This Week's Top Stories: September 29, 2006

Al-Qaida's Second in Command Tells Bush, "Nah-Nah-Nah Nah-Bu-Bu!"

In, what is obviously, unbiased criticism Ayman al-Zawahri called President Bush a "lying failure" and a "charlatan" for his claims of success in the War on Terror. Zawahri says that al-Qaida is stronger than ever. Zawahri challenged Bush to be courageous and confront his people (that's us for those of you keeping score) with the truth about our losses in Iraq and Afghanistan. Zawarhri made this challenge on videotape, recorded at an undisclosed cave.

The President shouldn't feel too bad about Zawahri's remarks as the al-Qaida leader also called the Pope a "charlatan" for his negative comments about Islam. "This charlatan accused Islam of being incompatible with rationality while forgetting that his own Christianity is unacceptable to a sensible mind," Zawahri said, "and that is why we will continue to destroy these Christians with our own bodies if necessary." Yep, lots of rationality there, Ayman! Others outed as "charlatans" by Zawahri include (but are not limited to): Professional wrestling, Country singers Big and Rich, Pamela Anderson, Dave Chappelle and the creator of the Gilmore Girls (everybody knows Aaron Sorkin really wrote that show).

File This One Under "I Swear it Was Already Written!"

In a completely unrelated story, President Bush admitted there have been setbacks in the War on Terror. Where have we heard that before? Bush attacked those that claim America is less safe because of the war in Iraq, in remarks to a military crowd today, continuing his pre-election defense of his (and Congressional Republican's) handling of the War.

Bush claimed that those that say we are less safe because of our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are buying into "the enemies propaganda." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Chairman Howard Dean (always the voices of reason) described the President as "desperate" and "in denial." While it may seem odd that the President would admit shortcomings on the same day that a terrorist leader calls him a failure, I think it's political genius to put yourself on one side of an argument, and on the other side your political opponents and a terrorist leader. Way to go Bushy!

Won't Rhode Island Be Shocked!

A Massachussetts Judge decided today that a homosexual Rhode Island couple has the right to marry in Massachussetts, because their home state has no prohibitions against gay marriage. Gay marriage is not legal in Rhode Island (that's why the couple went to Massachussetts) but there is no constitutional amendment or statute specifically outlawing it. Mass. Governor Mitt Romney (who does not support same-sex marriage) had ordered local municipalities not to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples from out of state, citing a 1913 law that forbids out-of-state residents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be allowed in their home state. Are we confused yet?

Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly ruled that while Rhode Island's statutes governing marriage do use gender specific terms like "bride" and "groom" that it does not specifically outlaw gay marriage. Of course since Judge Connolly's court is in Massachusetts and not Rhode Island, the couple can get married, but they have no guarantee that the marriage will be recognized in their home state. In fact it is unlikely that it will since (as reported above) gay marriage isn't legal in Rhode Island.

Tired of Sleeping on the Couch, Congress and the President have Make-Up Legislation

You'll recall in the past couple of weeks, hearing about the President and Congress bitter feud over the detention, interrogation and prosecution of terror suspects. Well we're acting like it never even happened, and they're stronger than ever before! The bill (a compromise between the President's and Congressional Republicans original plans) is now awaiting the President's signature.

The President urged himself to sign the bill into law saying, "It's exactly the kind of legislation we need. It will help us prosecute terror suspects, and gain new information from future detainees. Any delay in signing the bill is uneccesary and costly. I urge me to sign this bill immediately." The President then left the podium a little confused. Let's hope he figures that one out and signs the bill quickly.

Now for something very unfunny

Sadly this week has brought not one, but two shooting incidents at our nations high schools. Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, Colorado, and The Weston School in Cazenovia, Wisconnsin were both host to gun violence this week. The first incident, in Colorado, concluded with two deaths (the middle-aged attacker and one of his hostages) and five teenage girls who, while being held hostage, were apparently sexually molested. The Wisconsin shooting claimed only one life (Weston School's Principal), the student responsible is now awaiting araignment.

