Blogger really needs to update its dictionary feature. It doesn't know a lot of words that I know. Simply, it should be able to check for errors, etc., without me wanting to teach it new words. It also gives the dumbest corrections to my words. They should also fix it to where it doesn't protest against grammatical errors, which are wholly outside the scope of its understanding. It's like a two year old with a 50 year old dictionary trying to correct a rocket scientist.
Sidebar: I just ran the dictionary and it doesn't have "Blogger" in it. HAHAHA!
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Bush in Despair
I particularly loved CNN.com's caption relating to today's decision by the Supreme Court regarding the trials of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: "Supreme Court voids Bush's 'blank check.'" Now if we can get the Congress to follow suit then Bush will finally be put in his place after almost five years of running amok the Constitution of the United States. Just wait until November!
Kicked in the Balls
Today, the Supreme Court gave Bush some information about his detainees in Cuba. Basically, he isn't going to get to do all the things he thought he could to them. With that said, what will become of the 450+ people being illegally detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? Although, the Court did not say they could not hold the detainees, it really puts a limit on what will be done with them. With no trial, I guess they will just continue to rot where they are. That's the real sad part of it all. The Court could have limited the president's power to hold people indefinitely; otherwise, these people are our "guests" until after January 2009!
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
New York Times unpatriotic?
George Bush calls the New York Times unpatriotic because it revealed his extra-Constitutional activities in the realm of world-wide finance. Further, how can talking about illegal activities by the president endanger the lives of Americans? That is such a crock of shit!
Israel
It seems the Palestinians have unleashed the beast that is Israel. Like they ever have a prayer against the Israeli army and airforce. They even flew their planes over the president of Syria's country house while he was there. They can' t stop them either. I am sure they aren't looking forward to another confrontation with the Israelis since the Six Day War, when Israel defeated both Egypt and Syria at the same time on two fronts!
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Limbaugh can't "keep it up" with the drugs
HAHA! I love my pun. It would seem the conservative love child of Bush and his cronies, Rush Limbaugh, was caught yet again with prescription drugs that did not belong to him. This time he was caught with a bottle of Viagra that did not have his name on it. So he's moved on from prescription pain pills, like OxyContin and Percodan, to erectile dysfunction medication. I think he is more dysfunctional than in just his penis.
He was caught on a plane arriving in Palm Beach from the Dominican Republic. It would seem this is the jurisdiction of the FBI, not the local sheriff's office, which does plan on pressing charges against Limbaugh, which just counts as a misdemeanor. It would seem if it was anyone else, we'd be in a federal pen waiting an arraignment for drug trafficking. I mean, only liberals are really dope addicts, right? Never a Republican, nor one as conservative and dim-witted as Rush! Perish the thought!
He was caught on a plane arriving in Palm Beach from the Dominican Republic. It would seem this is the jurisdiction of the FBI, not the local sheriff's office, which does plan on pressing charges against Limbaugh, which just counts as a misdemeanor. It would seem if it was anyone else, we'd be in a federal pen waiting an arraignment for drug trafficking. I mean, only liberals are really dope addicts, right? Never a Republican, nor one as conservative and dim-witted as Rush! Perish the thought!
Monday, June 26, 2006
Dismiss Congress
I think we should just go ahead and dismiss Congress for the time being. They don't need to meet in Washington until they are recalled by the people (in this case the president). We can just let George Bush make all the decisions for us. We could help fund the fight against "the bunch of people" who want to hurt us by using the salaries of the members of Congress.
Bush is Nazism
During the 1930s and 1940s, Germany was subjected to what we are being subjected to in the United States today. People's fears were preyed on by the government. They used a small group of people to justify everything from mass extermination programs of people who did not meet their ideals of perfection (not just the Jews) and to engage their country in unfettered and unprovoked war with Europe with the grand belief they would expand their way of life to the rest of the world.
Instead of Hitler, we have Bush. Instead of the Jews, we have Islamic extremists (and to distill it even further, basically every Arab person in the world). Instead of Europe, we have Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of concentration camps, we have Guantamano Bay, Cuba (and I doubt even Bush knows where the rest of the secret prisons are).
We live in a dangerous time. The Constitution which has been the bedrock of our democracy for over 200 years is in peril. Bush believes he is outside the scope of the Constitution. He believes he can simply shrug his shoulders and say with a smirk that America is under attack and he can justify all he has done. He can say that the other branches of the government don't matter (and from where I sit today, they don't). The Legislative and Judicial branches of government have sat on their asses long enough. They have sat by allowing this deranged demagogue, in the form of the president, derail everything for which the United States stands. The US Congress is filled with sycophants who relish in the light that Bush brings them. They are only concerned with serving their true master, Bush, and not the people who elected them to their high offices.
Today, we found out that not only does George Bush keep illegal lists of our phone calls, but he is also looking at our banking. He doesn't need a warrant from a court to conduct this type of activity. That takes too much time and effort. Besides, that would be too legal for him. No, he's protecting us from a "bunch of people" who want to hurt the United States of America. What does that mean exactly? By saying this, he is also saying that we need protection from you, because you he is part of the bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America. You want to troll our lives and listen to our conversations so you can have absolute power.
That's what is all boils down to: power. Bush is so frightened that if he doesn't control every aspect of our lives, if he doesn't eavesdrop, that he will lose it all. He is truly a scared man. But of what? Is he scared of the Constitution of the United States? Is he scares of the Congress? Is he scared of the Court? Easily, we can see, the answer to all of these questions is yes.
From all these things we have learned about the eavesdropping on our lives, watching with whom we conduct financial matters, we can assume that he watches ever aspect of our lives. Certainly, he watches the Internet. He has a list of all the websites we visit. Our patterns of its usage: who we chat with, what we buy online, what blogs and to which bulletin boards we subscribe. He also probably knows what I bought at the store Saturday using my MasterCard. The NSA could probably create a list of the things I like to eat and drink, based on those records. I am sure it will be a matter of minutes before this blog entry is logged into an NSA archive somewhere for processing at a later date. Who knows, it might even get flagged for some special attention. In Bush's view, the things I have said in this blog, I am a terrorist.
Based on the evidence of the gross abuses by the Bush Administration, at the rubber stamp pleasure of the Courts and Congress, I believe we are headed to a perilous place in history. We are heading into a world of xenophobia and paranoia. From my personal standpoint, if things continue as they are, I will leave the United States of America. I will emigrate to a country which truly values my independence and civil liberties and rights. I was born in the United States of America, my family was born here (they've been here in some cases over 200 years), and I have lived my whole life under the assumption that I can do and live as I choose, because I have the distinct privileged to be an American citizen. I can't get used to living in a country where that isn't so anymore. I can't live in a country where the people are simply overwrought with ignorance and fear. They embrace the ideas and beliefs of a single, ignorant man. A president who can't carry out a news conference without berating the freedom of the media because it publicizes his illegal activities.
It's simply foolish and it's time it stopped.
Instead of Hitler, we have Bush. Instead of the Jews, we have Islamic extremists (and to distill it even further, basically every Arab person in the world). Instead of Europe, we have Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of concentration camps, we have Guantamano Bay, Cuba (and I doubt even Bush knows where the rest of the secret prisons are).
We live in a dangerous time. The Constitution which has been the bedrock of our democracy for over 200 years is in peril. Bush believes he is outside the scope of the Constitution. He believes he can simply shrug his shoulders and say with a smirk that America is under attack and he can justify all he has done. He can say that the other branches of the government don't matter (and from where I sit today, they don't). The Legislative and Judicial branches of government have sat on their asses long enough. They have sat by allowing this deranged demagogue, in the form of the president, derail everything for which the United States stands. The US Congress is filled with sycophants who relish in the light that Bush brings them. They are only concerned with serving their true master, Bush, and not the people who elected them to their high offices.
Today, we found out that not only does George Bush keep illegal lists of our phone calls, but he is also looking at our banking. He doesn't need a warrant from a court to conduct this type of activity. That takes too much time and effort. Besides, that would be too legal for him. No, he's protecting us from a "bunch of people" who want to hurt the United States of America. What does that mean exactly? By saying this, he is also saying that we need protection from you, because you he is part of the bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America. You want to troll our lives and listen to our conversations so you can have absolute power.
That's what is all boils down to: power. Bush is so frightened that if he doesn't control every aspect of our lives, if he doesn't eavesdrop, that he will lose it all. He is truly a scared man. But of what? Is he scared of the Constitution of the United States? Is he scares of the Congress? Is he scared of the Court? Easily, we can see, the answer to all of these questions is yes.
From all these things we have learned about the eavesdropping on our lives, watching with whom we conduct financial matters, we can assume that he watches ever aspect of our lives. Certainly, he watches the Internet. He has a list of all the websites we visit. Our patterns of its usage: who we chat with, what we buy online, what blogs and to which bulletin boards we subscribe. He also probably knows what I bought at the store Saturday using my MasterCard. The NSA could probably create a list of the things I like to eat and drink, based on those records. I am sure it will be a matter of minutes before this blog entry is logged into an NSA archive somewhere for processing at a later date. Who knows, it might even get flagged for some special attention. In Bush's view, the things I have said in this blog, I am a terrorist.
