It seems that Republican officials in South Dakota are trying to disenfranchise the most Democratic leaning country in the state, in anticipation of close statewide elections.
Why do people keep telling me that both parties are corrupt? Why do people keep telling me that the right and left want the same things but just disagree on the way to get it? What do people try to tell me that Republicans aren't mean, nasty, cheating, rule-breaking SOBs?
20 September 2010
17 September 2010
The sooner mankind outgrows religion blah blah blah
The Pew Center national survey on Obama and his religion has been talked to death by pundits. 18% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim. And this is up 11% last March. Mind you, this is the same survey that indicates that 41% of Americans have never heard of the religious right, which I just don't believe. But, let's take the survey numbers as true.
This means that since last March, the anti-Obama-ists have managed to persuade approximately 21,490,000 people of an utter canard. Make no mistake and let us not bandy words lightly. The people who claim that Obama is a Muslim are either stupid or liars. There is no other option.
All Americans of any real intellect and/or any respect for the Constitution of the United States knows that the decent response to "Obama is a Muslim" is "So?" in as far as one wants to have the conversation within the bounds of ordinary American politics. My own response is more akin to "And this makes him different from other deluded, superstitious people how?"
This means that since last March, the anti-Obama-ists have managed to persuade approximately 21,490,000 people of an utter canard. Make no mistake and let us not bandy words lightly. The people who claim that Obama is a Muslim are either stupid or liars. There is no other option.
All Americans of any real intellect and/or any respect for the Constitution of the United States knows that the decent response to "Obama is a Muslim" is "So?" in as far as one wants to have the conversation within the bounds of ordinary American politics. My own response is more akin to "And this makes him different from other deluded, superstitious people how?"
20 August 2010
I love science
The moon is shrinking. Or has shrunk.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g2TTDC0W3cTyTIxGdgj1CPCey2AgD9HMN2FO2
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g2TTDC0W3cTyTIxGdgj1CPCey2AgD9HMN2FO2
18 August 2010
the coral is dying
Take look at this map. Those are places where the temperature is high enough that the coral is expelling the algae that lives in it and is, therefore, dying. Oh, and that's just a one-day snapshot. Some of those Pacific places are starting to cool off from what they were a few days ago.
Hasn't it reached the point yet where it doesn't matter if it is man-caused or not?
And then these lunatics demonstrate that they are as loud as they are ignorant (Thank you, Prof. Farnsworth!)(The quotes that follow are cribbed from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41192.html):
Ron Johnson, Republican, is running for the US Senate in Wisconsin and he said that the warming the earth is experiencing is casued by "sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time." Mr. Johnson's website (http://ronjohnsonforsenate.com/home/meet-ron/) says he's ABD for an MBA. There's nothing I want more than a business major telling me about something as complicated as climatology.
Sharron Angle, Republican, is running for the US Senate in New Mexico. She said an effort to limit greenhouse gasses “is based on an unscientific hysteria over the man-caused global warming hoax.” Ms. Angle has a BA in fine arts (http://sharronangle.com/about). There's nothing I want more than an artist telling me about something as complicated as climatology.
When Sen. Barbara Boxer warned that climate change was a national security issue, her Republican opponent, Carly Fiorina, said “Terrorism kills — and Barbara Boxer's worried about the weather.” Though her website doesn't say where she went to school or what she majored in (http://carlyforca.com/about/), it does tell us that she went to graduate school. And, as Ms. Fiorina was, of course, the CEO of Hewlett Packard, I think we can assume that she majored in business. Another accountant who thinks she understands geophysics.
Ken Buck, Republican, is running for Senate from Colorado. He said "I don’t think that causes are the primary factor for global warming." No, I didn't leave out a word. He doesn't think that causes are the primary factor for global warming. I have no idea what that means. It isn't English. Mr. Buck Ken attended Princeton University and earned his undergraduate degree in politics in 1981. He received his Juris Doctorate in 1985 from the University of Wyoming School of Law in 1985 (http://buckforcolorado.com/meet-ken). He's the best educated one so far and he's a lawyer. I hope he doesn't try to tell a judge that causes don't have anything to do with what happened in any particular case.
