Saw a blog with a link to an electoral compass and figured I'd give it a try.
It seems to "recommend" that I vote for Barack Obama.
It's interesting to compare it to a different political compass which has me well outside of many of the views of even Obama.
A neighboring coworker who seems to think highly of my depth of knowledge and intellectualism, asked what I thought of the latest news of the CIA having destroyed interrogation tapes.
I responded that it was a load of horseshit. That they had destroyed the tapes ostensively to protect the identities of interrogators but what they were really doing was covering up illegal torture. A former CIA agent had even come forward yesterday to say that he was in those tapes waterboarding detainees and he now thought it was wrong to have done so.
From behind me, one of the Red State cubicle residents started ranting that waterboarding wasn't torture. There was no danger to the interrogated and it was all psychological. He claimed to have been waterboarded himself and it wasn't a big deal.
I ignored him until my phone rang and then I tried to focus my attention on the Help Desk call while we continued his spew. Eventually he tired of talking to the back of my head and went back to reading the latest book from wingnut Glenn Beck.
I'm not going to waste my time on this coworker. My first thought is if his claim of being in Military Intelligence in Iraq is true, why are you a wage slave at $12 an hour at a bank help desk? If you were really waterboarded you, no doubt, were subjected to this by your comrades who, at the first sign of discomfort, would stop. You weren't strapped down and in fear of being drowned by people who hate you and are screaming at you that, given the choice, they would jut put a bullet in your head.
That's torture. It's not merely uncomfortable. It's abject terror and it's illegal and wrong.
And guess what. . . the US said so. In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. American soldiers photographed waterboarding Viet Cong prisoners in 1968 were courtmarshaled. In 2005, the Department of State formally recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record. The U.S. is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which explicitly probibit torture under any condition. The U.S. is a signatory to the Geneva Convention which clearly spells out the way prisoners are to be treated. The Eighth Amendment of our Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment."
The Bush Administration has violated all of these. By definition, what they have done in secretly authorizing these so-called "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" are war crimes. They are crimes against these individuals. They are crimes against the laws they swore to "preserve and defend." They are crimes against humanity. They are crimes against reason and justice and all the things that we as Americans should hold sacred. They are monsters. They are the new Inquisitors. They are all that we were told was evil in the world.
They are not Americans.
And you, fucktard ranting to the back of my head, justifying their actions. . . you are and embarrassment to humanity.
"Happy Counterterrorism Day" by Scott Horton.
"Special Comment: George Bush’s Criminal Conspiracy of Torture" by Keith Olbermann.
The President: "I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuculer (sic) weapon."
You're warning us of World War III if we allow Iran to have the KNOWLEDGE of nuclear weapons??? Hell, I have the knowledge necessary to make nuclear weapons. Go to any frelling public library or search the Internet and you can have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. Is W going to attack Iran because they know something that's almost public domain?
No, he's going to use that knowledge as AN EXCUSE to attack Iran. He talked about "actionable intelligence" and needing FISA gutted to allow him to get actionable intelligence but really, he doesn't need it. He doesn't even want it. He's got a hard on to attack Iran just like he was jonesing to attack Iraq even before he got himself elected president. He's using the talk of WW3 to scare people into giving him carte blanche again.
I hope it doesn't happen this time. Of course, all of Congress's noise about not giving the president everything he wants really isn't much compared to what the president keeps doing in spite of the noise. I have no doubt that W believes that he can attack Iran at any time and that there's nothing anyone can do to stop him.
How many bomb threats called in actually turn out to be real? The best answer I could find to that question is somewhere around 1%, and that only related to schools where bomb threats and pipe bombs seem much more prevalent than in the general public. So what is it that got the City to take yesterday's very rare and likely non-credible call about a bomb in a Parkway tunnel so seriously as to close down two tunnels right at the peak of rush hour?
The caller had a foreign accent. Maybe.
First off. . . you're morons. The South Side, source of the hoax call, is full of foreign accents. Many of those accents are from native, second generation residents. It's an integral part of Pittsburgh neighborhoods. Giving a threat credibility only because of an accent is racist. Second, hennyone kan easily fake an accent. Dere are even vebsites dat kan help hyu. Or chust vatch enough bad action films vith schtereotypical bad guys. Third, the South Side has more bars per capita of any neighborhood in the country. That should give you a clue as to the type of calls you might get from there. Fourth, only a cut-rate amateur terrorist would phone in his bomb threat an hour before it was set to go off. Terrorists prefer to, you know, terrorize people, and while being backed up on the Parkway for an hour with the tunnel closed may be inconvenient, it doesn't quite qualify as terrifying. Fifth, any foreign terrorist who had successfully gotten into the United States would not plant his bomb in a Pittsburgh tunnel. The tunnels might seem vitally important to us but in the international list of important things worth blowing up, the Squirrel Hill Tunnel is small potatoes. Very small potatoes.