Based on the evidence of the gross abuses by the Bush Administration, at the rubber stamp pleasure of the Courts and Congress, I believe we are headed to a perilous place in history. We are heading into a world of xenophobia and paranoia. From my personal standpoint, if things continue as they are, I will leave the United States of America. I will emigrate to a country which truly values my independence and civil liberties and rights. I was born in the United States of America, my family was born here (they've been here in some cases over 200 years), and I have lived my whole life under the assumption that I can do and live as I choose, because I have the distinct privileged to be an American citizen. I can't get used to living in a country where that isn't so anymore. I can't live in a country where the people are simply overwrought with ignorance and fear. They embrace the ideas and beliefs of a single, ignorant man. A president who can't carry out a news conference without berating the freedom of the media because it publicizes his illegal activities.
It's simply foolish and it's time it stopped.
News Alert
Today at 1:38pm this was a CNN.com "News Alert."
At least five people were killed when a bomb exploded in a crowded outdoor market in Hilla, Iraq, according to police.
I think this would be a MORE appropriate "News Alert."
Today, in Iraq, NO bombs exploded.
Otherwise, CNN's "News Alert" isn't really news, because it happens every single day of the week! Blah, blah, blah.
At least five people were killed when a bomb exploded in a crowded outdoor market in Hilla, Iraq, according to police.
I think this would be a MORE appropriate "News Alert."
Today, in Iraq, NO bombs exploded.
Otherwise, CNN's "News Alert" isn't really news, because it happens every single day of the week! Blah, blah, blah.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Celebrity Endowment
Yes, we've all heard about Angelina Jolie taking a holiday in Namibia. We've all heard (mostly from CNN) that she is the ultimate authority on African affairs. We all know she is ultra-intelligent. I mean, how could you not be when you are reading from a prepared script? What about celebrities bringing awareness to important issues like poverty, genocide, etc.?
When I want to know about these things I will talk to and listen to real experts. I will listen to people who have truly made these causes their lives. Not someone who visits these places once in two years and walks through the squalor of a refugee camp wearing a biohazard suit with forty bodyguards in tow. I don't care to hear what someone has to say when they have a baby in Africa as purely a publicity stunt. I don't care even when you give one-third of your revenues from your latest flop of a movie to the orphans of sub-Sahara Africa. How much time and effort does it take to write a check from a Malibu mansion? Is that really caring?
The bottom line is when you see the advertisement for Jolie on CNN, it isn't prefaced by the horrors of Africa, it is purely her brand. It's about her. It's more about glamour, sexy, riveting, not death, starvation or rape!
When I want to know about these things I will talk to and listen to real experts. I will listen to people who have truly made these causes their lives. Not someone who visits these places once in two years and walks through the squalor of a refugee camp wearing a biohazard suit with forty bodyguards in tow. I don't care to hear what someone has to say when they have a baby in Africa as purely a publicity stunt. I don't care even when you give one-third of your revenues from your latest flop of a movie to the orphans of sub-Sahara Africa. How much time and effort does it take to write a check from a Malibu mansion? Is that really caring?
The bottom line is when you see the advertisement for Jolie on CNN, it isn't prefaced by the horrors of Africa, it is purely her brand. It's about her. It's more about glamour, sexy, riveting, not death, starvation or rape!
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Saudi Television
If you visit the website of the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia you can watch their television. How come I feel like it is all propaganda?
Oh, it's all in Arabic. How can I understand it?
Oh, it's all in Arabic. How can I understand it?
Bandar Bush Gets Results
The US government released 14 Saudis from incarceration at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These weren't a sporadic release of different nationalities, because they found no evidence to hold them any longer. No, these prisoners were all specifically Saudi--all fourteen of them.
It would seem that Prince Bandar al-Saud, who is the former Saudi ambassador to the United States, has been pulling some of his well-connected strings. Prince Bandar is often referred to as "Bandar Bush," because he is so close to the Bush family. He is almost like a member of their family, you might say.
It must be nice!
It would seem that Prince Bandar al-Saud, who is the former Saudi ambassador to the United States, has been pulling some of his well-connected strings. Prince Bandar is often referred to as "Bandar Bush," because he is so close to the Bush family. He is almost like a member of their family, you might say.
It must be nice!
Iraqi Freedom & Middle East Stability
I find it interesting that thousands of Iraqis will turn to the streets, by the literal thousands, in protest over the detention of a Sunni Muslim cleric by the US military, but we can't get them to take time out of their overly busy schedules to defend their own country.
I watched Syriana yesterday. I found it a deeply disturbing and provocative satire on current geopolitics. You have the money grubbing "robber barons" in the US who are obsessed with oil and wealth. On the other side, however, you have the Arab leaders (in the form of sheikhs and emirs) prancing around the Middle East in their fancy hotels spending their billions paid to them by these American "robber barons." The movie made a very startling observation about why these things are.
Oil is primarily in the Middle East. That's a fact. The people who control these major oil fields (or who operate them) are primarily American. Syriana alluded to the metaphor of a kid in a candy store. In this case, however, the candy store is incidental because the kid has some gold bricks on his bike parked out front. The grown-up gives the child $100 and says go shopping in the candy store. While the child is inside the store, going-to-town buying candy galore, the grown-up is out front stealing the child's gold bricks from his bicycle. With all that candy in tow, the child forgets he ever had the gold in the first place when he gets back on his bike. He replaced it with lots of good things he loves and makes him the envy of his friends.
What's the meaning? It's simple. The oil tycoons are giving these Arab princes tokens (which is a hell of a lot of money to the average person), maybe a billion dollars-a-year, for argument's sake, for access to their prime oil fields. So these princes are out gallivanting around in $50,000-a-night hotels, driving their $400,000 Ferraris, and building $100 million palaces in the desert, while their largest asset, which is worth ten times what they were paid for it, is being sucked out of the ground and exported over seas by the "robber barons." In the end, these Arab countries never develop a stable economy, which they easily could if they monopolized on the true strength of oil's worth in the world marketplace. Instead, they settle for the immediate and fickle rewards provided to them by American (and European) investors.
I watched Syriana yesterday. I found it a deeply disturbing and provocative satire on current geopolitics. You have the money grubbing "robber barons" in the US who are obsessed with oil and wealth. On the other side, however, you have the Arab leaders (in the form of sheikhs and emirs) prancing around the Middle East in their fancy hotels spending their billions paid to them by these American "robber barons." The movie made a very startling observation about why these things are.
Oil is primarily in the Middle East. That's a fact. The people who control these major oil fields (or who operate them) are primarily American. Syriana alluded to the metaphor of a kid in a candy store. In this case, however, the candy store is incidental because the kid has some gold bricks on his bike parked out front. The grown-up gives the child $100 and says go shopping in the candy store. While the child is inside the store, going-to-town buying candy galore, the grown-up is out front stealing the child's gold bricks from his bicycle. With all that candy in tow, the child forgets he ever had the gold in the first place when he gets back on his bike. He replaced it with lots of good things he loves and makes him the envy of his friends.
What's the meaning? It's simple. The oil tycoons are giving these Arab princes tokens (which is a hell of a lot of money to the average person), maybe a billion dollars-a-year, for argument's sake, for access to their prime oil fields. So these princes are out gallivanting around in $50,000-a-night hotels, driving their $400,000 Ferraris, and building $100 million palaces in the desert, while their largest asset, which is worth ten times what they were paid for it, is being sucked out of the ground and exported over seas by the "robber barons." In the end, these Arab countries never develop a stable economy, which they easily could if they monopolized on the true strength of oil's worth in the world marketplace. Instead, they settle for the immediate and fickle rewards provided to them by American (and European) investors.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Home Grown Terrorists
I wonder who said that yesterday??? It's just eerie! It's almost like I'm there in the Cabinet room hearing all the sordid details. ;)
Thursday, June 22, 2006
What those damned Commies taught us, but we failed the exam
For almost ten years, the Soviet Union waged a hopeless battle in Afghanistan, much like the United States is doing in that country today (with Iraq added on for good measure). They fought them day-after-day. The massive Soviet military machine carpet bombed the Afghans back into the stoneage for nine relentless years, but they kept coming back to match the Soviets move-for-move. They proved that a small, ineffective army could take on a well-trained and readily-supplied military super power. How could this be, though? Through pure determination and the unyielding meddlesome nature of other nations into the affairs of Soviet occupation. It wasn't a war about mere power, because the Soviets would have won easily; it was a war based on the lives and will power of a single people propped up by nations like the United States and other outside renegade forces.
In 1989, the Soviet Union withdrew from it's own Vietnam; it was a world power defeated by a rag-tag rebel army with a depleted treasury. What lessons has the United States learned from its friends the Soviets? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are proof that little was learned from the Soviet's fiasco in the 1980s.
The US was a partner of people like Osama bin Laden while he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. We supplied him with money and arms. I wonder who is helping the terrorists today against the US? Could it be our friends the Chinese who are paying for our war in Iraq at the moment? I think probably. Could it be the Russians giving us a little pay back for nine years of hell in Afghanistan? I'd say, maybe. Could it be the princes of Saudi Arabia? I'd say all indications point to yes. The truth is only time will tell.
In a few years, when we our military is badly broken and our nation bankrupt, who will come pick our bones clean? ......
In 1989, the Soviet Union withdrew from it's own Vietnam; it was a world power defeated by a rag-tag rebel army with a depleted treasury. What lessons has the United States learned from its friends the Soviets? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are proof that little was learned from the Soviet's fiasco in the 1980s.
