Category: current events

I don’t even know how to write about this story about “The Foundation”, it’s so out there and scary. Even if some of it’s true, if any of it’s true, I’m afraid for the world.

I don’t even know what to say. It’s the mother of all conspiracy theories. Just getting my head around the concept of this Fundamentalist Christian, Old Testament based fascist terrorist organization (only with better suits, even more money and better connections), organized in small cells and ingratiated in the highest levels of goverments all over the world is too much to take in all at once. Even if it’s not true at all, the story is amazing.

I know this doesn’t make any sense. I’m floored. I’m gonna go back to playing with tDOM and pretend I didn’t read that over my roast beef sandwich.

Could Bush be impeached? It’s a great article on the possible manipulation by the Administration in making the case for the war in Iraq to the country and the world.

It makes me think of this post from Michelle at A Small Victory about babies being buried alive by the Iraqi government. Her opinion is that because of this and other finding, the war was justified. I don’t disagree one hundred percent. But, what I’m left pondering is if the ends justify the means when it comes to war.

I think they don’t. As criminal as it is, there are other countries whose human rights abuses are more egregious and long-standing than those of Iraq. China, North Korea, several Arab and African states and the old Soviet Union all have or had horrible records on human rights that never led us to war with them. If we had made the case for war on Iraq based on the human rights abuses, would we have gone to war? Would the government even have made the case?

If the President and the people who work for him lied to us about the threat to our national security and went to war for other reasons, is that wrong? Is it impeachable? I would certainly think so. Let’s get some perspective. President Clinton, who lied about his relationship with an intern, was impreached and censured by the Senate. President Bush may have lied to the American people and the world about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and either exaggerated or outright lied about the existance of Weapons of Mass Destruction that may have been sold to terrorists and therefore posed a threat to our country. Which one is worse? If true, and the President and his Administration pushed into war using false, fabricated, hyperbolized or editorialized intelligence, I would fully support him being impeached, and him possibly being charged with treason.

I supported President Clinton being impeached and censured. Not because he lied about the whole Lewinsky affair, but because he took avantage of an employee and then covered it up. It was sexual misconduct, and possibly sexual harrassment – especially if you consider the ends he went to to get Lewinsky employment after the affair. I’m sure those same efforts weren’t extended for other interns.

Back to the question at hand. I don’t disagree that Hussein was a bad guy (still is if he’s alive), and that getting rid of him wasn’t an entirely bad thing. His people will probably eventually be better for it. Will we? Did it serve to improve our security? I’m not sure it did. The way things are shaping up, they may end up with a radical Islamic theocracy aligned with Iran. That seems much worse to me than the agnostic, crazy yet predictable despot there before.

If the President lied to us about this, what else has he lied to us about? What lengths will he go to to get his way?

I’m sure this is making the rounds already with mentions in Boing Boing. Still, it’s stunning to see it all listed in one place isn’t it? GW’s Resume.

I’m not comparing him to anyone else. The list pretty much speaks for itself. Holding up someone else’s list doesn’t make this any better. How did this happen? How did we get a convicted criminal who brought in a collection of convicted criminals and turned the Constitution on its ear and drove our economy into the toilet? How can anyone still support him? Do they not care? Do they still think he’s better than the alternative? Do they think he’s right? Do they just not know?

How can we make sure this doesn’t happen again? How do we make sure we know all we need to know about a candidate before we have to vote for him? How do we filter the crap of campaigns and the marketing to get to the meat and make an informed decision? More debates? Take the money out of campaigns?

I’m tired of politics as marketing. I want a refund. This is not the administration the American people bought. This isn’t even the GW I thought we were getting when he was sworn in. Maybe I was naive, but I thought he was earnest and meant well. I no longer think he’s earnest or means well. I no longer think he’s dumb. I think he’s mean. I think he cares very little for the average American, and only panders to the conservative base as much as he needs to to get his way.

Are you registered to vote? I am.

So… I had gelato at lunch. It was yummy.

Unbelievable. So, they just get away with it? It’s a completely brazen act of cronyism and political paybacks, and they’re just going to get away with it. I don’t believe it. I am physically ill…

I’ve been contemplating this list since Sunday. It’s not in final form yet, because I’m not. Hopefully, it will change and evolve as I learn more and I’m sure as I get older. I’m going to try to do a post on each point to further explain them.

I came up with this list in response to what I see in my elected officials today. Unfortunately, I don’t see a lot of these traits. I’m not sure how we can find candidates who subscribe to them, but I’m still searching. Let me know what you think of the list.

What I Want From My Elected Officials

• Not to support legislating any particular religious beliefs, but to support my right to observe my beliefs as I see fit

• To not prescribe how I should live my life, but to effectively legislate the limits of civil social interation (trade, crime, etc).