This sort of nonsense is driven by fear. Not the fear of a terrorist by the general public (though there is too much of that as well), but the fear officials have of loosing their jobs should the rare call actually turn out to be true. Or rather, if the public finds out that some idiot made a prank call and the authorities didn't treat it like the real thing. They say they err on the side of safety but they are actually erring on the side of their own continued employment. That's why the Mooninite scare in Boston was such a clusterfuck.
We need to get on with our lives, not because it defies the terrorists (a common politico catch phrase) but because there aren't actually many terrorists to begin with and the world really isn't all that different than it was before 9/11. I'm more likely to get run over by a car or slip and fall in the shower than I am to be a victim of a terrorist bombing. Hell, odds are I'll be struck by lightning before I'm caught in a bomb blast so quit wasting my time and tax money by blowing up every gym bag left at a bus stop.
Illinois Congressman John Shimkus (R) used the following metaphor to describe the Iraq spending bill.
"Imagine my beloved St. Louis Cardinals are playing the much despised Chicago Cubs. The Cardinals are up by five finishing the top of the ninth. Is this a cause for celebration? Is this a cause for victory? No. Unbelievable as it may seem, the Cubbies score five runs in the bottom of the ninth to throw the game into extra innings. There the score remains until 1:00 a.m., five innings later. However at the top of the 15th the Cardinals fail to field a batter. The entire team has left the stadium.
It seems that they are more worried about next day's 1:00 p.m. game at home than finishing the game at hand. Who wins? We know, it's the team that stays on the field. Arbitrary deadlines and a date certain accept defeat before the conclusion of the contest. It is our national security interest to continue to take the field and support a moderate Arab state. Leaving prior assures a loss for us and victory for our opponents which will lead to another extremist Islamic state."
A bottom of the ninth turnaround? You've gotta be kidding me. Let me spin this analogy, congressman. . . .
My hometeam, the American Patriots are going up against the Iraqi Martyrs. The Patriots beat the Iraqi team soundly in the last game they played and come in thinking this will be a cake walk. The first couple of innings look to be another shutout but after that, the Martyrs change their tactics. It's like playing a completely different team. A team that plays dirty. A Patriot thinks he's safely sliding into home but gets cleat-sliced by the catcher and is out of the game. A Patriot heading into second gets nailed in the head by a throw and he's out of the game. The ninth inning comes with the game tied and the go into extra innings. The Patriots are getting beat up, loosing players. Sure, they are scoring runs but at a heavy cost. The Martyrs are loosing players as well but new players come out of the stands to take up the bat.
As the game drags into many extra innings, the crowd has changed. What at first were cheering throngs have now turned universally, not against the team who are doing their best in an impossible situation, but against the coach who has failed to see that the game is lost. The coach said this would be easy but the team is being murdered out there. And, wait a minute, weren't we told we were going to be playing in Afghanistan against the Osama Bombers?
And there's the coach, continuing to. . .
You know what? I'm going to stop this right now because the sports metaphor is just too absurd.
Wake up, asshat! This isn't a game. It's a war and it's lost. It was lost a long time ago. Hell, it never should have been started in the first place. If you think going into "extra innings" will somehow generate victory, you are just fucking delusional.
Naomi Wolf wrote an article for The Guardian entitled "Fascist America, in 10 easy steps". Go there and read the entire thing in all its horrific detail but I'll summarize it here.
"It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy - but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps.
As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you are willing to look, that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated today in the United States by the Bush administration."
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create a gulag.
3. Develop a thug caste.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Dissent equals treason.
10. Suspend the rule of law.
I note one item missing from this list: disarm the citizenry.
One might think that the 2nd Amendment was in place specifically to prevent this sort of thing, and you'd be right. Thomas Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." And given that the current administration is also a very staunch support of gun rights you might be hard pressed to imagine them getting away with the above ten steps.
But, in an odd twist of politics, those with the most liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that the rights afforded refer to all of the people, are those with the most conservative view of all the other rights that the administration is actively trampling upon. And when the revolution comes, well, there won't be much of a revolution because the so-called "gun nuts" of the NRA are already in the administration's camp. They will become the "thug cast" mentioned in step 3.
What we need are more liberals to actually take a liberal view of the 2nd Amendment. What could be a more liberal interpretation than to say that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the people the tools necessary to overthrow the government should it overstep the powers granted them by the rest of the Constitution.? It's why Jefferson put it there. It's why it says the rights "of the people" and not "the rights of the States" or "the rights of the Government to bear arms."