It's been a while (but not nearly long enough) since we've seen school violence in this country. Death is always sad, but when young people lose their lives senselessly, or take the lives of others thus effectively ending their own, the sadness is multiplied. Our thoughts (and I'm sure those of our readers) are with the families and students affected at these two schools. While we pursue those that would harm us across the globe it is very sobering to see how many wish to harm us right here at home.

That's this weeks top stories. Thanks for checking out Apathy as Activism, and remember, if we don't laugh about it, we'd have to cry about it.

what works?: a response to What Makes You Conservative or Liberal?

let me start off by saying, i know the point of my fellow contributor's post was not necessarily to illicit ideological colloguy but to simply to remark on the various statistics coinciding with one side or the other; a lot of money (or very little of it) and a lot of God=conservative, in the middle of these social dynamics=liberal. but there is a flaw in this: most of these "who's liberal or conservative" are not based on these individuals personal beliefs or their voting patterns (which would be difficult, not to mention illegal, to study with any degree of accuracy) they are based soley on party affiliation. party affiliation is not a good indicator of political ideology. for example, i am a member of a major party, however, i in no way adhere strictly to their cannon; i do agree more often with their take on issues (albeit those issues' numbers are dwindling) than i do the take of the other side, but the other side is not always wrong either.

here's the point, folks: we are not just statistics and our parties do not define us...we define our parties. and this garbage about your being conservative because you believe in this and you're a liberal because you are against that is lies funnelled in to the brains of american's by the propagandists (yes, that's what these language wars are) on both sides of the aisle. believe what you believe because you believe it, not because it's what fox or cnn said was right.

here's my proposition to america: it is the founding of a new (at least it seems new in skewed times such as these) political ideology. i call it practicalism (although the name is not set in stone nor is it important). practicalism is not a party or a platform, it is an objective viewpoint that every intellectually honest, active member of a party (and society) must take in order to keep his party, his country, and himself accountable. the philosophy is this: is this practice accomplishing its intended goals?; if not, get over your pride and ask, what do we need to do to accomplish them?; and is the practice fiscally plausible?...simplified: if something works, it works. if it doesn't, it doesn't and we need to find something that does. fdr is one of our most conteversial presidents; he either ushered us out of the great depression or he sent us plumetting into a convoluted spiderweb of bureucacies and social programs that continually threaten our economy. neither of these are completely true and yet neither completely false. but what fdr did (and this is what i admire about the man) was admit when a program wasn't working and move on to a new one.

we need to be willing to accept that our party does not have all the answers and those answers may actually be found on the other side...or in third parties...or (dare i say it?) other countries governments. we as republicans or democrats or american's do not have a corner on good ideas and the sooner we recognize that and (again, dare i say it?) humble ourselves the sooner our county gets to a place where we americans can all be proud of who we are, what we do, and what we stand for...because who we are, what we do, and what we stand for will work. and that's something that both the left and right can get behind.

What Makes You Conservative or Liberal?

We're about six weeks away from one of the biggest mid-term elections in decades. And everyone with a publisher (and lots of folks without one) want to tell us what will decide the election. Some say it will be a referendum on Bush, others that anger over the Iraq war will lead the Democrats to victory. The USA Today had a fascinating article that show that a persons view of God had more bearing on their political position than any other factor.

Today's issue of that Augustine (that's my new favorite word, thank you "Studio 60") newspaper, actually has two conflicting (somewhat) stands on the question. The front page has an article that holds that marriage is the best indicator of political party affiliation. While Page 4 holds the presence (or lack) of children in a home is the best sign. All of them make good points (and even have research to back those points up).

For years we've heard how education levels are tied to political orientation (and belief in God for that matter). The very poorly educated tend to be conservative, a high school diploma or Bachelor's Degree tends to steer you more liberal and even more so for those that achieve Master's Degree. Then at the Professional degree level the trend reverses, and people tend to be more Conservative again. So if you are stupid or very smart you are likely Conservative, if you are educated but not overly so, you are likely more liberal. The real question here is whether the economic conditions associated with these different education levels or the education itself is the real reason behind the political affiliation.