• To be able to intelligently debate an issue from both sides and appreciate the role of dissent in society.

• Defend my right to free expression

• Defend the weak from the strong, and the powerless from the powerful.

• Resist the unethical influence of corporate lobbying. My representatives at all levels should do their best to represent the needs of their constituents and not the desires of their contributors.

• Understand the difference between playing politics and doing the “right thing”, and should do the latter more than the former.

• Should not be so tied to one party’s platform that they are unable or unwilling to vote their conscience or follow the will of their constituents.

• Support transparency in government except in cases of National Security defined as narrowly as possible.

I came up with a great list of what I’d like from my elected officials during church today. Yes, I did it during church… weird, huh? I’m not sure what it means, but I’m going to try not to think about it too much. I obviously wasn’t paying attention while I was frantically scribbling notes to myself. Unfortunately, the list is in the car, so you’re not going to see it tonight. I’m physically tired and emotionally tired and just not ready to wade through my notes on all of this stuff, digest them, and then get them up here so we can discuss them.

Kurt’s comments have got me thinking, and I may need to come up with a graceful way to explain my take on them, and come up with a coherent position on them. I understand his points, and they’re good ones.

I want to see a society where everyone is free to worship (or not) as they see fit. It’s defining the “do what you want as long as no one gets hurt” concept that bothers me. I would hope that people would be better and more noble than that. Unfortunately, I’ve watched Jerry Springer and know that a good portion of our society is not that noble, and some things do need to be legislated. That balance between personal freedom and the need of a society to maintain order and provide basic services is what politics is all about. Having the Republicans in power, the scale tips too far to the “order” side of the spectrum for me. The far left is probably a bit too far to the “free” side. How do we find that balance? How do we weigh that needs for personal freedom with personal responsibility (and accountability) with the needs for defense, services, and protecting the weak from the strong, and the powerless from the powerful?

Bah, too many questions and not enough answers. I’ll try to come back with the list of what I’d like to see from my “ideal” elected official, and my “ideal” representative government tomorrow after I’ve gotten a good night’s sleep, and hopefully processed all these conflicting thoughts running amok in my noggin.

As I told Kurt, I welcome all opinions, as long as they’re well thought out and reasoned. Bring ’em on. Share ’em. You never know what it’ll spark.

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.” — Senator Rick Santorum

I know it’s old news, but the White House has come out supporting this guy, but this just blows my mind. Let’s dissect it… the law is against sodomy (I think you all know where this is going, and if you’re not a grown up and can’t handle thinking or reading about this, please move on). So, the senator is against sodomy, because it’s a “gateway” sex act to legalizing incest and bigamy? Let’s talk about what each of these is and how ignorant the Senator is making himself look (he may indeed be ignorant, but this just makes him seem ignorant). Sodomy is an act that can happen between two consenting adults. If the two are consenting and undertake the “enterprise” of sodomy aware of the risks of such, then why is that against the law? See, here’s why I have a problem with these laws. They’re degrading. If consenting adults (sense a theme) feel it’s OK for them to engage in such an act, they should be free to do so without fear of prosecution. And this is where Mr. Santorum misses the mark (all definitions from Mirriam Webster):

• Bigamy: the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another. Usually, this is a case of fraud, where one or more of the parties does not consent. Therefore, as a case of fraud, I can support there being laws against it.

• Incest: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry; also : the statutory crime of such a relationship. In the common meaning, this is an intimate relationship between parent and child, most often when the child is either under undo psychological influence, or of such an age as to be unable to give proper consent. Again, no problem having laws against this, because it’s more than likely an abusive relationship, and the taking advantage of a weaker party by a stronger with extraordinary influence over them.

• Adultery: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband. Ahh, this one’s a little tougher. I think it’s definitely punishable in a civil sense if the spouse who isn’t the adulterer in unaware and has not consented to the other committing adultery. Do we need a criminal statute? No, not really. We have divorce lawyers and marriage counselors.

• Polygamy:marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time. Why is polygamy illegal other than our county’s Puritanical background? If all parties are of an age to consent to the marriages, and all give their free and uncoerced consent, then I don’t see why they shouldn’t be able to do it.

So, Mr. Santorum, do you just not know the meaning of the words, or do you want everyone to be subject to your own personal moral code? I would much rather live by my own.

I am so tired. For the past two weeks, I have beeen absolutely exhausted when I get home. Work has been… taxing? I’m back to having work take all of my energy, and leaving almost none for my “real” life. I’m also pretty grumpy and plagued by deep thoughts that keep me up at night. Deep thoughts about work and things I can’t talk about here, and deep thoughts about the state of the world and my personal undertstanding of how the world workes, which I can talk about here, and plan to.

