.XXX

It is difficult for me to escape the conclusion that leaders of the Christian right are either dumber than I thought, or more disingenuous than I thought, after seeing them gloat about ICANN rejecting a .XXX domain.

Story here

If porn were relegated to an .XXX domain it would be dead-easy to filter out e-mail originating from it and also to steer your browser clear of it. So, if you were morally opposed to the sight of, say, hot lesbian sex, your job of diverting your attention from it would be much easier with an internet red-light district.

My apologies to anyone looking for hot lesbian sex or naughty porn that wound up here instead.

New Rules

I've heard a lot of rants against the Bush administration. I suppose this is because I seek them out. I enjoy knowing that other people, other Americans, realize that W. is a pampered prince of priviledge and an ineffective promoter of America's security, prosperity, and cohesiveness.

It helps to know that I am not isolated enough in my opinion to be considered crazy, I guess, and these days I feel down-right compatible with the public sentiment.

But...

If you can take a few vulgar words and would like to see the new benchmark for dissing Mr. Bush, then click the link below to watch Bill Maher bring it on:

Hoopie Doopie

Goodly, Godly, Gosh

Since it is impossible to disprove anything, for instance that an invisible pink unicorn is watching me type, some people believe that disbelief in God is as much a matter of faith as belief in God.

Are they correct?

Many philosophers claim that knowledge is a justified true opinion, that is, a learned opinion formed from observation and in accordance with reality.

For instance, you might believe the earth is round without being able to explain your position. That is not considered knowledge by the philosophers, since it isn't based upon any evidence. If, however, you could assert that you know the earth is round because of the round shadow it makes on the moon, or that ships disappear over the horizon, or you've seen the photos of earth viewed from space, then you would have a right to make the claim that you are knowledgeable about the earth's shape.

Since when it comes to God there is a lack of evidence either way, it seems philosophers would argue neither position can claim to be based upon knowledge.

Given this logic you can see why I feel religious leaders speak of "faith" when they are well-meaning and "belief" when they are not.

Given this logic you can see why I feel the same way about atheists that "know" God doesn't exist (or invisible pink unicorns for that matter).

You can think that God exists if you cannot know him.
You can know that God exists if you cannot think him.


All this is food for thought as I direct you to a recent article by Sam Harris, who asks readers to reconsider their strongly-held beliefs:

Tyrant of the Bible

Zbig news

Zbigniew Brzezinski has a new book out and it is called Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower.

Jon Stewart interviewed Z.B. and Zee carried himself well. Here's a link:

Big-news Brew-zinski

During the course of the interview he describes George W. Bush as having Manichean Paranoia, which is not to be confused with Neo-Manichaeism, but perhaps loosely based upon it.

Footsteps of the Fuhrer?

This article by Chris Hedges about America's militant Christians suggests they are using Hitler's methods when it comes to America's gay population:

Gott Mit Uns

When does the evil that one does overcome feelings of self-righteousness?

How strong a force is self-delusion?

Is evil a force like gravity which can be measured with mathematical precision - and can it bend light?

How does a person claiming to believe every word of the Bible believe in a phrase as ignorant of their content as "enemies of Christ"?

If all the world is but a stage where can we hire new screenwriters?

An unsettling feeling...

When the US Supreme Court delivered it's decision which installed George W. Bush as president I remember an uneasy feeling in my bones. I felt as if alarm bells were clanging but I couldn't make out where, like a fireman that lost their sight in the midst of a call.

The source of the alarm bells was soon identified as George W. Bush but I remember wondering why that should be. I didn't know anything about him and America did need a president to function properly...

And yet this feeling persisted and if anything grew stronger as the days went by. All I was sure of was that something was very, very wrong.

So, after a while of this I quieted my mind and studied my emotions. What was it that was driving these alarm bells in my mind? After all, here was a candidate adverse to foreign occupation, concerned about education, and even using the word compassion.

Then I figured out where the alarms were coming from and it is something I don't understand. What I realized is that I was alarmed because I was remembering president George W. Bush, and this remembrance was fueling my uneasiness.

That doesn't make much sense to me. This would mean that somehow I knew from past experience, or perhaps future experience, that president Bush would turn out unfavorable in my eyes (to put it mildly).

Of course you can't have this happen to you without seeing the world anew.

For instance, when I see how the world health organization is reacting to outbreaks of bird flu (H5N1) I find myself wondering if there isn't someone there with a hard-to-describe bad feeling in their bones.

The trouble is, for me, why did I have this memory and what was I supposed to do with it? After all, George W. Bush's incompetence should have been self-evident after a few months in office, let alone years, but he was reelected by tens of millions (winning the popular vote).

What chance have I got to change that kind of mass delusion?