If you ask me (and you did come to my blog) it's the dollar bills that lead us to the left or right politically. While the average American with his middle class income has more important things to worry about than gay marriage and abortion, he is very focused on government programs and expenditures, and whether or not his son is going to war somewhere. The CEO on the other hand wants two things, more of his money at the end of the day, and a stable country in which to spend that money. This (and the wish to use his money as influence) causes (limited) activism in the social arena. Not too much though, because that might alienate consumers.

The almighty dollar is also (again, just my opinion) responsible for the U.S. being more Conservative overall than European nations (especially fiscally). Blame it on the American Dream my friends. We all expect to be rich, so we hesitate to tax the rich too much, because we want to keep our own money when we finally get some. Good for the Republicans, not so good for the concept of socialized medicine.

So are you married with two kids, and a PhD but still a flaming pinko Commie? Or are you a single, Union employee with a Master's in English that watches Pat Robertson and campaigned for Pat Buchanan? Well, you're special. But both of you should vote. You'll offset each other and allow sane people like me to decide our leaders.

This Week's Top Stories: September 22, 2006

Bush and Congress GOP Kiss and Make Up

A rift that threatened to hinder Republicans chances at the polls this November has now been all patched up and kissed to make it better. The disagreement arose over conflicting plans for terror suspects detention, interrogation and prosecution. Senate Republicans (especially Lindsey Graham and John McCain) believed the President's plan didn't meet the requirements laid out by the Geneva Conventions. They pointed to the "Merciless Beating" technique as one that might be abused by interrogators.

Before the deal was struck, the disagreement seemed ready to cause major headaches for the GOP in the upcoming election as both the President and Congress refused to budge. The President responded to congressional complaints with the tried and true, "I know you are, but what am I?" reply, while Congress broke several of the President's favorite toys in retaliation. Now the plan just needs to pick up a little support from Senate Democrats. "With friends like these..."

Hezbollah Leader, Obvious Charlton Heston Fan, Says U.N. Will Take His Guns When They "Pry them From My Cold Dead Hands"

While Lebanese Terrorist organizations and the National Rifle Association may not agree on much, they seem to share a public relations team. In his first public appearance since Israeli/Hezbollah skirmishes began on July 12, Sheik Hassan Nazrallah gave an answer to calls for disarmament that would make Charlton Heston proud, "No army in the world will make us drop the weapons from our hands."

Nazrallah claims that without a strong Lebanese government, disarming "...means leaving Lebanon exposed before Israel to kill and detain and bomb whoever they want." Waiting for a strong Lebanese government will be difficult since the main impediment is the presence of an armed militia that doesn't trust or follow the government. It's what I would call a conundrum.

The good news for Hezbollah is that apparently no one is trying to take their guns (now it's just eerily similar to the NRA). The Lebanese government says disarmament should be left up to the U.N. peacekeepers, and the U.N. forces say it's not their job. Because, let's face it, what does disarming terrorists have to do with keeping the peace? If you said nothing, you may already be on the United Nations Security Council!

Americans think President Bush's Magical Powers Include Controlling Gas Prices

Or at least that's what recent polls seem to imply. It doesn't seem to matter how many or how few soldiers die in the War on Terror, scandals don't seem to have much effect, but gas prices will either win or lose this election. A USA Today article quotes research from analysts who have been tracking the President's job approval rating, and gas prices and over the length of Bush's presidency those prices seem to be a better indicator of his public perception than any other single factor.

It is true that Bush was an oilman. It is also true that the war he is currently fighting is taking place in the section of the world that produces more oil than any other. But that's about the only two connections that the President has to the price at the pump. The good news for Republicans is that prices are expected to continue to fall (at least through the November election) and therefore may help them stave off the Democratic challenge to take over Congress. Whoopee magic powers!

In Thai, Coup Means Happy!

Three days after, what appears to be, the most popular military coup in history Thailand is accepting the new situation. A survey conducted by the Bangkok Post found 86.4% of rural residents (generally supporters of ousted Prime Minister Thaskin Shinawatra) approved of the coup.

