchildren will be able to live off your largess?
Will it be good for the children and grandchildren to have these riches handed to them instead of having to work for their rewards?
Where does ego stop? How great do you have to be for yourself and look to your descendants?
And how is all that worth a single life which you have destroyed in getting your riches?
If any of these asshats even bothered to read Shakespeare they would get an idea of the value, or lack there of, of inherited wealth and/or power. The Bible would give other clues, as would the actual history of the human race in the last five thousand years.
You don't know what your own children, much less your grandchildren, will do with the money which you squeezed and cheated out of the rest of humanity. You can bet that what ever it is, you won't approve.
I'd put money on that. If I'm right, pay me now. If I'm wrong, I'll get back to you later.
I'm confident that I won't need to get back to you later.
It seems the Republicans and their puppet masters are trying to destroy the middle class of America. They are trying to reduce the American social equation to lower class, and upper class. They want to make Americans work for the same wages as people in Bangla Desh, China, the Maldives, Zanzibar etc. This is so bizarre and short-sighted.
Henry Ford was really an American fascist (he sold cars to Hitler's Germany long after it was clear Hitler would become America's enemy), he not only fought against unions but hired thugs to beat and even murder union organizers, BUT he did recognize that the American worker needed enough money to buy his cars. And he paid accordingly —he didn't want to pay for industrial accidents or provide health care or have a two day weekend—or have someone else tell him he should have these things—but he knew his employees should be able to afford his vehicles.
If only he'd known how cheaply Indian and Malaysian workers would have worked to build his cars.
History would have been different.
Oligarchies do not have a history of longevity. Of course, while they exist they make life miserable for those not in the "in crowd."
People do have the gumption to finally rise up against them or work around them until they collapse. The "local hero" idea in new England and elsewhere is one example of the force that will bring the oligarchs to ruin. When we choose our own methods of support and community we create the basis of our own economic and social freedom.
Buy as local as you can. Buy away from the big names, the big box stores. It won't be easy, "they" will try to make it expensive; "they" will try to keep you addicted to sugar and ease of preparation and ease of thought about what you are eating and where it came from.
This, by the way, is what "socialism," that much-maligned word, is about. You help me, I help you, we both work with him or her and we all make a living co-operating with yet another for mutual benefit. And no power of one over another.
That's a stickler for the oligarchs. Gotta have that power. How else to know how much we are worth?
Poor Jesus. He came to us 2000 years ago to speak of this, and his message is still ignored. We still judge people on their wealth, their status (whatever that is), their beauty—on everything but their ability to live as a vital part of a human community.
Even your Curmudgeon, who doesn't expect much from human beings, is a little depressed about this.
I hope you sleep well. Humanity needs you to be at your best in the morning.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
WTF? Kookbiscuits, cowardly oligarchs, and yours truly
I've been out for awhile. That mosque controversy wore me out, and when I was ready to write again, I was totally dumbfounded by all the insanity on the airwaves (being an old-fashioned kind of guy, by "airwaves" I mean the computer too). The mid-term elections are coming at us like tornadoes come on Missouri and Arkansas. Why do I suddenly feel as vulnerable as if I lived in a trailer park?
Back in my youth I thought that elections actually meant the choice between two principled though politically opposed individuals. Boy, was I naive. Principles, if they were ever there, seem to have gone the way of the dodo, or at least have the same endangered designation as the spotted owl.
What do we see in this election season?
The Repubican Party is either imploding under it's own corporately-funded, evangelically-dominated weight, or heading for a takeover of the House, possibly the Senate—depending on which cable-channel you were listening to. At least that's the way it looked when I started this a month ago. Now it's not so clear, if there can be any clarity.
What is clear is that Republicans are trying to buy this election. They are purchasing attack ads by the hundreds to show in states where they think there is a chance to beat a Democrat. Recently Rachel Maddow talked about 4.2 million dollars that Karl Rove's "American Crossroads" is going to spend on attack ads. 75% of that money is coming from people who will remain anonymous ( October 6, 2010). Much of the Republican money is coming from anonymous donors. I don't know about you, but I think that anyone who wants to hide his/her political affiliations behind a cloak of secrecy is a coward.
The money from these anonymous people goes to Republicans, but I don't believe the donors are Republicans—I think they are oligarchs who want to continue to amass wealth and power and don't even give a pile of cow poop for their own supporters.
The Chamber of Commerce takes money from anonymous foreign sources, among others, but they assure us, though they won't say how, that they keep that foreign money separate from the political financial support they give anti-Democrat ads. Can't let outside forces get involved in our elections, right?
So how does that work exactly?
Suppose I have a kindly uncle who is willing to give me a certain amount of money every year to help me out.
But he says this is for necessary living expenses ONLY, don't spend in on booze and dancing. And I say okay Unc, I'm with the program. So I put the money in a special account that I use for household expenses. But, oh, now I have that much money from my earnings as a graphic artist which used to go for those household expenses and now is free for other things. Hmm, what to do with that extra money? Why, hey girls, let's have a drink and hit the dance floor!