The US was a partner of people like Osama bin Laden while he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. We supplied him with money and arms. I wonder who is helping the terrorists today against the US? Could it be our friends the Chinese who are paying for our war in Iraq at the moment? I think probably. Could it be the Russians giving us a little pay back for nine years of hell in Afghanistan? I'd say, maybe. Could it be the princes of Saudi Arabia? I'd say all indications point to yes. The truth is only time will tell.
In a few years, when we our military is badly broken and our nation bankrupt, who will come pick our bones clean? ......
Cheney: "They'll follow us"
The damning statement, "They'll follow us," really opened my eyes to the Bush Administration's perception of this war. Dick Cheney stated that if we leave Iraq, then the terrorists will see this as a sign of weakness and then come after us.
Here's what I believe is the reality of this situation. Firstly, Bush knows he can't defeat the terrorist. We know that now. They don't fight by the rules of war, they defy logic, and they are random. Anyone can be a terrorist. There is no one nationality for them. Even Americans have joined their ranks. With this on his mind, Bush (well his advisors) he had to find a way to take this unwinnable war to another location. Bush had to create a ruse to get the terrorists to stop attacking the US directly and at the same time devise a plan to take the American public's attention away from his impotent foreign and domestic policies; ergo, the war in Iraq.
When Bush invaded Iraq he opened up that country to a massive infiltration of terrorists. He knew they (since most of them are Muslim) would rally to the Iraqi cause. Instead of attacking buildings in the US, the terrorists would begin to attack soldiers and military infrastructure in Iraq. (Pretty sneaky.)
By creating a diversion, Americans could begin to forget about their troubles and 9/11. I've said it before, Americans are as fickle as they come. If you dangle a set of keys in front of us, we will forget the sky is falling down around us. Bush dangled some keys in front of us. He took the war away from America. He gathered the majority of the terrorists' focus into a single location. He also sent the American focus away from his inability to directly engage the terrorists by bringing down a relatively light-touch in terms of countries--Iraq--and occupying it.
Now what do we have? We have a relatively terrorist free USA. The terrorists are killing off American soldiers slowly (that's what the soldiers signed up for right: to protect, serve and die?) in some God-forsaken land, where the people don't even believe in Jesus, that is 12,000 miles away, Iraqi citizens are truly the ones paying the costs of this war with their infrastructure, lives, and independence, so we can sit at home and worry about the price of gasoline and how the kids are going to go to college this fall.
So, Dick, that's pretty clever, I have to admit. I hadn't even taken that into consideration as a ruse for war. Divide and conquer. The terrorists on one side and the American public on the other. I know one thing is for certain, Bush never thought of this plan by himself!
Here's what I believe is the reality of this situation. Firstly, Bush knows he can't defeat the terrorist. We know that now. They don't fight by the rules of war, they defy logic, and they are random. Anyone can be a terrorist. There is no one nationality for them. Even Americans have joined their ranks. With this on his mind, Bush (well his advisors) he had to find a way to take this unwinnable war to another location. Bush had to create a ruse to get the terrorists to stop attacking the US directly and at the same time devise a plan to take the American public's attention away from his impotent foreign and domestic policies; ergo, the war in Iraq.
When Bush invaded Iraq he opened up that country to a massive infiltration of terrorists. He knew they (since most of them are Muslim) would rally to the Iraqi cause. Instead of attacking buildings in the US, the terrorists would begin to attack soldiers and military infrastructure in Iraq. (Pretty sneaky.)
By creating a diversion, Americans could begin to forget about their troubles and 9/11. I've said it before, Americans are as fickle as they come. If you dangle a set of keys in front of us, we will forget the sky is falling down around us. Bush dangled some keys in front of us. He took the war away from America. He gathered the majority of the terrorists' focus into a single location. He also sent the American focus away from his inability to directly engage the terrorists by bringing down a relatively light-touch in terms of countries--Iraq--and occupying it.
Now what do we have? We have a relatively terrorist free USA. The terrorists are killing off American soldiers slowly (that's what the soldiers signed up for right: to protect, serve and die?) in some God-forsaken land, where the people don't even believe in Jesus, that is 12,000 miles away, Iraqi citizens are truly the ones paying the costs of this war with their infrastructure, lives, and independence, so we can sit at home and worry about the price of gasoline and how the kids are going to go to college this fall.
So, Dick, that's pretty clever, I have to admit. I hadn't even taken that into consideration as a ruse for war. Divide and conquer. The terrorists on one side and the American public on the other. I know one thing is for certain, Bush never thought of this plan by himself!
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
House & Senate refuse good ideas
Today, the Republicans, in both Houses of Congress, refused to allow a vote on some basic social issues. In the House, Republicans refused to allow a vote on a 25-year extension for the Voting Rights Act, even though they swept through legislation that extended provisions of the Patriot USA Act, which limits our freedoms. The Senate Republicans refused to allow a vote for an increase in the minimum wage, but they pushed through legislation that gives the wealthiest Americans (i.e., multi-billion corporations) some well-deserved tax breaks and incentives.
Republicans are anti-voting for minorities and they say screw you to the average American who is trying to make an honest living by working.
November 6 is how many months off now????
Republicans are anti-voting for minorities and they say screw you to the average American who is trying to make an honest living by working.
November 6 is how many months off now????
Bush talks peace
Today in Austria, Bush announced that North Korea's missile program "rattles nerves." He said that peaceful nations do not conduct business the way the North Koreans do. Okay, number one, I'm not sure what he means by that. You can't really consider the US a peaceful nation at the moment nor King George a dove of peace.
From his comments, North Korea may assume peaceful nations use violence to further their ends. They kill civilians in cold blood to quench their thirst for victory. Bush's advisors really need to stop and think about the message he is sending when he says those things. If I was Kim Jong-il, I'd be thinking, "Oh really, so that's how it's done!"
Another thing his advisors really need to work on is Bush's quirky nature of delivering a point. You know, the way he holds his hands out to the side next to the podium with his head cocked to one side with a smirk. That is more than pretentious and arrogant. How can you give advice on peace when you've destroyed a nation and you're standing their with a smug expression.
It doesn't work people.
From his comments, North Korea may assume peaceful nations use violence to further their ends. They kill civilians in cold blood to quench their thirst for victory. Bush's advisors really need to stop and think about the message he is sending when he says those things. If I was Kim Jong-il, I'd be thinking, "Oh really, so that's how it's done!"
Another thing his advisors really need to work on is Bush's quirky nature of delivering a point. You know, the way he holds his hands out to the side next to the podium with his head cocked to one side with a smirk. That is more than pretentious and arrogant. How can you give advice on peace when you've destroyed a nation and you're standing their with a smug expression.
It doesn't work people.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
North Korea
Should we be more concerned about North Korea? The US has activated its missile defense system in anticipation of a North Korea missile launch which could take place at any time.
It wouldn't surprise me if it was more than a simple missile with all these precautions. This missile is purported to have a range that could reach portions of Alaska.
It wouldn't surprise me if it was more than a simple missile with all these precautions. This missile is purported to have a range that could reach portions of Alaska.
Hillary's already winning
A recent poll shows that Hillary Rodham Clinton would get 22% of the votes in a mock 2008 presidential election. It pitted her against nasty Republicans, like Rudy Giuliani, and Democrats, like John Kerry. Twenty-two percent was the highest percentage with both parties combined!
The goal: a Democratic Congress this year, then a Democratic president in '08. The Congress, though, has to really keep its promises and maintain a truly progressive agenda with real answers for Iraq and our economy!
The goal: a Democratic Congress this year, then a Democratic president in '08. The Congress, though, has to really keep its promises and maintain a truly progressive agenda with real answers for Iraq and our economy!
Monday, June 19, 2006
Americans killing Iraqi civilians
Now there are more reports of American soldiers killing Iraqi civilians. I'd be pissed off enough to kill some civilians if I didn't understand why I was there in the first place.
Do we need anymore evidence the Bush Administration is outside the mainstream?
Do we need anymore evidence the Bush Administration is outside the mainstream?
Kidnapped Soldiers
There are currently two US soldiers who were kidnapped in Iraq over the weekend by militants claiming association with al-Qaeda.
The military can't even protect its own from guerrillas in Iraq. How will they be effective to return Iraq to civility? Democrats are correct: the war in Iraq must be put on a timetable and it must be maintained. The Iraqi government must take responsibility for maintaining its own peace from here on out. Honestly, they will never make it once the US is gone. The current Parliament will be overthrown and replaced with a militant Islamic regime...all thanks to George Bush.
Even Saddam Hussein couldn't save Iraq at this point. Bush believed that by invading Iraq and liberating the Iraqis from Saddam he'd be heralded as a savior and beatified by the Iraqi and American people. This is what happens when you let an idiot be president and give him unfettered power.
The military can't even protect its own from guerrillas in Iraq. How will they be effective to return Iraq to civility? Democrats are correct: the war in Iraq must be put on a timetable and it must be maintained. The Iraqi government must take responsibility for maintaining its own peace from here on out. Honestly, they will never make it once the US is gone. The current Parliament will be overthrown and replaced with a militant Islamic regime...all thanks to George Bush.
Even Saddam Hussein couldn't save Iraq at this point. Bush believed that by invading Iraq and liberating the Iraqis from Saddam he'd be heralded as a savior and beatified by the Iraqi and American people. This is what happens when you let an idiot be president and give him unfettered power.
Iran & North Korea
Bush is threatening Iran and Rice is threatening North Korea.