So what did Thaskin do that was bad enough to turn his own supporters against him? Mostly, caused grid-lock. Thaskin and his political opponents had been so embittered towards each other that the government had been largely ineffectual for the last year. So let the "Yellow Ribbon Coup," as it is being called (due to the Military wearing yellow cloth in honor of the King of Thailand), stand as a warning to all of you gridlock causing politicians. We may just coup! (Can you use Coup as a Verb?)

Now for Something Very Unfunny

Sometime today or this weekend more Americans will have died in the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan than were killed in the attacks of 9/11/2001 that started the war. Over this weekend, you'll doubtlessly read dozens of articles using this somber milestone as ammunition against Bush, the Republican-led Congress and the War itself. This is not such an article.

Mistakes have been made in the invasions and subsequent occupations and rebuildings of Afghanistan and Iraq, but these mistakes do not mean the decision to go to war was a mistake. We were, in fact, already at war, even though we hadn't been paying attention. So I support the War, voted for Bush (and would do so again), that doesn't mean that I am not saddened by the fact that 2,973 American men and women have lost their lives in this new war.

America spent a long time not losing lives in the quest for freedom. Between the end of major casualties in Vietnam and the first Gulf War we got spoiled. That long period of relative safety makes these deaths harder to accept (not that death should be acceptable).

Many brave servicemen and women have died in the past five years, many more will die before we can say we are "safe" from Islamofacism. We can't (and shouldn't) grow cold or unfeeling about these deaths, but neither can we be the "paper tiger" that al-Qaida imagines we are. We have suffered losses in liberty's cause before, and liberty is the cause we are still fighting for.

That's the news for this week. Thanks for checking out "Apathy as Activism," and remember if we don't laugh about it, we'd have to cry about it.

This Week's Top Stories: September 15, 2006

The Pope and Muslims Just Can't Play Nice After an outcry in the Muslim world over remarks Pope Benedict XVI (that guys title is like a Superbowl) made during a pilgrimage to his homeland, the Vatican has tried to make his statements clearer, but has so far not outright apologized for them. A Vatican spokesperson said, "When the Holy Father described the concept of jihad or Holy War as 'evil and inhuman' he merely meant that it is wrong and inconsistent with a reasonable view of God. How could Muslims be offended by that?" How indeed? Muslim leaders released a statement, "We of the Islamic faith have nothing but the highest regard for human life, and an appreciation for the faiths of others. The comments of Pope Benedict have greatly saddened us, and as devout men of the cloth, we now call for the head of his Holy Father." and frankly who can blame them? It is currently unclear whether this possible death threat would keep Pope Benedict XVI from his upcoming trip to majority Muslim Turkey.

Iraqi Prime Minister Promotes 'Reconciliation by Division' Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is urging Iraqis to give up there sectarian struggles and join him in a plan for National Unification. As a show of unity, the Iraqi security forces are digging trenches around Baghdad, to unite the capital city with the rest of the country. These "Anti-Terror Trenches" (a name chosen after careful polling, the original name was the "Terrifying Trenches") are to help the security forces channel traffic into and out of the city through check points, the intention being to stop attacks like a recent car bombing.

"These trenches will bring us together, by keeping us apart." the Prime Minister said in a speech on Friday. The plan is loosely based on a 627AD battle in which Muhammad protected the city of Medina from divisiveness (and an invading army) by digging trenches. Prime Minister al-Maliki said that uniting the different sects, ethnic and religious groups is of the utmost importance, "Nothing can stand in the way of Iraqi unity...except these gigantic holes in the ground."

Bush Pushes Congress to Adopt His Detainee Bill, Congress Tells Mom, 'W is Pushing!'

The President reiterated today how important it is for Congress to pass his plan for the detention, and interrogation of terrorist suspects, "We are fighting a war with a faceless, cowardly enemy. And when we catch that faceless enemy our people need to have the ability to mercilessly beat...I mean to thoroughly interrogate them in a very humane way."

Congress has its own plan for detainee interrogation and prosecution, that many Senators feel is more in line with international law. "Just because W wants to play cowboy and put the screws to these terrorists, doesn't mean that we can throw the Geneva Convention out the window..." Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Republican Presidential hopeful said, "you're not recording this are you?" McCain's other remarks could not be transcribed as he smashed the tape recorder to little bitty pieces.