Any so-called system the C of C has for keeping foreign money "separate" from their political activities is a fake. They are lying. I'll say it again, They are lying. What else can you expect from people who oppose anything that can help out the workers who make their businesses possible? Freaking hypocrites.
So people who wish to remain anonymous but have lots of dough to spend want to convince you how to vote. And they don't care who they have up for the designated office. Any kookbiscuit will do. Just look at the Repubican candidates:
Christine O'Donnell, in Delaware (Arkan saw what Dela wore. Did Tenne-see?)—She's against all out-of-wedlock sex, including masturbation. Good luck with that. And the picnic on the Satanic altar? Just a youthful indiscretion.
I remember when politicians were criticized for smoking pot (I didn't inhale, said Bill Clinton) but the tea bagging right puts Christine O'Donnell up as their candidate, in spite of her dabbling in witchcraft. Witchcraft— all you "family, Christian values" people.
Well, as we say in the United Church of Christ, they must be open and affirming folks there on the right, to accept someone who dabbled in witchcraft. Perhaps the LGBT community will be as welcome as the witches in their political party. Uh-huh.
Incidentally, tho it is not a belief I can relate to, I can say that several people in my community practice Wicca and they are hard-working, decent, friendly people, not kookbiscuits. I do, however, suspect they may have had, or be having, sex outside of marriage.
The horror.
Sharron Angle—a new angle on politics for sure, at least in this country—at least since the anarchist heyday of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. If you are really disaffected with government, it's time to exercise your second amendment rights. Get those automatic weapons out folks, we can all be Lee Harvey Oswald. Remember when the idea was we could all aspire to be president? Now she implies we could all aspire to KILL the president, if we don't get our way—I mean, why stop at Congressmen?
I suppose that she means that ANYONE who disagrees with the powers that be can resort to "2nd amendment solutions" when disaffected. She doesn't seem to know that many leftists also own guns. Our anarchist branch has a reputation for bombing skills also. What I get from this was that I shoulda took out Bush and Cheney when they were in power. Is that what you meant, Sharron? And what's with the two "r"s anyway?
People have been killed for acting, or even appearing to act, on these beliefs (look up the "Haymarket").
And there is Rand Paul with his dithering about the Civil Rights Act (actually I kind of like him because he had the cojones to appear on Rachel Maddow's show while so many others are afraid), and that Miller guy from Alaska (must be something in the air up there) who joins the others in wanting to ban abortion for rape and incest victims. Showing real Christian compassion there, folks. I suppose you also have a system set up to care for those unwanted children? Oh, of course you do—not.
I can only hope that enough people who see how crazy it is to have these wingnuts in positions of power will hit the polls this November.
The candidates mentioned above are just a sampling. You will see this all over the country.
And you will see much advertisement against any "liberal" candidate, Democrat or Republican. Many, if not all, of these ads will be funded by those unnamed corporate interests to get "their" candidates into office. "Their candidates" being people willing to sell their souls for milk from the corporate teat, the milk they need to keep them in office and enjoying the perks of pretending to do good for the country. Perks that come from the very corporate interests which are destroying democracy in this country.
I wonder though, if Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell actually get their seats, how much control will anyone have over them. A kookbiscuit is a kookbiscuit is a kookbiscuit. They may not only screw things up for us, but even for their oligarchic masters.
What we do see from all this is that anyone can aspire to public office in this country—poor, rich (especially rich), Democrats, Republicans, Tea-Partyers pretending to be Republicans, (legal) immigrants, Kookbiscuits and asshats, Christians, Jews, Moslems—oops, maybe not Moslems, not these days, but ten out of eleven ain't so bad.
Sleep well, my two loyal readers, now that you have had your curmudgeonly fix.
Back in my youth I thought that elections actually meant the choice between two principled though politically opposed individuals. Boy, was I naive. Principles, if they were ever there, seem to have gone the way of the dodo, or at least have the same endangered designation as the spotted owl.
What do we see in this election season?
The Repubican Party is either imploding under it's own corporately-funded, evangelically-dominated weight, or heading for a takeover of the House, possibly the Senate—depending on which cable-channel you were listening to. At least that's the way it looked when I started this a month ago. Now it's not so clear, if there can be any clarity.
What is clear is that Republicans are trying to buy this election. They are purchasing attack ads by the hundreds to show in states where they think there is a chance to beat a Democrat. Recently Rachel Maddow talked about 4.2 million dollars that Karl Rove's "American Crossroads" is going to spend on attack ads. 75% of that money is coming from people who will remain anonymous ( October 6, 2010). Much of the Republican money is coming from anonymous donors. I don't know about you, but I think that anyone who wants to hide his/her political affiliations behind a cloak of secrecy is a coward.
The money from these anonymous people goes to Republicans, but I don't believe the donors are Republicans—I think they are oligarchs who want to continue to amass wealth and power and don't even give a pile of cow poop for their own supporters.