What are we going to do about it? Not a darn thing! We've got a civil war in Iraq that we started to deal with first.
What are we going to do about it? Not a darn thing! We've got a civil war in Iraq that we started to deal with first.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Data Theft
ING reports that the personal data of a few thousand of its costumers in the DC area was stolen. Apparently, an employee's laptop was stolen, which contained the sensitive information.
Firstly, I wanted to know if it was a theft from an ING office? No, it was from the employee's home. Why are employees allowed to keep such information at their homes? Why would I be sitting at home with a laptop filled with 13,000 people's social security numbers and other personal information.
I realize this person works for the company. They probably go out to different businesses in the DC-area to drum up business for ING. Instead of taking the computer home with them, they should have an office where they drop off this information each day. Honestly, I don't feel safe with my stuff being at someone's home, even if they do work for a company I do business with. Who knows what they might do with all that information?!?!?!?!
My bottom line: Let's keep business at the office, not at home, especially, when it involves so much confidential information about customers.
Firstly, I wanted to know if it was a theft from an ING office? No, it was from the employee's home. Why are employees allowed to keep such information at their homes? Why would I be sitting at home with a laptop filled with 13,000 people's social security numbers and other personal information.
I realize this person works for the company. They probably go out to different businesses in the DC-area to drum up business for ING. Instead of taking the computer home with them, they should have an office where they drop off this information each day. Honestly, I don't feel safe with my stuff being at someone's home, even if they do work for a company I do business with. Who knows what they might do with all that information?!?!?!?!
My bottom line: Let's keep business at the office, not at home, especially, when it involves so much confidential information about customers.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
The United States is the new Soviet Union?
Once upon a time, the Soviet Union was a world power. It was the main competitor with the United States. The US said capitalism is the ultimate in economics. During the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet Union took a change in its economy. It became stagnant. The economy did not grow. People were out of work, people were in debt, and the select rich ran the country. There was no prospects for growth in that country's economy. Their economy tittered for years, before it finally crashed, leaving the Soviet Union dead. The United States worked very hard to make sure the Soviet Union's economy crashed, so they could cannibalize the leftovers when the country no longer existed. Effectively, the US would control the world!
Sure that may have happened, initially. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ended in 1990/1991. The US was the world broker of peace. It had brought democracy to the largest country in the world. We were at the pinnacle. Now, we are taking the same road the Soviet Union did in the 1970s. We are becoming heavily in debt. We are using our military to control other nations against their will (so guess where our money is going?). We want to hold our own in the league of nations of the world. We want the world to fear us, not respect us. We've got power and influence, but for how much longer?
In this year's national budget we had to allocate $200,000,000,000 ($200 billion) for the war in Iraq. Guess who put up that money? Was it the United States' taxpayers? Was it the surplus of money in the US Treasury that George Bush has put in there for us? No, it was the new world power who loaned us the money: CHINA! Did George Bush put that in a speech? I don't think so!
Our economy is growing at a rate of 3% per year. China's economy is growing at a rate of 8% per year! What's that translate to? China's economy is growing at a rate of almost three times the rate of our economy! What does that mean for us? China is quickly taking our jobs. We have outsourced our jobs so readily without any thought to the future. The US is buying rapidly from China to supply the demand of our consumers. China is getting our money in many different ways. Is China becoming the United States of the 1970s and 1980s? It looks like it, considering how fast their economy is growing. The US is slowly becoming the Soviet Union of yesteryear. How long can we last before China pushes us over the edge? We are slowly, but surely, becoming stagnate.
What will we do about it? Not much as long as King George is our leader, and Republicans control Congress. They seem pretty happy about it.
Sure that may have happened, initially. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ended in 1990/1991. The US was the world broker of peace. It had brought democracy to the largest country in the world. We were at the pinnacle. Now, we are taking the same road the Soviet Union did in the 1970s. We are becoming heavily in debt. We are using our military to control other nations against their will (so guess where our money is going?). We want to hold our own in the league of nations of the world. We want the world to fear us, not respect us. We've got power and influence, but for how much longer?
In this year's national budget we had to allocate $200,000,000,000 ($200 billion) for the war in Iraq. Guess who put up that money? Was it the United States' taxpayers? Was it the surplus of money in the US Treasury that George Bush has put in there for us? No, it was the new world power who loaned us the money: CHINA! Did George Bush put that in a speech? I don't think so!
Our economy is growing at a rate of 3% per year. China's economy is growing at a rate of 8% per year! What's that translate to? China's economy is growing at a rate of almost three times the rate of our economy! What does that mean for us? China is quickly taking our jobs. We have outsourced our jobs so readily without any thought to the future. The US is buying rapidly from China to supply the demand of our consumers. China is getting our money in many different ways. Is China becoming the United States of the 1970s and 1980s? It looks like it, considering how fast their economy is growing. The US is slowly becoming the Soviet Union of yesteryear. How long can we last before China pushes us over the edge? We are slowly, but surely, becoming stagnate.
What will we do about it? Not much as long as King George is our leader, and Republicans control Congress. They seem pretty happy about it.
Perpetual War
The House of Representatives voted Friday that the war in Iraq is going to last forever. There is no date for removal. They didn't even play lip service to predicting a date.
What the hell?
What the hell?
Friday, June 16, 2006
Jefferson's Out; McKinney's In
It was tit-for-tat for black Democrats today in the House of Representatives. Representative William Jefferson (D-LA) was kicked out of his top spot in the Ways and Means Committee. Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) won a reprieve when a District of Columbia grand jury refused to indict her over her altercation with Capitol Police in April.
Sounds like affirmative action...well...something like that!
Sounds like affirmative action...well...something like that!
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Married at 15
The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that a 15 year old can get married in Colorado. The Court also went further to say that it was legal for a female as young as 12 to marry and 14 year old boy can do the same.
People make fun of Kentucky, because...????
People make fun of Kentucky, because...????
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
More Government Mismanagement
It would seem the Secretary of Health & Human Services (HHS), Michael Leavitt, has been using a GulfStream 3 jet that belongs to the Centers for Disease Control for his own private agenda.
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the private jet has been used on several occasions to transport the secretary to events all across the US, which comes to a total of around $700,000 (just this year). The primary purpose of the jet, however, is to quickly transport personnel and equipment in the event of an emergency, not act as the secretary's personal aircraft.
The US Congress implemented into the HHS budget for the year that the secretary could use the CDC's aircraft "in times of emergencies and in the days following such emergencies." I'm not sure taking the jet on 19 separate trips to promote George Bush's Medicare prescription drug plan qualifies for an emergency. I'm sure, however, the fall out from Bush's Medicare initiative will create a national emergency in the future. Perhaps, they are just "paying the emergency forward."
This is only in addition to the FEMA fiasco which is really only coming into light in the past few days. We see tax dollars being used to take Caribbean vacations, to buy Dom Perignon champagne at Hooters, to visit XXX clubs, and pay for a sex change operation. Wow...how come I didn't go down there and get my hand in the cookie jar?! Damnit, we all should have! Apparently, they wouldn't have known if you were from Mars. They must have been throwing the money from the back of a dump truck!
Bush=Fiscal Responsibility (HAHAHAHAHAHA!)
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the private jet has been used on several occasions to transport the secretary to events all across the US, which comes to a total of around $700,000 (just this year). The primary purpose of the jet, however, is to quickly transport personnel and equipment in the event of an emergency, not act as the secretary's personal aircraft.
The US Congress implemented into the HHS budget for the year that the secretary could use the CDC's aircraft "in times of emergencies and in the days following such emergencies." I'm not sure taking the jet on 19 separate trips to promote George Bush's Medicare prescription drug plan qualifies for an emergency. I'm sure, however, the fall out from Bush's Medicare initiative will create a national emergency in the future. Perhaps, they are just "paying the emergency forward."
This is only in addition to the FEMA fiasco which is really only coming into light in the past few days. We see tax dollars being used to take Caribbean vacations, to buy Dom Perignon champagne at Hooters, to visit XXX clubs, and pay for a sex change operation. Wow...how come I didn't go down there and get my hand in the cookie jar?! Damnit, we all should have! Apparently, they wouldn't have known if you were from Mars. They must have been throwing the money from the back of a dump truck!
Bush=Fiscal Responsibility (HAHAHAHAHAHA!)
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Monday, June 12, 2006
Guantanamo Bay
America's darling in the war against terrorism, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is now in the international limelight again.
Apparently, three "inmates" committed suicide over the weekend by hanging themselves. The US still doesn't tell the American people what really happened there. We have to learn the facts from foreign media outlets. I find it disgusting that our media is so beholden to the government that it can't find it in itself to be independent and report the facts of the case.
It is time the US brought these 500, or so, people to trial. They aren't even criminals. They are more like hostages in this illegal war. I suppose we are holding them on ice until we need them to conduct some type of backroom deal with the enemy.
The United Nations must insist the United States deliver these criminals to justice or set them free. Our country can no longer continue to hold these people incommunicado forever! It is illegal and irresponsible. It stands against everything democracy represents. We want to be a model of democracy for the whole world; yet we hold people in prisons in other countries and do not give them simple democratic devices, such as knowing what they are charged with and then the right to have a trial in a court of law.
Apparently, three "inmates" committed suicide over the weekend by hanging themselves. The US still doesn't tell the American people what really happened there. We have to learn the facts from foreign media outlets. I find it disgusting that our media is so beholden to the government that it can't find it in itself to be independent and report the facts of the case.
