Posts
The parliament of Spain legalized gay marriage in this staunchly Catholic nation. While adamently opposed by Catholics and conservatives in the country, the bill is just the latest of many progressive initiatives pursuied by the ruling Socialist-majority government of Prime Minister Zapetero.
In my home state of Maine, however, the conservative Xians, led by Michael Heath and other Jesus-lovers, have just turned in the required signatures to put a "people's veto" on the ballot in the fall. This will be the third time this divisive issue has been thrust in the faces of Mainers since 1997. It's bound to get ugly here in the Pine Tree State, as the out-of-state morality policy such as James Dobson's Family Research Council and others are already descending on the state, as well as fattening the coffers of the anti-gay proponents.
Interestingly, our governor John Baldacci had signed into law a bill granting legal protection to gays and lesbians, allowing Maine to join the rest of the New England states that have similar forms of legislation.
While Maine certainly has a progressive element, as well as those who go by the declaration of live-and-let-live, the anti-homosexual crowd will whip up the fears of others and this one could get extremely ugly come the fall. FMI about how you can join those who would like Maine to leave the 16th and join the 21st century, a good place to start is with Maine Won't Descriminate.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
The Future of Petroleum
It's important to understand what lies behind our failures in Iraq. Regardless of what Washington tells any of us, we aren't leaving Iraq any time soon. "Why?" you ask. Because of oil and the massive quantities of it that our mega-consumption demands.
This article on Saudi oil says alot about the war in Iraq and possible scenarios for our future.
Drive your H2, Expedition and whatever other gas-guzzling behemoth with your "I support W" decal, yellow ribbon or other pro-oil slogan while you can. The day is coming when it will sit idle in your yard.
You can call it schadenfreude; I just say it's the future.
This article on Saudi oil says alot about the war in Iraq and possible scenarios for our future.
Drive your H2, Expedition and whatever other gas-guzzling behemoth with your "I support W" decal, yellow ribbon or other pro-oil slogan while you can. The day is coming when it will sit idle in your yard.
You can call it schadenfreude; I just say it's the future.
He's a mighty good leader (not)
I watched the president's speech last night; well I made it to the point where he trotted out the first of five shopworn references to September 11th in his justification for his failed war in Iraq. Bush, typically lacking in eloquence and short on ideas, indicated that "Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war," (his war on terrah!). He continued. "Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, in Washington and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them — to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home."
David Corn has a decent analysis of the BushCo speech at his website. Basically, as Corn summarizes, "Twelve days ago, The Washington Post reported that the Bush White House had concluded that George W. Bush--who was facing sinking polling numbers regarding the war in Iraq--needed to "shift strategies." He would (of course) not be implementing any policy changes, the paper noted; his new approach" would be "mostly rhetorical." Yet in his prime-time speech on Iraq--delivered before a quiet audience of troops at Fort Bragg on Tuesday evening--Bush proved the Post report wrong. There was no shift of strategy--rhetorical or otherwise. Bush delivered a flat recital of his previous justifications of the war, while offering vague assurances that (a) he realizes (really, really) that the war in Iraq is "hard" work and that (b) his administration is indeed winning the war. On that latter point, Bush mentioned no metrics (as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would call them)--that is, concrete indicators--to demonstrate that he holds a more accurate view of the war than, say, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel who days ago exclaimed, "The reality is that we're losing in Iraq." Bush's plan this night was rather transparent: assert success...and then assert it some more."
His references to our "coalition partners" were absolutely laughable, or in my case, brought about the urge to throw my glass at the television. Only my wife's suggestion that I turn the channel and a five minute diversion to the Wimbledon match between Sharapova and Petrova calmed this destructive urge.