The trouble is, lately, new alarms are sounding, clanging, and banging in my mind. Something is about to get worse, I think, but I am like a blind fireman waiting for the heat.

Do you suppose there's any point to such memories?

The Draft

In this segment for 60 minutes Andy Rooney promotes the draft:

Andy says

I know I wouldn't mind it if the Bush twins were drafted.

The Washington Post March

Editors at the Washington Post made the wrong call in the run-up to the Iraq war, taking the word of the administration over it's critics, and presenting many lies as news to the American public.

One would hope that such a series of public mistakes, which had the effect of promoting one of our nation's greatest blunders, would generate some soul-searching and some humility and some use as a teaching moment.

But, instead, they're still peddling Bush administration talking points discredited as lies in front page stories in their own publication. These lies may very well lead to further harm to our nation.

Story here

Their role is to lie and ours is to be lied to?

Is it fulfilling to work in a newsroom where the editors set a dishonest example?

Changing ideology

I have often wondered about Republicans these last few years, but never more than when hearing a hag like Ann Coulter speak.

I sez if you need a bottom feeder like that to represent your ideology then you probably ought to change your ideology.

At long last it seems that a few conservatives might be beginning to wonder if maybe Ms. Coulter isn't one of America's 1,000 points of light.

Story here

It's a start. A slow start, but a start.

Getting poorer faster

It looks like compassionate conservatism was compassion reserved for the rich.

According to Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles:

"The numbers of severely poor have increased faster than any other segment of the population."

According to Steven Woolf of Virginia:

"We're not seeing as much moderate poverty as a proportion of the population. What we're seeing is a dramatic growth of severe poverty."

You can read all about it here:

Accelerated growth of inequality

There are two disturbing facts which accompany this data:

1. A large middle class keeps a society stable.

2. As poverty rates rise the number of abortions rise.

Chomsky

I enjoy reading Noam Chomsky and AlterNet has published an interview by Michael Shank which you can read...

Right here

Here is a sample quote:

"Seventy five percent of the population here favors improving relations with Iran, instead of threats. But this is disregarded. We don't have polls from the business world, but it's pretty clear that the energy corporations would be quite happy to be given authorization to go back into Iran instead of leaving all that to their rivals. But the state won't allow it. And it is setting up confrontations right now, very explicitly. Part of the reason is strategic, geo-political, economic, but part of the reason is the mafia complex. They have to be punished for disobeying us."

'bout time

One thing that always bugged me about Donald Rumsfeld was his callous disregard for the welfare of his own soldiers. He sent them into battle without proper training and with insufficient armour, then made excuses rather than commitments to our boys and girls.

I hated that about him. I hated the way he had a machine sign letters to the families of the fallen. And I especially hated hearing how our wounded soldiers were treated.

However, until now I haven't seen signs that Robert M. Gates was any better, and if you don't understand this you don't understand anything. The one thing a potential recruit should ever hear is that his commitment to serve is a one-way commitment.

Unless Mr. Gates is full of hot air, which is always possible in this do-nothing-right Bush administration, then at long last our wounded will be treated with the respect they earned.

"The men and women recovering at Walter Reed and at other military hospitals have put their lives on the line and paid a considerable price for defending our country," Gates said. "They battled our foreign enemies. They should not have to battle an American bureaucracy."

Good words Mr. Gates. May you live up to them.

Full story: Click here

Peace is not the question...

"The searing truth is that in the 20th century, more than 100 million members of the human community, most of them civilian noncombatants, perished in wars. At the dawn of the 21st century, violence seems to be an overarching theme in the world, encompassing personal, group, national, and international conflict. It now extends to the production of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction for use on land and sea, in air and outer space. Real and anticipated conflict is accepted, even glorified, as intrinsic to the human condition, with few questions about whether the structures of thought, word, and deed that we have inherited are relevant to the maintenance, growth, and survival of our entire civilization. Our national policy dialogue is infected with war metaphors: the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on illiteracy, the war on this or that. Our children are immersed in video war games. Our sports are rife with war talk. Our media often glorify war. How did we as a society develop such an ardor for arms? Our Founders, while providing for the Common Defense, did not envision America as a land of conquistadores. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, at the beginning of World War II, encouraged steadfastness among the American people: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." As the war wound down, FDR aspired to ending the beginning of all wars: "Today we are faced with the pre-eminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships, the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together and work together in the same world, at peace." As we stand on the threshold of a new millennium, it is time to free ourselves, to jettison our illusions and fears and transform age-old challenges with new thinking. We can conceive of peace as not simply the absence of violence but the active presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity. Of peace, wherein we all may tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward creating understanding, compassion, and love. We can bring forth new understandings where peace, not war, becomes inevitable. Can we move from wars to end all wars to peace to end all war?"