And don't for a minute try to pull that "well regulated militia" line. Just take a look at the dead and wounded coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, and tell me that the National Guard and Reserve are a militia. They are soldiers under the direct control of the Commander in Chief. Just read the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. The 2nd Amendment wasn't written to protect them, it was written to protect us FROM them.
I want more democrats to join the NRA. I want more NRA members to also support the rest of the Bill of Rights by supporting the ACLU. I want the ACLU to defend ALL of the Bill of Rights, not just 90 percent.
I am the NRA. I am the ACLU.
"The purpose of torturing your prisoner is to get him to confess that he is the queen of England."
I believe this statement by a former Military Intelligence friend of mine to be true, supported by all the evidence of years of confessions obtained under duress. That six years later, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to planning the 9/11 attacks is dubious. For him to also confess to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, an aborted 2002 attack on Los Angeles' U.S. Bank Tower, the Bali nightclub bombings, the attempted assassination of every living US President stretches credibility. And to finally confess to personally beheading Daniel Pearl, well, I don't buy it.
Keep interrogating him and I'm sure they'll be able to get him to confess to the Lindberg kidnapping, to being the shooter on the grassy knoll and for assisting in the escape of John Wilkes Booth.
A confession obtained under duress isn't convincing. Show me EVIDENCE. If you have any real evidence of the horrible crime you have accused him of committing then present it in a court of law. Don't waste my time with this crap.
When the preamble of the Constitution says "We the People", does it refer to all the people or does it refer only to those in the government who were writing the document?
When the First Amendment talks about "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," does it refer to all of the people or does it only convey that right to those that have submitted the proper forms to hold a rally or only to those in Free Speech Zones? When the Amendment goes on to say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," does that apply to all religions equally or are some religions more equal than others? When it talks about the freedom of the Press, does that include bloggers or does it only apply to major media news organizations?
When the Fifth Amendment says "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury," does this apply to all people or does it only apply to those the government decides it should?
When the Fourth Ameddment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," does this apply to all of the people?
So, if all of these rights "of the people" apply to everyone, why is it that it has taken two centuries for the courts to rule on the Second Amendment and say that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" applies to everyone?
Ahhh, there is that pesky first part:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Many have taken the phrase "well regulated Militia" to mean that this only applies to the Militia, the Reserve or National Guard. This is simply not true.
Everything in the Bill of Rights is about individual rights. The Ninth Amendments spells it out in saying, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." These are all about the rights of the people that cannot be taken away and then says, in essence, "If we forgot to mention something that is generally considered Common Law and the rights of the people, then they are still rights."
The government doesn't grant us these rights, they are already ours and the Bill of Rights is spelling that out.
It would be absurd to include in this Bill of Rights a guarantee of the right of the government to have weapons for its army, and make no mistake, today's Guard and Reserve are part of the standing army. Just ask any reservist that has been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. The 18th Century concept of the Militia was every able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 60 who could pick up a gun and defend his home or town from attack.
But finally, a Federal Appeals Court has ruled on the Second Amendment in overturning the Washington DC gun ban, saying the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia.
The Second Amendment, like all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, are the rights "of the People." Not just of some of the people. Not just for certain authorized arms of the government. All of us.
I have discovered the joys of Conservapedia.
"Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. . . Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America . . . . you will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of "political correctness".
In fact, it is so far out there that I actually had difficulty at first coming up with snarky comments about this bed of lies and misinformation. Certainly, in trying to spread this dreck they have made themselves obvious targets for hacking and parody but the sincere views expressed are the most disturbing.
For example; "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?" This assertion seems based solely on the use of the word "faith" in various documents. It's used a lot in the New Testament and only rarely in the Old Testament and never in the Koran. You can see what that implies about these other "faiths."
"Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon. Opponents repeatedly attempt to censor the sale of publications by the U.S. Parks Service near the Grand Canyon containing differing views of its development."
Young-earth Creationism is, in fact, inconsistent with all observations of the Great Lakes (created 10,000 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age), the young moon (formed in a massive collision 4.5 billion years ago) and it is the Creationists that have been able to limit the speech of US Park Service rangers who know that the Grand Canyon is 5 to 6 million years old but cannot say so. When their facts are slim or contradictory, they simply lie.
So, I looked up this Young Moon thing.
"The Moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 6 inches per year. The Moon could never have been closer than about 150,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 6 inches per year, the Moon's present distance of about 250,000 miles implies a young age for the Moon of no more than one billion years. Under the non-creationist claim that the Moon somehow broke away from the Earth, the Moon's rate of recession must have been faster in the past, and thus the Moon would have been only 150,000 miles from the Earth far more recently than one billion years ago. This contradicts the claim of non-creationists that the Moon and Earth are somehow several billions of years old."
