I've been having an interesting discussion with a resident Troglodyte about Intelligent Design, or at least the sincerity of scientists in forwarding Evolutionary Theory. Frankly, I feel that scientists are basically being as sincere as possible while proponents of Intelligent Design are being insincere. ID proponents are trying to disguise creationism with a fleece of true science. The question is, Creationism had any merit at all, why disuise with science? It should stand on its own merits.
Sadly, Creationism, and therefore Intelligent Design, has no rational merits.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Patriot Games
Since when did being a critic of Israeli government policy tantamount to anti-semitism? Oh yeah. Since Israeli independence. I guess that means if I criticize U.S. policies I must hate America.
I had one fool tell me that as much as I criticize U.S. policies I would never want to live in a third world country, as if he were trying to unveil some deeply inherent hypocrisy. If I love a country why would I want it to act out on behalf of the worst representatives of itself? Why should he expect so less from his country that he raises onto so high a pedestal. There is as much logic in that as your child thinking you hate him because you don't want him taking crack.
Here are two fantastic patriots: Eliana Johnson and Mitch Webber. Their article in The New York Sun vilifies a professor, Juan Cole who specializes in Middle Eastern modern history. They disagree with his radical anti-Israeli stance saying things like:
Another worthy American is John Fund who doesn't seem to like Juan Cole either and apparently denies the existence of the "American Israel Public Affairs Committee [who] effectively controls Congress and much of U.S. foreign policy. In an article titled "Dual Loyalties," he wrote, "I simply think that we deserve to have American public servants who are centrally commited [sic] to the interests of the United States, rather than to the interests of a foreign political party," namely Israel's right-wing Likud..."
The idea that a pro-Israel lobby exists implies that money is being given to our United States congressmen to support policies that benefit a foreign nation.
And if there isn't a strong pro-Israel lobby, as many right wing pundits contend, then why has the FBI been investigating AIPAC for the last five years?
I can't tell who's trying to fool whom.
I had one fool tell me that as much as I criticize U.S. policies I would never want to live in a third world country, as if he were trying to unveil some deeply inherent hypocrisy. If I love a country why would I want it to act out on behalf of the worst representatives of itself? Why should he expect so less from his country that he raises onto so high a pedestal. There is as much logic in that as your child thinking you hate him because you don't want him taking crack.
Here are two fantastic patriots: Eliana Johnson and Mitch Webber. Their article in The New York Sun vilifies a professor, Juan Cole who specializes in Middle Eastern modern history. They disagree with his radical anti-Israeli stance saying things like:
Mr. Cole's most frequent public statements and writing - many of which appear on his blog, Informed Comment - have deviated considerably from his areas of expertise.Maybe I'm the delude one here. I thought I learned somewhere in geography or world civ or some such class that Israel was in the Middle East. How is Juan Cole speaking out of his area of expertise in this case? Of course, Johnson and Webber aren't experts at anything right now. They are still in school. One could gather that with deductive skills like those shown above they may never be experts at anything.
Another worthy American is John Fund who doesn't seem to like Juan Cole either and apparently denies the existence of the "American Israel Public Affairs Committee [who] effectively controls Congress and much of U.S. foreign policy. In an article titled "Dual Loyalties," he wrote, "I simply think that we deserve to have American public servants who are centrally commited [sic] to the interests of the United States, rather than to the interests of a foreign political party," namely Israel's right-wing Likud..."
The idea that a pro-Israel lobby exists implies that money is being given to our United States congressmen to support policies that benefit a foreign nation.
And if there isn't a strong pro-Israel lobby, as many right wing pundits contend, then why has the FBI been investigating AIPAC for the last five years?
I can't tell who's trying to fool whom.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Sympathy for the Devil
Kenneth Lay states under oath of the Enron collapse that "I'm sure there's absolutely nothing in my life, including the loss of life of many of my loved ones, that even comes close to the same level of pain, and the same enduring pain, that has caused..."
Poor unfortunate soul. I think I'll send him a gift basket.
He denies the charges of conspiracy and wire and securities fraud. I wonder how the jury will fell about that?
Perhaps they will still recommend 45 years in prison, much like Stanley Williams was sentenced to death and executed recently in California. He never admitted to killing anyone and was vilified in the media before his execution of having no remorse.
Lay seems to only be remorseful about losing his company.
Lets compare statistics.
Kenneth Lay: White
Started Enron, eventually defrauding and ruining the lives of thousands of employees and investors, defrauded the State of California and nearly destroyed its infrastructure.
Stanley Williams: Black
Started the Crips, killed some people, sold some drugs.
Ken Lay's fate? We shall see.
Poor unfortunate soul. I think I'll send him a gift basket.
He denies the charges of conspiracy and wire and securities fraud. I wonder how the jury will fell about that?
Perhaps they will still recommend 45 years in prison, much like Stanley Williams was sentenced to death and executed recently in California. He never admitted to killing anyone and was vilified in the media before his execution of having no remorse.
Lay seems to only be remorseful about losing his company.