The Senate's proposal was passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, and legislation similar to the President's plan is being amended this week to more closely resemble the Senate plan. If passed by Congress, the President has promised to not only veto this "weakened" legislation but throw a temper tantrum, take his ball and go home.

Texas Gubernatorial Candidate Supports Marijuana Legalization, Austin Residents Ask, 'It's Not Already?'

Singer, songwriter, novelist, independent candidate for Governor and "crazy cowboy" Kinky Friedman said Thursday that he would attempt to legalize marijuana if he was elected in order to keep non-violent offenders out of prison, and make room for more serious criminals. "Texas would be a hell of lot more fun under Governor Kinky!" said an anonymous Austonian, the first time that sentence has ever been uttered in the history of mankind.

Friedman's campaign has been one fraught with controversy as Republican incumbent Rick Perry's camp has labeled him a flip-flopper. "I don't mind being called a flip-flopper..." Friedman said, "besides boots, they're my favorite shoes." Friedman has also taken a position on the death penalty saying that he would use the Governor's ability to grant a reprieve to some condemned killers. Governor Friedman wouldn't be soft on crime however, as he's made it clear he would give $100 million to Houston to hire more police. The announcement of this plan caused more headache for Kinky as he described some Hurricane Katrina evacuees as "crackheads and thugs." The upswing in crime in Houston has formed a very unconventional alliance for Friedman. At the Austin airport he was introduced to Robert Muhammad, the leader of the Nation of Islam in Houston. Friedman says one of his first calls if elected would be to Robert, as he is a "visionary man" just the right guy to clear out "those gangsters, thugs and crackheads."

Incidentally look forward to NBC's new sitcom, "Kinky, Muhammad and Stoner" coming this fall.

That's it for this week, guys enjoy your weekend, and remember if we don't laugh at it, we'd have to cry about it. Incidentally I'm moving to Texas in case anybody needs me. Just kidding.

5 Years Ago...

Five years ago, I was lying in bed, sound asleep. The phone on the nightstand rang, I checked the clock it was still a few minutes until eight A.M. My mother was on the other end of the line. "Wake up. Turn on the news. Something is happening."

Something was happening. As I sat on my couch, watching fuzzy over-the-air reception from the Monroe NBC station, I saw what that something was. As Katie Couric and Matt Lauer told us what they knew (which wasn't much) I watched live video of one of the World Trade Center towers burning. As the "Today Show" team speculated about whether or not it was an accident, I saw a plane fly into the second tower. Still on the phone with my mother, we wondered aloud at who could have done this. Who would? Why? And then the towers fell.

The rest of the day was a blur. I had classes to get to, and despite my feelings to the contrary, everyone else seemed to think life should go on. My Professors (having arrived at school, before the attacks) didn't seem to understand that it was definitely not coincidence. Four planes, three targets, and one miss to many to be a coincidence.

The next few days were a haze, wondering, making calls to loved ones. Is everyone accounted for, is everyone all right? The same conversation over and over, where were you when you heard? After Pearl Harbor, we're taught that there was a surge of patriotism, huge numbers of volunteers for the military. In those days all I heard was doubt, and fear. How many dead? How did it happen? Would it happen again?

It's been five years since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. It's amazing the amount of weight such an action can give to a day. Before it was just a day, now it is a reminder. A reminder that we are not invincible. Our natural defenses, the two oceans that have always kept us safe from the world's conflicts are not quite as big as they once were. We are not invincible, but neither are we weak. We are resilient and we have proved that in the five years since September 11th became for than a day.

In the past five years, we have retaliated against those that would, and did, do us harm. We have chased them out of Kabul, and Baghdad. We have worked to strengthen our defenses by sharing intelligence amongst the different agencies of the government. This move has not been completely successful, but we have made great strides. President Bush, his administration and his allies in congress have made missteps, but they have also made progress in this new war. For the first time in human history, we aren't fighting a country, or an army, we are fighting an idea. Islamofacism is our new enemy, and thus far we are winning.