The Chamber of Commerce takes money from anonymous foreign sources, among others, but they assure us, though they won't say how, that they keep that foreign money separate from the political financial support they give anti-Democrat ads. Can't let outside forces get involved in our elections, right?
So how does that work exactly?
Suppose I have a kindly uncle who is willing to give me a certain amount of money every year to help me out.
But he says this is for necessary living expenses ONLY, don't spend in on booze and dancing. And I say okay Unc, I'm with the program. So I put the money in a special account that I use for household expenses. But, oh, now I have that much money from my earnings as a graphic artist which used to go for those household expenses and now is free for other things. Hmm, what to do with that extra money? Why, hey girls, let's have a drink and hit the dance floor!
Any so-called system the C of C has for keeping foreign money "separate" from their political activities is a fake. They are lying. I'll say it again, They are lying. What else can you expect from people who oppose anything that can help out the workers who make their businesses possible? Freaking hypocrites.
So people who wish to remain anonymous but have lots of dough to spend want to convince you how to vote. And they don't care who they have up for the designated office. Any kookbiscuit will do. Just look at the Repubican candidates:
Christine O'Donnell, in Delaware (Arkan saw what Dela wore. Did Tenne-see?)—She's against all out-of-wedlock sex, including masturbation. Good luck with that. And the picnic on the Satanic altar? Just a youthful indiscretion.
I remember when politicians were criticized for smoking pot (I didn't inhale, said Bill Clinton) but the tea bagging right puts Christine O'Donnell up as their candidate, in spite of her dabbling in witchcraft. Witchcraft— all you "family, Christian values" people.
Well, as we say in the United Church of Christ, they must be open and affirming folks there on the right, to accept someone who dabbled in witchcraft. Perhaps the LGBT community will be as welcome as the witches in their political party. Uh-huh.
Incidentally, tho it is not a belief I can relate to, I can say that several people in my community practice Wicca and they are hard-working, decent, friendly people, not kookbiscuits. I do, however, suspect they may have had, or be having, sex outside of marriage.
The horror.
Sharron Angle—a new angle on politics for sure, at least in this country—at least since the anarchist heyday of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. If you are really disaffected with government, it's time to exercise your second amendment rights. Get those automatic weapons out folks, we can all be Lee Harvey Oswald. Remember when the idea was we could all aspire to be president? Now she implies we could all aspire to KILL the president, if we don't get our way—I mean, why stop at Congressmen?
I suppose that she means that ANYONE who disagrees with the powers that be can resort to "2nd amendment solutions" when disaffected. She doesn't seem to know that many leftists also own guns. Our anarchist branch has a reputation for bombing skills also. What I get from this was that I shoulda took out Bush and Cheney when they were in power. Is that what you meant, Sharron? And what's with the two "r"s anyway?
People have been killed for acting, or even appearing to act, on these beliefs (look up the "Haymarket").
And there is Rand Paul with his dithering about the Civil Rights Act (actually I kind of like him because he had the cojones to appear on Rachel Maddow's show while so many others are afraid), and that Miller guy from Alaska (must be something in the air up there) who joins the others in wanting to ban abortion for rape and incest victims. Showing real Christian compassion there, folks. I suppose you also have a system set up to care for those unwanted children? Oh, of course you do—not.
I can only hope that enough people who see how crazy it is to have these wingnuts in positions of power will hit the polls this November.
The candidates mentioned above are just a sampling. You will see this all over the country.
And you will see much advertisement against any "liberal" candidate, Democrat or Republican. Many, if not all, of these ads will be funded by those unnamed corporate interests to get "their" candidates into office. "Their candidates" being people willing to sell their souls for milk from the corporate teat, the milk they need to keep them in office and enjoying the perks of pretending to do good for the country. Perks that come from the very corporate interests which are destroying democracy in this country.
I wonder though, if Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell actually get their seats, how much control will anyone have over them. A kookbiscuit is a kookbiscuit is a kookbiscuit. They may not only screw things up for us, but even for their oligarchic masters.
What we do see from all this is that anyone can aspire to public office in this country—poor, rich (especially rich), Democrats, Republicans, Tea-Partyers pretending to be Republicans, (legal) immigrants, Kookbiscuits and asshats, Christians, Jews, Moslems—oops, maybe not Moslems, not these days, but ten out of eleven ain't so bad.
Sleep well, my two loyal readers, now that you have had your curmudgeonly fix.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
"Hallowed Ground"
Here's a series of photos a guy took of places around the World Trade center. All within four blocks or so.
Judge for yourself how hallowed it is.
http://daryllang.com/blog/4421
and a map:
The fear mongers are just evil. The NY Daily News had a picture of some kid on the front cover yesterday with the headline: "The teen-ager who suggested the site for the mosque—WAY TO GO KID"
So now they are going after teen-agers. Have these people no shame?
Frank Rich points out in his NY Times article today (August 22) that the right wing is undermining the very war in Afghanistan they support. The Taliban must be loving this. They are probably replaying videos of Fox News blatherings about the sacrilege of Muslims trying to build a mosque on "hallowed ground." And the comments of a gullible and fearful public don't help. I've heard some nasty stuff on the radio lately. Spoken by "good Christians" all. I bet the Afghanis who are wondering which side to support will be really impressed by this outburst of American understanding and good will.