Lets compare statistics.
Kenneth Lay: White
Started Enron, eventually defrauding and ruining the lives of thousands of employees and investors, defrauded the State of California and nearly destroyed its infrastructure.
Stanley Williams: Black
Started the Crips, killed some people, sold some drugs.
Ken Lay's fate? We shall see.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Bunch 'o haoles here
Are there fifty states in the Union? I'd say most of us living here in these fine United States would agree that in 1959 we finally got a round number of states and commonwealths, a number easily remembered by the sleeping and nodding heads of little children.
Most of us are completely unfamiliar with the dubious circumstances under which America aquired the Kingdom of Hawaii. Luckily, Stephen Kinzer is here to rectify what is otherwise a grevious omission. In his book, Overthrow : America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, he details a laundry list of U.S. takeovers and interference of democratic government systems over the course of 100 or so years. Certain peoples of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government certainly agree. They've been lobbying on behalf of the overthrown monarchy for, well, 100 years.
I challenge all of you to consider who the U.S. government is trying to protect. Is it the interests of people, i.e. you and me, or the interests of legal persons, i.e. corporate entities.
Old habits die hard.
Most of us are completely unfamiliar with the dubious circumstances under which America aquired the Kingdom of Hawaii. Luckily, Stephen Kinzer is here to rectify what is otherwise a grevious omission. In his book, Overthrow : America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, he details a laundry list of U.S. takeovers and interference of democratic government systems over the course of 100 or so years. Certain peoples of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government certainly agree. They've been lobbying on behalf of the overthrown monarchy for, well, 100 years.
I challenge all of you to consider who the U.S. government is trying to protect. Is it the interests of people, i.e. you and me, or the interests of legal persons, i.e. corporate entities.
Old habits die hard.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
A Country without a Mexican
Immigration bills around the country are leaning on reduce public help for undocumented immigrants. In Georgia, that bastion of racial harmony, Republican Govenor Sonny Perdue has signed a bill into law called The Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act which, among a number of things, would keep emergency rooms from accepting undocumented immigrants. So, if you are undocumented, living in Georgia, you have a broken leg, you go to the emergency room, sorry, no help for you! In fact, you're under arrest.
I hate Republicans. I really do.
I'm sure many of you are thinking, well, they are here illegally. What about that? Are they? Well, lets just take a closer look. Who will this Law affect most? Mexicans. Mexican migrant workers. Of all of the people living in North America, who has a longer history? Americans? Sorry, Mexicans. Mexicans, my friends, are Native Americans and they've been living here for at least 20,000 years. They were here legally, that is, they were the very first humans to colonize this whole hemisphere. Who came here illegally? Hmmm, could it be Europeans? They came here, killed off huge numbers with muskets, syphilis, and Christianity, lied, cheated, and stole, and then hurded them off to live on the most arid land of the plains.
Lets not forget the Mexican-American War. President James Polk lied to the American people so he could start a war with Mexico to capture Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California in the name of Manifest Destiny and Western Expansion. If I remember correctly, I think the justification was 'terror.' Quite a unifying theme.
Hypocrisy, anyone?
I hate Republicans. I really do.
I'm sure many of you are thinking, well, they are here illegally. What about that? Are they? Well, lets just take a closer look. Who will this Law affect most? Mexicans. Mexican migrant workers. Of all of the people living in North America, who has a longer history? Americans? Sorry, Mexicans. Mexicans, my friends, are Native Americans and they've been living here for at least 20,000 years. They were here legally, that is, they were the very first humans to colonize this whole hemisphere. Who came here illegally? Hmmm, could it be Europeans? They came here, killed off huge numbers with muskets, syphilis, and Christianity, lied, cheated, and stole, and then hurded them off to live on the most arid land of the plains.
Lets not forget the Mexican-American War. President James Polk lied to the American people so he could start a war with Mexico to capture Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California in the name of Manifest Destiny and Western Expansion. If I remember correctly, I think the justification was 'terror.' Quite a unifying theme.
Hypocrisy, anyone?
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Where Are the Flying Cars?
Thailand and other Southeast Asian countries celebrated New Year last weekend. In Thailand it is called Songkran. Its the year 2549 by Theravada Buddhist reckoning and I'd like to know where the flying cars are.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Might I be so bold?
Might I be so bold as to make my first post on this fledgling blog to be something so slanderous as saying Kenneth Timmerman lied to me? The legal question has been brought to my attention recently. Someone, who will remain nameless, has already accused me of slander and libel. He was kind enough to give me the legal definitions of the aforesaid irresponsible activity and, in his own magnanimous way, informed me that, though he had every right to, he would not engage me in litigation. Thanks.
In any case, here are the definitions:
Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered and communicated by radio or any other means, which charges or imputes that a person has committed a crime, has an infectious or loathsome disease, or is impotent or unchaste, or which tends to directly injure a person's business or professional reputation, or which causes, by natural consequence, actual damage. Cal. Civ. Code §46.
Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, or which causes a person to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure a person in his or her occupation. Cal. Civ. Code §45.
Back to the issue at hand. I do not make this accusation lightly nor without any proof.
As the story goes, some months ago Kenneth Timmerman was on the Rush Limbaugh show talking about his new book Countdown to Crisis which lists problems with Iran's terrorist connections and nuclear weapons program. I wasn't a guest, but given the current political climate I felt to need to chime in by being a caller. I was on hold for about 15 or so minutes (apparently, noone felt they had anything to say) before I finally was able to ask a question. I asked two:
"In what way was Iran non-compliant within the boundaries of their signatory status in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?"
"How ready is the United States to use our own bunker busting mini-nukes in case of a military engagement with Iran?"
A little wordy, but they had to sound good. He complimented me on asking two excellent questions. After waving the smoke from my ass I listened to his responses which I paraphrase here with commentary:
a) Essentially, by even breaking the seals of their uranium enrichment facilities Iran is in violation of the NPT which they signed. What's worse, they are engaging in uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes, the implication being that they could further enrich weapons grade uranium. He is an investigative reporter but apparently he only reports what the government leaders want him to know. True, they have broken the seals in their enrichment facilities. False, that enriching uranium is outside of NPT perimeters. They are allowed to develop peaceful nuclear energy. Europe and the United States don't want them to because they, rightly so, don't trust the leaders of Iran not to make weapons grade material. Iran agreed to this unwritten, goodfaith addition. Now they are tired of it and want to develop alternative energy capabilities which they may do under the watchful eye of the United Nations. Iran has been very open, almost too open, about their enrichment program.
b) As far as mini-nukes are concerned, the United States doesn't possess them. The resolution was voted down in February, 2002. True enough. But what he failed to mention was the Pentagon and the White House continued to pursue them. In fact, in May, 2003 the Senate eventually voted to lift the ban and continue research. With all of the hub-bub about how long it would take Iran to develop nuclear weapons, just how long would it take the United States to do the same?
It has been revealed by Seymour Hersh that the White House, as of this month, is considering the nuclear option for Iran in the form of Bunker Busting Mini-Nukes. Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector and high ranking United States Marine predicted this, and nobody listened. Basically, I'm saying that someone lied to me and everyone else who listens to Rush Limbaugh's nationally syndicated radio talk show and that someone is Kenneth Timmerman.
In any case, here are the definitions:
Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered and communicated by radio or any other means, which charges or imputes that a person has committed a crime, has an infectious or loathsome disease, or is impotent or unchaste, or which tends to directly injure a person's business or professional reputation, or which causes, by natural consequence, actual damage. Cal. Civ. Code §46.
Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, or which causes a person to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure a person in his or her occupation. Cal. Civ. Code §45.
Back to the issue at hand. I do not make this accusation lightly nor without any proof.
As the story goes, some months ago Kenneth Timmerman was on the Rush Limbaugh show talking about his new book Countdown to Crisis which lists problems with Iran's terrorist connections and nuclear weapons program. I wasn't a guest, but given the current political climate I felt to need to chime in by being a caller. I was on hold for about 15 or so minutes (apparently, noone felt they had anything to say) before I finally was able to ask a question. I asked two:
"In what way was Iran non-compliant within the boundaries of their signatory status in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?"
"How ready is the United States to use our own bunker busting mini-nukes in case of a military engagement with Iran?"
A little wordy, but they had to sound good. He complimented me on asking two excellent questions. After waving the smoke from my ass I listened to his responses which I paraphrase here with commentary:
a) Essentially, by even breaking the seals of their uranium enrichment facilities Iran is in violation of the NPT which they signed. What's worse, they are engaging in uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes, the implication being that they could further enrich weapons grade uranium. He is an investigative reporter but apparently he only reports what the government leaders want him to know. True, they have broken the seals in their enrichment facilities. False, that enriching uranium is outside of NPT perimeters. They are allowed to develop peaceful nuclear energy. Europe and the United States don't want them to because they, rightly so, don't trust the leaders of Iran not to make weapons grade material. Iran agreed to this unwritten, goodfaith addition. Now they are tired of it and want to develop alternative energy capabilities which they may do under the watchful eye of the United Nations. Iran has been very open, almost too open, about their enrichment program.
b) As far as mini-nukes are concerned, the United States doesn't possess them. The resolution was voted down in February, 2002. True enough. But what he failed to mention was the Pentagon and the White House continued to pursue them. In fact, in May, 2003 the Senate eventually voted to lift the ban and continue research. With all of the hub-bub about how long it would take Iran to develop nuclear weapons, just how long would it take the United States to do the same?
It has been revealed by Seymour Hersh that the White House, as of this month, is considering the nuclear option for Iran in the form of Bunker Busting Mini-Nukes. Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector and high ranking United States Marine predicted this, and nobody listened. Basically, I'm saying that someone lied to me and everyone else who listens to Rush Limbaugh's nationally syndicated radio talk show and that someone is Kenneth Timmerman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)