We know we are winning because for the past five years, we have been safe. We read occasionally about terrorist plots that are stopped. Would-be hi-jackers arrested. But we don't hear about how many plans are scrapped, because our security is just too tight. How many plots never get off the ground, because the plotters have to flee from the authorities? There is an old adage that no news is good news. In this new war, for us that is truer than ever before. Every day there is no headline, is another day that we have won.

Five years ago, I was sad and frightened. Today I am hopeful, that tomorrow we will be safe.

This Week's Top Stories: September 8, 2006

Sorry for the tardiness of this post, Blogger was acting up. It's since been sent to its room without any supper or video games to think about what it did

Senate Report Shows the President's Assertion that Saddam and al-Qaida were Linked is False, Republicans say, "Nothing to See Here."

A new Senate report claims that not only were there no ties between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, but that Saddam viewed the terror network as a threat. Senate Democrats claim that even after multiple sources have disproved the connection of al-Qaida and Hussein, the President and his administration continues to use the falsehood to justify the current war in Iraq. Tony Snow, official White House Spokesman, had this to say, "So, what?" While the report may disprove a Saddam/Osama connection, it does nothing to dispel the President's latest theory which will be elaborated in his Monday night speech, commemorating the 9/11 tragedy. New evidence will be cited by President Bush that shows a connection between al-Qaida and Congressional Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi. An air assault on the Eighth Congressional District of California is expected early next week.

College Students Far To Busy to Protest War or Environmental Practices, Bring Down Their Wrath on Facebook

Social Networking website, Facebook, that caters to high school and college students, came under fire from those students this week for recent upgrades that included displaying the students actions to all others in their network. The Vice President shoots a man in the face and nothing, 2,000 plus soldiers die in an unpopular war and the pulse of America's youth remains calm, but screw with our internet, and we'll burn this son-of-a-bi*** down! I have never been prouder of my generation. In an open letter to the users of the site its creator, Mark Zuckerberg, said, "My bad!" A group of students protesting the recent additions described them as "creepy" and "Big Brother-ish." Taxpayers money well spent on those educations, wouldn't you say? Since the protest began, Facebook has implimented new privacy measures that allow users to opt out of the new features, "News Feed" and "Mini Feed" thus negating some of the "Big Brother-ish-ness" Benjamin Parr, the student who created the largest protest group, hopes that his peers can now focus their energy on more pressing issues, like getting iTunes to lower its prices, or upping the storage limit for Yahoo! email.

After 35,000 years of Male Fought Wars, Science Decides It's In Our Blood

From the desk of Captain Obvious comes new scientific findings that men may have developed a predisposition to warfare, that enables us to be better soldier's than women. Researchers at the University of Kent in southern England say that male psychology (not thousands of years of patriarchal rule) is the reason behind a male dominated military. It seems that men are more likely than women to volunteer for warfare, as well as support the warfare of their nation. Duh. It is currently unknown whether this "warrior effect" is at all linked to our desire to leave the toilet seat up, but I'm sure that millions of dollars of taxpayer's money will be spent to research the connection.

Independent Joe Defends His Eight Year Old Comment about President Clinton, Tells Rival Lamont to "Get Over It"

Sen. Joseph Lieberman defended his rebuke of former President Clinton after Democratic candidate, Ned Lamont, said it was a "spectacle." The "spectacle" that Lamont is referring to, is when in 1998 Lieberman was the first prominent Democrat to publicly rebuke President Clinton for his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Sen. Lieberman's statements at the time included this quote, "(I am) personally angry because Clinton had, by his disgraceful behavior, jeopardized his administration's historic record of accomplishment." Lamont contends that Lieberman should have backed his President and Party, and that an appropriate action would have been high fiving President Clinton, or remarking, "That's my boy!"

9/11 Film Fictionalizes and Distorts Truth, What Else is New?

