The RipZAW |
|
|
Guaranteed Fair and Balanced, or your money back. Send a letter to the Editor... err, Writer. Blogger. Something.    Links to StuffNewsSalon.com Google News CNN International The Onion The Motley Fool Slate Fun Stuff Mark Fiore's Cartoons Homestar Runner.com Daryl Cagle's Pro Cartoonist Index Internet Bumper Stickers Belief System Selector Odd Todd As the Apple Turns Where's George? Oddlots Irregulars Citizen's Survival Tools Project Vote Smart Congress.org Government Information Awareness Clicks for Charity The Hunger Site Ecology Fund Things I'm a Member of American Civil Liberties Union League of Conservation Voters MoveOn.org Our Campaigns Other Blogs The Homeless Guy Spinsanity The Moderate Republican Where is Raed? Granny D Atrios Daily Kos Talking Points Memo Political Animal IMPORTANT Cartoons We Drink Ritalin The End of the World Super Mario Brothers: [1] [2] [3] All Your Base 
Visitors:
Archives
|
Saturday, July 05, 2003
A Salon review of Ann Coulter's new book Treason centered around the fact that she expressly mentioned Joseph McCarthy as her role model. Now, while there's little I'd put past Ann Coulter, this seemed a little extreme. Perhaps they were using creative license in the review? If so I was going to be very upset. So, with some trepidation, I ventured into the heart of Coulter's domain to confirm her stand for myself. What I found as the lead-in to her Independence Day website entry follows: ON OUR NATION'S birthday, it is appropriate to honor the five men who did the most to defend our freedom in the last century. The names are easy to remember – they are the five men most loathed by liberals: Joseph McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, Whittaker Chambers and Ronald Reagan. Yes, my friends, that is what Coulter herself wrote. I assure you that is not taken out of context. The remained of the article continues on that train of thought. What I want to know is, why is anyone listening to this woman? O'Reilly is a jerk, but Coulter is just absolutely nuts! How can you praise J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon and Joseph McCarthy and not get your head handed to you (along with your walking papers) by an outraged American public? How does someone with such a reckless disregard for the truth retain a job in journalism? How in the name of Pete does "Harry Truman was a communist" (another revelation in Treason) slip by the fact-checkers? Is anybody even paying attention? | Thursday, July 03, 2003
Someone sent this letter to Senator Barbara Boxer via congress.org regarding President Bush's "bring it on" comment to Iraqi dissidents. As it states the obvious more eloquently than I am likely to, I'm reprinting it here. ------- On last nights news I saw video of the President of the United States taunting the anti-American element in a country (region) filled with RPGs, machine guns, land mines, booby traps and people convinced that martyrdom is a holy act. I was shocked. There are than 300,000 Americans who are parents of soldiers in harms way in Iraq alone right now. More than 200 of our soldiers have been killed ( at least 23 U.S. troops have died from hostile fire in Iraq since President Bush declared major combat over on May 1.) This is not the public rhetoric I expect from a World Leader, and certainly not from the President of the United States. I can only imagine the outrage that would exist in your district had you said "Bring it on!" after a terrorist threat in San Francisco, not to mention in hostile, arms filled environment that threatens the lives of 150,000 soldiers every day. As you well know, a soldiers mission in Iraq is not a sporting event. They don't start all over tomorrow with clean uniforms and a good nights rest. Our sons and daughters are facing extreme hardship every day, and some of them are dying. "Bring it on!" is inappropriate and offensive public discourse from our President. It send a bad message to both our enemies and to our allies. Where is the exemplary leadership from our government? I am looking for your public leadership on this issue. ------- | One thing about Rush Limbaugh: At least he lets his guests have their say, unlike that toad O'Reilly. All these talk show hosts are entitled to whatever opinion they want, and they can be as strident about it as they want as well; It's their show! But it's just really bad form to shut down their guests when they don't play along. And the whole "fair and balanced" thing is starting to get to me too. If you have an opinion, I already said that's fine. But you can't state your opinions as facts. Heck, I learned that in 4th grade. You'd think the standards and practices divisions of the broadcasting companies could enforce at least the same rules. Speaking of O'Reilly and broadcasting companies, here's one from the I Wish It Were A Joke department: Bill O'Reilly announced that media consolidation is a good thing because big media companies are easier to sue if you don't like what they're saying. The real problem, says O'Reilly, is the bloggers. They're not responsible to anybody! And whenever one of them has the audacity to question him, he can't figure out where to direct his lawsuit! Unfortunately, I can't find a link to the article, which I read a few days ago. Is this possible? I mean, this is a private American citizen saying, in effect, "I know what's best for this country. Those who disagree with me are doing public harm, and should be punished. It's disgusting, really, that some people would have the nerve to try to improve the state of the nation through the exercize their constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech, instead ceding that right entirely to me", and for some reason he's the guy that more people turn to for commentary than anyone else! I can't help but draw a reference to the 1930s, when people worldwide were hailing the coming glory of fascism. "Democracy may have worked fine before, but the world is so much more complicated now. We need a strong leader who can act without all that squabbling with his inferiors." We know what strong leadership arose then, in the constitutional monarchies of Spain and Italy and the democracy of Germany; who would dare call for the same thing now? And yet millions do. History is a subject Americans must learn. | Wednesday, July 02, 2003
