Tuesday, January 24, 2006
makes me feel Proudly Irresponsible (both articles refer to the same Bush speech)
Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald: Rules for Political Discourse
Monday, January 23, 2006
Now I'm not that mad, but I must admit that it has been on my mind since I got it at about 12:30 this after noon.
The only thing that got my dander up enough to keep the ticket out of my mind was seeing Alberto Gonzalas (the Clarence Thomas of Latinos) lie on national television (The News Hour with Jim Lerher).
What did he lie about? Spying. In particular electronic surveilance of phone calls. He claimed that the program which El Presidente instated which bypassed the FISA courts only monitored calls with suspected members of Al Queda, and those people conversing with them. The lie in this has to do with not being able to get a warrant. If, as our good friend Atourney General Speedy stated, people linked to Al Queda were the only targets a FISA warrant would be a non issue. the NSA wouldn't even have to get a warrant first, they could get one afterwards. If these people being monitored were truly tied to Al Queda then a warrant would not be hard to get. (it should also be noted that in it's entire existance the FISA court has rejected less than 10 warrants) Clearly not all the people monitored were truly connected to Al Queda.
yay for violating the Fourth Ammendment.
well at least googles with me on this stuff.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," President Bush told a largely military audience in Pennsylvania, in a speech to mark Veterans' Day. (The Guardian, Nov. 11 2005)
This is a rare situation where I agree completely with President Bush. It is irresponsible to rewrite the history of how the war in Iraq began. It is clearly and completely irresponsible to claim that we went into Iraq with the sole intention of procuring Iraqi freedom. Whether or not it was a well agreed upon noting that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it is irresponsible to, after the war has already been launched, give the troops a new purpose.
Personally I am surprised that El Presidente even recognized the legitimacy of criticizing the war, through this administrations time in power they have shamelessly quelled negative responses to the war, in the form of hand selected audiences in “town-hall meetings”, in the form of designated “Free-speech Zones” (as if all of America weren't intended to be) to keep protesters away from political rallies, and by refusing to even listen to proponents of peace, including but not limited to Cindy Sheehan.
“The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges," Mr. Bush said. American troops, the president went on, "deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them". (The Guardian)
yes, the troops absolutely need to know that their elected leaders continue to stand behind them. The troops need our total support. Why then do they not all have proper armor, why then are we still driving our 2 mpg SUV's creating a larger demand for oil and putting more pressure on our troops to sustain Iraqi oil pipelines, and why then do we remove all ceremony from the transportation of our fallen heroes from the place of their deaths to our own soil? Not only do we not fully support them by making sacrifices at home and by giving them the protection they need to properly do their jobs, we add insult to injury by not fully recognizing those who have died for their sacrifice, for their life.
If suggesting that criticism of a clearly tenuous war is irresponsible wasn't enough of an affront to American ideals, this speech was made on Veterans Day. A day meant to honor our fallen soldiers, a day meant to honor those who have given their time, or their limbs, or their lives to protect our nation. On this day Bush does nothing more than criticize his critics for trying to bring our troops back alive. And Bush has still not gone to a single soldiers funeral.
Next time you bring up the myriad of irresponsibilities which have been part of and which have surrounded this war, you may want to remember that you are culpable for it, and for many of it's failings. This seems to me to be just a little like the famed “mission accomplished” photo op.
The entire original coverage in the Guardian can be found here
Thursday, January 12, 2006
how to use an introductory whisper
Though it is a little known technique, I am constantly getting questions on how to use an introductory whisper. In that sense this title is quite blunt. But if you would, do notice that it is also very soft and hardly there. That is an introductory whisper.
You may be asking yourself “what is so special about that?” and this is, after all one of the questions I have set out to answer. What's so special is that it isn't special, or rather, that in being so ordinary as to illicit no response, it is nearly invisible, and therefore very special. It is special by being especially un-special.
Why wouldn't you want your introduction noticed? That is something I find rather obvious, but for those of you who are less informed on the general structure of our world I will explain: in many an introduction, something horrible, or controversial, or harmful is introduced. Why put yourself at risk by placing such a topic up front for everyone to see?
When such a topic is right upfront you open yourself to many unwanted attacks. For this purpose an introductory whisper is very valuable.
There have been rumors of people disappearing because of using an introductory whisper. This is of course because introductory whispers tend to make controversy disappear. I am going to refute that claim, though ideas do tend to disappear when using an introductory whisper, there are no documented cases of people disappearing from using an introductory whisp......
Saturday, January 07, 2006
I tried somthing similar in elementary school, but that publication got shut down by "the man", (the teacher), because it had selectivist tactics. but that's another story.
As far as the Punk Zine I tried to start, I recently stumbled upon those articles again. In retrospect they were alright, but nothing special. (I atribute that to them all being rough drafts, but i'm likely just being too kind to myself). I talked to one of the other colaborators about it. she doesn't seem interested anymore.
oh well. I guess it just wasn't in the cards.