I just won’t do it now. I’m too tired, too angry and the paragraph I wrote and then deleted wasn’t logical. It was angry. It was too emotional. I’ve realized that I really don’t know enough about what it means to be on the right or left, what it really means to be conservative, liberal or even progressive. I have some ideas, but I don’t know for sure. I’m not sure how I don’t know this, but I don’t. I admit it. I know what sounds good to me, and what sounds like crap. As it stands right now, and this may change, most of the President’s positions seem like crap, and progressive ideals seem pretty good to me. Like I said, I’m still reading. If anyone has any good books they’d like to recommend, I’ll take ’em. I want stuff from all sides. I already subscribe to Salon, and because I do, I got a free subscription to Utne, which I’m enjoying. I also got Mother Jones, which seems a little farther out there than Utne, but I haven’t even made it halfway through that issue yet.

What should I read? How do I find out what a real conservative is? A real liberal? A libertarian?

Rashunda came up with a good idea in her comment to this post. I’m not going to talk about the war on this site anymore, if I can help it. I’m going to avoid it if at all possible. Why? There are a lot of reasons. First, I’m not qualified, and who wants to read about it here, when there are a million other places to get your war on. I’ll leave the commentary to the professionals, and those deluded enough to think they have the big picture. Second, it’s tearing me up. I have so many conflicted emotions about the whole thing that I don’t really want to relive them here. I’ll deal with them myself and leave them off this site. Third, the amount of commentary, good and bad, on the web is overwhelming. The coverage on the TV is bad enough, but it’s also practically impossible to avoid it online either. I will do my part to not contribute to the war commentary clutter.

What am I going to talk about? Everything seems tainted by the war. Expect lots of stupidity (like you don’t already), lots of geekiness, some talk of sports and movies and Max stories. You’ll probably get some video game reviews and maybe some embarrassing stories from my childhood. I mean it, I really am going to try to avoid any commentary on the war, the President and politics in general, at least until the Primaries roll around.

I’ll hopefully be back later today with something light and humorous… check back.

Indian Food makes me sleepy. We went to the lovely and tasty Banjara for lunch to celebrate someone’s anniversary with the company (it doesn’t take much of an excuse for us to go out to lunch). The food is good there, but a well-informed member of our group touts a rival restaurant, which we will try out eventually: Minerva. I don’t know what it is about Indian food, but both times we’ve gone there, I’ve had the hardest time staying awake when I get back to work. I’m droopy and lethargic and ready for a nice long nap.

We stayed up for the Oscars last night. Since I really didn’t go out of my way to see the nominated films this year (of the Best Picture nominees, I saw The Two Towers, how sad is that?), I wasn’t invested this year. I thought Steve Martin did a fine job keeping things light, although his way-inside-the-industry shtick got a little old. I didn’t have a problem with any of the acceptance speeches, even Michael Moore’s. I thought his “When you’ve got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, watch out” (or something like that) line was really funny even if it was drowned out by booing and the orchestra. Adrian Brody gave the speech of the night, and did a great job walking that line between pro-peace and anti-war.

I’ve been trying to come up with a reason I haven’t been more vocal about the war. I’ve posted before about the fact that I think it was inevitable, and how nothing I said would change it. I still feel that way to some extant. But, I also feel that with enough voices, things can change. I just can’t align myself with either group, the rapid anti-war folks or the rabid pro-ass-kicking troupe. I’m in the middle. People in the middle don’t protest. We sit quietly waiting for everything to end. I am pro-removing-Saddam. I am pro-Troops, how could I not be, having grown up as the son of one? I am anti-how-we-got-here. President Bush botched this whole thing miserably. His policies led us right here to war without the great international consensus we needed. He lied to us about Iraq’s involvement in September 11th, and used forged documents to make his case (whether or not he knew they were forged is still unknown, but still). Other than Britain and a handful of countries smaller than Mississippi, we’re all alone. We will be when this is all over too, unless Saddam decides to reveal those well-hidden naughty weapons.

I’m going to try not to talk about this anymore. I’m tired of the coverage on CNN. I don’t need to know what the 3rd Infantry is doing every five minutes. I don’t need to see live feeds of Baghdad twenty-four hours a day anymore. I know people are dying on both sides. I know horrible things are happening to people I never met. Wallowing in it will only make me feel more sick about it than I already am. It didn’t have to turn out this way. Now that it’s here, and there’s nothing I can do about it, there’s no point belaboring the obvious. Woulda, coulda, shoulda – it doesn’t matter. We’re here, no matter how we got here. I just hope it ends, and the folks over there who want to come home get to, and soon. I hope Saddam realizes this is a lost cause and gives himself up, either to eternity (as Eddie Izzard would say, “In a ditch, covered in petrol, on fire”) or to his nearest US Military Representative. I know it won’t happen, but let’s hope anyway.

I’m going to go bowling tonight and pretend that CNN doesn’t exist.