Our fearless leader offered nothing new and continued to call upon Americans to sacrifice. Since none of his children or those of other well-heeled leaders are shedding their blood in Iraq, I say we bring our troops the (blanked out profanity) home now! I'm sick and tired of men like Bush, born with a silver spoon in his crack, talking to me and other working class Americans about sacrifice. President C- doesn't know the first thing about sacrifice--never has and never will. Why hard-working, honest people allow themselves to be deluded by this callous and dangerous divider of the American people continues to baffle me.
Hopefully, as his approval rating tumbles and other bombshells (like the Downing Street Memo) are brought forth, they might topple this imbecilic, syntax-challenged, war monger. Then again, half of the country has drunk the kool-aid and the other half are glued to the television waiting for the next shark attack or watching Nancy Grace.
Addendum:
Not sure how many listen to alternative radio, but if you do, check out the lyrics to System of a Down's song, "BYOB". Interesting in light of Smirky's speech with lyrics like, "Why don't presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor?" Why of course, so the twins, Jenna and Barbara, don't have to go!
David Corn has a decent analysis of the BushCo speech at his website. Basically, as Corn summarizes, "Twelve days ago, The Washington Post reported that the Bush White House had concluded that George W. Bush--who was facing sinking polling numbers regarding the war in Iraq--needed to "shift strategies." He would (of course) not be implementing any policy changes, the paper noted; his new approach" would be "mostly rhetorical." Yet in his prime-time speech on Iraq--delivered before a quiet audience of troops at Fort Bragg on Tuesday evening--Bush proved the Post report wrong. There was no shift of strategy--rhetorical or otherwise. Bush delivered a flat recital of his previous justifications of the war, while offering vague assurances that (a) he realizes (really, really) that the war in Iraq is "hard" work and that (b) his administration is indeed winning the war. On that latter point, Bush mentioned no metrics (as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would call them)--that is, concrete indicators--to demonstrate that he holds a more accurate view of the war than, say, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel who days ago exclaimed, "The reality is that we're losing in Iraq." Bush's plan this night was rather transparent: assert success...and then assert it some more."
His references to our "coalition partners" were absolutely laughable, or in my case, brought about the urge to throw my glass at the television. Only my wife's suggestion that I turn the channel and a five minute diversion to the Wimbledon match between Sharapova and Petrova calmed this destructive urge.
Our fearless leader offered nothing new and continued to call upon Americans to sacrifice. Since none of his children or those of other well-heeled leaders are shedding their blood in Iraq, I say we bring our troops the (blanked out profanity) home now! I'm sick and tired of men like Bush, born with a silver spoon in his crack, talking to me and other working class Americans about sacrifice. President C- doesn't know the first thing about sacrifice--never has and never will. Why hard-working, honest people allow themselves to be deluded by this callous and dangerous divider of the American people continues to baffle me.
Hopefully, as his approval rating tumbles and other bombshells (like the Downing Street Memo) are brought forth, they might topple this imbecilic, syntax-challenged, war monger. Then again, half of the country has drunk the kool-aid and the other half are glued to the television waiting for the next shark attack or watching Nancy Grace.
Addendum:
Not sure how many listen to alternative radio, but if you do, check out the lyrics to System of a Down's song, "BYOB". Interesting in light of Smirky's speech with lyrics like, "Why don't presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor?" Why of course, so the twins, Jenna and Barbara, don't have to go!
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
The world according to Thom Friedman
It always amazes me that certain writers seem to have carte blanche when it comes to publishing. Take for instance New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Friedman has never seen an instance of globalization that he didn't jump up and begin cheerleading for. With his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (which could be called Globalization for Dummies), Friedman postulates inane scenarious about exploitation the world over--basically, any form of offshoring, out-sourcing and labor transfer that robs workers of living wages is good for the burgeoning global economy.
In reviewing Friedman's latest atrocity, The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century, writer Amitabh Pal points out numerous flaws in the book, including his woeful use of metaphors.
