Monday, September 27, 2004

A Threat To Your Freedom

Please note: Yaser Esam Hamdi will be set free without being charged with a single crime.

Who is Yaser Esam Hamdi? He's an American citizen picked up in Afghanistan and held for three years as an "enemy combatant" without being charged with any crime and without being given access to an attorney. In essence, the man has been held in solitary confinement for three years.

All because somebody in the government said he's an enemy.

Now we have something called the constitution that is supposed to protect people from this type of arbitrary and abusive exercise of government authority. You see, the founding fathers knew well the dangers of arbitrary authority.

So eventually this case made its way through the court system, all the while the Bush administration arguing that this Yaser Esam Hamdi guy was so bad and evil that it would undermine the very security of this country if he were allowed to talk to a lawyer or have any contact with the outside world. Moreover, the Bush administration said that the courts should just take their word for it, because it would undermine the very security of this country just to explain why this Yaser Esam Hamdi guy was being held. You just had to trust George Bush.

So what happened when the supreme court disagreed and told Bush that he had to explain to a court the reasons Yaser Esam Hamdi was being held, and he had to give Yaser Esam Hamdi a chance to respond to the charges against him.

What happened is that the Bush administration decided to let Yaser Esam Hamdi go free.

I guess they had nothing. No crimes. No evidence. No security concerns.

All smoke and mirrors.

Please pay attention ladies and gentlemen, because what the Bush administration did to Yaser Esam Hamdi should tip you -- these are the acts of a tyrant. The Bush administration lied to the Courts for three years, there was no national security issue. None. Nada. Just lies.

Whatever your political affiliation, you should be very, very scared by these people. I am.

Sunday, September 26, 2004

Hell Hath No Fury . . .

Like a right wing blogger scorned.

Charles Johnson, leader of the "right leaning" website LittleGreenFootballs, laments that an article in todays New York Times about bloggers doesn't mention his site, even though he gave the author of the article 43 minutes of his precious time. Yes, I'm not kidding, he notes his time right down to the minute. (Hey, the guy begs for tips on his website, so how much could his time be worth?)

Johnson lies when he complains that the only bloggers mentioned are "New York Times-approved left-wing drones." In fact the article mentions (and provides links) to several conservative blogs, including Andrew Sullivan and Instapundit. Johnson then uses this lie as "proof" that the "MSM" (MainStreamMedia) is just a tool of the American communist party.

I'm beginning to wonder if Johnson isn't really Rush Limbaugh. Whoever he is, he needs a wakeup call. General Electric, Westinghouse, Disney, FOX. These are the owners of the MSM.

If Johnson wants to know the reason why his site was ignored by the author of the New York Times article, maybe he should take a good look at the content of his site instead of looking for imaginary demons in the press.

Here's crybaby Johnson's piece:

Here's the New York Times Article:

Saturday, September 25, 2004

Hey Arnold

I thought the Republicans were the party of personal freedom. A couple weeks ago you sign a law outlawing sex with a corpse, and now you've signed a law making it illegal for 14 year-olds to visit tanning parlors. So much for personal freedom.

Not, of course, that anybody should have having sex with a corpse, and I don't think young teenagers need to go to tanning salons. But do we really need laws against such things? Isn't the goal is to pare back unnecessary government. I think it's a waste to pay legislators to pass laws against imaginary evils.

Obviously the California legislature has extra time on its hands. Maybe it could organize a bake sale to help reduce the state's deficit. Even better, maybe what California, and a lot of other states, needs, is a part time legislature, with part time salaries.

Thursday, September 23, 2004

Last Word on the CBS Killian Documents

Rather apologized. Not good enough, said the right wing.

And I agree.

Here's what I think ought to be done to make things even.

I think Rather should air a show revealing, based on newly discovered documents, that George Bush showed up for National Guard Duty each and every day that he was supposed to. And I think it should be discovered that those documents are in fact forgeries, possibly planted by the RNC, and eventually CBS will be required to recant its story and admit that there is no evidence whatsoever that George Bush actually fulfilled his National Guard Duty.

I think that would make things about even.

Right Wing Contradiction

Not that it's anything new...