It's exhausting fighting this kind of ignorance. These people are running for the United States Senate -- an entity that ought to contain statesmen. These people are ignorant yahoos making pronouncements about something that is so far over their heads as to be invisible. Not one of them can do any real mathematics. Not one of them knows anything beyond freshman level physics (if they know that much). They are not well-educated people. We should not let people who do have education be put in a position where they will flaunt their ignorance and destroy the only planet we've got.
17 August 2010
The Ground Zero Mosque
First off, let me tell a story about my neighborhood association. About 2003 or so, a Muslim group in Little Rock decided to purchase some land and build a Muslim enclave. It was going to have apartments, single family housing, a school, and a mosque. It was going to be located within the boundaries of what the leaders of my neighborhood association considered their jurisdiction.
The association held a meeting. I attended. Most of the people there were there to speak against the Muslims. A couple of people expressed the opinion that it was, after all, the Muslims' property and they could probably do with it as they pleased, provided they got the right zoning variances from the city. That inspired the the anti-'s to start planning to block the zoning actions. I mentioned that if it was a Baptist group there wouldn't be a murmur and I got some nasty looks but the best reaction came from an elderly gentleman who looked at me and said, "But who wants to let 'em build a goddamned musk?"
In the end, the Muslim group couldn't raise the money for all the construction they planned to to but they still own the property and they haven't gone away.
So.
The Cordoba Initiative (http://www.cordobainitiative.org/), headed by Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, wants to develop some property they have in Manhattan, a couple of blocks from the site of the fallen World Trade Center towers. They plan to build a recreation center, a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant and cooking school, a museum, a library, a day-care center, a 9-11 memorial, and a mosque.
Before we go further, lets look at the Constitution of the United States (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution, if you want to follow along), specifically the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Let's review: "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion." Next, the 14th Amendment (currently so much criticized by the GOP) -- says, in part: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" Again, let's review: "No state can take away the rights of a US citizen." Let's put those two together, boys and girls: "Nobody can stop somebody from worshiping as they please." To me, that strongly suggests that worshiping where you please is also something a person is allowed to to in the United States.
But, you say, perhaps this interpretation of the law is merely Tony's. Let us look then at the "Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)," That's Public Law 106-274, 42 United States Code § 2000cc-1. Specifically, let's look at Section 2, paragraph (b):
Tired of this yet?
Newt Gingrich says that until Christian churches are allowed in Saudi Arabia, we shouldn't let the Cordoba Initiative go forward (http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/newt-gingrich-statement-proposed-mosqueislamic-community-center-near-ground-zero). Jon Stewart, of Comedy Central's "Daily Show" has remarked "Why should we as Americans have to have a higher standard of religious liberty than even Saudi Arabia?" (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/jon-stewart-slams-right-wingers-ground-zer). Newt is also afraid that the US will adopt sharia as the law of the land (http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/no-mosque-ground-zero)
Sarah Palin, that world-renown expert on -- well, just about everything -- is...is...simply insane. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/14/sarah-palin-questions-obamas-support-for-ground-zero-mosque/
I can't think of any other way to describe her.
John Cornyn thinks that matters of religious freedom are up to voters (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/other-races/114325-sen-cornyn-this-is-not-about-freedom-of-religion-) and that Democrats will suffer in November because President Obama made a clear and unambiguous statement concerning religious freedom.
I spent the eight years of the Bush the Younger administration wondering what had happened to my country. How could we have become so blind to evil? I'm beginning to understand now: we are evil.
The association held a meeting. I attended. Most of the people there were there to speak against the Muslims. A couple of people expressed the opinion that it was, after all, the Muslims' property and they could probably do with it as they pleased, provided they got the right zoning variances from the city. That inspired the the anti-'s to start planning to block the zoning actions. I mentioned that if it was a Baptist group there wouldn't be a murmur and I got some nasty looks but the best reaction came from an elderly gentleman who looked at me and said, "But who wants to let 'em build a goddamned musk?"
In the end, the Muslim group couldn't raise the money for all the construction they planned to to but they still own the property and they haven't gone away.
So.
The Cordoba Initiative (http://www.cordobainitiative.org/), headed by Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, wants to develop some property they have in Manhattan, a couple of blocks from the site of the fallen World Trade Center towers. They plan to build a recreation center, a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant and cooking school, a museum, a library, a day-care center, a 9-11 memorial, and a mosque.
