If you're lookin' for me of late...

I've been here, in a fascinating discussion of marriage, civil union, religion, and the state. the Griper: Homosexual Marriage.

I'd welcome comment (there or here) on the subject, if anyone reading has any...

(Yeah, I let that nihilist comment Griper made at Nero's blog go... Everyone makes mistakes, and since he hasn't chosen to defend or address it in any way since, that's the story I'm goin' with... Bottom line is, I like the guy, even when I think he's wrong...)

D’oh Nuts

See UPDATES below.


Wingnuts: Saving the world from fried batter, one paisley scarf at a time....

Knuckleheads on the right boycott Dunkin Donuts over Rachel Ray's neckwear. They don't run on intelligence, obviously...

read more | digg story

See more: Crooks and Liars Oh Noes! Is Meghan McCain A Terrorist Sympathiser Too?

UPDATE: A far better post on the subject than mine (warning: If you value your monitor, no drinking anything--especially coffee, I guess--whilst reading): Daily Kos: Indiana Malkin and the Slightly Scary Neckware of Doom

UPDATE: Photo montage, with a hat tip to James Poniewozik's "Tuned In" Blog at TIME

NeoCon Truth (& love for one's fellow man)

The topic? This picture: code_pink_murder.jpg

The Comment: I don't care if the picture was photoshopped ... I believe that Code Pink wants out troops dead, which is why they "support the resistance" in Iraq, nihilist raghead fighters who are murdering Americans.

For some neocons, whether or not the picture or words actually reference objective truth is beside the point. Whether fact or fiction, some things just "feel right." Who cares that the image was photoshopped, and no one from Code Pink ever said or wrote those words... To Don, it's right to post such a picture and demand that folks repudiate Code Pink based on it because he believes that that organization wants American soldiers to die, regardless of what they actually say or do. Some might call this postmodern thinking, but I just call it propaganda...

1) Build the straw man. 2) Knock it down. 3) Claim victory. 4) Repeat as needed, even if only to stroke your own ego.

For more on the same subject (& same neocon) see: Wingnuts & Moonbats: Burkean Truth

But wait, there's more...

P.S. "Ragheads" is from W.E.B. Griffin, and perfectly legitmate for everyday use:

Barnes & Noble.com - Books: By Order of the President (Presidential Agent Series #1), by W. E. B. Griffin, Mass Market Paperback, Reprint

The day one looks to works of fiction to determine what is & isn't appropriate, legitimate language for polite, civil society is the day I stop talkin' altogether. (though I believe it is the persons doing so who might wish to rethink letting words fall from their lips, lest people actually hear them, and judge accordingly...)

I suggested that this particular neocon avoid perusing Huck Finn before going to his job as a Long Beach City College instructor, lest he get any more bright ideas about the legitimate everyday use of any other words commonly found in literature...

"How could my black students be offended? Mark Twain uses the same word..."

Disagree with a 'mercanNeoCon, support terrorism

American Power: Muslim Radicalism at UC Irvine: "You endorse this stuff ["this stuff" being Muslim Jihadis], you know, with all of your endless, unhinged opposition to my posts?"

Isn't that precious?

The Bush team must be exceedingly proud of their little brainwashed NeoCon soldier...

Mother's Day Proclamation

Mother's Day Proclamation
by Julia Ward Howe
(1819-1910)

Arise then...women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts!
Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!
Say firmly:
"We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage,
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country,
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the voice of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with
Our own. It says: "Disarm! Disarm!
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."
Blood does not wipe our dishonor,
Nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace...
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God -
In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

The Swartout's may be victims, but...

Update 3: Replaced the link to the dead motionbox video with the youtube embed, and deleted the link to the rightwing site (to the motionbox vid) that was in update 1.

Update 2: New video, from a different angle.



Update: Added the best video I can find, to replace the one that is no longer available on this site. (which has now--update 3--been replaced by the YouTube video.)





It's kinda hard to tell exactly where this all went wrong, but the "in your face" style of the Swartout family as regards anti-war protests and protesters has led to several other incidents where they were the unfortunate victims, including one in which the 82 year old wife of a WWII veteran kicked Mr Swartout in the ass, and when he pressed charges, was fined $25.00 for her crime. As with serial peace victim Joshua Sparling, I wonder why these few are repeatedly attacked while counter-protesting against anti-Iraq war groups, while so many others escape such a fate. Is it pure dumb luck (or unluck?), or is there anything in the behavior of the victims that leads to such troubles?

To the extent that the peace folks were the agressors in this (or any) situation, they were wrong. But I also wonder whether putting a camera to one's face gives one care blanche to walk among those with whom one disagrees, mocking and insulting them until a verbal or physical confrontation ensues, and then claim victim status, as though there was no way they might've avoided such trouble. While one has the right to walk in any public place at anytime one wants, and to say whatever one feels, actually using those rights isn't the smartest thing to do in every situation... ...unless one wants a nifty little youtube video and the right to whine about poor treatment at the hands of hypocritical peace protesters, anyway...

Along with rights come the responsibility to use them intelligently and appropriately, and I suspect that some of the latter was lacking in this situation.

See also: What'd I Say?: Joshua Sparling: A swiftie spitting swiftly

Public opinion on Iraq

The gap between the views of the American people and those of the administration on Iraq continues to grow.

A newly released Gallup poll asked this question, the central question -- really the only relevant question -- regarding what we should do about Iraq:

If you had to choose, which do you think is better for the U.S. -- to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation gets better, even if that takes many years, or to set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq?

The reason why this is the central question is because it describes the two sides of the mainstream political debate. Keeping troops in Iraq until the situation is better, no matter how long it takes, is the Bush/McCain position. Setting a timetable for withdrawal and adhering to it regardless of what is happening there -- i.e., regardless of whether things are better or we're "winning" or "losing" -- is, roughly speaking, the view of the Democratic presidential candidates and, even more so, the defining premise of the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq sponsored by 42 Democratic Congressional candidates.

Americans overwhelmingly favor unconditional withdrawal and it's not even close. They favor that by a 25-point margin, and it's a 29-point margin among independents. Those are huge margins. Very few public policy questions of any significance produce margins that large.

read more | digg story

Sure, some strident neocons toss out straw man arguments, such as the fact that most Americans don't support immediate withdrawal (neglecting to mention, of course, that no one ever suggested the American public did support immediate withdrawal, or the fact that neither Democratic candidate has advocated for any such thing, either.), but the rest of us in the more reality based community understand the political & social implications of these poll results, which are reliable, and in fact have grown over time.

F^@&in' Lever Pullers