- U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich -

Source: Imagine - Essay on Government

Osama who?

Larry Johnson over at No Quarter points out that while Iran is working with many Shia groups inside Iraq that it is the Sunni that are primarily responsible for killing US troops.

He also analyzes why it is a bad idea to alienate Moqtada al Sadr, rather than try to use him as an ally.

Article: Iran in Iraq

It is an interesting read and it clarifies many aspects of the war in Iraq. It also clarifies how war with Iran would make the situation in Iraq much more deadly for our own troops.

And so it begins...

Border skirmishes with Iran?

Joe Biden once delivered the biting line, "There is no potential for education in the second kick from a mule."

That is all that needs to be said on the subject of attacking Iran.

Progress is progress

One of the first things the Bush administration did when coming into office was scrap the hard work done by former president Bill Clinton on the Korean peninsula. Soon after the president labeled North Korea a member of an "axis of evil" and has refused talks ever since.

The upshot has been that North Korea developed a nuclear bomb amidst Bush's bluster.

Somewhat belatedly someone at the whitehouse arrived at the conclusion that a nuclear-armed North Korea is contrary to US interests. This someone must have decided to eat a little crow, and we sat down with North Korea and hammered out an agreement that essentially restores the Clinton-era policies.

Source: Clinton vindicated

This is a stunning turn of events, since it means that somehow the Bush whitehouse is willing to abandon the perfect (as they see it) for the good. This also means that the whitehouse is willing to change a course that isn't working.

I find this very encouraging news and hope it is the beginning of a new trend, since there are more than a few courses initiated from the whitehouse in need of change.

On this day in history

On this day in history, (February 12, 2006), Vice President Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington in the face while quail hunting.

Source: People shootin' people

Welcome to corporatocracy

Here's a link to a Liberty News cartoon that promotes a progressive tax code (Windows Media Player required):

Enjoy the fun

On fate if you will

If you believe that there is a supernatural micro-manager in the sky that controls every facet of reality, then that leads to some interesting conclusions.

For instance, there are those that argue that if a thing has happened it must have happened because it was God's will. After all, the logic goes, God is all-powerful and all-knowing. He set the whole works in motion and his will is directing the show.

I suppose you cannot hold that view without believing, then, that the fate of every life is pre-determined and the outcome unavoidable.

Doesn't that mean, then, that thought is inconsequential to action?

After all if you are in the process of raping and murdering a child, say, you must be doing it because it is God's will since it is happening.

Do I have the logic right?

If I do, then wouldn't it be wrong to punish the child molesting rapist in the above scenario since he is carrying out God's will, and furthermore potentially suffers greatly if he is alarmed by his actions yet unable to control them (since they are predetermined by God)?

To use a milder example, aren't the overweight being force-fed by God?

I'll wager that fundamentalists would find this ridiculous, yet how can it be refuted unless an admission is made that the will of Man has meaning?

Would they say that, like the rapist, when they throw him in jail they are also following God's will?

If so that takes some of the nobility out of your deed doesn't it?

If you are to get into Heaven by accomplishing good deeds, however can you point one out that isn't pre-determined and therefore not admissable as morally relevant?

Rene Descarte, discarding everything he was uncertain of, said "I think, therefore I am".

Perhaps God will judge us by our thoughts, then, and not our actions since I am told he is goodly in nature.

This would mean that a child-molesting rapist, who was repulsed by his actions, would receive entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

This would mean that a child-molesting rapist, who delighted in his actions, would receive for his wickedness eternal burning sensations.

What would it mean for the man that delighted in the act, yet knew it was wrong and made sure the molester was jailed, and therefore prevented from harming others?

Why that person would be considered wicked by a morally consistent deity would he not?

I suppose if you hold these views then one way to view the world is as an ethical video game. Your spirit is placed into different scenarios and you are viewing the action but unable to direct it. You score points when repulsed by wickedness and lose points when you enjoy wicked deeds. Perhaps you also score points when delighting in Good deeds and lose them when repulsed by good deeds.

When the game is over perhaps you and God will laugh and laugh at all the silliness you went through (har, har, a bleedin' idiot was your president - how'd you like them apples?).

I wonder what kind of a score you need to have Saint Peter pat you on the back.

The I word

“The degree to which this President continues to take steps to go to war against Iran without consulting with the full Congress is the degree to which he is increasingly putting himself in jeopardy of an impeachment proceeding,”

Congressman Dennis Kucinich.
Source: Old Tricks


If Mr. Kucinich is serious about impeaching the president, then I humbly offer to illustrate "The degree to which this President continues to take steps to go to war against Iran without consulting with the full Congress":

Presidential threat escalation

Vice presidential threat escalation

When you corner a fighter you must either knock them out or combat a desperate attack.

The time for action is short.