And why aren't these asshats insisting we break off relations with Saudi Arabia, where all but one, I believe of the highjackers came from? Some are saying that Saudi Arabia is contributing funds to this project and that's another reason for disallowing it. That's bad, but us paying them for oil isn't.
I'm surprised someone hasn't suggested putting all Muslims in camps, like we did with the Japanese in WW2, so we can keep an eye on the evil bastards, by god, and make sure they don't make any more shoe and underwear bombs.
My heart breaks. My father came here because it was a land of freedom. When Czechoslovakia went Communist, no one suggested that he should be watched, not be trusted. Oh, but he was Christian, and white. Nah, that couldn't have been why.
This proposed building is going to be a community center with a prayer room. Aren't there hospitals and nursing homes with chapels? Is any building with a space for religious worship to be called a church, or synagogue, or mosque even if the space is only for the convenience for the people using the facility? If schools allowed prayer, like many of these so-called Christians demand, should we rename schools churches?
If my church allows yoga sessions, should we then be considered an ashram, not a church?
Again, this is a community center. This is not "on the site" of the WTC, it's on the site of a coat factory.
And many if not all, of the people wanting to build it are AMERICAN CITIZENS!
I started off just wanting to post a link to the photos. But this really bugs me. I need another drink.
Dear God, why do you put up with us?
Judge for yourself how hallowed it is.
http://daryllang.com/blog/4421
The fear mongers are just evil. The NY Daily News had a picture of some kid on the front cover yesterday with the headline: "The teen-ager who suggested the site for the mosque—WAY TO GO KID"
So now they are going after teen-agers. Have these people no shame?
Frank Rich points out in his NY Times article today (August 22) that the right wing is undermining the very war in Afghanistan they support. The Taliban must be loving this. They are probably replaying videos of Fox News blatherings about the sacrilege of Muslims trying to build a mosque on "hallowed ground." And the comments of a gullible and fearful public don't help. I've heard some nasty stuff on the radio lately. Spoken by "good Christians" all. I bet the Afghanis who are wondering which side to support will be really impressed by this outburst of American understanding and good will.
And why aren't these asshats insisting we break off relations with Saudi Arabia, where all but one, I believe of the highjackers came from? Some are saying that Saudi Arabia is contributing funds to this project and that's another reason for disallowing it. That's bad, but us paying them for oil isn't.
I'm surprised someone hasn't suggested putting all Muslims in camps, like we did with the Japanese in WW2, so we can keep an eye on the evil bastards, by god, and make sure they don't make any more shoe and underwear bombs.
My heart breaks. My father came here because it was a land of freedom. When Czechoslovakia went Communist, no one suggested that he should be watched, not be trusted. Oh, but he was Christian, and white. Nah, that couldn't have been why.
This proposed building is going to be a community center with a prayer room. Aren't there hospitals and nursing homes with chapels? Is any building with a space for religious worship to be called a church, or synagogue, or mosque even if the space is only for the convenience for the people using the facility? If schools allowed prayer, like many of these so-called Christians demand, should we rename schools churches?
If my church allows yoga sessions, should we then be considered an ashram, not a church?
Again, this is a community center. This is not "on the site" of the WTC, it's on the site of a coat factory.
And many if not all, of the people wanting to build it are AMERICAN CITIZENS!
I started off just wanting to post a link to the photos. But this really bugs me. I need another drink.
Dear God, why do you put up with us?
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Let them build the damn community center!!
I've had it. Even more than the usual political lies, this absurd controversy has made me psychically sick and ashamed. The Moslem community in New York wants to build a community center on the site of a former Burlington coat factory. Sort of like the YMCA or YMHA right? Doesn't sound too controversial.
Oh, it's two blocks from the former World Trade Center site. Did I mention that?
It will be thirteen stories high. Oooh, enormous right? If you think so you haven't been to Manhattan lately, lately being the early part of the 20th century. 13 stories is peanuts.
And there will be a mosque as part of this building. Why a mosque? Seems there are a lot of Moslems in Manhattan, and the two mosques already in the area are overflowing. From the New york Times:
"Masjid Manhattan, on Warren Street, four blocks from ground zero, was founded in 1970. Masjid al-Farah, formerly on Mercer Street, moved to its present location on West Broadway, about 12 blocks from ground zero, in 1985. "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#38747965
Is four blocks safe enough? Or twelve? How far away do Moslems have to go to satisfy ignorant yahoos who think this is a building to celebrate Moslem victory over America? Who basically blame Muhammad and all his followers for the attack on the WTC? Who are eager to stir up trouble so they can get more votes in November? Who think the entire Islamic religion is an enemy of our country? That by the way is about a billion plus people. From a couple dozen different countries with different traditions.
It is not a dozen and a half deluded fanatics who think America will be crushed by bringing down the symbol of our financial trading power.They may have been Moslems, but they did not represent Islam.