It is time the US brought these 500, or so, people to trial. They aren't even criminals. They are more like hostages in this illegal war. I suppose we are holding them on ice until we need them to conduct some type of backroom deal with the enemy.
The United Nations must insist the United States deliver these criminals to justice or set them free. Our country can no longer continue to hold these people incommunicado forever! It is illegal and irresponsible. It stands against everything democracy represents. We want to be a model of democracy for the whole world; yet we hold people in prisons in other countries and do not give them simple democratic devices, such as knowing what they are charged with and then the right to have a trial in a court of law.
Hurricane Alberto?
Tropical Storm Alberto is now up to 70mph...just 4mph shy of a hurricane! It is supposed to hit Florida by tomorrow.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
American Justice, what does it mean?
What does it mean, justice? Justice is a sense of right over wrong. I have been listening to Laura Flanders on Air America Talk Radio. She made a very good point. Something I really hadn't thought about. She said what separates a democracy from the terrorists is the rule of law. Yes, the president doesn't have the authority (really) to simply order the assassination of someone (usually a head of state).
Yet, we are all excited about how this Zaqawi character was summarily assassinated by the US military. How is that really justice? Why not simply try to go in and arrest this individual? Then have a trial where the crimes against him are read and he is given a chance to respond to them. Then a trail ensues with a verdict by a jury/court.
I think George Bush has become overwrought with the Saddam Hussein trial. It is not going well for the court in Iraq (i.e., the United States) that is trying Saddam and his cohorts. Perhaps, Bush would have simply had Saddam summarily executed by the soldiers who found him hiding in his spider hole. King George wanted a big trial, where the Iraqi court would move things quickly, then order Saddam executed...easy peasy! At least it is a form of justice, to a certain degree.
We should have a discussion about how criminals are dealt with. Can the government/military simply order someone executed without regard to due process and the long established rule of law?
Yet, we are all excited about how this Zaqawi character was summarily assassinated by the US military. How is that really justice? Why not simply try to go in and arrest this individual? Then have a trial where the crimes against him are read and he is given a chance to respond to them. Then a trail ensues with a verdict by a jury/court.
I think George Bush has become overwrought with the Saddam Hussein trial. It is not going well for the court in Iraq (i.e., the United States) that is trying Saddam and his cohorts. Perhaps, Bush would have simply had Saddam summarily executed by the soldiers who found him hiding in his spider hole. King George wanted a big trial, where the Iraqi court would move things quickly, then order Saddam executed...easy peasy! At least it is a form of justice, to a certain degree.
We should have a discussion about how criminals are dealt with. Can the government/military simply order someone executed without regard to due process and the long established rule of law?
CNN and terrorism
I wonder if CNN will post the autopsy photos of that al-whatever his name is that was killed other night? They've really gone overboard with the whole issue. They showed his picture for two days...his dead mug framed bigger than normal on CNN.com. I emailed them and complained that I am tired of seeing it. I don't think we need to glorify the whole incident. It makes us look vulgar. I haven't heard back from them...
First Tropical Depression
Today is June 10 and we have already seen the first tropical depression of the hurricane season. This one is pretty close to home. It is just south of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico. I suppose the waters are especially warm this time of year. It still seems pretty early, however, for this kind of activity. I guess it is going to be as bad as they predicted!
Love Bites
Whomever said love is blind certainly never really knew what love is. I believe that people can love each other no matter what. They can embrace each other in love and companionship, until, of course, the shit hits the fan. Now, there are different kinds of lovers. The first one believes love is somewhat conditional. This person looks for ways to ingratiate himself onto someone else. They win them over completely, then they screw them over behind their back (and not in a good way). Next, there is the person who sees all the signs of deceit and dishonesty and chooses to ignore it. I'm this kind of person. I have a theory that if he comes back every night, then he loves you to a certain degree. He cares enough to be with you each night. So what if he is out with everyone else carousing the streets, etc.? That's all just incidental...right???
I guess I know how Hillary must have felt when Bill went on each of his little trysts. You have to be the strong one and overlook these things for the good of the relationship. You must be the one who takes it on the chin and smiles the next morning so he doesn't have to remember what just happened. Perhaps, he just can't help it? Ha...sure he can, but if you mention it to him then you get threats of self-harm and self-loathing. It's always innocent. *wink wink* I always misunderstood what I saw, according to him. Isn't that the real price we pay for love? A blind, infected eye.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Is this really necessary?
Okay, so they killed the al-Qaeda mastermind, al-Zaqawi, in Iraq today. That's lovely, I'm sure. But why must we be required to look at his dead face in a picture frame?
First of all, we have spent millions of dollars to kill this guy, sure we have...let's be honest. Now, the US government took it a step further and paid for a photograph of him and placed it into a wooden frame. That's pretty tacky. To me it's no different than when the terrorists (and not the US this time) behead someone and put it on a website. Of course, they are happy, but we don't need to see their gloating faces as we look at the image of a disgusting dead man. This isn't CSI.
To make it even more picture perfect, it is show with this soldier looking at the picture with an almost smirk on his face. What's he smirking at and what is the message the Pentagon (i.e., Bush) trying to send? That if you defy the US we will kill you, take a professional-grade photograph of your dead face, and then place it in a lovely wooden frame?
When will this all end?
Blogger is on the fritz
Has anyone else noticed how slow Blogger has been recently? You can't even log into the service during the day. I wonder if it is because of network traffic or if there is a problem on their servers? They were down yesterday for unscheduled maintenance. As of now, I'm being forced to submit my entries via email! How sad is that? I hope they get it fixed soon. It is inconvenient to say the least.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Quashed
The Marriage Amendment before the Senate was quashed today by a vote of 49-48; thereby, killing it during this session of Congress. I believe that due to the fact Democrats will regain their control over Congress in November, Republicans will have to look for a different minority to dump all their shit on during the 2008 election cycle, considering this dog won't hunt anymore with the American people.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Idiots in the Senate
It would seem that Americans are more consumed with same-sex marriage than the price of gas. I didn't know that. Of course, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) was able to set me right on that. I can't believe how foolish I was to think Americans were more worried about how much gas costs and how they're going to pay for it when it would seem they're more worried about who their neighbors are sleeping with tonight.***
Wow! The things you learn by watching debate on the Senate floor!
(***Note my seething sarcasm!)
Wow! The things you learn by watching debate on the Senate floor!
(***Note my seething sarcasm!)
Monday, June 05, 2006
Marriage will be modeled after Muslim marriage
From the things I have heard some senators say regarding the marriage amendment, I am floored and appalled.
Basically, the things they would do is implement Muslim tenants toward marriage. It would seem that a woman is to be subversive to her husband for all of life. How's that sound ladies? You can just be a baby machine and clean the house for your man! Divorce...please...that destabilizes society. You're married for life. Maybe dad can even pick the man you marry!
What is this 1682?
Basically, the things they would do is implement Muslim tenants toward marriage. It would seem that a woman is to be subversive to her husband for all of life. How's that sound ladies? You can just be a baby machine and clean the house for your man! Divorce...please...that destabilizes society. You're married for life. Maybe dad can even pick the man you marry!
What is this 1682?
Judicial Branch is the Devil?
The debate on the floor of the Senate has turned to directly attack the judicial system of the United States.
They make it sound as if the judicial branch of the government just magically appeared without any regard from the other branches of the federal government.
Firstly, every federal judge in the United States is nominated by the president and then confirmed by the Senate. So, it is the elected officials of this country who select and seat the judges....have some senators forgotten this simple fact? Perhaps.
Perhaps, they are looking for someone to blame. Some say the courts have legislated from the bench public policies. The function of the courts is to interpret the Constitution. Duh! If I have a problem with the law, then I have the right to bring a suit against the government so the courts may interpret the constitutionality of the law.
It's time for each branch of the federal government to respect the authority of each other.
They make it sound as if the judicial branch of the government just magically appeared without any regard from the other branches of the federal government.
Firstly, every federal judge in the United States is nominated by the president and then confirmed by the Senate. So, it is the elected officials of this country who select and seat the judges....have some senators forgotten this simple fact? Perhaps.
Perhaps, they are looking for someone to blame. Some say the courts have legislated from the bench public policies. The function of the courts is to interpret the Constitution. Duh! If I have a problem with the law, then I have the right to bring a suit against the government so the courts may interpret the constitutionality of the law.
It's time for each branch of the federal government to respect the authority of each other.
Two year anniversary!
Wow! Today is the second year since I started my blog. It doesn't seem that long ago!
I'm old....
I'm old....
An amendment that makes sense
George Bush is tramping around Washington today trying to be a big man and rally his ultra-conservative cronies toward interfering in people's personal affairs. Now, sure this will never pass the US Congress, but it puts on a good show for the conservative-base come November. (Even though, Bush's Republican cronies are going out of office in January, 2007).
Now what about an amendment to the US Constitution that makes sense? Sure, there are reasons we should amend the Constitution. Here's one of them the majority of Americans would gladly ratify. Article II (dealing with the president) should be amended to include an intelligence test for all candidates. The president of the United States should be above intelligence, don't you think? He/she should be able to score at least 110+ on a standard IQ test (without any help from advisors, or tutors...haha!). Do you honestly think Bush could score anything above 70? I hardly doubt it. His intelligence is down there with a brain-dead chimpanzee! (Not to offend poor helpless animals.) Further, it would be terrible if he didn't have his advisors. He'd never find the front door of the White House without them.
