I was going to make this a major post but my schedule just does not allow time to do a thoroughly researched piece replete with citations and links to support my case, so I will just cut to the chase.
As I wrote in my Recollections of September 11, 2001 post below, I took it for granted that Osama bin Laden was behind it. The idea that the day's events were an inside job committed by elements of the Bush Administration or some secret cabal of war profiteers never occurred to me.
I did not give serious consideration to the inside job theory until about a year ago. Over at the Liberal Avenger, a frequent commenter there kept flogging it and provided links to the Loose Change videos and other 9/11 "Truther" sites. Since I consider myself an open-minded person, I decided to check them out.
After watching Loose Change and a couple of other videos, I began to think, "Maybe the Twin Towers really were brought down by controlled demolition." But I was not going to just buy into the conspiracy theory hook, line, and sinker, so I reviewed counterarguments and raised questions of my own. Upon further consideration, I came to reject the inside job theory.
The basic premise behind the idea that 9/11 was an inside job is that the Bush Administration or whoever the "Truthers" believe allegedly carried out the attack, did so because it would cause the American public to support the administration's plans to control the Middle East under the guise of fighting terrorism.
But if this was really the case, then the plotters went about doing so in much too complicated a manner. Readers of this blog know that when I critically analyze certain stories in the Bible that believers claim are literally true, such as Noah's Ark, I like to use Rube Goldberg analogies. For example, in the Noah story, God has the power to cause every wicked person on the face of the Earth to spontaneously combust, thus leaving Noah and his small family of righteous people to start the human race anew. Instead, the Bible tells us that God went to absurd lengths to have Noah and his family pack themselves into a wooden vessel along with pairs of every living thing so that the Earth could be flooded. That the God of the Bible resorts to such a Rube Goldberg method to achieve an end that could have been carried out in a much simpler fashion is convincing evidence for me that the story is nothing more than a fable.
Likewise, if some cabal of government officials and evil corporations wanted to cause a mass casualty incident in the United States so that the American people and Congress would give the Bush Administration a blank check to wage an unlimited war against terror, it would be quite easy to do so. Just having two hijacked aircraft crashing into the Twin Towers with the towers still standing would have been enough for me, and I suspect most of the American public, to support an intervention in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and try to catch or kill Osama bin Laden. Alternatively, multiple truck bombs could have been detonated in a number of crowded places to ensure a high body count.
What the Inside Job crowd would have us believe though is that two airliners crashed into the Twin Towers but the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Then a missile was fired at the Pentagon while the government claimed it was another hijacked airliner. And a fourth plane was shot down but the public was told that the passengers actually turned on the hijackers just so that we could have a feel good story about heroes who fought back and redeemed American honor on that day.
There were other things about the Inside Job theory that did not sit with me. Many of the Inside Job crowd mention that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. But why would the perpetrators of the conspiracy do that? Did it have any meaningful impact on swaying American opinion about waging a war on terror? What do they think, that Americans were sitting around in their local bars saying to one another, "It's a damn shame that the Twin Towers were destroyed, but the terrorists also brought down WTC 7. This means war dammit!"
Then there is also the inconvenient fact that the late Barbara Olsen, wife of Solicitor General of the United States Theodore Olsen and professional Clinton basher, was a passenger on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon. If 9/11 was an inside job, then either Ted Olsen is an idiot who continues to serve an administration that caused the murder of his wife, or Barbara Olsen is really alive and is in hiding, and her husband is pretending that she is dead. Neither possibility strikes me as plausible.
That being said, I can understand why some people would want to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. The Project for a New American Century members who occupied positions in the Bush Administration clearly were itching for a reason to go into Iraq, and 9/11 certainly contributed to a climate where Congress and most of the American people would come to support the invasion of Iraq. But I suspect that even in the absence of 9/11, they could have ginned up some pretext for going to war against Saddam Hussein.
I am not going to pretend that this post can touch on all aspects of the Inside Job theory. There are some "Truthers" who believe that Israel's Mossad actually carried out the attacks because Israel's government would benefit from America's military intervention in the Middle East. Others believe that Al-Qaida really carried out the attack, but that the Bush Administration allowed it to happen while not realizing the true magnitude of the terrorists plans.
I also am not going to pretend that anything I have written here will change the minds of those who support the Inside Job theory. The Truther I debated with at Liberal Avenger was not unlike Biblical Literalists who insist that the Bible is literally true no matter what counter-evidence one throws at them. I am merely laying out my reasons for not believing the Inside Job theory.
For those of you not familiar with the debate over the theory that 9/11 was an inside job, I invite you to explore the matter and come to your own conclusions. One web site for prominent advocates of the Inside Job theory is Loose Change, while a resource for counter-arguments against Loose Change can be found at, try not to laugh, Screw Loose Change.
Addendum: Here is an article I just read on the BBC web site about a study by a Cambridge University engineer who argues that "the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down."
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Bush. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Bush. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Sunday, May 18, 2008
President Bush Gets It Right on the Status of Women in the Middle East
It's not often that I have anything good to say about President Bush. And I say that as someone who favored him over Al Gore in 2000. It took a Bush presidency and a Republican congress to turn me from a libertarian conservative into a libertarian liberal. I feared that his invasion of Iraq in 2003 was going to turn that country into a giant version of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and thus far the situation in Iraq continues to validate my reasons for opposing the war.
That being said, I read President Bush's recent remarks to the World Economic Forum at Sharm El Sheik in Egypt this weekend. I thought he made some important statements about the need to extend equality to women in the Middle East. Below are the relevant portions of the president's speech, with several passages underlined by me for emphasis.
"Building powerful economies also requires expanding the role of women in society. This is a matter of morality and of basic math. No nation that cuts off half its population from opportunities will be as productive or prosperous as it could be. Women are a formidable force, as I have seen in my own family -- (laughter and applause) -- and my own administration. (Applause.) As the nations of the Middle East open up their laws and their societies to women, they are learning the same thing.
I applaud Egypt. Egypt is a model for the development of professional women. In Afghanistan, girls who were once denied even a basic education are now going to school, and a whole generation of Afghans will grow up with the intellectual tools to lead their nation toward prosperity. In Iraq and Kuwait, women are joining political parties and running campaigns and serving in public office. In some Gulf States, women entrepreneurs are making a living and a name for themselves in the business world.
Recently, I learned of a woman in Bahrain who owns her own shipping company. She started with a small office and two employees. When she first tried to register her business in her own name, she was turned down. She attended a business training class and was the only woman to participate. And when she applied for a customs license, officials expressed surprise because no woman had ever asked for one before. And yet with hard work and determination, she turned her small company into a $2 million enterprise. And this year, Huda Janahi was named one of the 50 most powerful businesswomen in the Arab world. (Applause.) Huda is an inspiring example for the whole region. And America's message to other women in the Middle East is this: You have a great deal to contribute, you should have a strong voice in leading your countries, and my nation looks to the day when you have the rights and privileges you deserve."
Sadly, as the results of this weekend's parliamentary elections in the Gulf emirate of Kuwait demonstrate, the Middle East still has a long way to go with respect to expanding the role of women.
Of the 275 candidates running for the 50 seats in Kuwait's parliament, 27 were women. Not a single one of the women candidates was elected. Unfortunately, as the video clip below from al-Jazeera English demonstrates, not only are Arab women held in check by male conservative attitudes, but by brainwashed Arab women who believe that a woman "can't handle" the responsibilities of being an elected official. And to think this is a country that we helped to liberate.
That being said, I read President Bush's recent remarks to the World Economic Forum at Sharm El Sheik in Egypt this weekend. I thought he made some important statements about the need to extend equality to women in the Middle East. Below are the relevant portions of the president's speech, with several passages underlined by me for emphasis.
"Building powerful economies also requires expanding the role of women in society. This is a matter of morality and of basic math. No nation that cuts off half its population from opportunities will be as productive or prosperous as it could be. Women are a formidable force, as I have seen in my own family -- (laughter and applause) -- and my own administration. (Applause.) As the nations of the Middle East open up their laws and their societies to women, they are learning the same thing.
I applaud Egypt. Egypt is a model for the development of professional women. In Afghanistan, girls who were once denied even a basic education are now going to school, and a whole generation of Afghans will grow up with the intellectual tools to lead their nation toward prosperity. In Iraq and Kuwait, women are joining political parties and running campaigns and serving in public office. In some Gulf States, women entrepreneurs are making a living and a name for themselves in the business world.
Recently, I learned of a woman in Bahrain who owns her own shipping company. She started with a small office and two employees. When she first tried to register her business in her own name, she was turned down. She attended a business training class and was the only woman to participate. And when she applied for a customs license, officials expressed surprise because no woman had ever asked for one before. And yet with hard work and determination, she turned her small company into a $2 million enterprise. And this year, Huda Janahi was named one of the 50 most powerful businesswomen in the Arab world. (Applause.) Huda is an inspiring example for the whole region. And America's message to other women in the Middle East is this: You have a great deal to contribute, you should have a strong voice in leading your countries, and my nation looks to the day when you have the rights and privileges you deserve."
Sadly, as the results of this weekend's parliamentary elections in the Gulf emirate of Kuwait demonstrate, the Middle East still has a long way to go with respect to expanding the role of women.
Of the 275 candidates running for the 50 seats in Kuwait's parliament, 27 were women. Not a single one of the women candidates was elected. Unfortunately, as the video clip below from al-Jazeera English demonstrates, not only are Arab women held in check by male conservative attitudes, but by brainwashed Arab women who believe that a woman "can't handle" the responsibilities of being an elected official. And to think this is a country that we helped to liberate.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Pastor Anglin Replies
Yesterday, while checking in real quick on my blog here, I noticed that another comment had been added to my post titled "The Amityville Jackass", which was my response to the criticism of atheism by Pastor David Anglin of St. Paul's Lutheran Church in Amityville. Lo and behold, to my surprise, the comment was from Pastor Anglin himself.
While he demonstrated a good sense of humor by signing off as "The Amityville Jackass" (which by the way, as my Long Island readers will surely recognize, was sort of a spoof of 'The Amityville Horror'), I felt that Pastor Anglin's response indicated that he did not quite grasp a lot of what I tried to say in my previous post. Let's see if we can clear things up a bit. In a slight change from before, I will put the pastor's remarks in bold and my replies in italics, lest I appear too prideful in always trying to have my words in bolder text! Okay, let's proceed:
The citation from "Going My Way" was meant as a light-hearted anecdote to get into the topic-not as a serious indictment of atheistic athletic ability.
I totally got that, pastor. My problem with the citation had nothing to do with depictions of athletic ability, but rather its representation of the typical atheist as being an angry jerk.