And there were Moslem businessmen in the twin towers and they also died when those buildings came down.
Don't they deserve some respect?
Folks, the Burlington coat factory is not hallowed ground. It was a goddam industrial site. The proposed community center is a place for the growing community of people who follow Islam to gather. You're afraid they are going to preach hate there? What's to keep them from preaching hate, if they want to, in the existing mosques, or in their homes or in rented halls. And who are they, exactly? All the Moslems in Lower Manhattan? Some of them? Do we know which ones?
By the way, the mosque closest to the WTC site is the more conservative one. Been there for a while. But the asshat Republican politicians and commentators seem to have not noticed. Perhaps there is not any political hay to be gathered from trying to displace existing houses of worship.
I misspoke when I said "asshat Republicans." they aren't the only ones. Sure, Eric Cantor, he of the "yeah we have religious liberty in this country, but c'mon!" and John Baynor who, ahem, believes in religious liberty but thinks the Moslems should still build a mosque somewhere else, are Republicans. Where is somewhere else , by the way, north of Canal Street? North of Houston Street? North of Canada?
Back to asshats— Harry Reid, Democrat, has also joined the "Sure I believe in religious liberty, but building a mosque there would hurt our feelings" crowd. He thinks he has to do this to ensure victory over one of the Right's major wingnuts, Sharon Angle. Well he is in Nevada. There is Las Vegas and Reno, both full of people with distorted visions of reality, distorted by desire for riches and excitement—they don't think. And outside of those two places there are scattered bunches of renegade Mormons and survivalist freaks with automatic weapons. They think but shouldn't.
Lest you think I am throwing a lot of innocent and decent people under the bus—I know there are a lot of other decent and thoughtful people in Nevada who lead normal lives. We even have some of those in Massachusetts. I exaggerate for effect and emphasis.
I'm a curmudgeon. It's part of the job description.
I just hope they don't send Sharon Angle to Washington.
Massachusetts sent Scott Brown to the Senate, so stupidity is possible anywhere.
Where was I? Oh yeah, some other Dems have also felt the need to jump on this political ice-cream wagon. they should all be ashamed of themselves.
Here is the first amendment, just in case you forgot:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
"…make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"
The weakness in this amendment is that it doesn't say "the mob shall not…etcetery."
What you have been seeing on the web and TV is the mob. They talk of the "Ground Zero mosque". That it's not on Ground Zero doesn't seem to matter. That it is primarily a community center doesn't seem to matter. That most Moslems in America are, well, Americans, doesn't seem to matter.
Folks, the First Amendment is clear— we all, Christians, Jews, Moslems, Zoroastrians, peyote-smoking Native Americans, even Scientologists, have the right to worship when and where we want to without interference.
The First Amendment doesn't say "unless we are scared of (your bogeyman here) or "if it hurts our sensibilities."
It says we have the right to worship (or not worship) when and where we please.
If you don't defend this, you are betraying a basic American ideal.
That's just the way it is.
Oh, it's two blocks from the former World Trade Center site. Did I mention that?
It will be thirteen stories high. Oooh, enormous right? If you think so you haven't been to Manhattan lately, lately being the early part of the 20th century. 13 stories is peanuts.
And there will be a mosque as part of this building. Why a mosque? Seems there are a lot of Moslems in Manhattan, and the two mosques already in the area are overflowing. From the New york Times:
"Masjid Manhattan, on Warren Street, four blocks from ground zero, was founded in 1970. Masjid al-Farah, formerly on Mercer Street, moved to its present location on West Broadway, about 12 blocks from ground zero, in 1985. "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#38747965
Is four blocks safe enough? Or twelve? How far away do Moslems have to go to satisfy ignorant yahoos who think this is a building to celebrate Moslem victory over America? Who basically blame Muhammad and all his followers for the attack on the WTC? Who are eager to stir up trouble so they can get more votes in November? Who think the entire Islamic religion is an enemy of our country? That by the way is about a billion plus people. From a couple dozen different countries with different traditions.
It is not a dozen and a half deluded fanatics who think America will be crushed by bringing down the symbol of our financial trading power.They may have been Moslems, but they did not represent Islam.
And there were Moslem businessmen in the twin towers and they also died when those buildings came down.
Don't they deserve some respect?
Folks, the Burlington coat factory is not hallowed ground. It was a goddam industrial site. The proposed community center is a place for the growing community of people who follow Islam to gather. You're afraid they are going to preach hate there? What's to keep them from preaching hate, if they want to, in the existing mosques, or in their homes or in rented halls. And who are they, exactly? All the Moslems in Lower Manhattan? Some of them? Do we know which ones?
By the way, the mosque closest to the WTC site is the more conservative one. Been there for a while. But the asshat Republican politicians and commentators seem to have not noticed. Perhaps there is not any political hay to be gathered from trying to displace existing houses of worship.