Let's face facts, George Bush is an idiot! If not that amendment, let's put a clause in the Constitution that says there can't be another president from the Bush family. His poor brother, Jeb, who is the governor of Florida, is of the same stock. He pushed a bill to allow dogs to be able to dine with their owners at restaurants al-fresco! That's just what Americans need. I'd love to eat at a restaurant while someone's dog is at the next table licking it's balls. God, where did these idiots come from?!
Now what about an amendment to the US Constitution that makes sense? Sure, there are reasons we should amend the Constitution. Here's one of them the majority of Americans would gladly ratify. Article II (dealing with the president) should be amended to include an intelligence test for all candidates. The president of the United States should be above intelligence, don't you think? He/she should be able to score at least 110+ on a standard IQ test (without any help from advisors, or tutors...haha!). Do you honestly think Bush could score anything above 70? I hardly doubt it. His intelligence is down there with a brain-dead chimpanzee! (Not to offend poor helpless animals.) Further, it would be terrible if he didn't have his advisors. He'd never find the front door of the White House without them.
Let's face facts, George Bush is an idiot! If not that amendment, let's put a clause in the Constitution that says there can't be another president from the Bush family. His poor brother, Jeb, who is the governor of Florida, is of the same stock. He pushed a bill to allow dogs to be able to dine with their owners at restaurants al-fresco! That's just what Americans need. I'd love to eat at a restaurant while someone's dog is at the next table licking it's balls. God, where did these idiots come from?!
Sunday, June 04, 2006
XM Radio
I got XM satellite radio Friday. I had never dealt with satellite radio before, I had heard a lot about it. Hell, I'd even bought (and since sold) stock in Sirius. But XM seemed to be the best choice for me. I bought the portable Delphi xm2go handset. It is really cool, even for $154. The thing I love most is I can listen to music I like without being bothered with commercials! It's awesome. The thing with terrestrial radio (listen at me) is you have to deal with the commercials and then you also have to deal with what stations choose to put on the air. Around here, it is mostly preaching and gospel music, which really sucks. I shouldn't have to search through 10 of those channels to find something I only remotely enjoy.
So, yeah, it's worth the $12.95/month I pay to receive over 200+ channels. (Most I probably won't listen to, granted, but it's the thought that counts.)
So, yeah, it's worth the $12.95/month I pay to receive over 200+ channels. (Most I probably won't listen to, granted, but it's the thought that counts.)
Saturday, June 03, 2006
6-6-06
Okay, let's clear up the misnomer...6/6/06 happens every one hundred years, not once in a millennium. Let's be serious about it and think for a few seconds before we post this kinda crap on the Internet (hello CNN). So the last date was 6/6/1906...hence the even shorter-hand 6/6/06. Duh!
Okay, what is so special about this day? 666...wow...I have paid that much a couple of times at Dairy Queen ($6.66). That must be Satan's lair. No wonder I love the Cappucino Moolate so well! :)
I have an appointment with my "pharmacist" on that day. I hope I can at least get my drugs before the end of the world happens or else I'll have a bf! *gasp*
Okay, what is so special about this day? 666...wow...I have paid that much a couple of times at Dairy Queen ($6.66). That must be Satan's lair. No wonder I love the Cappucino Moolate so well! :)
I have an appointment with my "pharmacist" on that day. I hope I can at least get my drugs before the end of the world happens or else I'll have a bf! *gasp*
Proposal headed to Iran
The European Union/United States has prepared its conditions for Iran. Basically, Iran has turned down this proposal already. Iran said it would discuss the provisions, but I know they will never accept them. The US/EU is only postponing the inevitable conflict with Iran. Oh boy...
Bush is in the toilet...again
Considering George's radio address this morning, I have tweaked my letter sent to senators McConnell and Bunning from yesterday, which will now be sent to the White House.
Dear Mr. President:
As the US Congress returns from Memorial Day recess, the Senate will be faced with many important issues, including how to solve the energy crisis facing America, illegal immigration, and the war in Iraq.
The United States Senate, also, has again taken up the issue of a marriage amendment. Mr. Bush, how a person lives their life in the confines of privacy and family simply is not the business of the state. Fifty years ago, the US government was faced with issues such as this which ultimately opened society to all citizens. Of course, I am speaking of the civil rights movement. Some members of Congress during this time advocated and voted to maintain the status quo of segregation within public institutions and venues. Those members, in their later political careers and lives, lived to regret their decisions, which simply were based on intolerance and the popular sentiments of the time. I do not recall reading where President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, or President Johnson were against the civil rights and liberties of the minority; rather, they worked to increase civil rights and liberties. You, on the other hand, are attempting to implement a policy of intolerance and bigotry.
Banning homosexual citizens from enjoying the same rights as heterosexual citizens is akin to banning African-Americans from enjoying the same rights as European-Americans in the 1950s and 1960s. Where is the logic? The United States was not founded on the principle of minority segregation. Certainly, we can argue for ages the "Founding Fathers" never envisioned homosexuality as they crafted our Constitution; however, that point is moot, considering the Constitution, through and by the laws of this nation, has never confined nor limited the rights of individuals. Furthermore, our Constitution is a living document that encompasses all citizens and the immediate conditions of society. It does not confine or limit rights and liberties.
Mr. President, society was not unraveled by giving African-Americans their civil liberties and rights. I am certain you agree, as well. I argue the same will be said in twenty-five years about homosexuals. By protecting a minority, American culture will not be destroyed nor undermined. Instead, those public servants who oppose basic rights for all Americans today will be labeled as regressive and narrow-minded by posterity. You proclaim this so-called “marriage amendment” will work to counteract the moral decline in this nation. You profess your belief that marriage is inherently a right between a man and a woman; however, you overlook the strains placed on society by the lack of appropriate family planning and the lack of sex education for young people. Obviously, from your point-of-view, by placing everyone in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship America will become a utopia. That is simply flawed and misguided. Social reform begins in solid policies that promote the general welfare and education of all citizens. Not the segregation of a convenient minority to win a few votes from another minority, which happens to be conservative.
It is obvious, Mr. Bush, the politics at play in this amendment. During the 2004 election cycle, the same political stunt was crafted by the Republican-led Senate as a means to shift the conversation of American politics; however, I dare say, the political continuum in this nation will certainly shift in November. The Republican-controlled Congress, in concert with your Administration, has repeatedly refused to take up the causes which truly matter to Americans, which include why I am paying almost $3 per gallon to fill-up the tank of my car, outsourcing of American jobs, why companies who choose to stay in the US can replace American labor with cheap, undocumented aliens, and the seemingly unending war in Iraq, which has cost this nation dearly in lives and dollars. Let's address the issues that are truly impacting our society and economy.
Mr. President, these are the issues I will take with me to the polls in November. It is unconscionable the Senate of this great nation would dare waste my tax dollars to debate such a useless issue as a marriage amendment, which will never be ratified. The climate of America has changed since 2004. Simply, the voters need more to occupy their minds during this election cycle than with whom I go to bed with tonight.
As an American citizen, I express my whole-hearted dissent against this ill-conceived and intolerant amendment which is now before the United States Senate.
Dear Mr. President:
As the US Congress returns from Memorial Day recess, the Senate will be faced with many important issues, including how to solve the energy crisis facing America, illegal immigration, and the war in Iraq.
The United States Senate, also, has again taken up the issue of a marriage amendment. Mr. Bush, how a person lives their life in the confines of privacy and family simply is not the business of the state. Fifty years ago, the US government was faced with issues such as this which ultimately opened society to all citizens. Of course, I am speaking of the civil rights movement. Some members of Congress during this time advocated and voted to maintain the status quo of segregation within public institutions and venues. Those members, in their later political careers and lives, lived to regret their decisions, which simply were based on intolerance and the popular sentiments of the time. I do not recall reading where President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, or President Johnson were against the civil rights and liberties of the minority; rather, they worked to increase civil rights and liberties. You, on the other hand, are attempting to implement a policy of intolerance and bigotry.
Banning homosexual citizens from enjoying the same rights as heterosexual citizens is akin to banning African-Americans from enjoying the same rights as European-Americans in the 1950s and 1960s. Where is the logic? The United States was not founded on the principle of minority segregation. Certainly, we can argue for ages the "Founding Fathers" never envisioned homosexuality as they crafted our Constitution; however, that point is moot, considering the Constitution, through and by the laws of this nation, has never confined nor limited the rights of individuals. Furthermore, our Constitution is a living document that encompasses all citizens and the immediate conditions of society. It does not confine or limit rights and liberties.
Mr. President, society was not unraveled by giving African-Americans their civil liberties and rights. I am certain you agree, as well. I argue the same will be said in twenty-five years about homosexuals. By protecting a minority, American culture will not be destroyed nor undermined. Instead, those public servants who oppose basic rights for all Americans today will be labeled as regressive and narrow-minded by posterity. You proclaim this so-called “marriage amendment” will work to counteract the moral decline in this nation. You profess your belief that marriage is inherently a right between a man and a woman; however, you overlook the strains placed on society by the lack of appropriate family planning and the lack of sex education for young people. Obviously, from your point-of-view, by placing everyone in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship America will become a utopia. That is simply flawed and misguided. Social reform begins in solid policies that promote the general welfare and education of all citizens. Not the segregation of a convenient minority to win a few votes from another minority, which happens to be conservative.