The article was a response to specific texts--the books by Dawkins and Harris (especially Dawkins). Their basic thesis was that religion leads to hatred and murder. As I pointed out, "two can play at that game"--which I did, giving examples of murderous atheist regimes. I didn't just wake up one morning and say, "I'm going to accuse atheists of being murderers today". I was replying to authors who basically were saying to me: "Your dearest and most deeply held beliefs tend toward murder and hatred."
Thank you for your clarification there. For the record, I don't believe that religion automatically equates to murder and hatred. It has been a while since I have read either 'The God Delusion' by Dawkins or 'The End of Faith' by Harris from beginning to end, so I cannot say with complete assurance whether you or right or wrong. What my understanding is of what they are trying to say is that religious texts can be (and as I am sure you will agree, sometimes are) interpreted in such a way as to sanction intolerance, bigotry and murder.
With regard to "murderous atheist regimes," you will get no quarrel from me in condemning the atrocities that occurred under Stalin, Mao, or the Khmer Rouge. But as I pointed out in my initial response, which you appear to have glossed over, Russia and China have been ruled more or less by despotic regimes for centuries, or in the case of China, millennia. I am sure if you read the history of the autocratic rulers of these countries, you would see the same disregard for the lives of their subjects that you decry in the communist regimes of the 20th century. If the body count under Stalin and Mao is higher, it probably owes more to the technology that was available to them in terms of weapons and modes of transportation.
Dawkins does spend quite a bit of time on Westboro Baptist--so the "strawman" accusation applies to Dawkins, not to me!
Could you point out to me where Dawkins spends a lot of time on the Westboro Baptist Church? If you are referring to his book 'The God Delusion', I looked it up in the index. Dawkins devotes just a single paragraph in the book to Fred Phelps and Westboro.
However, you don't seem to understand my point. By harping on Dawkins alleged focus on the tiny and marginal Westboro Baptist Church as representing the worst of Christianity, you avoided the homophobia that is displayed by other subsets of the American Christian population that are far more numerous and who form an important part of the conservative base of the Republican Party. To show you what I mean, here is a link to a post by Pam Spaulding at Pandagon, who recently participated in a gay pride parade in North Carolina. Now, being that you are a Lutheran and a pastor to boot, I fully expect that you would believe that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of the god you worship. But I would like to think that the vitriolic hatred displayed by the anti-gay demonstrators who were photographed at the event is an affront to your sense of decency.
The quote from Dostevsky was meant to illustrate a point--not to prove it.
Again, I understand that pastor. But is Dostoevsky right? You also did not respond to my objection to your reference to John Locke. Let me refresh your memory. You wrote "The philosopher John Locke–one of the intellectual forebears of American democracy–once said that atheists can’t ultimately be trusted in their promises and commitments, since they have no ultimate divine authority to whom they must answer."
That is probably the portion of your anti-atheist criticism I found particularly offensive. When I write my thoughts about things that interest me on this blog, I am just another guy with an opinion read by a handful of people. When you write your columns that are read by members of St. Paul Lutheran Church in Amityville, you are writing under the color of authority as a pastor to whom members of your flock look to for guidance on issues of spirituality and religion. So, in the sentence I quoted above, you are basically telling the members of your church in your capacity as their pastor that atheists are not trustworthy people.
Tell me, Pastor Anglin, should banks deny loans to atheists because we can't be trusted to repay them? (And by the way, I have been paying my mortgage faithfully for the last 9 years!) Should my neighbor refrain from loaning me his tools because I can't be trusted to return them? As I asked in response to your Locke reference, is there any evidence that Locke made his assertion out of personal experience with atheists? Did an atheist welch on a bet he had made with Locke?
In claiming that we are untrustworthy because we do not have some "divine authority" to whom we must answer, you forget that we have a very real and tangible authority to whom we do answer, each other. Regardless of whether or not there is a god that exists that judges us for our actions, we are accountable to the people with whom we share this world. Our actions have real consequences in this life that we cannot escape from unless we are among the priviliged few who have the wealth and power to do so.
In my previous post, I wrote that I got the impression that you do not personally know a single atheist. Do you know any? Have you ever asked any atheists how they formulate their moral beliefs? Do you have a history of atheists breaking promises to you?
I am going to offer a challenge to you, Pastor Anglin. Think of some promise or commitment that I can make to you. Bear in mind that you must take into account that I have a full-time job, family commitments (gosh, that one must shock you!) and a house I have to help take care of. Also, it cannot be a request that requires me to act contrary to my values, such as participating in an anti-abortion rally. Otherwise, you can ask of me just about anything, such as volunteering for a day or two at a soup kitchen or some other service that your church offers to the poor (assuming you offer such things) or even to sit through one of your sermons. And in return for fulfilling my promise to you, I ask one thing in return. I want you to publicly retract in one of your columns afterwards your claim that atheists cannot be trusted to fulfill their promises and commitments. What say you, Pastor Anglin?
And now to continue on with an to wrap up this post.
Who mentioned Sarah Palin and Barack Obama? I have no great love for the former, and I have never compared the latter to Hitler. (By the way--can you swear, cross-your-heart, that you've never compared George W. Bush to Hitler?)
My point in mentioning Sarah Palin and Barack Obama was to point out the delusional behavior that exists among a not insignificant portion of the Republican Party's evangelical base, which helps to elect the party's candidates and to whom the party must cater. I did not mean to imply that you personally thought that Sarah Palin would make a great president or that Barack Obama is a new Adolf Hitler. Rather, I was illustrating how right-wing Christians seemed to think that Sarah Palin is presidential timber simply by virtue of her giving birth to a boy with Down Syndrome and her daughter Bristol having a child out of wedlock and keeping the baby.
Because I am an atheist, I of course cannot swear, but I personally have never compared George W. Bush to Hitler. You're just going to have to take my word for it, if you can. By the way, you can read every mention of President Bush I have ever written on this blog here. While the comparison of Bush to Hitler was left-wing hyperbole, with his invasion of another country and his basically being appointed President of the United States by the Supreme Court in an election in which he lost the popular vote, Bush was certainly closer to Hitler by degrees than Barack Obama is thus far.
Do you think your case is really advanced by childish phrases like "sky daddy" or "kiss the a-- of a celestial dictator"? It kind of undermines the credibility of your arguments.
Tell me honestly, Pastor Anglin. Do you believe I am going to burn in hell for eternity in the after-life for being an atheist? If your answer is yes, then my "childish phrases" are quite the lesser offense in my eyes. An entity that really intends to inflict such suffering on me because of my thought crimes cannot be considered as anything but a celestial dictator.
Hey--since you enjoyed my article on Dawkins and Harris so much, check out my review of "Religulous", archived on the same website. There you'll learn why Bill Maher's Halloween costume is the most persuasive argument against atheism.
To be honest, I have not seen "Religulous" and really do not intend to. I have read a number of reviews of the film by other atheists, and they have been decidedly mixed.
That about wraps it up. Don't forget my challenge above. If you want to take me up on it, let me know in the comments how I should best contact you.
Have a nice day!
Your friend in humanity.
While he demonstrated a good sense of humor by signing off as "The Amityville Jackass" (which by the way, as my Long Island readers will surely recognize, was sort of a spoof of 'The Amityville Horror'), I felt that Pastor Anglin's response indicated that he did not quite grasp a lot of what I tried to say in my previous post. Let's see if we can clear things up a bit. In a slight change from before, I will put the pastor's remarks in bold and my replies in italics, lest I appear too prideful in always trying to have my words in bolder text! Okay, let's proceed:
The citation from "Going My Way" was meant as a light-hearted anecdote to get into the topic-not as a serious indictment of atheistic athletic ability.
I totally got that, pastor. My problem with the citation had nothing to do with depictions of athletic ability, but rather its representation of the typical atheist as being an angry jerk.
The article was a response to specific texts--the books by Dawkins and Harris (especially Dawkins). Their basic thesis was that religion leads to hatred and murder. As I pointed out, "two can play at that game"--which I did, giving examples of murderous atheist regimes. I didn't just wake up one morning and say, "I'm going to accuse atheists of being murderers today". I was replying to authors who basically were saying to me: "Your dearest and most deeply held beliefs tend toward murder and hatred."
Thank you for your clarification there. For the record, I don't believe that religion automatically equates to murder and hatred. It has been a while since I have read either 'The God Delusion' by Dawkins or 'The End of Faith' by Harris from beginning to end, so I cannot say with complete assurance whether you or right or wrong. What my understanding is of what they are trying to say is that religious texts can be (and as I am sure you will agree, sometimes are) interpreted in such a way as to sanction intolerance, bigotry and murder.
With regard to "murderous atheist regimes," you will get no quarrel from me in condemning the atrocities that occurred under Stalin, Mao, or the Khmer Rouge. But as I pointed out in my initial response, which you appear to have glossed over, Russia and China have been ruled more or less by despotic regimes for centuries, or in the case of China, millennia. I am sure if you read the history of the autocratic rulers of these countries, you would see the same disregard for the lives of their subjects that you decry in the communist regimes of the 20th century. If the body count under Stalin and Mao is higher, it probably owes more to the technology that was available to them in terms of weapons and modes of transportation.
Dawkins does spend quite a bit of time on Westboro Baptist--so the "strawman" accusation applies to Dawkins, not to me!
Could you point out to me where Dawkins spends a lot of time on the Westboro Baptist Church? If you are referring to his book 'The God Delusion', I looked it up in the index. Dawkins devotes just a single paragraph in the book to Fred Phelps and Westboro.
However, you don't seem to understand my point. By harping on Dawkins alleged focus on the tiny and marginal Westboro Baptist Church as representing the worst of Christianity, you avoided the homophobia that is displayed by other subsets of the American Christian population that are far more numerous and who form an important part of the conservative base of the Republican Party. To show you what I mean, here is a link to a post by Pam Spaulding at Pandagon, who recently participated in a gay pride parade in North Carolina. Now, being that you are a Lutheran and a pastor to boot, I fully expect that you would believe that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of the god you worship. But I would like to think that the vitriolic hatred displayed by the anti-gay demonstrators who were photographed at the event is an affront to your sense of decency.
The quote from Dostevsky was meant to illustrate a point--not to prove it.
Again, I understand that pastor. But is Dostoevsky right? You also did not respond to my objection to your reference to John Locke. Let me refresh your memory. You wrote "The philosopher John Locke–one of the intellectual forebears of American democracy–once said that atheists can’t ultimately be trusted in their promises and commitments, since they have no ultimate divine authority to whom they must answer."
That is probably the portion of your anti-atheist criticism I found particularly offensive. When I write my thoughts about things that interest me on this blog, I am just another guy with an opinion read by a handful of people. When you write your columns that are read by members of St. Paul Lutheran Church in Amityville, you are writing under the color of authority as a pastor to whom members of your flock look to for guidance on issues of spirituality and religion. So, in the sentence I quoted above, you are basically telling the members of your church in your capacity as their pastor that atheists are not trustworthy people.