From Pal's review in The Progressive, "His cheesy style gets in the way of his main point: Technological forces—such as the Internet and outsourcing—have altered the nature of the workplace so fundamentally that they have changed the world. This, Friedman argues, has affected everything ranging from the way you order burgers at drive ups (the orders are often taken at some remote location) to the way cartoon movies are made (teams in Bangalore, India, are frequently doing the animation) to the way computers are fixed (UPS runs a repair facility for Toshiba)."
Friedman is an all-too-obvious example of the technocrats and lackeys who carry the water for their corporate bosses. Meanwhile, honest Americans are facing the specter of declining real wages, loss of adequate health coverage and an ever-shrinking piece of the middle class pie. Rather than journalists-in-name-only like Friedman championing their cause, he'd rather keep whistling to the bank while economic nincompoops keep buying his dumbed-down schlock.
In reviewing Friedman's latest atrocity, The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century, writer Amitabh Pal points out numerous flaws in the book, including his woeful use of metaphors.
From Pal's review in The Progressive, "His cheesy style gets in the way of his main point: Technological forces—such as the Internet and outsourcing—have altered the nature of the workplace so fundamentally that they have changed the world. This, Friedman argues, has affected everything ranging from the way you order burgers at drive ups (the orders are often taken at some remote location) to the way cartoon movies are made (teams in Bangalore, India, are frequently doing the animation) to the way computers are fixed (UPS runs a repair facility for Toshiba)."
Friedman is an all-too-obvious example of the technocrats and lackeys who carry the water for their corporate bosses. Meanwhile, honest Americans are facing the specter of declining real wages, loss of adequate health coverage and an ever-shrinking piece of the middle class pie. Rather than journalists-in-name-only like Friedman championing their cause, he'd rather keep whistling to the bank while economic nincompoops keep buying his dumbed-down schlock.
Monday, June 27, 2005
The last crusade
"On some positions, cowardice asks the question, 'is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'is it popular?' But conscience asks the question 'is it right?' And then comes a time when a true follower of Jesus Christ must take a stand that's neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but he must take that stand because it is right." - Martin Luther King Jr
Noted evangelical Billy Graham has reached the end of the line as far as his crusades go. Graham, known to some as “America’s pastor” has said he’ll retire after a 60 year career that saw him toe the line and promote the status quo for the likes of pro-war presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
Like many American icons that have reached the status of rock star, Graham has been granted a virtual free pass by the media on his farewell tour. I’ve seen reports on both local and national stations that afforded Graham a status that I don’t think he deserved. Newspaper coverage likewise has been superficial; making no mention that Graham was a water carrier for those in power.
For instance, in 1989, it was revealed that Graham had sent a secret memo to Nixon dated April 15, 1969. After meeting with Vietnamese missionaries in Bangkok, Thailand, this supposed "man of God" said that if the peace talks in Paris were to fail, Nixon should step up the war and bomb the dikes. Such an act, Graham wrote excitedly, "could overnight destroy the economy of North Vietnam".
Graham had no qualms about advocating a policy to the U.S. Commander in Chief that on Nixon's own estimate, would have killed a million people.
Apparently doing the Lord's work also pays quite well, as a 2002 990 form shows the evangelist receiving a salary of nearly $200,000 per year and additional allowance of $233,000, while working about 10 percent of the time. Interesting stewardship of money given by many hard-working and honest people, thinking that their donations were for something other than keeping a semi-retired preacher well-stocked in assets.
Unlike Jesus, who he spent a great deal of time talking about, but apparently missed the significance of who the Bible represents him to be, Graham was as comfortable in corporate boardrooms and presidential suites as he was in the pulpit. Traveling with all the latest in comforts and technological trappings, Graham epitomized an American Xianity, sold out and defanged, providing support for military intervention and indiscriminant killing and maiming of innocents the world over.
I find it laughable when large numbers of people affiliated with organized religion deplore the so-called unfavorable treatment that religion and Xianianity supposedly receives in the “liberal” mainstream media. This supposed liberal bias, if it was in fact present, would have ripped Graham and made mention of some of the things I’ve written about. These are well-known and available for anyone who wants to take a stab at journalism.