It is obvious, Mr. Bush, the politics at play in this amendment. During the 2004 election cycle, the same political stunt was crafted by the Republican-led Senate as a means to shift the conversation of American politics; however, I dare say, the political continuum in this nation will certainly shift in November. The Republican-controlled Congress, in concert with your Administration, has repeatedly refused to take up the causes which truly matter to Americans, which include why I am paying almost $3 per gallon to fill-up the tank of my car, outsourcing of American jobs, why companies who choose to stay in the US can replace American labor with cheap, undocumented aliens, and the seemingly unending war in Iraq, which has cost this nation dearly in lives and dollars. Let's address the issues that are truly impacting our society and economy.
Mr. President, these are the issues I will take with me to the polls in November. It is unconscionable the Senate of this great nation would dare waste my tax dollars to debate such a useless issue as a marriage amendment, which will never be ratified. The climate of America has changed since 2004. Simply, the voters need more to occupy their minds during this election cycle than with whom I go to bed with tonight.
As an American citizen, I express my whole-hearted dissent against this ill-conceived and intolerant amendment which is now before the United States Senate.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Commander-in-Chief
According to the Constitution, in a time of war, the President of the United States is Commander-in-Chief (CIC) of the armed forces. This being said, King George has the great distinction of being CIC. CIC is not a light duty. It's more than a title bestowed on a man, or woman (in the future), he can wear it around like a pair of $900 Prada slip-ons. It's a little more involved than Hollywood glamour might allow us to believe.
Various elements of the US armed forces are being investigated for grave misconduct while on the battlefield. Now, King George, being 12,000 miles away, can blow this off as a disciplinary breakdown between his commanders on the ground and the troops committing the offenses. That might hold water between Bush and his commanders, since they will ultimately answer to him, not Donald Rumsfeld. In this country, today, we place too much emphasis on Cabinet level positions. We say that Rumsfeld, as secretary of defense, commands the troops and he is ultimately responsible for the outcome of this war. That is simply wrong!
Members of the President's Cabinet are simply advisers. That's all! Sure, we give them big titles and offices with billion dollar budgets to oversee these days, but the constitutionality of the Cabinet is unchanged. George Bush can simply pan failure off onto Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense (ooohhh..scary), but it's really Bush who is ultimately responsible as CIC. No, it's not the brigadier general in Iraq commanding his troops from one of Hussein's presidential palaces, it's not even the sergeant on the ground with the troops facing untold horrors, it's not even the Secretary of Defense's fault, sadly for Bush, it's his fault as CIC.
Mr. Bush, commander-in-chief is more than a fancy title. It's a responsibility to the people of the United States. It says, "I will be personally responsible for the great trust to command the armed services of this nation. I will walk the line beside the enlisted men and women to personally see that operations and orders are carried out. I will personally oversee the discipline of those troops who fail to carry out the directives of acceptable warfare." It's not, "That damn lazy secretary of defense over there at the Pentagon has failed again. I really wish those commanders would rein in their troops and put a tighter lead on them."
Mr. Bush, take the initiative and live up to your Constitutional office that you so quickly raised your right hand to God and accepted before the American people. Be all that you must be!
Various elements of the US armed forces are being investigated for grave misconduct while on the battlefield. Now, King George, being 12,000 miles away, can blow this off as a disciplinary breakdown between his commanders on the ground and the troops committing the offenses. That might hold water between Bush and his commanders, since they will ultimately answer to him, not Donald Rumsfeld. In this country, today, we place too much emphasis on Cabinet level positions. We say that Rumsfeld, as secretary of defense, commands the troops and he is ultimately responsible for the outcome of this war. That is simply wrong!
Members of the President's Cabinet are simply advisers. That's all! Sure, we give them big titles and offices with billion dollar budgets to oversee these days, but the constitutionality of the Cabinet is unchanged. George Bush can simply pan failure off onto Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense (ooohhh..scary), but it's really Bush who is ultimately responsible as CIC. No, it's not the brigadier general in Iraq commanding his troops from one of Hussein's presidential palaces, it's not even the sergeant on the ground with the troops facing untold horrors, it's not even the Secretary of Defense's fault, sadly for Bush, it's his fault as CIC.
Mr. Bush, commander-in-chief is more than a fancy title. It's a responsibility to the people of the United States. It says, "I will be personally responsible for the great trust to command the armed services of this nation. I will walk the line beside the enlisted men and women to personally see that operations and orders are carried out. I will personally oversee the discipline of those troops who fail to carry out the directives of acceptable warfare." It's not, "That damn lazy secretary of defense over there at the Pentagon has failed again. I really wish those commanders would rein in their troops and put a tighter lead on them."
Mr. Bush, take the initiative and live up to your Constitutional office that you so quickly raised your right hand to God and accepted before the American people. Be all that you must be!
Terrible Gays
The US Senate is yet again bringing up the gay marriage amendment next week. I am going to be writing my senators to express my disgust with this political maneuvering, while ignoring the real issues in America that we are concerned with.
Dear Senator McConnell:
As the US Congress returns from Memorial Day recess, the Senate will be faced with many important issues, including how to solve the energy crisis facing America and illegal immigration.
The United States Senate, also, has again taken up the issue of a marriage amendment. Senator, how a person lives their life in the confines of privacy and family simply is not the business of the US Congress. Fifty years ago, the US Congress was faced with issues such as this which ultimately opened society to all citizens. Of course, I am speaking of the civil rights movement. Some members of Congress during this time advocated and voted to maintain the status quo of segregation within public institutions and venues. Those members, in their later political careers and lives, lived to regret their decisions, which simply were based on ignorance and the popular sentiments of the time.
Banning homosexual citizens from enjoying the same rights as heterosexual citizens is akin to banning African-Americans from enjoying the same rights as European-Americans in the 1950s and 1960s. Where is the logic? The United States was not founded on the principle of minority segregation. Certainly, we can argue for ages the "Founding Fathers" never envisioned homosexuality as they crafted our Constitution; however, that point is moot, considering the Constitution, through and by the laws of this nation, has never confined nor limited the rights of individuals. Furthermore, our Constitution is a living document that encompasses all citizens and the immediate conditions of society. It does not confine or limit rights and liberties.
Senator, society was not unraveled by giving African-Americans their civil liberties and rights. I am certain you agree, as well. I argue the same will be said in twenty-five years about homosexuals. By protecting a minority, American culture will not be destroyed nor undermined. Instead, those public servants who oppose basic rights for all Americans today will be labeled as regressive and narrow-minded by posterity.
It is obvious, Senator, the politics at play in this amendment. During the 2004 election cycle, the same political stunt was crafted by the Senate and placed before the American people; however, I dare say, the political continuum in this nation will certainly shift in November. The Republican-controlled Congress has repeatedly refused to take up the causes which truly matter to Americans, which include why I am paying almost $3 per gallon to fill-up the tank of my car, outsourcing of American jobs, why companies who choose to stay in the US can replace American labor with cheap, undocumented aliens, and the seemingly unending war in Iraq. Senator, these are the issues I will take with me to the polls in November. It is unconscionable the Senate of this great nation would dare waste my tax dollars to debate such useless issues as a marriage amendment, which will never be ratified. The climate of America has changed since 2004. Simply, voters need more to occupy their minds during this election cycle than who I go to bed with tonight.
As your constituent, I respectful ask that you vote against this ill-conceived, hateful amendment.
Dear Senator McConnell:
As the US Congress returns from Memorial Day recess, the Senate will be faced with many important issues, including how to solve the energy crisis facing America and illegal immigration.
The United States Senate, also, has again taken up the issue of a marriage amendment. Senator, how a person lives their life in the confines of privacy and family simply is not the business of the US Congress. Fifty years ago, the US Congress was faced with issues such as this which ultimately opened society to all citizens. Of course, I am speaking of the civil rights movement. Some members of Congress during this time advocated and voted to maintain the status quo of segregation within public institutions and venues. Those members, in their later political careers and lives, lived to regret their decisions, which simply were based on ignorance and the popular sentiments of the time.
Banning homosexual citizens from enjoying the same rights as heterosexual citizens is akin to banning African-Americans from enjoying the same rights as European-Americans in the 1950s and 1960s. Where is the logic? The United States was not founded on the principle of minority segregation. Certainly, we can argue for ages the "Founding Fathers" never envisioned homosexuality as they crafted our Constitution; however, that point is moot, considering the Constitution, through and by the laws of this nation, has never confined nor limited the rights of individuals. Furthermore, our Constitution is a living document that encompasses all citizens and the immediate conditions of society. It does not confine or limit rights and liberties.
Senator, society was not unraveled by giving African-Americans their civil liberties and rights. I am certain you agree, as well. I argue the same will be said in twenty-five years about homosexuals. By protecting a minority, American culture will not be destroyed nor undermined. Instead, those public servants who oppose basic rights for all Americans today will be labeled as regressive and narrow-minded by posterity.
It is obvious, Senator, the politics at play in this amendment. During the 2004 election cycle, the same political stunt was crafted by the Senate and placed before the American people; however, I dare say, the political continuum in this nation will certainly shift in November. The Republican-controlled Congress has repeatedly refused to take up the causes which truly matter to Americans, which include why I am paying almost $3 per gallon to fill-up the tank of my car, outsourcing of American jobs, why companies who choose to stay in the US can replace American labor with cheap, undocumented aliens, and the seemingly unending war in Iraq. Senator, these are the issues I will take with me to the polls in November. It is unconscionable the Senate of this great nation would dare waste my tax dollars to debate such useless issues as a marriage amendment, which will never be ratified. The climate of America has changed since 2004. Simply, voters need more to occupy their minds during this election cycle than who I go to bed with tonight.