Tell me, Pastor Anglin, should banks deny loans to atheists because we can't be trusted to repay them? (And by the way, I have been paying my mortgage faithfully for the last 9 years!) Should my neighbor refrain from loaning me his tools because I can't be trusted to return them? As I asked in response to your Locke reference, is there any evidence that Locke made his assertion out of personal experience with atheists? Did an atheist welch on a bet he had made with Locke?
In claiming that we are untrustworthy because we do not have some "divine authority" to whom we must answer, you forget that we have a very real and tangible authority to whom we do answer, each other. Regardless of whether or not there is a god that exists that judges us for our actions, we are accountable to the people with whom we share this world. Our actions have real consequences in this life that we cannot escape from unless we are among the priviliged few who have the wealth and power to do so.
In my previous post, I wrote that I got the impression that you do not personally know a single atheist. Do you know any? Have you ever asked any atheists how they formulate their moral beliefs? Do you have a history of atheists breaking promises to you?
I am going to offer a challenge to you, Pastor Anglin. Think of some promise or commitment that I can make to you. Bear in mind that you must take into account that I have a full-time job, family commitments (gosh, that one must shock you!) and a house I have to help take care of. Also, it cannot be a request that requires me to act contrary to my values, such as participating in an anti-abortion rally. Otherwise, you can ask of me just about anything, such as volunteering for a day or two at a soup kitchen or some other service that your church offers to the poor (assuming you offer such things) or even to sit through one of your sermons. And in return for fulfilling my promise to you, I ask one thing in return. I want you to publicly retract in one of your columns afterwards your claim that atheists cannot be trusted to fulfill their promises and commitments. What say you, Pastor Anglin?
And now to continue on with an to wrap up this post.
Who mentioned Sarah Palin and Barack Obama? I have no great love for the former, and I have never compared the latter to Hitler. (By the way--can you swear, cross-your-heart, that you've never compared George W. Bush to Hitler?)
My point in mentioning Sarah Palin and Barack Obama was to point out the delusional behavior that exists among a not insignificant portion of the Republican Party's evangelical base, which helps to elect the party's candidates and to whom the party must cater. I did not mean to imply that you personally thought that Sarah Palin would make a great president or that Barack Obama is a new Adolf Hitler. Rather, I was illustrating how right-wing Christians seemed to think that Sarah Palin is presidential timber simply by virtue of her giving birth to a boy with Down Syndrome and her daughter Bristol having a child out of wedlock and keeping the baby.
Because I am an atheist, I of course cannot swear, but I personally have never compared George W. Bush to Hitler. You're just going to have to take my word for it, if you can. By the way, you can read every mention of President Bush I have ever written on this blog here. While the comparison of Bush to Hitler was left-wing hyperbole, with his invasion of another country and his basically being appointed President of the United States by the Supreme Court in an election in which he lost the popular vote, Bush was certainly closer to Hitler by degrees than Barack Obama is thus far.
Do you think your case is really advanced by childish phrases like "sky daddy" or "kiss the a-- of a celestial dictator"? It kind of undermines the credibility of your arguments.
Tell me honestly, Pastor Anglin. Do you believe I am going to burn in hell for eternity in the after-life for being an atheist? If your answer is yes, then my "childish phrases" are quite the lesser offense in my eyes. An entity that really intends to inflict such suffering on me because of my thought crimes cannot be considered as anything but a celestial dictator.
Hey--since you enjoyed my article on Dawkins and Harris so much, check out my review of "Religulous", archived on the same website. There you'll learn why Bill Maher's Halloween costume is the most persuasive argument against atheism.
To be honest, I have not seen "Religulous" and really do not intend to. I have read a number of reviews of the film by other atheists, and they have been decidedly mixed.
That about wraps it up. Don't forget my challenge above. If you want to take me up on it, let me know in the comments how I should best contact you.
Have a nice day!
Your friend in humanity.
Monday, May 21, 2007
World War Two Myths and the Apocalyptic "Pro-Family" Right
Max Blumenthal here at the Raw Story reports about James Dobson and other "pro-family" evangelical leaders meeting with President George Bush to discuss Iraq, Iran and international terrorism. The first thing that occurred to me is "Why the f--k is President Bush speaking to James Dobson about these issues?" I want President Bush to talk to people who are knowledgeable in combating terrorism, dealing with the violence and security problems in Iraq that are spiraling out of control, and engaging with Iran about its nuclear program. What the hell is James Dobson going to tell him, except maybe spout Bible quotes.
And how is continuing the war in Iraq a "pro-family" issue? When you look at all of the wives who have lost husbands, children who have lost mothers and fathers, and parents who have lost sons and daughters, it would seem to me that the Iraq war is anti-family. Or put it this way, it is hard to take seriously the hysterical claims of the Religious Right that allowing gays to marry and adopt children is a threat to "traditional families" when you consider how many American families, those military families that Evangelicals profess to love so much, have been damaged by IED's in Iraq.
What also caught my interest is near the end, when Dobson tried to draw a parallel between Adolf Hitler and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Like so many of the historically ignorant, he claims that "if we didn't stand up to Hitler, we'd be speaking German today."
America stood up to Hitler because he declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941, just a few days after the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. It's not as though FDR was like some gentle giant who suddenly decided to step in and stop a bully boy Hitler from beating up the other kids in the school playground. It is also often overlooked by those who spout misinformed World War Two analogies that for all the talk of Britain standing alone against Hitler until the Americans rode in like the cavalry to save the day, it was the Soviet Union that absorbed the brunt of the German Wehrmacht during that fateful year in 1941. Two days before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the Soviets had halted the German advance at the outskirts of Moscow and were beginning their counteroffensive. There was never any chance of Hitler forcing the American people to speak German because by the time Hitler had declared on the United States, the tides of war had already started to shift against him.
And how is continuing the war in Iraq a "pro-family" issue? When you look at all of the wives who have lost husbands, children who have lost mothers and fathers, and parents who have lost sons and daughters, it would seem to me that the Iraq war is anti-family. Or put it this way, it is hard to take seriously the hysterical claims of the Religious Right that allowing gays to marry and adopt children is a threat to "traditional families" when you consider how many American families, those military families that Evangelicals profess to love so much, have been damaged by IED's in Iraq.
What also caught my interest is near the end, when Dobson tried to draw a parallel between Adolf Hitler and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Like so many of the historically ignorant, he claims that "if we didn't stand up to Hitler, we'd be speaking German today."
America stood up to Hitler because he declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941, just a few days after the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. It's not as though FDR was like some gentle giant who suddenly decided to step in and stop a bully boy Hitler from beating up the other kids in the school playground. It is also often overlooked by those who spout misinformed World War Two analogies that for all the talk of Britain standing alone against Hitler until the Americans rode in like the cavalry to save the day, it was the Soviet Union that absorbed the brunt of the German Wehrmacht during that fateful year in 1941. Two days before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the Soviets had halted the German advance at the outskirts of Moscow and were beginning their counteroffensive. There was never any chance of Hitler forcing the American people to speak German because by the time Hitler had declared on the United States, the tides of war had already started to shift against him.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
The Political Dynastification of America
Here is an interesting article from the "Lexington" column in the current issue of The Economist.
With the very real possibility that Hillary Rodham Clinton might be elected President of the United States in 2008, a lot of people are starting to take notice that if she does win, then every president who has served since 1989 will have either been a Bush or a Clinton.
An important observation made in the article from The Economist is that "the dynastification of [America's] political life also points to a deeper problem: the fact that America is producing a quasi-hereditary political elite, cocooned in a world of wealth and privilege and utterly divorced from most people's lives."
Not to keep picking on Hillary Clinton, but the sentence I quoted above made me recall her first campaign to represent my state of New York in the United States Senate. The Clintons purchased a house in Chappaqua, in Westchester County north of New York City, to establish their residency in the state. I remember reading, in The New York Times I believe, where she expressed shock at how high the property taxes were in Westchester County. "Thanks for pointing out the obvious!" the rest of us could have told her. But why were astronomical property taxes such a shock to the then First Lady? The answer is simple, from 1983 until the purchase of the house in Chappaqua in 1999, Hillary Clinton lived in either the Governor's Mansion in Little Rock, Arkanas, or the White House in Washington, D.C. She did not have to contend with paying property taxes, electric bills, or a monthly mortgage.
Of course, this does not mean that a politician such as Hillary Rodham Clinton or anyone else from a politically prominent family such as the Bushes or the Kennedys is incapable of understanding the lives and problems of ordinary folks (though one can't help but remember episodes like George Bush Sr. expressing fascination with a barcode scanner when he visited a supermarket during his presidency) or of crafting good policies to help better the lives of low income workers and middle class Americans. Neither should the spouse or relative of an elected official have their background used against them if they can demonstrate that they are qualified and competent candidates.
Still, I don't believe it is a healthy thing for political life in America to be increasingly dominated by a handful of political families. One need only read this article on the BBC website about how many powerful families in the Philippines often obtain a lock on provincial elected offices and the violence that can stem from it. The article closes with the BBC correspondent asking a Filipino worker how he feels about the same families dominating the provincial government of Masbate province for so many generations. "What can we do?" he tells the correspondent, "No-one else but the big families will run because no-one else has enough money."
With the very real possibility that Hillary Rodham Clinton might be elected President of the United States in 2008, a lot of people are starting to take notice that if she does win, then every president who has served since 1989 will have either been a Bush or a Clinton.
An important observation made in the article from The Economist is that "the dynastification of [America's] political life also points to a deeper problem: the fact that America is producing a quasi-hereditary political elite, cocooned in a world of wealth and privilege and utterly divorced from most people's lives."
Not to keep picking on Hillary Clinton, but the sentence I quoted above made me recall her first campaign to represent my state of New York in the United States Senate. The Clintons purchased a house in Chappaqua, in Westchester County north of New York City, to establish their residency in the state. I remember reading, in The New York Times I believe, where she expressed shock at how high the property taxes were in Westchester County. "Thanks for pointing out the obvious!" the rest of us could have told her. But why were astronomical property taxes such a shock to the then First Lady? The answer is simple, from 1983 until the purchase of the house in Chappaqua in 1999, Hillary Clinton lived in either the Governor's Mansion in Little Rock, Arkanas, or the White House in Washington, D.C. She did not have to contend with paying property taxes, electric bills, or a monthly mortgage.
Of course, this does not mean that a politician such as Hillary Rodham Clinton or anyone else from a politically prominent family such as the Bushes or the Kennedys is incapable of understanding the lives and problems of ordinary folks (though one can't help but remember episodes like George Bush Sr. expressing fascination with a barcode scanner when he visited a supermarket during his presidency) or of crafting good policies to help better the lives of low income workers and middle class Americans. Neither should the spouse or relative of an elected official have their background used against them if they can demonstrate that they are qualified and competent candidates.