I misspoke when I said "asshat Republicans." they aren't the only ones. Sure, Eric Cantor, he of the "yeah we have religious liberty in this country, but c'mon!" and John Baynor who, ahem, believes in religious liberty but thinks the Moslems should still build a mosque somewhere else, are Republicans. Where is somewhere else , by the way, north of Canal Street? North of Houston Street? North of Canada?
Back to asshats— Harry Reid, Democrat, has also joined the "Sure I believe in religious liberty, but building a mosque there would hurt our feelings" crowd. He thinks he has to do this to ensure victory over one of the Right's major wingnuts, Sharon Angle. Well he is in Nevada. There is Las Vegas and Reno, both full of people with distorted visions of reality, distorted by desire for riches and excitement—they don't think. And outside of those two places there are scattered bunches of renegade Mormons and survivalist freaks with automatic weapons. They think but shouldn't.
Lest you think I am throwing a lot of innocent and decent people under the bus—I know there are a lot of other decent and thoughtful people in Nevada who lead normal lives. We even have some of those in Massachusetts. I exaggerate for effect and emphasis.
I'm a curmudgeon. It's part of the job description.
I just hope they don't send Sharon Angle to Washington.
Massachusetts sent Scott Brown to the Senate, so stupidity is possible anywhere.
Where was I? Oh yeah, some other Dems have also felt the need to jump on this political ice-cream wagon. they should all be ashamed of themselves.
Here is the first amendment, just in case you forgot:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
"…make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"
The weakness in this amendment is that it doesn't say "the mob shall not…etcetery."
What you have been seeing on the web and TV is the mob. They talk of the "Ground Zero mosque". That it's not on Ground Zero doesn't seem to matter. That it is primarily a community center doesn't seem to matter. That most Moslems in America are, well, Americans, doesn't seem to matter.
Folks, the First Amendment is clear— we all, Christians, Jews, Moslems, Zoroastrians, peyote-smoking Native Americans, even Scientologists, have the right to worship when and where we want to without interference.
The First Amendment doesn't say "unless we are scared of (your bogeyman here) or "if it hurts our sensibilities."
It says we have the right to worship (or not worship) when and where we please.
If you don't defend this, you are betraying a basic American ideal.
That's just the way it is.
Friday, July 23, 2010
An American Hero has Died
He was dedicated to presenting the news without putting his own emotional spin on it.
When he read, in a live broadcast in 1974, the names on the just released Nixon "Enemies List' he came to his own name and said with equanimity, "The note here is, 'A real media enemy," and kept on reading names.
His is one of those voices which was a part of my life, almost all my life. He will be greatly missed.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Are you afraid of Black People?
On the July 21, 2010 Rachel Maddow show, Rachel had a good and long exposition on the political tactic of creating fear among whites—fear that the Black people are coming to get you and more importantly, get your stuff. Two of the biggest stories lately have involved Acorn and Shirley Sherrod.
In the Acorn story, videos were shown that seemed to show an Acorn employee agreeing to help smuggle young women across the border for prostitution. What wasn't shown was how the employee was getting information from the fake pimp and prostitute who were proposing this activity, which he then called into the police after they left. The police have verified this.
Acorn was not without sin, but it's biggest sin was getting a lot of people to vote who would not vote for the Republicans. Hence they had to go, and a carefully edited video was enough to do it.
Now just days ago, another video was aired on Fox "News" which came from Andrew Breitbart, who also, just incidentally, showed the Acorn video. Mr. Breitbart is a known liar and sleazeball. What else do you call someone who edits videos to promote a lie?
The editing here purported to show that Ms. Sherrod discriminated against a white farmer because of his skin color. And she was described as a "government official" when at the time of the story she was relating (20 years ago!), she was working for a non-profit. And the point of her story was how she realized that not doing her best for this farmer was wrong. She went on to help the man, and he has appeared on TV saying that she helped save his farm.
Somehow, gee I don't know how, that last part was left out.
The most disturbing part of this is not that Mr. Breitbart created this falsehood, nor that Fake, I mean, Faux, I mean Fox News immediately jumped on it and gave it mucho air time. No, you expect pickpockets to act like pickpockets, you expect mafia hit men to kill, so the actions of Breitbart and Fox are pretty much normal for them and what we expect. What is disturbing is how quickly the administration bought into this story, did not even TRY to verify it, and forced a resignation from Ms. Sherrod.
This is so utterly disgraceful.
There's no other way to put it. I mean, I mean, I mean I mean, how can this administration allow itself to be so totally flummoxed by these lies? Especially after Obama said a few weeks ago that Fox news was not a real news organization? Well, we knew that. Doesn't anybody fact-check at the white house? If Faux News says the Russians are going to launch missiles at us in moments, is Obama going to push the button?
Give me a freaking break.
Here's how spurious that video seemed to a, omigod, Fox News commentator, Mr. Shepard Smith:
"We here at Studio B did not run the video and did not reference the story in any way for many reasons, among them: we didn't know who shot it, we didn't know when it was shot, we didn't know the context of the statement, and because of the history of the videos on the site where it was posted, in short we do not and did not trust the source."