As your constituent, I respectful ask that you vote against this ill-conceived, hateful amendment.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Jackson Leslie in the News!
Well, I used the handy dandy search engine, Google, to search on "jacksonleslie." It would seem that I have been referenced by washingtonpost.com. This reference by me goes back to when George Bush was nominating a candidate to take over for former Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in July 2005. The reference isn't one that I'd have chosen, because of the profanity I was using (and part of the reference). Ha! Here I am referenced by a national media outlet! I'm well on my way to fame!
To wit:
To wit:
"For some, the nominee's actual identity didn't seem to matter. 'Who the hell is Edith Clement? CNN seems to think she's the nominee,' wrote Jackson Leslie at Grace & Civility. "She's probably a hardline conservative (look at who's doing the nominating).'"
More and more...
Iran stepped up the rhetoric over it's nuclear program when it refused an American call to meet vÃs-a-vÃs to discuss the issue. I felt the US invitation to meet at the negotiation table sounded more like an ultimatum to Iran rather than a willingness to openly discuss the issue. The US government stated it would meet with the Iranian government to directly discuss the issue of its nuclear program; however, there were some conditions, including Iran had to halt its uranium enrichment program before the meeting would take place. It would have been more advantageous for the US government to discuss the issue as things stand. Issuing demands and conditions to another country, although American chic these days, is not really asking to discuss the issue, but rather preface the meeting with demands.
Meet the Iranians on their level with how things stand, then discuss concerns and concessions at the bargaining table. DUH!
Meet the Iranians on their level with how things stand, then discuss concerns and concessions at the bargaining table. DUH!
Society's Debt
Now, before I get started on a rant, let me preface it with the fact that I've NEVER been convicted of a crime in a court of law (in your face you stupid pig cop who tried to call me a speeder). Now, ladies and gentlemen, the rest of the show...
People are convicted of crimes everyday in this country, it's a fact. These include homicide, rape, burglary, grand theft auto, etc. If I stab someone to death and receive my 25 years in a state lock-up, then the day I am set free, I am really, well, free. I can go back into society and live as I see fit. Now of course, I may choose to live in the mainstream, but I can also choose to re-offend, which many felons do.
The title of this blog is "Society's Debt." What does society require of those who live outside of mainstream values? Do they require them to serve a prison sentence, as most criminal activities entail? Of course, they do. I am not saying there is anything wrong with a punitive justice system. If someone kills me, I hope they go to jail for a long, long time. Perhaps, that will keep them from hurting someone else in the near future. If we're really lucky, they may turn over a whole new leaf. Hey, it can and does happen!
When my convicted murderer is up for release after 25 years in prison (let's pretend he was never paroled, etc., he just paid for his debt straight up), he isn't required to become a registered murderer with the state and county in which he lives. Seemingly, special conditions aren't placed on the way he can live his life as a free member of society. We place, however, special conditions on certain types of convicted felons, such as sex-based offenders. Now, these are terrible crimes, like murder, I agree. They deserve to be punished within the confines our jurisprudence system, just like every other criminal. That's not my point, however. My point is this: once you pay your debt--you serve your maximum time as imposed by a court of law--then you are no longer under obligation to the state; ergo society. Society requires sex-based criminals, like being a rapists, child molester, etc., to not only serve time in prison, but also to register within a community as essentially a pervert (for all time, really). It's society's double jeopardy; however, we aren't a law of mob justice (seemingly). We have laws that dictate how we can punish criminals. These laws are written out and apply to everyone, including the criminal. In essence, being a criminal of the sexual persuasion requires you to wear a scarlet letter on your chest forever.
There is no website I can go to and look up who is a formerly convicted murderer in my community. There is no website where I can look up former car thieves, who might be looking at my new car in the drive-way. But sure, I can go to a state website and look at everyone in my community who has raped someone. I can find out who molested little Bobby (who isn't so little anymore) down the street 15 years ago. If our jurisprudence system is fair, then we must have websites with EVERY criminal listed with their offenses; if not, we have violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which directly protects the accused individual from excessive and unjust punishment by the state. We have imprisoned some criminals, like sex offenders, for a lifetime, without bars, while sanctioning others for a terminal period of time without future social sanctions against their freedom. This is not justice, this is excessive and unfair punishment.
Someone will say, but this hasn't happened to your family. If your mother was sexually assaulted by a pervert, don't you think that criminal deserves to rot in jail forever. That is simply a gut reaction to a crime against a loved one. Sure, I want to beat the person to death with a baseball bat, but that makes me a criminal and that is not the society in which we want to live. The individual committing the crime deserves his punishment, which will be a set term of imprisonment where he will lose his civil rights and liberties as a citizen. Then, he will be released after said sentence has been fulfilled. I don't expect him to be a slave to the past forever, even for my mother.
When we watch each other, we become a society of vigilantes. We become a society of street justice. "I don't want that pervert living next door to me." No one could say that about this person without someone having forced him/her to register as a sex offender on a website, etc. It's not about protecting victims. It's about protecting our personal feelings and security without regard to the civil liberties and rights of another individual, who committed a crime and paid his debt to society. It's a factor of our relationships among each other where our government allows us to offend against and offender. It would be akin to a murderer serving a sentence in prison and then when he is released, he is then taken to a tree in town and hanged by the people of that community. Do we allow this type of second chance justice for such crimes? Of course not!
Simply, we can't require certain criminals to repay a debt to society over-and-over, while other criminals go their merry ways free and clear!
People are convicted of crimes everyday in this country, it's a fact. These include homicide, rape, burglary, grand theft auto, etc. If I stab someone to death and receive my 25 years in a state lock-up, then the day I am set free, I am really, well, free. I can go back into society and live as I see fit. Now of course, I may choose to live in the mainstream, but I can also choose to re-offend, which many felons do.
The title of this blog is "Society's Debt." What does society require of those who live outside of mainstream values? Do they require them to serve a prison sentence, as most criminal activities entail? Of course, they do. I am not saying there is anything wrong with a punitive justice system. If someone kills me, I hope they go to jail for a long, long time. Perhaps, that will keep them from hurting someone else in the near future. If we're really lucky, they may turn over a whole new leaf. Hey, it can and does happen!
When my convicted murderer is up for release after 25 years in prison (let's pretend he was never paroled, etc., he just paid for his debt straight up), he isn't required to become a registered murderer with the state and county in which he lives. Seemingly, special conditions aren't placed on the way he can live his life as a free member of society. We place, however, special conditions on certain types of convicted felons, such as sex-based offenders. Now, these are terrible crimes, like murder, I agree. They deserve to be punished within the confines our jurisprudence system, just like every other criminal. That's not my point, however. My point is this: once you pay your debt--you serve your maximum time as imposed by a court of law--then you are no longer under obligation to the state; ergo society. Society requires sex-based criminals, like being a rapists, child molester, etc., to not only serve time in prison, but also to register within a community as essentially a pervert (for all time, really). It's society's double jeopardy; however, we aren't a law of mob justice (seemingly). We have laws that dictate how we can punish criminals. These laws are written out and apply to everyone, including the criminal. In essence, being a criminal of the sexual persuasion requires you to wear a scarlet letter on your chest forever.
There is no website I can go to and look up who is a formerly convicted murderer in my community. There is no website where I can look up former car thieves, who might be looking at my new car in the drive-way. But sure, I can go to a state website and look at everyone in my community who has raped someone. I can find out who molested little Bobby (who isn't so little anymore) down the street 15 years ago. If our jurisprudence system is fair, then we must have websites with EVERY criminal listed with their offenses; if not, we have violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which directly protects the accused individual from excessive and unjust punishment by the state. We have imprisoned some criminals, like sex offenders, for a lifetime, without bars, while sanctioning others for a terminal period of time without future social sanctions against their freedom. This is not justice, this is excessive and unfair punishment.
Someone will say, but this hasn't happened to your family. If your mother was sexually assaulted by a pervert, don't you think that criminal deserves to rot in jail forever. That is simply a gut reaction to a crime against a loved one. Sure, I want to beat the person to death with a baseball bat, but that makes me a criminal and that is not the society in which we want to live. The individual committing the crime deserves his punishment, which will be a set term of imprisonment where he will lose his civil rights and liberties as a citizen. Then, he will be released after said sentence has been fulfilled. I don't expect him to be a slave to the past forever, even for my mother.
When we watch each other, we become a society of vigilantes. We become a society of street justice. "I don't want that pervert living next door to me." No one could say that about this person without someone having forced him/her to register as a sex offender on a website, etc. It's not about protecting victims. It's about protecting our personal feelings and security without regard to the civil liberties and rights of another individual, who committed a crime and paid his debt to society. It's a factor of our relationships among each other where our government allows us to offend against and offender. It would be akin to a murderer serving a sentence in prison and then when he is released, he is then taken to a tree in town and hanged by the people of that community. Do we allow this type of second chance justice for such crimes? Of course not!
Simply, we can't require certain criminals to repay a debt to society over-and-over, while other criminals go their merry ways free and clear!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)