Still, I don't believe it is a healthy thing for political life in America to be increasingly dominated by a handful of political families. One need only read this article on the BBC website about how many powerful families in the Philippines often obtain a lock on provincial elected offices and the violence that can stem from it. The article closes with the BBC correspondent asking a Filipino worker how he feels about the same families dominating the provincial government of Masbate province for so many generations. "What can we do?" he tells the correspondent, "No-one else but the big families will run because no-one else has enough money."
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Interesting Article of the Day
From the Kuwait Times, did you know that the United States exports bull semen to Iran?
US exports to Iran - including brassieres, bull semen, cosmetics and possibly even weapons - grew more than tenfold during US President George W Bush's years in office even as he accused Iran of nuclear ambitions and helping terrorists. America sent more cigarettes to Iran, at least $158 million worth under Bush, than any other products.
Well, personally, I wouldn't feel too troubled if some of those crazy religious fundies get lung cancer from smoking our cigarettes. I just hope they don't figure out a way to use that bull semen against us!
US exports to Iran - including brassieres, bull semen, cosmetics and possibly even weapons - grew more than tenfold during US President George W Bush's years in office even as he accused Iran of nuclear ambitions and helping terrorists. America sent more cigarettes to Iran, at least $158 million worth under Bush, than any other products.
Well, personally, I wouldn't feel too troubled if some of those crazy religious fundies get lung cancer from smoking our cigarettes. I just hope they don't figure out a way to use that bull semen against us!
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
My E-mail to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad re: Rand Abdel-Qader
Below is the text of an e-mail I just sent to the U.S. Embassy at BaghdadPressOffice@state.gov.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
As you may know, it has been reported recently in the news that a 17 year old Iraqi girl named Rand Abdel-Qader was murdered by her father Abdel-Qader Ali in what is popularly known as an "honor killing." To the best of my knowledge, this man remains free and continues to draw a salary from his government job.
As an American citizen who is outraged that this despicable behavior goes on, I strongly urge that Ambassador Crocker press the Iraqi government to bring Abdel-Qader Ali to justice. To allow this reprehensible excuse of a man to remain free sends a message to Iraqis that their women and daughters are disposable objects whose lives are without any individual worth. It also makes a mockery of President Bush's claims to be advancing the cause of freedom in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.
In addition to bringing Abdel-Qader Ali to justice, I would be interested to know what, if anything, the United States government is currently doing in Iraq through the Embassy in Baghdad to combat this tribal mentality that devalues women. While I understand the situation is Iraq is rather volatile, there have to be some grassroots Iraqi organizations that the United States government can assist in campaigning against "honor killings" in the country. The cause of freedom in the Arab world cannot be achieved unless and until Arab women have achieved equality.
I thank you for your consideration and look forward to hearing from you. I will also attempt to contact various organs of the Iraqi government as well.
Sincerely yours,
I will let you all know if and when I receive a reply.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
As you may know, it has been reported recently in the news that a 17 year old Iraqi girl named Rand Abdel-Qader was murdered by her father Abdel-Qader Ali in what is popularly known as an "honor killing." To the best of my knowledge, this man remains free and continues to draw a salary from his government job.
As an American citizen who is outraged that this despicable behavior goes on, I strongly urge that Ambassador Crocker press the Iraqi government to bring Abdel-Qader Ali to justice. To allow this reprehensible excuse of a man to remain free sends a message to Iraqis that their women and daughters are disposable objects whose lives are without any individual worth. It also makes a mockery of President Bush's claims to be advancing the cause of freedom in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.
In addition to bringing Abdel-Qader Ali to justice, I would be interested to know what, if anything, the United States government is currently doing in Iraq through the Embassy in Baghdad to combat this tribal mentality that devalues women. While I understand the situation is Iraq is rather volatile, there have to be some grassroots Iraqi organizations that the United States government can assist in campaigning against "honor killings" in the country. The cause of freedom in the Arab world cannot be achieved unless and until Arab women have achieved equality.
I thank you for your consideration and look forward to hearing from you. I will also attempt to contact various organs of the Iraqi government as well.
Sincerely yours,
I will let you all know if and when I receive a reply.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Considering the Candidates - Mitt Romney - UPDATED
As the presidential campaign kicks into high gear a year and a half before the actual election, we here in America can look forward to opening our mail boxes every week or so and finding solicitations from the various candidates asking us to contribute to them. Several days ago I received one from Republican candidate and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
Just as one would expect from any Republican presidential candidate, Romney's appeal letter is sprinkled throughout with obligatory praises to Ronald Reagan. Romney touts his success in founding Bain Capital, his "rescuing" of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, and his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, where he boasts that after taking office at a time when "the state was in a dire financial crisis," he took "dramatic steps" and "presided over a dramatic reversal of state fortunes and a period of sustained economic expansion." If Romney's term as governor had been any more "dramatic" it would have been made into a Martin Scorsese film.
I had known about Mitt Romney since he ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy back in the early 1990's. He had a reputation as a liberal Republican, and if memory serves, not a few conservatives labelled Romney as a RINO, or Republican In Name Only. But now that Romney is seeking nationwide office, he has to appeal to a more conservative electorate than that of the relatively liberal New England state of Massachusetts. And that of course means courting the Evangelical base of the Republican Party, which entails disavowing past support for abortion rights, gay rights, and embryonic stem cell research. And, if that were not bad enough, it apparently also means that Mitt Romney feels compelled to suck up to this guy:
And, as this Washington Post article points out, there is at least a segment of Evangelical voters that are not too thrilled with Romney's Mormon background. As Christopher Hitchens has quipped several times on his recent television appearances, "don't you always love to see how the Christians really love one another?"
Personally, I care not a whit about Romney's Mormon faith. As an atheist, it is bizarre to me how any sane thinking person can take the claims of Mormonism seriously. But then again, it is probably only zanier than Catholicism and the various other Christian denominations by a matter of degrees. I actually think that being a Mormon could be a plus in Romney's favor, because as a member of a religion that is still not quite considered mainstream within the United States, I should like to think that Romney would have a greater appreciation for tolerance and pluralism. Maybe I am wrong, but the Religious Right would not carry the same clout in a Mitt Romney administration as it has with the current administration of George W. Bush.
My take on Mitt Romney at the present time is that he is a man of some accomplishment, and unlike the current occupant of the White House, Romney actually succeeded in the business world. But as a politician, Romney is not solidly grounded, and he seems to sway either liberal or conservative depending on the direction of the prevailing winds. He also lacks a dynamic personality or rhetorical flair that could inspire a large turnout for him. That being said, I believe that his background makes him qualified to be President of the United States and I could probably live with it if he ended up being elected. He certainly has the potential to be a serious contender for the Republican nomination, though it remains to be seen if his candidacy will develop any traction.
Just as one would expect from any Republican presidential candidate, Romney's appeal letter is sprinkled throughout with obligatory praises to Ronald Reagan. Romney touts his success in founding Bain Capital, his "rescuing" of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, and his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, where he boasts that after taking office at a time when "the state was in a dire financial crisis," he took "dramatic steps" and "presided over a dramatic reversal of state fortunes and a period of sustained economic expansion." If Romney's term as governor had been any more "dramatic" it would have been made into a Martin Scorsese film.
I had known about Mitt Romney since he ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy back in the early 1990's. He had a reputation as a liberal Republican, and if memory serves, not a few conservatives labelled Romney as a RINO, or Republican In Name Only. But now that Romney is seeking nationwide office, he has to appeal to a more conservative electorate than that of the relatively liberal New England state of Massachusetts. And that of course means courting the Evangelical base of the Republican Party, which entails disavowing past support for abortion rights, gay rights, and embryonic stem cell research. And, if that were not bad enough, it apparently also means that Mitt Romney feels compelled to suck up to this guy:
As much as I don't like it, I understand that evangelical Christians are a large and influential voting block in this country and that any serious candidate for the presidency, or at least the Republican nomination for the presidency, has to appeal to them. But it sickens me when Republican candidates feel obliged to appear chummy in public with the likes of Pat Robertson or the recently departed Jerry Falwell, because when they do they legitimize these mean-spirited and bigoted preachers as legitimate standard bearers for moral values.
And, as this Washington Post article points out, there is at least a segment of Evangelical voters that are not too thrilled with Romney's Mormon background. As Christopher Hitchens has quipped several times on his recent television appearances, "don't you always love to see how the Christians really love one another?"
Personally, I care not a whit about Romney's Mormon faith. As an atheist, it is bizarre to me how any sane thinking person can take the claims of Mormonism seriously. But then again, it is probably only zanier than Catholicism and the various other Christian denominations by a matter of degrees. I actually think that being a Mormon could be a plus in Romney's favor, because as a member of a religion that is still not quite considered mainstream within the United States, I should like to think that Romney would have a greater appreciation for tolerance and pluralism. Maybe I am wrong, but the Religious Right would not carry the same clout in a Mitt Romney administration as it has with the current administration of George W. Bush.
My take on Mitt Romney at the present time is that he is a man of some accomplishment, and unlike the current occupant of the White House, Romney actually succeeded in the business world. But as a politician, Romney is not solidly grounded, and he seems to sway either liberal or conservative depending on the direction of the prevailing winds. He also lacks a dynamic personality or rhetorical flair that could inspire a large turnout for him. That being said, I believe that his background makes him qualified to be President of the United States and I could probably live with it if he ended up being elected. He certainly has the potential to be a serious contender for the Republican nomination, though it remains to be seen if his candidacy will develop any traction.
UPDATE:
Well, Romney's remarks on the death of Jerry Falwell certainly lessen any appeal that Romney might have had for me:
"An American who built and led a movement based on strong principles and strong faith has left us. He will be greatly missed, but the legacy of his important work will continue through his many ministries where he put his faith into action.
"Ann and I have had the honor to talk and meet with Reverend Falwell and get to know him as a man of deep personal faith and commitment to helping those around him. He will be forever remembered."
"Ann and I have had the honor to talk and meet with Reverend Falwell and get to know him as a man of deep personal faith and commitment to helping those around him. He will be forever remembered."
Here's a column by Max Blumenthal at The Nation about Falwell, and any candidate who praises his legacy should be specifically asked to respond to Falwell's anti-segregationist background.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Alaska - Magnet for the Batshit Crazy
In his book Into The Wild, Jon Krakauer devotes Chapter 8 to a number of other cases where individuals who were either ignorant, insane, or a combination of the two, attempted to make a go of living in the wilds of Alaska and met with unfortunate ends.