ABC has a winner on their hands with a new miniseries set to premier this weekend, commemorating, and depicting the events of 9/11/01. The film (which claims to be based on the 9/11 Report) has Clinton staffers up in arms, as it apparently lays much of the blame for the attacks at the door of the Clinton administration. While a final version of the film is not available for review (it is still being edited, theoretically to correct some of the misrepresentations), several critics have viewed a version of the film and describe it as roughly as entertaining as a four hour version of "Van Wilder." ABC may get off the hook with little fallout, though as the President has asked for time Monday evening (during which the final portion of the film is scheduled to run) for a speech, commemorating the anniversary of 9/11 and discussing the continuing war on terror. This may be the only time in history that a Bush will save a Clinton.

That, my friends, is all the news that's fit to print, or more truthfully, all the news I decided to dissect. Enjoy your weekend, and look forward to a 9/11 retrospective piece posted sometime before Monday. Just remember, if we don't laugh at it, we'd have to cry about it.

top stories: 8/27-9/1/06

sorry for being away for so long the folks from whom i was stealing my wireless internet decided to move, so i have been without access for about a week. i considered (briefly) posting via my cell phone's browser, but ultimately opted against it; i thought my thumbs would get too tired from 'texting' my post. lucky for me (and you) rogue has been blogging up a storm...the man has a lot of words in his head and they want out!

anywho, here are this week's top stories.

hello. are you a fascist?:

if you criticize the war in iraq, you are...or at the very least you support fascism. that's what the president said. i have criticized the war, as has the majority of the country, and like my good friend and fellow contributor, the drunken rogue, i realize that this 'disapproving majority' are not truly in 'agreement' (they are the 'withdraw now camp and the 'send more troops and get this done' camp and probably a few in between) but this majority do see the war not being run as best it could. what they also see is an administration refusing to admit mistakes and apparently unwilling to adapt its strategy (that is the war's strategy not the PR strategy, which, i must say, is quite adaptable). i can understand the reluctance to admit mistakes, especially when fighting an ememy who can take any admission and use it as a soundbyte for terrorist propaganda, but what i cannot understand or accept is an administration (especially one i had a part in electing) telling me that i am a fascist because i disagree with the way they do things. i'm sorry, rumsfeld should have been gone years ago, even if he were a good defense secratary (a controversial statement to say the least) he has become a distraction and an easy target for those who oppose the president; he has also drawn the scorn of numerous ex-generals who served under him...there you go: i'm a fascist. if anything is unpatriotic it is accusing 60% of americans of fascist sympathies because they exercise their 1st amendment rights. the allowance to speak out against an administration's policies is what makes us america; call me a fascist, that's your right, but i'll be damned if you'll stop me from speaking out.

the UN approves peace-keeping force for darfur:

finally the something is being done about the problems in sudan. the security council yesterday approved a UN force (if those two words can be used in succession without sounding completely rediculous) to 'keep the peace' in darfur. basically, the council has said it's ok to send a few powder-blue-helmeted, practically-unarmed troops to the darfur region to tell the people there, 'hey, stop that genocide over there...no really, stop...dude, i'm serious, stop it...' which i suppose is better than not doing that. the next step, i guess, will be UN sacnctions, because those always work. there is one glaring problem with this whole 'peace-keeping force' thing: as soon as the security counncil accepted it lieutenant general omar hassan al-bashir (that would be sudan's president lieutenant general omar hassan al-bashir--also known for having the most prefix-ional titles is the whole of sudan) rejected it saying he prefers the peace-keepers presently supplied by the african union (an organization who, incidently, wants to transfer its duties to the UN...oh the complexity!). long story made short: the 'peace' in darfur, which (as i see it) has left nearly half a million dead and 4 times that homeless is not likely to be resolved with this brand of peace-keeping.

the UN and lebonese start taking over the border:

for the first time in 2 decades, the lebonese are protecting the southern lebonese border. that's pretty much it for that...good for them. controling your own country with yours own troops and government is a good thing.

guess who's not all that concerned with UN deadlines?:

give up? it's iran. i know, i know, who would have thought that a megalomaniacal middle-eastern dictator would disregard the UN so nonchalantly. i mean, what historical precedent do we have for such a thing? what else can i say? i am utterly stunned.

well, ok, folks you have been informed and inundated with my opinions, which are some of the best opinions, in my opinion.