Instead, these so-called haters of religion have fallen all over themselves trying to out fluff one another. Graham certainly was a popular man and preached a popular version of a cross-less Xianity—one that plays well in a country wedded to military might and selective morality—it’s just that for those of us who see Jesus as more than another excuse to bomb innocent people, Graham comes across as just another preacher given over to mammon and fame.
Apparently Graham’s son, Franklin is poised to take over the mantle of Graham’s substantial empire. The younger Graham, who drew the ire of the Islamic world for comments he made about Muslims after 9-11, proves the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Interestingly, Franklin receives an estimated $600,000 per year from his father's evangelistic organization.
It appears that the gospel (at least an Americanized version) is no longer the offence that it once was, at least during Jesus' day. It's also ironic that one of America's last prophetic voices--that of Martin Luther King, Jr.--found that speaking out against empire brought you a bullet instead of accolades.
Noted evangelical Billy Graham has reached the end of the line as far as his crusades go. Graham, known to some as “America’s pastor” has said he’ll retire after a 60 year career that saw him toe the line and promote the status quo for the likes of pro-war presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
Like many American icons that have reached the status of rock star, Graham has been granted a virtual free pass by the media on his farewell tour. I’ve seen reports on both local and national stations that afforded Graham a status that I don’t think he deserved. Newspaper coverage likewise has been superficial; making no mention that Graham was a water carrier for those in power.
For instance, in 1989, it was revealed that Graham had sent a secret memo to Nixon dated April 15, 1969. After meeting with Vietnamese missionaries in Bangkok, Thailand, this supposed "man of God" said that if the peace talks in Paris were to fail, Nixon should step up the war and bomb the dikes. Such an act, Graham wrote excitedly, "could overnight destroy the economy of North Vietnam".
Graham had no qualms about advocating a policy to the U.S. Commander in Chief that on Nixon's own estimate, would have killed a million people.
Apparently doing the Lord's work also pays quite well, as a 2002 990 form shows the evangelist receiving a salary of nearly $200,000 per year and additional allowance of $233,000, while working about 10 percent of the time. Interesting stewardship of money given by many hard-working and honest people, thinking that their donations were for something other than keeping a semi-retired preacher well-stocked in assets.
Unlike Jesus, who he spent a great deal of time talking about, but apparently missed the significance of who the Bible represents him to be, Graham was as comfortable in corporate boardrooms and presidential suites as he was in the pulpit. Traveling with all the latest in comforts and technological trappings, Graham epitomized an American Xianity, sold out and defanged, providing support for military intervention and indiscriminant killing and maiming of innocents the world over.
I find it laughable when large numbers of people affiliated with organized religion deplore the so-called unfavorable treatment that religion and Xianianity supposedly receives in the “liberal” mainstream media. This supposed liberal bias, if it was in fact present, would have ripped Graham and made mention of some of the things I’ve written about. These are well-known and available for anyone who wants to take a stab at journalism.
Instead, these so-called haters of religion have fallen all over themselves trying to out fluff one another. Graham certainly was a popular man and preached a popular version of a cross-less Xianity—one that plays well in a country wedded to military might and selective morality—it’s just that for those of us who see Jesus as more than another excuse to bomb innocent people, Graham comes across as just another preacher given over to mammon and fame.
Apparently Graham’s son, Franklin is poised to take over the mantle of Graham’s substantial empire. The younger Graham, who drew the ire of the Islamic world for comments he made about Muslims after 9-11, proves the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Interestingly, Franklin receives an estimated $600,000 per year from his father's evangelistic organization.
It appears that the gospel (at least an Americanized version) is no longer the offence that it once was, at least during Jesus' day. It's also ironic that one of America's last prophetic voices--that of Martin Luther King, Jr.--found that speaking out against empire brought you a bullet instead of accolades.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)