The most tragi-comic of all was the story of "Carl McCunn, an affable absentminded Texan who moved to Fairbanks during the 1970s oil boom." McCunn was also an amateur photographer, and he wanted to spend the summer in a remote area of Alaska near Fort Yukon to shoot pictures of the wildlife. His stay might have been uneventful but for one incredible act of stupidity on his part. McCunn had hired a bush pilot to drop him off at a remote lake, BUT HE FAILED TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS for the pilot to pick him back up at the end of August!
We know what was going on in McCunn's mind, because he recorded his thoughts in a diary that he kept. By late August, when the pilot did not arrive to pick him up, McCunn confessed to his diary, "I think I should have used more foresight about arranging my departure." Still, by September, McCunn was filled with a burst of hope. While out hunting for duck, a plane buzzed overhead. It circled twice flying low over the camp. McCunn waved at the pilot, but the plane could not land because the plane was equipped with wheels instead of floats, so it could not land on the lake. So when the plane flew away, McCunn was certain the pilot would bring back help for him.
This past spring, when I was taking scuba diving lessons, one of the most important things I was taught was the proper use of hand signals. For example, when you are on the surface of the water, waving your hands above your head is a sign of distress. To signal that you are okay, you bend your arms sideways and place your hands on the top of the head. If you want to piss off a divemaster, try waving your arms to indicate that you are okay. Under the water, you better not give a thumbs up unless you intend for you and your dive buddy to surface. What McCunn did not realize when he waved at the pilot was that he was giving the signal for "all OK; assistance not necessary." To signal "SOS; send immediate help", McCunn should have had two upraised arms. This mistake sealed his fate. Starving, frostbitten, and bereft of hope, Carl McCunn blew his brains out with his shotgun in late November or early December of 1981.
If Jon Krakauer had written Into The Wild in 2004 instead of 1996, he undoubtedly would have devoted a section of his book to Timothy Treadwell, a grizzly bear enthusiast who spent 13 summers in a row living among the grizzlies in Alaska. I decided to watch Werner Herzog's documentary about Treadwell, Grizzly Man, after having watched and read Into The Wild.
Treadwell shot over 100 hours of footage of himself and the Alaskan grizzlies during his time there, and the better part of Herzog's documentary consists of Treadwell's footage. For those who might not be familiar with Treadwell (who it turns out is from here on Long Island), he was killed on October of 2003 along with his girlfriend, by a rogue bear that invaded their camp. It is believed that the attack happened suddenly, as Treadwell's camera was turned on but the lens cap had not been removed. However, the attack was recorded on audiotape. Herzog does not play the audio for the viewer, but we are informed that while Treadwell was being mauled by the bear, he pleaded for his girlfriend to run for safety. Apparently she ignored his pleas and tried to drive off the bear by striking it with a frying pan, causing the bear to turn on her as well.
The picture that emerges of Treadwell in Herzog's movie, intentional or not, is of a man who was seriously deranged. Below is a segment from the documentary in which Treadwell rants to his camera against the National Parks Service. Be forewarned that his diatribe is laced with gratuitous use of the "F" word. Treadwell boasts of the protection he provides for the bears, but one never gets the sense that the he actually did anything to protect the bears, nor much less that the bears required it. At best, judging from what I have seen and read, the most that Treadwell achieved was to raise public awareness about the Alaskan grizzlies.
And here is an amusing spoof of Treadwell called Hedgehog Man.
It's interesting how the state of Alaska seems to draw so many people to it who seek to live life on the edge in the wild. For some of those who met their death, like McCandless and Treadwell, they seemed to have been blinded by their own attitudes towards nature. Nature is seen as something to commune with, as if nature was a conscious entity that can reward one's love and reverence. Nature is in fact indifferent to us, and does not require our reverence, but it does deserve our respect.
The most tragi-comic of all was the story of "Carl McCunn, an affable absentminded Texan who moved to Fairbanks during the 1970s oil boom." McCunn was also an amateur photographer, and he wanted to spend the summer in a remote area of Alaska near Fort Yukon to shoot pictures of the wildlife. His stay might have been uneventful but for one incredible act of stupidity on his part. McCunn had hired a bush pilot to drop him off at a remote lake, BUT HE FAILED TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS for the pilot to pick him back up at the end of August!
We know what was going on in McCunn's mind, because he recorded his thoughts in a diary that he kept. By late August, when the pilot did not arrive to pick him up, McCunn confessed to his diary, "I think I should have used more foresight about arranging my departure." Still, by September, McCunn was filled with a burst of hope. While out hunting for duck, a plane buzzed overhead. It circled twice flying low over the camp. McCunn waved at the pilot, but the plane could not land because the plane was equipped with wheels instead of floats, so it could not land on the lake. So when the plane flew away, McCunn was certain the pilot would bring back help for him.
This past spring, when I was taking scuba diving lessons, one of the most important things I was taught was the proper use of hand signals. For example, when you are on the surface of the water, waving your hands above your head is a sign of distress. To signal that you are okay, you bend your arms sideways and place your hands on the top of the head. If you want to piss off a divemaster, try waving your arms to indicate that you are okay. Under the water, you better not give a thumbs up unless you intend for you and your dive buddy to surface. What McCunn did not realize when he waved at the pilot was that he was giving the signal for "all OK; assistance not necessary." To signal "SOS; send immediate help", McCunn should have had two upraised arms. This mistake sealed his fate. Starving, frostbitten, and bereft of hope, Carl McCunn blew his brains out with his shotgun in late November or early December of 1981.
If Jon Krakauer had written Into The Wild in 2004 instead of 1996, he undoubtedly would have devoted a section of his book to Timothy Treadwell, a grizzly bear enthusiast who spent 13 summers in a row living among the grizzlies in Alaska. I decided to watch Werner Herzog's documentary about Treadwell, Grizzly Man, after having watched and read Into The Wild.
Treadwell shot over 100 hours of footage of himself and the Alaskan grizzlies during his time there, and the better part of Herzog's documentary consists of Treadwell's footage. For those who might not be familiar with Treadwell (who it turns out is from here on Long Island), he was killed on October of 2003 along with his girlfriend, by a rogue bear that invaded their camp. It is believed that the attack happened suddenly, as Treadwell's camera was turned on but the lens cap had not been removed. However, the attack was recorded on audiotape. Herzog does not play the audio for the viewer, but we are informed that while Treadwell was being mauled by the bear, he pleaded for his girlfriend to run for safety. Apparently she ignored his pleas and tried to drive off the bear by striking it with a frying pan, causing the bear to turn on her as well.
The picture that emerges of Treadwell in Herzog's movie, intentional or not, is of a man who was seriously deranged. Below is a segment from the documentary in which Treadwell rants to his camera against the National Parks Service. Be forewarned that his diatribe is laced with gratuitous use of the "F" word. Treadwell boasts of the protection he provides for the bears, but one never gets the sense that the he actually did anything to protect the bears, nor much less that the bears required it. At best, judging from what I have seen and read, the most that Treadwell achieved was to raise public awareness about the Alaskan grizzlies.
And here is an amusing spoof of Treadwell called Hedgehog Man.
It's interesting how the state of Alaska seems to draw so many people to it who seek to live life on the edge in the wild. For some of those who met their death, like McCandless and Treadwell, they seemed to have been blinded by their own attitudes towards nature. Nature is seen as something to commune with, as if nature was a conscious entity that can reward one's love and reverence. Nature is in fact indifferent to us, and does not require our reverence, but it does deserve our respect.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Pray For Compulsory Abortion
Sorry, but I couldn't resist the snarky title. It's my way of mocking the anti-choice signs and bumperstickers that read "Pray To End Abortion."
I'm a little late getting to this, but the other day was the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
Of course, this brought out the anti-choice crowd:
Tens of thousands of abortion opponents rallied Thursday on the National Mall to mark the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade amid concerns they could face political setbacks under the new president. The rally and subsequent march to the Supreme Court came two days after the swearing-in of President Barack Obama, which many demonstrators said emphasized their need to become more vocal with their message.
It didn't take long for their concerns to be validated:
President Barack Obama on Friday struck down the Bush administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information — an inflammatory policy that has bounced in and out of law for the past quarter-century.
This elicited predictable denunciations from members of God's Party, excuse me, the Republican Party:
"Coming just one day after the 36th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this presidential directive forces taxpayers to subsidize abortions overseas — something no American should be required by government to do," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., called it "morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to promote abortion around the world."
These guys need to get a friggin' clue. While they are so worried about the fate of a fertilized egg inside the uterus of a woman or teenage girl in the developing world, they don't seem particularly concerned with the dangers that pregnancy can pose for women.
From UNICEF's "Progress for Children : A Report Card on Maternal Mortality", comes this sobering statistic: "Each year, more than half a million women die from pregnancy-related causes and an estimated 10 million experience injuries, infections, disease or disability that can cause lifelong suffering."
The report adds, "Most of these deaths and disabilities are avoidable."
And while UNICEF's report "Progress for Children: A World Fit For Children Statistical Review" reports that child mortality rates are in decline, "an estimated 9.7 million children under the age of 5 died before the age of 5" in 2006.
So let's see if I got this straight. If a woman terminates a pregnancy, it is, to quote Rep. John Boehner above, "tragic." But if that same woman dies or is seriously injured from delivering her baby due to lack of adequate medical facilities, or the child dies from malaria at the age of 4, well shit happens, right?
Maybe George Carlin was right about these people after all.
I'm a little late getting to this, but the other day was the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
Of course, this brought out the anti-choice crowd:
Tens of thousands of abortion opponents rallied Thursday on the National Mall to mark the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade amid concerns they could face political setbacks under the new president. The rally and subsequent march to the Supreme Court came two days after the swearing-in of President Barack Obama, which many demonstrators said emphasized their need to become more vocal with their message.
It didn't take long for their concerns to be validated:
President Barack Obama on Friday struck down the Bush administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information — an inflammatory policy that has bounced in and out of law for the past quarter-century.
This elicited predictable denunciations from members of God's Party, excuse me, the Republican Party:
"Coming just one day after the 36th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this presidential directive forces taxpayers to subsidize abortions overseas — something no American should be required by government to do," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., called it "morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to promote abortion around the world."
These guys need to get a friggin' clue. While they are so worried about the fate of a fertilized egg inside the uterus of a woman or teenage girl in the developing world, they don't seem particularly concerned with the dangers that pregnancy can pose for women.
From UNICEF's "Progress for Children : A Report Card on Maternal Mortality", comes this sobering statistic: "Each year, more than half a million women die from pregnancy-related causes and an estimated 10 million experience injuries, infections, disease or disability that can cause lifelong suffering."
The report adds, "Most of these deaths and disabilities are avoidable."
And while UNICEF's report "Progress for Children: A World Fit For Children Statistical Review" reports that child mortality rates are in decline, "an estimated 9.7 million children under the age of 5 died before the age of 5" in 2006.