Now this is pretty darn funny. No way to tell if it's legit or not, but Slate dug up what appears to be a prototype of Dubya's 2004 campaign webiste. Take a look. | It's hard to find a free web host that will let you store graphics for another page on their server. Back in the good old days, any of the free services would let you do whatever you wanted with your space. These days, the free space is just a teaser to get you to sign up for pay service. First I tried to put up some GIFs on a Bravenet page, which worked great (they have very simple FTP access and easy sign-up), except that the graphics wouldn't load if I linked to them on this page. Turns out "hot-linking", as they call it, is against the TOS. So, I signed up for a GeoCities account and tried there. Man, back in the day they were great. Not only did they let you do whatever you wanted with your space, they gave you a free POP email account, which is killer. Well, the POP account disappeared years ago, and these days they have the same "hot-linking" restrictions as Bravenet (and even uploading stuff is hobbled until you buy something). So, for the time being, this site remains graphics free, and my assorted writings remain shackled to my home hard drive. | On one of my trips to congress.org, I saw a link to tell Sen. Frist my opinion of his support of Rep. Musgrave's anti-gay-marriage Constitutional amendment. Being myself, I took advantage of it. The text of my message follows. Senator Frist: I feel compelled to write and tell you how disappointed I am at your support for Rep. Musgrave's proposed Constitutional amendment. While you and your supporters promised a new day of centrism and bipartisanship, it is clear that you, like Mr. Lott before you, have a core set of extremist policies you intend to force upon the nation. A Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is so trivial as to insult the stature of this ancient document, wastes the time the Senate needs to deal with pressing national issues, makes a mockery of America's tradition of tolerance and national nonintervention in matters of private morality, and is quite honestly one of the most ludicrous things I can imagine someone of your stature giving his support to. I am truly, truly sorry to see yet another high ranking official of the government flamboyantly display his unfitness for office. | Tuesday, July 01, 2003
Just took the Belief Test. It's a fun little thing that asks you 20 questions about your beliefs and then tells you what religion you're best suited for out of a list of 27. Apparently, I really ought to be a Unitarian Universalist. I'd also make a pretty good Quaker. I'd be a decent Buddhist or maybe Reform Jew, but a lousy Scientologist. Things aren't looking good for me as an Hindu or a Muslim, and when you get into Conservative Protestantism and Catholicism, it's not showing me much of a future at all. As for my chances as a Jehovah's Witness... that's just ugly. | Monday, June 30, 2003
Sunday, June 29, 2003
Remember when Bill Frist was going to be the uniting factor in the Senate, a centrist who would smooth over the rifts left by Trent Lott? The guy just announced his support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Man, this guy's got his priorities straight. We haven't found Osama or Saddam, the world hates us, the unemployment numbers balloon every day, the government is hemorrhaging cash faster than Enron, whose high officers are incidentally still free men - but Bill Frist has the courage to ignore these trivialities and protect the American people from what truly threatens their lives, liberty and happiness: the possibility that any two American guys, if they wanted to, could get married and spend the rest of their lives in a stable, loving relationship! Because if we don't ban this now, God will smite us! Jerry Falwell told me so! I am disgusted on so many levels. First, as an American and a taxpayer, this is a complete waste of government time and money. There are REAL problems to deal with. Every minute they spend on this garbage is a minute the nation spirals further out of control. Second, as someone with a religious/philosophical bent, seeking a ban on gay marriage is morally wrong and totally unjustified. It's the Christian right that's pushing this, right? Last time I checked, the Christian God was a God of tolerance and forgiveness. Jesus taught about turning the other cheek, loving your enemy, and casting stones at no one. But some people insist on twisting and perverting such sacred truths into the cesspool that is so much of our organized religion, teaching us to hate and kill and persecute. I see absolutely no difference - NONE - between the cult of Jerry Falwell and the mullahs of the Taliban. There is NO doubt in my mind that the Christian far right would take any measure in their power to put down those groups they vilify. If there is a God involved here, we must thank him for keeping the halls of power safely out of their hands, for the damage they would wreak is unimaginable. Third, as a student of the constitution, this proposed amendment is an inane corollary to the most revered document in the nation. Look at the constitution. It says you have freedom of speech, that the powers not expressly given to the national government are reserved for the states, that the law must apply equally to all - and oh yeah, let's add one that says gays can't get married. Is anybody else seeing this? How about we add one that says you can't wear socks with sandals? Or maybe that the white zone is for loading and unloading only? The constitution is not for this kind of triviality. Furthermore, does anyone remember prohibition? Remember how well that worked? Has anyone learned anything? You don't put laws in the constitution! It's for the overriding principles of the nation. It’s the check on the government. That's it. The Constitution of the United States is not the playground of the majority du jour. Now, frankly, I don't even care about gay marriage. It's a free country, man. Live and let live. You're not hurting me, you go marry whoever you want. Actually, I have a thought that maybe the government ought to get out of the marriage business altogether, just issue civil union licenses with loose guidelines and leave the marriage to the experts - priests, rabbis, ministers, justices of the peace, and most importantly the people who do or don't feel that marriage is an appropriate way to seal their commitment to each other. Why on earth should the taxes paid by two people living together be dependent on their participation in a religious ceremony? Separate the romantic and practical aspects of marriage into two separate unions, and I'll bet you'd have a lot fewer loveless marriages and a lot fewer single mothers as well. But that's another story. As long as marriage remains under the purview of the government, I don't want to hear another word out of some self-righteous politico's mouth about his promotion of "traditional values." Join the ministry, bub. Your proselytization has no place in the government. None. | I added a new section to the links, "Clicks for Charity". These sites have sponsors that will donate to certain charities for each person who clicks on a button, once per person per day. The pages are heavily laden with sponsors ads, but you don't have to sign up for anything, and it's a one click process. Maybe they don't actually do anything, but it can't hurt... | |