I like how the entire body of geology is marginalized under "non-Creationists". I'm surprised they didn't use "Anti-Creationists" or perhaps "Heretics." Of course, their assumption is false because the math involved in the conservation of angular momentum does not lead to a simple mathematical progression of a steady 6 inches per year for a billion years. (That's why Isaac Newton invented calculus.) If fact, it was the calculations of physicists that lead to the conclusion that the moon was younger than the Earth by about 50 million years instead of having formed at the same time. This discrepancy lead directly to the theory that the moon was formed by an impact of a Mars-sized body on the Earth.
"The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth. This deficiency of iron on the Moon disproved the primary theory that the Moon must have originated by breaking off from the Earth. There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin for the Moon at this time."
Another pack of lies. An early molten planet has the light stuff (silicates) floating at the top and the heavy stuff (iron) at the core. Slam two of them together and most of the splash (that will become the moon) will be silicates. Iron on the Earth's surface isn't actually all that abundant when compared to everything else. The earths crust is mostly silicates and lighter elements (like aluminum) but convection (volcanoes, plate tectonics and the like) has brought some of the heaver stuff up to the surface where we can get to it making it seem that iron is more abundant than it actually is. The Moon, lacking the internal heat necessary to move this stuff around, has some iron at the core but is pretty much all silicates at the surface. The Creationists (or Anti-scientists or perhaps Delusional Theist Morons) don't offer any evidence to support their claims, they just say that the scientists don't know or can't explain. Is that an ad hominem argument or is it merely lying?
Hmmm, they don't have an entry for plate tectonics. No surprise. The way South America and Africa fit together like a puzzle and the relatively consistent expansion of the Atlantic Ocean (magnetic striping on the ocean floor caused by regular geomagnetic reversals provide that number) leading from a single continent 200 million years ago throws a fly in their 6,000 year old Earth ointment. Oh, wait. . . they'll just lie about that, too.
"Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God."
Oh, yea. That's unbiased.
On an unrelated note, Conservapedia has a terrific entry for the endangered Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus:
"The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus (Octopus paxarbolis) can be found in the temperate rainforests of the Olympic Peninsula on the west coast of North America. Their habitat lies on the eastern side of the Olympic mountain range, adjacent to Hood Canal. These solitary cephalopods reach an average size (measured from arm-tip to mantle-tip,) of 30-33 cm. Unlike most other cephalopods, tree octopuses are Amphibian, spending only their earliest life stages and mating seasons in their aquatic environment. Because of the moistness of the rainforests and their well designed skin adaptations, they are able to keep from becoming dried out for prolonged periods of time."
OK, so it's a hoax entry, but I still want one as a pet. I wonder how long it will last before Conservapedia's "centralized authority takes steps to reduce bias and provide balance" or otherwise check their facts. Conservapedia makes a tremendous self-righteous stink about bias at Wiki but all they really do is present their own biased views and try to convince us that it's "The Truth." Much like Fox News tries to convince us they are "fair and balanced" by repeating the mantra over and over and blaming all their woes on the so-called "liberal media."
Conservapedia has locked their membership so that otherwise intelligent people don't signon and muck up their perfect wingnut world with inconvenient things like facts or with ridicule and parody. That will ensure that Conservapedia becomes even more insular and isolated from reality making for more entertaining reading.
"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
Abraham Lincoln
January 27, 1838
Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois
The other day, H**** said that I was a disestablishmentarianist because I was opposed to organized religion. However, that isn't entirely true. While it is true that I am opposed to organized religion (making me an antitheist), that's not what disestablishmentarianism is.
The Anglican Church was established as the official Church of England in 1558 under Queen Elizabeth I. (That's the 'establishment' part) As near as I can figure, this was done to moderate the conflict that had come about earlier in the century as a result of Henry VIII's marital issues and the whole Reformation mess.
In the late 19th Century, there were proposals to separate the Church and the State. (There's the 'dis-establishment' part.) This lead to a movement to prevent this from happening. (anti-dis-establishment)
The Antidisestablishmentarianists won, for the most part, as the Church of England still stands as the official church of England, although it's influence in a governmental capacity seems to only extend to royal succession, which itself is subordinate to the Parliament.
In spite of efforts by the evangelical right wing, the United States is still a secular government thanks to the forethought of our founding fathers. They established a strict separation of Church from State in the First Amendment to the Constitution so that the rights off all to practice their own religion were not subverted by power of the mere majority. So, if anything, I am an antiestablishmentarianist; opposed to the establishment of Christianity (or any faith) as the official religion of the United States.