So let's see if I got this straight. If a woman terminates a pregnancy, it is, to quote Rep. John Boehner above, "tragic." But if that same woman dies or is seriously injured from delivering her baby due to lack of adequate medical facilities, or the child dies from malaria at the age of 4, well shit happens, right?
Maybe George Carlin was right about these people after all.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
The Osama Speech
I've been reading the transcript of Osama bin Laden's latest speech addressed to us here in the United States of America.
My guess is that like most politicians and public figures, Osama bin Laden did not write the speech himself but instead had it written for him while he set the tone and direction. For instance, bin Laden's speech refers to Noam Chomsky and former CIA agent Michael Scheuer, who wrote a book critical of the Bush Administration's handling of the War on Terror called "Imperial Hubris". There is also a reference to the "eloquent message of Joshua", apparently someone who served with the American military in Iraq. Without the benefit of having read anyone else's explanation of who this Joshua might be, I strongly suspect that he is in fact Josh Rushing, who served as a press officer with CENTCOM during the early months of the Iraq War in 2003. Rushing became somewhat famous after he was featured in the documentary film "Control Room", which was about the Arab news network Al-Jazeera and its coverage of the war in Iraq. Rushing has since left the Marines and now works for Al-Jazeera, as well as having his own web site.
So who do I think wrote the speech, or at least contributed a good deal of it? I think this guy would fit the bill nicely. Adam Gadahn, also known as Azzam the American, would be an ideal candidate for writing or at least heavily contributing to a speech that appears to be an appeal to American public opinion. Portions of the speech suggest someone who is knowledgeable about our domestic politics, and bin Laden's railings against American capitalism and the influence of big corporations sounds like a pitch tailored towards an American Left that is antiwar and anti big business.
In the speech, bin Laden segues at one point into a diatribe against the West for the Holocaust against the Jews of Europe. And here bin Laden utters a tremendous falsehood. He states that "the holocaust of the Jews was carried out by your brethren in the middle of Europe, but had it been closer to our countries, most of the Jews would have been saved by taking refuge with us." (Italics mine) This is bullshit and bin Laden knows it. One need only look at the activities of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, whose incitements of Arab rebellion against the British in the 1930's caused the British to restrict Jewish immigration to Palestine. The Mufti explicitly allied himself to the Nazis during World War Two and recruited Bosnian Muslims to fight for Hitler.
Bin Laden concludes the speech by calling on the people of America to "embrace Islam" (see my post below), which he claims "puts peoples' lives in order with its laws; protects their needs and interests; refines their morals; protects them from evils; and guarantees for them entrance into Paradise in the hereafter through their obedience to Allah and sincere worship of Him Alone."
Islam, argues bin Laden, "will deprive [the corporations] of the opportunity to defraud the peoples and take their money under numberous (sic) pretexts, like arms deals and so on." But it gets even better. For those of us Americans who hate paying taxes (which is about 95% of us), "there are no taxes in Islam"! And for American Christians, bin Laden reminds them that "the name of the Prophet of Allah Jesus and his mother (peace and blessings of Allah be on them both) are mentioned in the Noble Quran dozens of times". In other words, bin Laden is telling American Christians, "Hey, becoming a Muslim is no big deal, we honor Jesus too!"
This latest speech by bin Laden is more conciliatory in nature than many of his past pronouncements. For a taste of bin Laden in vintage jihadi mode, here is his 1996 fatwa against America for your reference. Is Osama bin Laden getting mellow with age? Or is it more likely that rather than speaking to Americans, bin Laden's speech is really propaganda aimed at the Muslim world, telling them in effect "I offered the Americans a chance to embrace Islam and achieve true peace, but they didn't want to listen, so they deserve whatever happens to them"?
Given the infrequency of bin Laden's video appearances, this latest being his first in about three years, it inevitably raises questions about his health. I have to admit that until his 2004 video came out, I believed that he was in fact dead. But while he clearly is not dead, his dyed beard and evident fatigue in the new video suggest that something is wrong with him. So, as upset as I am that he has not yet been brought to justice, I can take some consolation in knowing that his is not a life of comfort and ease. One day he will be dead, either from violence or illness, and the terrorist organization he created will fade away.
My guess is that like most politicians and public figures, Osama bin Laden did not write the speech himself but instead had it written for him while he set the tone and direction. For instance, bin Laden's speech refers to Noam Chomsky and former CIA agent Michael Scheuer, who wrote a book critical of the Bush Administration's handling of the War on Terror called "Imperial Hubris". There is also a reference to the "eloquent message of Joshua", apparently someone who served with the American military in Iraq. Without the benefit of having read anyone else's explanation of who this Joshua might be, I strongly suspect that he is in fact Josh Rushing, who served as a press officer with CENTCOM during the early months of the Iraq War in 2003. Rushing became somewhat famous after he was featured in the documentary film "Control Room", which was about the Arab news network Al-Jazeera and its coverage of the war in Iraq. Rushing has since left the Marines and now works for Al-Jazeera, as well as having his own web site.
So who do I think wrote the speech, or at least contributed a good deal of it? I think this guy would fit the bill nicely. Adam Gadahn, also known as Azzam the American, would be an ideal candidate for writing or at least heavily contributing to a speech that appears to be an appeal to American public opinion. Portions of the speech suggest someone who is knowledgeable about our domestic politics, and bin Laden's railings against American capitalism and the influence of big corporations sounds like a pitch tailored towards an American Left that is antiwar and anti big business.
In the speech, bin Laden segues at one point into a diatribe against the West for the Holocaust against the Jews of Europe. And here bin Laden utters a tremendous falsehood. He states that "the holocaust of the Jews was carried out by your brethren in the middle of Europe, but had it been closer to our countries, most of the Jews would have been saved by taking refuge with us." (Italics mine) This is bullshit and bin Laden knows it. One need only look at the activities of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, whose incitements of Arab rebellion against the British in the 1930's caused the British to restrict Jewish immigration to Palestine. The Mufti explicitly allied himself to the Nazis during World War Two and recruited Bosnian Muslims to fight for Hitler.
Bin Laden concludes the speech by calling on the people of America to "embrace Islam" (see my post below), which he claims "puts peoples' lives in order with its laws; protects their needs and interests; refines their morals; protects them from evils; and guarantees for them entrance into Paradise in the hereafter through their obedience to Allah and sincere worship of Him Alone."
Islam, argues bin Laden, "will deprive [the corporations] of the opportunity to defraud the peoples and take their money under numberous (sic) pretexts, like arms deals and so on." But it gets even better. For those of us Americans who hate paying taxes (which is about 95% of us), "there are no taxes in Islam"! And for American Christians, bin Laden reminds them that "the name of the Prophet of Allah Jesus and his mother (peace and blessings of Allah be on them both) are mentioned in the Noble Quran dozens of times". In other words, bin Laden is telling American Christians, "Hey, becoming a Muslim is no big deal, we honor Jesus too!"
This latest speech by bin Laden is more conciliatory in nature than many of his past pronouncements. For a taste of bin Laden in vintage jihadi mode, here is his 1996 fatwa against America for your reference. Is Osama bin Laden getting mellow with age? Or is it more likely that rather than speaking to Americans, bin Laden's speech is really propaganda aimed at the Muslim world, telling them in effect "I offered the Americans a chance to embrace Islam and achieve true peace, but they didn't want to listen, so they deserve whatever happens to them"?
Given the infrequency of bin Laden's video appearances, this latest being his first in about three years, it inevitably raises questions about his health. I have to admit that until his 2004 video came out, I believed that he was in fact dead. But while he clearly is not dead, his dyed beard and evident fatigue in the new video suggest that something is wrong with him. So, as upset as I am that he has not yet been brought to justice, I can take some consolation in knowing that his is not a life of comfort and ease. One day he will be dead, either from violence or illness, and the terrorist organization he created will fade away.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Barack Hussein Obama Elected As First Muslim President of the United States
75 days to go until sharia law is imposed on the United States.
Seriously, can Bush and Cheney just step aside right now before they screw anything else up?
Seriously, can Bush and Cheney just step aside right now before they screw anything else up?
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Indonesia - Islam's Giant with Clay Feet
The most populous Muslim nation in the world is Indonesia, a vast archipelago of islands that straddles South East Asia from Thailand to Australia. And with a total population of some 234 million people, Indonesia ranks as the fourth largest country in numbers of persons, after China, India, and the United States.
For those of us who are concerned about the spread of Islamic radicalism, Indonesia, with its dire poverty and its proximity to international trade routes, clearly merits concern. Islamic fundamentalist groups tend to thrive in poor countries where the government is corrupt and there is a lack of basic social services, and Indonesia is certainly a prime candidate in this regard.
Indonesia is home to a bonafide Muslim terrorist organization, Jemaah Islamiyah, which was behind the Bali bombings of 2002 and 2005, as well as the 2004 bombing of the Australian Embassy, among others. Recently, the Indonesian branch of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, an organization dedicated to setting up a worldwide Muslim caliphate, packed a stadium with nearly 100,000 followers. In some parts of the country, particularly in Aceh province on the island of Sumatra, sharia law has been enforced. See my post on this from December of 2006.
Nevertheless, despite some discouraging signs, it would appear that Indonesia is not on the verge of turning into an Islamic theocracy any time in the near future. Recently, I spoke with my Indonesian friend Lucy, who could be considered a double minority in Indonesia; religiously she is a Catholic and ethnically she is Chinese. Before arriving in the United States last month on a student visa, Lucy lived and worked in Indonesia's bustling capital city, Jakarta. I asked her a number of questions to get her perspective of living as a Christian in a Muslim majority nation.
Lucy assured me that Jakarta was a fairly tolerant city with respect to the practice of religion. She told me that she does not feel any pressure to convert to Islam, nor is she harrassed about not wearing a headscarf. However, Lucy did tell me that such toleration did not extend to Christians being allowed to proselytize Muslims. She also confirmed that in marriages wherein a Muslim married a Christian, it was generally the case that the Christian would convert to Islam and not the other way around. However, in certain instances where a Muslim was marrying a wealthy Christian, it is not unheard of that the Muslim will convert to Christianity.
One of the more annoying things that Lucy finds about living in a Muslim country is the call to prayer every morning, around 4 a.m. she told me. Lucy complained that it is very loud and close to her apartment, and if she happens to wake up during that time, she finds it hard to get back to sleep.
I also queried Lucy about Indonesian Muslim attitudes towards Americans and the United States. She said that anti-American attitudes have increased in Indonesia, particularly since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. I asked her if Indonesians differentiated between policies of the Bush Administration with which they disagreed from attitudes towards Americans in general. She replied that they did not, since it was the American people who voted for him. (I wasn't about to get into the 2000 election, where Gore won the popular vote.) Indonesians felt that Americans were responsible for the actions of their government. Amusingly, Lucy told me that Indonesians had an acronym for Democrats, NATO, or "No action, talk only".