One redeeming commentator on Fox News.
Like Jehovah sparing Noah, I cannot damn the whole network to perdition.
Drat.
But the point is, if even one, so it was only one, Fox News person was suspicious of the story, WHY THE HELL WASN'T THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SUSPICIOUS OF THE STORY? Forgive me for yelling.
Breitbart has a history of phoniness, and the fact that Faux News picked up this story and gave it lots of airtime should have raised some red flags. But no, the Obamarama caved and asked for a resignation, and then ended up with egg on its face when the real story came out. When will they learn? When will Obama remember he has ba— remember that he won by a big margin, still has a lot of support in the country, and still has the Bully Pulpit so he can get up and call a spade a spade (perhaps not the best metaphor in this context) and bring the force of his office against this fear-mongering and lying?
And now Obama and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who asked for the resignation, have had to make public apologies for this embarrassing forced resignation.
The best part, for Fox and its minions, is that it doesn't matter that the story is proved false. The administration made such fools of themselves over it that the right-wing wingnuts win anyway.
"The buck stops here." You know that Mr. President. Please, please, show a little more leadership.
I thought I was supporting a brave and focused leader for President. I sure wish he would prove me right.
And I sure wish the Democrats would also show some fortitude in pushing a progressive agenda. When Obama was elected, I worried that I would have to go elsewhere besides politics to find things to rant about. I needn't have worried. My biggest gripe now is not that I still have Repubicans (intentional misspelling) to rail against (expected that), but that the Democrats and Obama also deserve the miniscule darts of my aggravation. Oh, if only I had one of those missiles buried in North Dakota, I could really get some attention then. All I have now is my two loyal readers, who really should be doing something else.
I see a need, a job which should be filled. For a mere, oh say, 70 grand a year, I would be willing to check all news stories which come out of the right-wing alternate universe, and advise the administration on any that need to be addressed, and HOW they should be addressed. I'm not asking that much money, but I would make that sacrifice for my nation. 70 grand is not that much to pay to avoid embarrassing yourself in front of over 300 million people.
Consider it Mr. O. You need me. I am willing to serve.
In the Acorn story, videos were shown that seemed to show an Acorn employee agreeing to help smuggle young women across the border for prostitution. What wasn't shown was how the employee was getting information from the fake pimp and prostitute who were proposing this activity, which he then called into the police after they left. The police have verified this.
Acorn was not without sin, but it's biggest sin was getting a lot of people to vote who would not vote for the Republicans. Hence they had to go, and a carefully edited video was enough to do it.
Now just days ago, another video was aired on Fox "News" which came from Andrew Breitbart, who also, just incidentally, showed the Acorn video. Mr. Breitbart is a known liar and sleazeball. What else do you call someone who edits videos to promote a lie?
The editing here purported to show that Ms. Sherrod discriminated against a white farmer because of his skin color. And she was described as a "government official" when at the time of the story she was relating (20 years ago!), she was working for a non-profit. And the point of her story was how she realized that not doing her best for this farmer was wrong. She went on to help the man, and he has appeared on TV saying that she helped save his farm.
Somehow, gee I don't know how, that last part was left out.
The most disturbing part of this is not that Mr. Breitbart created this falsehood, nor that Fake, I mean, Faux, I mean Fox News immediately jumped on it and gave it mucho air time. No, you expect pickpockets to act like pickpockets, you expect mafia hit men to kill, so the actions of Breitbart and Fox are pretty much normal for them and what we expect. What is disturbing is how quickly the administration bought into this story, did not even TRY to verify it, and forced a resignation from Ms. Sherrod.
This is so utterly disgraceful.
There's no other way to put it. I mean, I mean, I mean I mean, how can this administration allow itself to be so totally flummoxed by these lies? Especially after Obama said a few weeks ago that Fox news was not a real news organization? Well, we knew that. Doesn't anybody fact-check at the white house? If Faux News says the Russians are going to launch missiles at us in moments, is Obama going to push the button?
Give me a freaking break.
Here's how spurious that video seemed to a, omigod, Fox News commentator, Mr. Shepard Smith:
"We here at Studio B did not run the video and did not reference the story in any way for many reasons, among them: we didn't know who shot it, we didn't know when it was shot, we didn't know the context of the statement, and because of the history of the videos on the site where it was posted, in short we do not and did not trust the source."
One redeeming commentator on Fox News.
Like Jehovah sparing Noah, I cannot damn the whole network to perdition.
Drat.
But the point is, if even one, so it was only one, Fox News person was suspicious of the story, WHY THE HELL WASN'T THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SUSPICIOUS OF THE STORY? Forgive me for yelling.
Breitbart has a history of phoniness, and the fact that Faux News picked up this story and gave it lots of airtime should have raised some red flags. But no, the Obamarama caved and asked for a resignation, and then ended up with egg on its face when the real story came out. When will they learn? When will Obama remember he has ba— remember that he won by a big margin, still has a lot of support in the country, and still has the Bully Pulpit so he can get up and call a spade a spade (perhaps not the best metaphor in this context) and bring the force of his office against this fear-mongering and lying?
