current affairs
Loose Change has been steadily moving up "Google Video's Ranking. It's up to the number one position, after sitting at two for a couple of days.
Well, at least part of it appears to be proven wrong: Flight 77 not a hoax
Of course, they still haven't released the video from the service station or the hotel, so Dylan and the boys still have part of their film intact.
I find it interesting that so many of the signs in yesterday's anti-immigration-reform protest explicitly gave "proof" of the validity of the opposition's argument. In other words, the cries, "They don't assimilate! They don't even learn the language!" were born out in so many of the signs that protesters carried.
Now, I'm not an advocate of creating legislation that makes English the official language of America, but one would think that this time, of all times, would be when immigrants use English. And I'm not even suggesting that it should be even close to correct English.
And that's why I love the sign at right so much.
(Pictures swiped from NYT. Click on them for larger versions.)
Excerpts from an article from Bloomberg.com:
The most amazing quote is the third:
Persian Gulf states that don’t allow international companies to develop their oil reserves, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, should invest more to expand output themselves
They’re making billions at these prices. Why the hell should they increase output? Eat up their resources for decreased revenue? There’s absolutely no incentive for them to do so.
Oh, this is all just cruel justice for America, which has grown fat and lazy on its cheap gas. Think about it — gas is just now getting to be more expensive than milk! We’ve brought it on ourselves with our short-sightedness. We’ve had almost thirty years to prepare for this oil crisis that is revving up, but what did we do instead?
Invent the SUV.
Bird flu is coming! It's just around the corner of the globe and soon we'll be dropping like cliches.
Fortunately, you can protect yourself.
That kind of thinking is certainly already motivating marketing execs.
While looking for respirators for painting and staining, I found this.
Here in Asheville Saturday we had what one blogger called a "Hatefest." It was, in short, a rally to support family values -- in other words, condemn homosexuality.
With his Bible tucked under his arm like so many others around him, Jim Ballard stood in the middle of Pack Square to stand “for what the word of God stands for… not against anyone, but against sin.”
Ballard joined a crowed of more than 200 assembled downtown on Saturday to support Wolf Laurel Ski Resort and other businesses that defend their right to choose not to employ homosexuals.
Wolf Laurel fired a lesbian couple after they placed a wedding announcement in the local paper upon returning from Massachusetts. Apparently the proprietors of the resort a "good Christians" and fired the wretched, evil lesbians. Sparking a protest. Which in turn sparked a protest.
“They are trying to make a statement so we as Christians are trying to make a statement,” said Wendell Runion, president of International Baptist Outreach Missions Inc. and organizer of the event.
Runion, who also spoke at U.S. Rep. Charles Taylor’s prayer breakfast earlier the same day, said the rally was not meant to debate the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, but to make a declaration solidly against it.
Taylor, R-Brevard, said he was supportive of “Christian businessmen trying to be Christian in their work lives as well as in their personal lives” when asked about the rally. Taylor did not attend the rally. (Citizen Times)
That sort of talk -- "We're not here to debate it, but to oppose it!" -- makes me think of, say, the Taliban.
Doubt that?
Combine it with the dominion theology of Rod Parsley and others, and it's clear to see that a theocracy is their ultimate goal.
As the cliche goes, "God, save us from your followers."
See Citizen Times article and BlogAsheville for more info.
Now that there exists video proof that W knew before Katrina that there was a serious risk to the levees, how is he going to try to spin his way out of this?
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."
That outright lie should make any thinking person sick.
The battle lines are drawn again. South Dakota’s legislature has voted to make abortion illegal in all circumstances. No exceptions.
A direct attack on Roe v. Wade is coming from the South Dakota legislature. The new bill, which outlaws abortion, makes no exceptions, not for a pregnancy caused by incest or rape. It would only be legal -- the only exception if it would save the pregnant woman's life.
Doctors who perform abortions could face up to five years in prison. The bill passed the State Senate 23-12. It's expected to pass the House again and then go to Governor Mike Rounds' desk. The bill's sponsor says he thinks the antiabortion movement has momentum on its side and a -- quote -- “change in national policy on abortion is going to come in the not-too-distant future.” (MSNBC)
With Alito and Roberts now on the Supreme Court, the intention couldn’t be any clearer: a full-scale assault on Roe v. Wade.
There's a good piece in the Village Voice about South Dakota's strategy.
Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, just after I was born. As an adoptee, I have wondered many times about what would have happened had Roe been a year earlier. Knowing next to nothing about my birth mother, it’s a question that will never have an answer. If I had the opportunity to ask my birth mother, it might still go unanswered. Thirty-three years of introspection would produce a very different response, I’m sure.
This fact alone serves as the foundation for my very mixed feelings about legalized abortion. On the one hand, I walk lock-step with other bleeding-hearts in saying that a woman’s body is just that -- not mine, but hers. And yet, thinking about the possible abortion of what became my body, I think, “Hey, wait -- I have something to say in this too.”
“What became my body?” What was it before? Abortion opponents have a point that if the fetus is human, there is very little to talk about, and very few instances when abortion can be ethically defensible. Is it human? I don’t know. And the purpose of this post is not to ruminate over the slippery slope of when a fetus becomes a human.
All that being said, I remain pro-choice, but with a lump in my throat. I remain nervously pro-choice. Like many, I would like to live in a world in which abortion is a woman’s legal right, but never, ever necessary. A utopia, in other words.
Anti-abortion activists should be working to make that utopia a reality, but I don’t see much happening in that way. Indeed, this is what bothers me most about the various camps that make up the anti-abortion movement: their unwillingness to help provide a viable alternative, namely adoption. How many children has the average women’s health clinic picketer adopted? How many protest by example? It seems to me that if these individuals feel so strongly about the issue, they would literally put their money where their angry, raised voices are and adopt, adopt, adopt.
Thud pointed out an interesting piece via email by August Pollak regarding Malkin's "selective memory." Several points taken.
But...there's always one of those...
Pollak writes,
Are the cartoons freedom of speech? Well, yeah. Of course you have the right to print shitty, racist cartoons that serve no purpose but to inflame Arab sentiment and make racist right-wingers feel good about themselves.
"Inflame Arab sentiment?" It's done a great deal more than that.
Yet I can be extremely angry and yet keep my urge for violence in check.
If I piss someone off and get hit, even if I deliberately tried to piss the person off, he's still responsible for his actions. No matter what I said.
Self-control.
Same applies here.
Pollak accuses Malkin of being a racist. I don't really follow Malkin's commentary -- scratch that. I don't follow it at all. Maybe she is a racist. Maybe she isn't. The "right-wing" part of the epithet is true enough.
Still, does that somehow disqualify what the pictures (which she's simply assembled from various web sites) tell us about the reaction of a fairly significant portion of Muslims? Sure, the tag, "No, you go to hell," is a little silly -- but I do think the pictures speak for themselves. Am I saying all Muslims are reacting irrationally violently? No -- I am only privy to what the media presents to me.
Still, while purposely insulting someone is immoral, wanting to behead someone because of it is on quite another level.