Before we go further, lets look at the Constitution of the United States (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution, if you want to follow along), specifically the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Let's review: "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion." Next, the 14th Amendment (currently so much criticized by the GOP) -- says, in part: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" Again, let's review: "No state can take away the rights of a US citizen." Let's put those two together, boys and girls: "Nobody can stop somebody from worshiping as they please." To me, that strongly suggests that worshiping where you please is also something a person is allowed to to in the United States.
But, you say, perhaps this interpretation of the law is merely Tony's. Let us look then at the "Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)," That's Public Law 106-274, 42 United States Code § 2000cc-1. Specifically, let's look at Section 2, paragraph (b):
(b) DISCRIMINATION AND EXCLUSION-In pretty plain language, this says (3 times, no less) that the government can't make a law preventing someone from using their own property for religious purposes. By the way, this law, introduced by Orrin Hatch (Rep-Utah), was passed unanimously by both the House and the Senate in 2000.
(1) EQUAL TERMS- No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.
(2) NONDISCRIMINATION- No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination.
(3) EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITS- No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that--
(A) totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or
(B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.
Tired of this yet?
Newt Gingrich says that until Christian churches are allowed in Saudi Arabia, we shouldn't let the Cordoba Initiative go forward (http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/newt-gingrich-statement-proposed-mosqueislamic-community-center-near-ground-zero). Jon Stewart, of Comedy Central's "Daily Show" has remarked "Why should we as Americans have to have a higher standard of religious liberty than even Saudi Arabia?" (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/jon-stewart-slams-right-wingers-ground-zer). Newt is also afraid that the US will adopt sharia as the law of the land (http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/no-mosque-ground-zero)
Sarah Palin, that world-renown expert on -- well, just about everything -- is...is...simply insane. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/14/sarah-palin-questions-obamas-support-for-ground-zero-mosque/
I can't think of any other way to describe her.
John Cornyn thinks that matters of religious freedom are up to voters (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/other-races/114325-sen-cornyn-this-is-not-about-freedom-of-religion-) and that Democrats will suffer in November because President Obama made a clear and unambiguous statement concerning religious freedom.
I spent the eight years of the Bush the Younger administration wondering what had happened to my country. How could we have become so blind to evil? I'm beginning to understand now: we are evil.
06 August 2010
I'm ready to impeach Obama
I thought that might get your attention.
Let's talk about Anwar al-Awlaki.
For those of you who are only now getting up to speed: al-Awlaki is an imam. He's also a US citizen -- born in New Mexico. Got an engineering degree at Colorado State and a graduate degree in education from San Diego State. Did I mention that he is a US citizen? And not a naturalized one but one who was born here, spent the first 7 years of his life here and then returned to get his college education here. And stayed after that to serve as an imam in Fort Collins, Colorado, at the Al-Ribat al-Islami mosque in San Diego (1996-2000), at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Washington, D.C. (from 2001), and as Muslim chaplain at George Washington University.
Imagine that in the previous paragraph instead of "imam" is says "minister" and instead of "mosque" it says "church." Or "rabbi" and "synagogue" if you like.
In 1999 the FBI opened an investigation into Mr. al-Awlaki. It seems that in 1997 and 1998 he was vice-president of the Charitable Society for Social Welfare, a San Diego-based Muslim charity, believed by the FBI to be a front for funneling money to terrorists -- just exactly like those funded by our close allies, the Saudi royal family. That's the same Saudi royal family that does so much business with our own royal family, the Bushes. Anyway. In addition to being vice-president of an Islamic charity that the FBI believed to be a front for terrorism, he was also visited in SD by Ziyad Khaleel, a Qaeda operative who purchased a battery for Osama bin Laden's satellite phone. Read that last phrase carefully. He was visited by bin Laden's gofer. He was also visited by a guy who knew Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called Blind Sheik, who is serving a life sentence for plotting to blow up New York landmarks. Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhazmi also attended his mosque in San Diego. They are two of the 9-11 hijackers.
In October 2002, while al-Awlaki was on a visit to Yemen, where his family lives, a Denver federal judge issued an arrest warrant for for him on charges of passport fraud. But, for reasons that are concealed behind the cloak of homeland security classification, the warrant was voided the next day by the federal prosecutors office. However, that same day, he was picked up at JFK by the FBI and questioned. It seems that the issuance of the warrant had put his name of the terrorist watch list. He was questioned and released.