When it came to Islamic fundamentalists, Lucy told me that while their numbers had grown since 9/11, they still had not grown by much in comparison with the population and that they were not very influential. Lucy's observations seemed to jibe with the findings of a recent article on Indonesian Islam in The Economist. Islam in Indonesia is still infused with elements of native mysticism, and the geography of the nation itself makes it virtually impossible for a strict, unified religious doctrine to be imposed on its 234 million people.
While there are organized groups trying to impose a strict sharia based Islam in Indonesia, such as the aforementioned Hizb-ut-Tahrir, there are also organizations trying to actively counter them with a more moderate form of Islam that promotes a separation of mosque and state. One such organization is the Wahid Institute, which is headed by Yenny Wahid, the daughter of Abdurrahman Wahid, who was president of Indonesia from 1999 to 2001.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Ms. Wahid warns of the consequences of an Indonesia under the control of radical Muslims: "It is big enough to destabilize the region." She says, "imagine if Indonesia became a hotbed for terrorism, or a source for people to get martyrs from. We've got enough people to provide an army of terrorists if we're not careful."
So, for the time being, it does not appear that Indonesia will become some Islamic colossus spreading jihad throughout South East Asia. Here's to hoping that people like Yenny Wahid will help to keep it that way.
For those of us who are concerned about the spread of Islamic radicalism, Indonesia, with its dire poverty and its proximity to international trade routes, clearly merits concern. Islamic fundamentalist groups tend to thrive in poor countries where the government is corrupt and there is a lack of basic social services, and Indonesia is certainly a prime candidate in this regard.
Indonesia is home to a bonafide Muslim terrorist organization, Jemaah Islamiyah, which was behind the Bali bombings of 2002 and 2005, as well as the 2004 bombing of the Australian Embassy, among others. Recently, the Indonesian branch of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, an organization dedicated to setting up a worldwide Muslim caliphate, packed a stadium with nearly 100,000 followers. In some parts of the country, particularly in Aceh province on the island of Sumatra, sharia law has been enforced. See my post on this from December of 2006.
Nevertheless, despite some discouraging signs, it would appear that Indonesia is not on the verge of turning into an Islamic theocracy any time in the near future. Recently, I spoke with my Indonesian friend Lucy, who could be considered a double minority in Indonesia; religiously she is a Catholic and ethnically she is Chinese. Before arriving in the United States last month on a student visa, Lucy lived and worked in Indonesia's bustling capital city, Jakarta. I asked her a number of questions to get her perspective of living as a Christian in a Muslim majority nation.
Lucy assured me that Jakarta was a fairly tolerant city with respect to the practice of religion. She told me that she does not feel any pressure to convert to Islam, nor is she harrassed about not wearing a headscarf. However, Lucy did tell me that such toleration did not extend to Christians being allowed to proselytize Muslims. She also confirmed that in marriages wherein a Muslim married a Christian, it was generally the case that the Christian would convert to Islam and not the other way around. However, in certain instances where a Muslim was marrying a wealthy Christian, it is not unheard of that the Muslim will convert to Christianity.
One of the more annoying things that Lucy finds about living in a Muslim country is the call to prayer every morning, around 4 a.m. she told me. Lucy complained that it is very loud and close to her apartment, and if she happens to wake up during that time, she finds it hard to get back to sleep.
I also queried Lucy about Indonesian Muslim attitudes towards Americans and the United States. She said that anti-American attitudes have increased in Indonesia, particularly since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. I asked her if Indonesians differentiated between policies of the Bush Administration with which they disagreed from attitudes towards Americans in general. She replied that they did not, since it was the American people who voted for him. (I wasn't about to get into the 2000 election, where Gore won the popular vote.) Indonesians felt that Americans were responsible for the actions of their government. Amusingly, Lucy told me that Indonesians had an acronym for Democrats, NATO, or "No action, talk only".
When it came to Islamic fundamentalists, Lucy told me that while their numbers had grown since 9/11, they still had not grown by much in comparison with the population and that they were not very influential. Lucy's observations seemed to jibe with the findings of a recent article on Indonesian Islam in The Economist. Islam in Indonesia is still infused with elements of native mysticism, and the geography of the nation itself makes it virtually impossible for a strict, unified religious doctrine to be imposed on its 234 million people.
While there are organized groups trying to impose a strict sharia based Islam in Indonesia, such as the aforementioned Hizb-ut-Tahrir, there are also organizations trying to actively counter them with a more moderate form of Islam that promotes a separation of mosque and state. One such organization is the Wahid Institute, which is headed by Yenny Wahid, the daughter of Abdurrahman Wahid, who was president of Indonesia from 1999 to 2001.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Ms. Wahid warns of the consequences of an Indonesia under the control of radical Muslims: "It is big enough to destabilize the region." She says, "imagine if Indonesia became a hotbed for terrorism, or a source for people to get martyrs from. We've got enough people to provide an army of terrorists if we're not careful."
So, for the time being, it does not appear that Indonesia will become some Islamic colossus spreading jihad throughout South East Asia. Here's to hoping that people like Yenny Wahid will help to keep it that way.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ASSUMES OFFICE - WORST U.S. PRESIDENT SINCE GEORGE W. BUSH
The Dow is down over 200 points and Obama hasn't even caught Osama bin Laden yet!
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
UPDATED: My Letter to Paula Dobriansky re: Rand Abdel-Qader and Leila Hussein
UPDATE: Well, I just got back from the Staples across the street from me where I was successful in transmitting the letter below by fax to Under Secretary Dobriansky. In case anyone's interested, the number is 202.647.0753.
Below is a letter I just prepared that I will be mailing to Paula Dobriansky, the Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs at the United States Department of State. The State Department's Office of International Women's Issues is one of the branches that she oversees.
I got her telephone number off of the State Department's web site and tomorrow will call to see if I can get a fax number. E-mails, I have come to the conclusion, are essentially worthless. Letters in the mail carry weight, but a fax has a sense of immediacy to it, and the fact that it is printed out on paper means that the recipient has in their hands something of substance. If I get a fax number, I will post it here tomorrow evening for anyone else who wants to join me.
Paula J. Dobriansky, PhD
Under Secretary, Democracy and Global Affairs
United States Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Under Secretary Dobriansky,
As you may have read, several months ago a 17 year old girl in Basra named Rand Abdel-Qader was murdered by her father and two brothers for the "crime" of chatting in public with a British soldier. To date, the girl's murderous father Abdel-Qader Ali and two brothers Hassan and Haydar remain free, and incredibly, it appears that the father is still collecting his salary from his government job, in spite of the fact that he openly boasts of his crime.
To add to the tragedy of the situation, just a couple of weeks ago, Leila Hussein, the mother of Rand Abdel-Qader, was killed in a hail of gunfire as she was being escorted from a safe house after having left her husband. Enclosed are two articles detailing these events.
I am writing to you Dr. Dobriansky, because I want, no let me rephrase that, I demand that Abdel-Qader Ali and his two sons Hassan and Haydar be brought to justice for the murder of Rand Abdel-Qader. And I respectfully request that you speak to whomever you need to in our government to speak to whomever they need to in the Iraqi government to make this happen.
With all due respect Dr. Dobriansky, that women can be murdered by their husbands and fathers with impunity in Iraq makes a mockery of President Bush's claim that our presence in that country is advancing the cause of freedom. I ask that you make this your priority.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing from you, either via postal mail or at my daytime telephone number, 212.###.####.
Respectfully yours,
Below is a letter I just prepared that I will be mailing to Paula Dobriansky, the Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs at the United States Department of State. The State Department's Office of International Women's Issues is one of the branches that she oversees.
I got her telephone number off of the State Department's web site and tomorrow will call to see if I can get a fax number. E-mails, I have come to the conclusion, are essentially worthless. Letters in the mail carry weight, but a fax has a sense of immediacy to it, and the fact that it is printed out on paper means that the recipient has in their hands something of substance. If I get a fax number, I will post it here tomorrow evening for anyone else who wants to join me.
Paula J. Dobriansky, PhD
Under Secretary, Democracy and Global Affairs
United States Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Under Secretary Dobriansky,
As you may have read, several months ago a 17 year old girl in Basra named Rand Abdel-Qader was murdered by her father and two brothers for the "crime" of chatting in public with a British soldier. To date, the girl's murderous father Abdel-Qader Ali and two brothers Hassan and Haydar remain free, and incredibly, it appears that the father is still collecting his salary from his government job, in spite of the fact that he openly boasts of his crime.
To add to the tragedy of the situation, just a couple of weeks ago, Leila Hussein, the mother of Rand Abdel-Qader, was killed in a hail of gunfire as she was being escorted from a safe house after having left her husband. Enclosed are two articles detailing these events.
I am writing to you Dr. Dobriansky, because I want, no let me rephrase that, I demand that Abdel-Qader Ali and his two sons Hassan and Haydar be brought to justice for the murder of Rand Abdel-Qader. And I respectfully request that you speak to whomever you need to in our government to speak to whomever they need to in the Iraqi government to make this happen.
With all due respect Dr. Dobriansky, that women can be murdered by their husbands and fathers with impunity in Iraq makes a mockery of President Bush's claim that our presence in that country is advancing the cause of freedom. I ask that you make this your priority.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing from you, either via postal mail or at my daytime telephone number, 212.###.####.
Respectfully yours,
Monday, June 23, 2008
Hooray! We Finally Got Our Stimulus Check!
It finally arrived in the mail today. My wife was starting to doubt that we would ever receive it. The reason it took so long is that we filed our income taxes by paper a few days before the April 15 deadline. I filed by paper because we owed money to both the Feds and New York State, so I wasn't going to pay the fee for filing electronically through TurboTax.
As happy as I am to have received it, to be honest, it's just going to go into our savings account to replenish what I took out of it to pay off a credit card bill. I try to maintain at least a $5,000 balance in the savings account linked to the checking account as an emergency fund. So yeah, our stimulus check is serving a useful purpose, even if it is not what President Bush had in mind.
As happy as I am to have received it, to be honest, it's just going to go into our savings account to replenish what I took out of it to pay off a credit card bill. I try to maintain at least a $5,000 balance in the savings account linked to the checking account as an emergency fund. So yeah, our stimulus check is serving a useful purpose, even if it is not what President Bush had in mind.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Some Observations on Ayaan Hirsi Ali's "Infidel"
Several days ago I resumed reading my copy of "Infidel", autographed by the lovely Ms. Ali herself, after I had finished "Fiasco", Thomas Ricks' chronicle of how we got saddled with the mess in Mesopotamia.
So far I have gotten up to page 149, just shy of the halfway point.
It is a good read and I expect to finish it by next week. A couple of things thus far struck me in particular and I thought it worth commenting on.