But go to any right wing web site and you'll quickly learn that a common view of Arabs and Islam is that the only good Arab is a dead one.

"Islam, on the other hand, is hateful from top to bottom, and they have the example of Muhammad to emulate (He's often obeyed unfortunately). Since Muhammad was, as I wrote, a psychopath, inhumanity is part and parcel of Islam. Bin Laden and those headchoppers in Iraq are good Muslims going by the book. Not bigotry, just a fact."

"It's about Islam and the cruelty that Islamists are capable of. Is that nuanced enough?"

"the shoe does fit the cloven hoof..."

"We should have nuked mecca, 08:00 September 12 2001 . . . The saudimites still have sex with camels and defecate on the street, just like they did in mohammed's day 1400 years ago."

(All the above comes from LittleGreenFootballs on 9/18/04)

But this same crowd will talk about how wonderful it is that the Iraqi people are free and finally will have their own, cough, democracy in the near future, and that this whole messy war is worth it to free all these millions of people.

Excuse me.

If Arabs are no better than dogs and Islam is a religion of hate, violence and perversion . . .

Why do we care if they're free and why are American lives being wasted so that these people, who are beyond redemption, can have elections?

The answer of course is that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with "freeing" the Iraqi people, but that rationale has been offered because the original reasons were false. It's humorous to see how passionate right wingers get over "freedom" for people they detest. It's all part of the wingnut dance, in which one must bend like a pretzel to fit within the changing rationales of the Bush Administration.

Monday, September 20, 2004

Bush Supporter Advocates Killing Gays and Lying to God

I guess that's an accurate headline. I heard a clip of Jimmy Swaggart talking to some group (yeh, apparently he's still preaching). Here's a paraphrasing of what he said:

Wull, I've never seen a man I wanted to marry (laughter). But if one of those guys ever gives me a look I'm gonna kill him and tell God that it was an accident. Thank God George Bush has stated that we need to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

For those of you have have been living in a cave for the last 20 years, or get all your news from Fox, here is some info on Swaggart:

Getting back to the headline. See how easy it is to put a little twist to things. That's spin.

Like when the Chicago Tribune referred to Litlegreenfootballs as a "conservative-leaning blog." As I recently discovered for myself, LGF is not "conservative-leaning," it's a rabid right wing hornet's nest. Ironically, one of the major themes on LGF is how unfair the MSM (mainstream media) is to any and everything conservative. Yeh, right.

This in fact is one of the right's favorite techniques. Take a valid criticism of itself, repackage it and accuse the left of the same thing, and then complain how the MSM ignores the truth, while the MSM actually reports both sides of the story as if they had equal legitimacy. This happens over and over again. Swiftboat Veterans comes to mind.

But isn't there a difference? Ok, duh, but where do you find the difference reported?
What do I mean? The Bushies can't deny that Kerry served, so they have to fabricate "controversy" (i.e., lies) about his service. This is to offset the scrutiny given to whether Bush served at all, and in the mind of the public the two issues cancel each other out.

But these are not the same issues. There are two issues: (1) did candidate serve (2) what was his service like.

We don't even get to #2 with Bush, because he wasn't there. Plus, I think the left-leaners generally feel that if a person served, then he did his duty. What are we going to do, scrutinize whether Bush made his bunk up properly.

But this is exactly what the Swiftvote Liars have done, and it's so obvious that the Bush people are behind it. There's something really wrong with this, impugning the military service of a man who faced enemy fire and was wounded in battle.

But you wouldn't get this impression from the MSM. They have reported the whole nonsense as if there is some moral equivalency between the Swiftvote Liars and Bush's National Guard non-Service stories.

Sunday, September 19, 2004

Kicked off LittleGreenFootballs

Apprently the management at LittleGreenFootballs does not like dissent, or maybe it's just that I called into question its theory that the Killian memos were created in MS Word.

We now know that they were not.

When I posted these links to LGF and suggested that LGF might want to retract its story, my account was deleted.

Now the really funny thing is that LGF has closed down new registrations. I guess it's afraid that I'll re-register under a different name. Wow, a major right wing blog hiding from me!

The Beginning