The 9-11 Commission investigated al-Awlaki and concluded that his contacts with all these terrorist folks was just a result of the size of the Muslim community in the US -- it's small, everybody knows everybody.
Then al-Awlaki moved to Britain and began to move in the radical Islam circles in that country. When several of the individuals with whom he was associated were named in Parliament as dangerously militant and anti-Semitic and connected with Hammas, al-Awlaki left Britain (early 2004) and moved his wife and children to Yemen. He went to work as a teacher at San'a's Iman University, an institution founded and maintained by Abdul-Majid az-Zindani, designated a terrorist by the U.S. Treasury and a sanctioned affiliate of Al-Qaeda by the U.N. This is one of those madrassas we heard so much about back when we were worried about terrorists.
In August 2006, al-Awlaki was arrested by the Yemeni authorities. al-Awlaki has said that during the 18 months he was imprisoned, he was questioned by the FBI. Has stated that he believes the US pressured the Yemenis into arresting him in the first place. In December 2007, he was released and disappeared into his ancestral homelands in Yemen.
But he had, in his career become an internet phenomenon. His sermons and lectures on tape, on YouTube, on CD are extremely popular with younger, more radicalized Muslims. In them he says things like "No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right—rather the duty—to fight against American tyranny" and "I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself, just as it is binding on every other able Muslim.” And he stays in e-mail contact with associates all over the world. Associates like Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November 2009. Associates like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian kid who tried to blow up the airplane in Detroit on Christmas. And Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani-American who tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square on 1 May. All three of these ne'er-do-wells have claimed to have been inspired and/or instructed by al-Awlaki.
So. On 6 April 2010 an anonymous US intelligence official told Reuters, “The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” and “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security." Al-Awlaki has been placed on the list of targets for attack by Predator drones.
Just like that. The president says, "This man needs killin'." Let's assume for a moment that everything above is the truth. Let's assume that al-Awlaki is a al Qaida operative and that he helped Hasan and Abdulmutallab and Shahzad by direct or indirect means, through material or inspiration. Let's assume that he worked to get money for Muslim terrorists. Let's make all that a given.
How in the God's name does that make it okay to murder him? Al-Awlaki is a US-born, US citizen, protected under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution; he cannot be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Cannot be deprived of life without due process of law. That means a trial, boys and girls. Our current administration believes that it has the right (no one disputes that it has the power) to execute an American citizen in the Middle East on the basis of intelligence reports, with absolutely no judicial review -- none.
So. What's to stop President Obama from deciding to put me on his death list? The fact that I'm not Muslim? The fact that I live in Little Rock? The fact that it's unconstitutional and immoral? I don't think any of those would be considered deal breakers. I'm ready for a president of the US who takes that oath of office seriously. Y'know? the part where he says that he will "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"?
Anwar al-Awlaki can only be legally condemned to death by a court of law. That's kinda a part of the definition of "legal." So I call on the United States House of Representatives to, forthwith, proffer charges of high crimes against President Obama on the grounds that he has ordered the execution of a United States citizen, something even Dear and Glorious Leader didn't do in his 8 years of unconstitutional outlawery.
Let's talk about Anwar al-Awlaki.
For those of you who are only now getting up to speed: al-Awlaki is an imam. He's also a US citizen -- born in New Mexico. Got an engineering degree at Colorado State and a graduate degree in education from San Diego State. Did I mention that he is a US citizen? And not a naturalized one but one who was born here, spent the first 7 years of his life here and then returned to get his college education here. And stayed after that to serve as an imam in Fort Collins, Colorado, at the Al-Ribat al-Islami mosque in San Diego (1996-2000), at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Washington, D.C. (from 2001), and as Muslim chaplain at George Washington University.
Imagine that in the previous paragraph instead of "imam" is says "minister" and instead of "mosque" it says "church." Or "rabbi" and "synagogue" if you like.