And now Obama and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who asked for the resignation, have had to make public apologies for this embarrassing forced resignation.
The best part, for Fox and its minions, is that it doesn't matter that the story is proved false. The administration made such fools of themselves over it that the right-wing wingnuts win anyway.
"The buck stops here." You know that Mr. President. Please, please, show a little more leadership.
I thought I was supporting a brave and focused leader for President. I sure wish he would prove me right.
And I sure wish the Democrats would also show some fortitude in pushing a progressive agenda. When Obama was elected, I worried that I would have to go elsewhere besides politics to find things to rant about. I needn't have worried. My biggest gripe now is not that I still have Repubicans (intentional misspelling) to rail against (expected that), but that the Democrats and Obama also deserve the miniscule darts of my aggravation. Oh, if only I had one of those missiles buried in North Dakota, I could really get some attention then. All I have now is my two loyal readers, who really should be doing something else.
I see a need, a job which should be filled. For a mere, oh say, 70 grand a year, I would be willing to check all news stories which come out of the right-wing alternate universe, and advise the administration on any that need to be addressed, and HOW they should be addressed. I'm not asking that much money, but I would make that sacrifice for my nation. 70 grand is not that much to pay to avoid embarrassing yourself in front of over 300 million people.
Consider it Mr. O. You need me. I am willing to serve.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
I'm really not a violent person…
…but God help me, when i hear about how the latest attempt at an environmental protection plan is just about dead in the water in the Senate, my blood starts to boil. Apparently the oil companies, who don't have enough money to devote to research into disaster prevention and clean-up, have enough money to throw at the Senate to keep any reasonable "Cap and Trade" legislation from being passed. The Repubicans are nattering on about how this is a tax. Mitch McConnell, weasel hypocrite extraordinaire, especially is leading this charge. They fulminate about new taxes as if it were you and me being taxed. but who will really be ponying up the cash? Why the very companies which have been making billions a year, with subsidies, subsidies!!, from our government. Deepwater Horizon, your tax dollars at work.
And the Congressional Budget Office has said that the original Lieberman-Kerry Bill (Joe Lieberman, doing something I approve of? These are the Last Days!) would reduce the deficit by 19 billion dollars. See it here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#38159001
I want to go to Washington and grab Senators by the neck and shake some sense into them. And cause bodily harm as well. But of course it would be useless. No way to shake sense into them. They are too full of the manna from the oil companies trough. When I see someone like the late Ted Kennedy, or Barney Frank (who co-wrote an article about cutting defense spending with—wait for it—Ron Paul) working on mutual concerns with political opponents, and getting things done, I am in humble awe.
I used to be such a gentle person.
By the way, this country spends more money on defense than the rest of the world combined!
Are we that scared?
In how many wars are we planning to get involved? I've always had a problem with this kind of thinking. I used to wonder why we needed enough nuclear missiles to destroy Russia several times over. Isn't once enough? But then, I'm a pinko liberal anarchist hippie—what do I know?
Anyway, why do we need to spend so much on defense, and what is the money going for? Ask your congress(wo)man next time you see her/him. Do we really need more submarines and fast bombers to fight against guys who hide in caves with their AK-47s and send weak-minded fools off to try to blow up airplanes with bombs in their shoes? Or underwear? Samuel Beckett, move over. Reality has taken over the Theater of the Absurd. And just who are we waiting for?
God? Better hope She doesn't show up, because She will be very unhappy.
I'll leave you, my two loyal readers, with that thought.
And the Congressional Budget Office has said that the original Lieberman-Kerry Bill (Joe Lieberman, doing something I approve of? These are the Last Days!) would reduce the deficit by 19 billion dollars. See it here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#38159001
I want to go to Washington and grab Senators by the neck and shake some sense into them. And cause bodily harm as well. But of course it would be useless. No way to shake sense into them. They are too full of the manna from the oil companies trough. When I see someone like the late Ted Kennedy, or Barney Frank (who co-wrote an article about cutting defense spending with—wait for it—Ron Paul) working on mutual concerns with political opponents, and getting things done, I am in humble awe.
I used to be such a gentle person.
By the way, this country spends more money on defense than the rest of the world combined!
Are we that scared?
In how many wars are we planning to get involved? I've always had a problem with this kind of thinking. I used to wonder why we needed enough nuclear missiles to destroy Russia several times over. Isn't once enough? But then, I'm a pinko liberal anarchist hippie—what do I know?
Anyway, why do we need to spend so much on defense, and what is the money going for? Ask your congress(wo)man next time you see her/him. Do we really need more submarines and fast bombers to fight against guys who hide in caves with their AK-47s and send weak-minded fools off to try to blow up airplanes with bombs in their shoes? Or underwear? Samuel Beckett, move over. Reality has taken over the Theater of the Absurd. And just who are we waiting for?
God? Better hope She doesn't show up, because She will be very unhappy.
I'll leave you, my two loyal readers, with that thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