During her family's stay in Nairobi, Kenya, Ayaan writes about a female Islamic school teacher she had when she was sixteen named Aziza. Sister Aziza was garbed in a black hijab, which covered her entire body except for her face. She was a true believer and made quite an impression on Ayaan, who at this point in her life was trying to embrace the Islamic faith.
"Sister Aziza believed in Hell," writes Ayaan on page 81, but "she didn't emphasize fear, as all the other preachers did. She told us it was our choice. We could choose to submit to God's pureness and light and earn a place in Heaven, or we could take the low road."
Ayaan wanted to be like Sister Aziza and describes how she felt inspired to be a more pious Muslim. "I began to pray five times a day, fighting to collect my thoughts through the whole long process. I wanted to understand better how to live the life that Allah, who was infinitely just, wanted for me." On a personal note, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and I are very close in age, only about five months apart, at about the same time as her I was as a teenager trying to be a true believing Catholic and was going through my own struggle between the demands of my faith and what at the time I considered to be sinful thoughts.
Ayaan even went so far as to have Sister Aziza's tailor make a cloak for her. While we are used to looking at Islamic dress as being oppressive for women, a pious Muslim woman can have a radically different opinion. On page 85, Ayaan describes her new robe as having "a thrill to it, a sensuous feeling. It made me feel powerful: underneath this screen lay a previously unsuspected, but potentially lethal, femininity. I was unique: very few people walked about like that those days in Nairobi. Weirdly, it made me feel like an individual. It sent out a message of superiority: I was the one true Muslim. All those other girls with their little white headscarves were children, hypocrites. I was a star of God. When I spread out my hands I felt like I could fly."
Ms. Ali also confirms an observation that has been made elsewhere, that religious fervor spreads in conditions where the state fails to deliver basic social services to its people. She writes on page 87 how the state "in Kenya was crumbling from within, buckling under the larceny and nepotism of the men in control... The mayor, who was supposed to look after the streets of Nairobi, was barely literate. The government was only there to take your money; its services were minimal... The same thing was also happening in Somalia... It was happening, in fact, almost everywhere in Africa and throughout the Islamic world. The more corrupt and unreliable the apparatus of government-the more it persecuted its people-the more those people headed back into their tribe, traditions, their church or mosque, and hunkered down, like among like."
A parallel development has been noted here in the United States, with the Religious Right, via the Republican Party, offering services through faith based initiatives. Michelle Goldberg, in her must-read book "Kingdom Coming", writes that "the diversion of billions of taxpayer dollars from secular social service organizations to... sectarian religious outfits has been one of the most underreported stories of the Bush presidency." As a consequence, "while religious initiatives are being fattened with federal funding, secular social services are being starved."
I am all for religious organizations playing a role in the provision of charitable services in our country, but they should could complement secular government social services, not supplant them.
So far I have gotten up to page 149, just shy of the halfway point.
It is a good read and I expect to finish it by next week. A couple of things thus far struck me in particular and I thought it worth commenting on.
During her family's stay in Nairobi, Kenya, Ayaan writes about a female Islamic school teacher she had when she was sixteen named Aziza. Sister Aziza was garbed in a black hijab, which covered her entire body except for her face. She was a true believer and made quite an impression on Ayaan, who at this point in her life was trying to embrace the Islamic faith.
"Sister Aziza believed in Hell," writes Ayaan on page 81, but "she didn't emphasize fear, as all the other preachers did. She told us it was our choice. We could choose to submit to God's pureness and light and earn a place in Heaven, or we could take the low road."
Ayaan wanted to be like Sister Aziza and describes how she felt inspired to be a more pious Muslim. "I began to pray five times a day, fighting to collect my thoughts through the whole long process. I wanted to understand better how to live the life that Allah, who was infinitely just, wanted for me." On a personal note, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and I are very close in age, only about five months apart, at about the same time as her I was as a teenager trying to be a true believing Catholic and was going through my own struggle between the demands of my faith and what at the time I considered to be sinful thoughts.
Ayaan even went so far as to have Sister Aziza's tailor make a cloak for her. While we are used to looking at Islamic dress as being oppressive for women, a pious Muslim woman can have a radically different opinion. On page 85, Ayaan describes her new robe as having "a thrill to it, a sensuous feeling. It made me feel powerful: underneath this screen lay a previously unsuspected, but potentially lethal, femininity. I was unique: very few people walked about like that those days in Nairobi. Weirdly, it made me feel like an individual. It sent out a message of superiority: I was the one true Muslim. All those other girls with their little white headscarves were children, hypocrites. I was a star of God. When I spread out my hands I felt like I could fly."
Ms. Ali also confirms an observation that has been made elsewhere, that religious fervor spreads in conditions where the state fails to deliver basic social services to its people. She writes on page 87 how the state "in Kenya was crumbling from within, buckling under the larceny and nepotism of the men in control... The mayor, who was supposed to look after the streets of Nairobi, was barely literate. The government was only there to take your money; its services were minimal... The same thing was also happening in Somalia... It was happening, in fact, almost everywhere in Africa and throughout the Islamic world. The more corrupt and unreliable the apparatus of government-the more it persecuted its people-the more those people headed back into their tribe, traditions, their church or mosque, and hunkered down, like among like."
A parallel development has been noted here in the United States, with the Religious Right, via the Republican Party, offering services through faith based initiatives. Michelle Goldberg, in her must-read book "Kingdom Coming", writes that "the diversion of billions of taxpayer dollars from secular social service organizations to... sectarian religious outfits has been one of the most underreported stories of the Bush presidency." As a consequence, "while religious initiatives are being fattened with federal funding, secular social services are being starved."
I am all for religious organizations playing a role in the provision of charitable services in our country, but they should could complement secular government social services, not supplant them.
Friday, December 04, 2020
There's No Reasoning With These People
I was curious to see if he meant Democratic politicians or anyone who is a registered Democrat, and in reply to my query, he made it clear that he meant all of them. So, this psycho believes that tens of millions of Americans should be murdered for their political affiliation. And I am sure he is not the only one who feels that way.
Personally, I have been registered as a non-affiliated voter for the better part of the last two decades, though before that I was a registered Republican who tended to vote for Libertarian candidates when they were on the ballot. However, after George Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, I have voted for Democratic candidates in every presidential race from 2004 to the present.
While the political divide has always existed in America, what the Trump presidency, and in particular, this last presidential election, has exposed is that there is a fair number of people in this country who view many of their fellow Americans as an enemy to be eradicated.
One of my operating theories about ardent Trump supporters is that he is their vicarious instrument for hurting the people they hate. For example, when California suffers from devastating wildfires, Trump threatens to withhold federal aid because of some apparent failure to rake the forests, and Trump supporters are okay with that, because after all, California is home to left wing Hollywood supporters that they hate. Egging on self-stylized civilian militias in Michigan to liberate their state, which emboldened some of them to plot to kidnap the state's governor, is not a deal breaker for them.
And then there is the prevalent view among them that the election was stolen from Trump and that Biden is an illegitimate president, even though Biden ended up amassing more than seven million votes than Trump.
I have long considered myself to be an optimist, but I am starting to fear for my country.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Random Thoughts
Like many of my fellow Americans, I am saddened by the death of former president Gerald Ford. Perhaps the most important thing about President Ford for me was that he was the first president I remember as a child. Even though I was five years old when Nixon resigned in August of 1974, I do not think I was aware of him. It might be because I had not started kindergarten yet, and did not even know there was such a thing as a president. I do remember being sad when Ford lost the 1976 election to Jimmy Carter.
I was browsing the BBC website a moment ago and came across this interesting little tidbit. Who knew that the UK was still paying back debts it owed to the United States for World War Two?
Also in the news, it looks like we may ring in the New Year with Saddam Hussein's execution by hanging. While I am happy on the one hand that a brutal despot is departing this world, I feared four years ago that Bush's decision to invade Iraq would be one of the worst foreign policy blunders in American history, and I am sorry to see that ensuing events have only served to confirm my fears.
As of today, I have not had time to start on Part 1 of the Chosen People of the Supreme Being Test, which I have tentatively titled "A Whole Lotta Smitin' Goin' On". I hope to draft it over the weekend then post it next week on my lunch break at work when I can add links to various articles, maps and pictures in support.
I also wish to extend to all of you my best wishes for peace, happiness and prosperity in 2007. And for goodness sakes, please do not sign up for a membership at a gym! I look at this way: If you cannot dedicate yourself to regularly exercising and doing simple callisthenics in your own home for a month, then a gym membership will be a waste of time and money.
Have a great weekend and a happy new year!
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Ban Celebrity Marriage
We hear constantly from religious fundamentalists and cultural conservatives that gay marriage is a threat to the traditional family and demeans the true meaning of marriage. As a happily married heterosexual, I fail to see how allowing two people of the same gender who love each other to marry threatens my marriage, so I must emphatically disagree.
Rather, I would submit that what really demeans the institution of marriage in this country is celebrity marriage. Just in the last couple of weeks we have read about the separation of Reese Witherspoon from Ryan Philippe. And now we have Britney Spears filing for divorce from Kevin Federline. Keep in mind that both of these separations involve children.
But to this day, my favorite example of bizarre Hollywood relationships was when Jeff Goldblum split from Geena Davis to hook up with Laura Dern, who had been with crappy filmaker Renny Harlin, who ended up hooking up with Geena Davis. Now if only we could get Harlin to direct a movie starring Goldblum, Dern and Davis.
Anyway, I hereby propose that the United States Congress pass, and President Bush sign into law, a bill that would ban celebrity marriages. No more would the sacred institution of marriage be profaned by these self absorbed celebrities who change spouses like they change their wardrobes. It is time to put a stop to it! Write your congressional representatives now and let's begin to make marriage in America mean something again.
(No Shoprite customers were harmed while writing this post.)
Rather, I would submit that what really demeans the institution of marriage in this country is celebrity marriage. Just in the last couple of weeks we have read about the separation of Reese Witherspoon from Ryan Philippe. And now we have Britney Spears filing for divorce from Kevin Federline. Keep in mind that both of these separations involve children.
But to this day, my favorite example of bizarre Hollywood relationships was when Jeff Goldblum split from Geena Davis to hook up with Laura Dern, who had been with crappy filmaker Renny Harlin, who ended up hooking up with Geena Davis. Now if only we could get Harlin to direct a movie starring Goldblum, Dern and Davis.
Anyway, I hereby propose that the United States Congress pass, and President Bush sign into law, a bill that would ban celebrity marriages. No more would the sacred institution of marriage be profaned by these self absorbed celebrities who change spouses like they change their wardrobes. It is time to put a stop to it! Write your congressional representatives now and let's begin to make marriage in America mean something again.
(No Shoprite customers were harmed while writing this post.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)