In 1999 the FBI opened an investigation into Mr. al-Awlaki. It seems that in 1997 and 1998 he was vice-president of the Charitable Society for Social Welfare, a San Diego-based Muslim charity, believed by the FBI to be a front for funneling money to terrorists -- just exactly like those funded by our close allies, the Saudi royal family. That's the same Saudi royal family that does so much business with our own royal family, the Bushes. Anyway. In addition to being vice-president of an Islamic charity that the FBI believed to be a front for terrorism, he was also visited in SD by Ziyad Khaleel, a Qaeda operative who purchased a battery for Osama bin Laden's satellite phone. Read that last phrase carefully. He was visited by bin Laden's gofer. He was also visited by a guy who knew Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called Blind Sheik, who is serving a life sentence for plotting to blow up New York landmarks. Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhazmi also attended his mosque in San Diego. They are two of the 9-11 hijackers.
In October 2002, while al-Awlaki was on a visit to Yemen, where his family lives, a Denver federal judge issued an arrest warrant for for him on charges of passport fraud. But, for reasons that are concealed behind the cloak of homeland security classification, the warrant was voided the next day by the federal prosecutors office. However, that same day, he was picked up at JFK by the FBI and questioned. It seems that the issuance of the warrant had put his name of the terrorist watch list. He was questioned and released.
The 9-11 Commission investigated al-Awlaki and concluded that his contacts with all these terrorist folks was just a result of the size of the Muslim community in the US -- it's small, everybody knows everybody.
Then al-Awlaki moved to Britain and began to move in the radical Islam circles in that country. When several of the individuals with whom he was associated were named in Parliament as dangerously militant and anti-Semitic and connected with Hammas, al-Awlaki left Britain (early 2004) and moved his wife and children to Yemen. He went to work as a teacher at San'a's Iman University, an institution founded and maintained by Abdul-Majid az-Zindani, designated a terrorist by the U.S. Treasury and a sanctioned affiliate of Al-Qaeda by the U.N. This is one of those madrassas we heard so much about back when we were worried about terrorists.
In August 2006, al-Awlaki was arrested by the Yemeni authorities. al-Awlaki has said that during the 18 months he was imprisoned, he was questioned by the FBI. Has stated that he believes the US pressured the Yemenis into arresting him in the first place. In December 2007, he was released and disappeared into his ancestral homelands in Yemen.
But he had, in his career become an internet phenomenon. His sermons and lectures on tape, on YouTube, on CD are extremely popular with younger, more radicalized Muslims. In them he says things like "No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right—rather the duty—to fight against American tyranny" and "I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself, just as it is binding on every other able Muslim.” And he stays in e-mail contact with associates all over the world. Associates like Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November 2009. Associates like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian kid who tried to blow up the airplane in Detroit on Christmas. And Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani-American who tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square on 1 May. All three of these ne'er-do-wells have claimed to have been inspired and/or instructed by al-Awlaki.
So. On 6 April 2010 an anonymous US intelligence official told Reuters, “The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” and “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security." Al-Awlaki has been placed on the list of targets for attack by Predator drones.
Just like that. The president says, "This man needs killin'." Let's assume for a moment that everything above is the truth. Let's assume that al-Awlaki is a al Qaida operative and that he helped Hasan and Abdulmutallab and Shahzad by direct or indirect means, through material or inspiration. Let's assume that he worked to get money for Muslim terrorists. Let's make all that a given.
How in the God's name does that make it okay to murder him? Al-Awlaki is a US-born, US citizen, protected under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution; he cannot be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Cannot be deprived of life without due process of law. That means a trial, boys and girls. Our current administration believes that it has the right (no one disputes that it has the power) to execute an American citizen in the Middle East on the basis of intelligence reports, with absolutely no judicial review -- none.
So. What's to stop President Obama from deciding to put me on his death list? The fact that I'm not Muslim? The fact that I live in Little Rock? The fact that it's unconstitutional and immoral? I don't think any of those would be considered deal breakers. I'm ready for a president of the US who takes that oath of office seriously. Y'know? the part where he says that he will "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"?
Anwar al-Awlaki can only be legally condemned to death by a court of law. That's kinda a part of the definition of "legal." So I call on the United States House of Representatives to, forthwith, proffer charges of high crimes against President Obama on the grounds that he has ordered the execution of a United States citizen, something even Dear and Glorious Leader didn't do in his 8 years of unconstitutional outlawery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)