Iranian President’s remarks:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5376901,00.html
Never thought I'd resort to quoting our illustrious president, but for once, his asinine response is the most rational one: "Bring it on!" Generally, I'm not a warmonger, but when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I don't believe that negotiation is possible. Isn't it just plain fucking obvious that they're not willing to negotiate?! Seriously, who in his right mind can possibly think after these kinds of statements that Arabs are genuinely interested in reaching a peaceful solution? Please, somebody tell me. And it's been like this since 1948. They threaten continuously, they act on their threats (luckily, unsuccessfully), and they threaten again. After which time exactly are we supposed to take these threats seriously?
A friend of mine has suggested that it's only "political posturing by radical barbarian". Most likely, he's right. But time is not on our side. If this is only a precursor of the things to come, then I hope to read about some spectacular air strikes in that region very soon. This is no longer a tyrant who usurped power unlawfully. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected, and supported by his people; therefore Iranians fully share the responsibility with their leader. Hitler was elected too. - Sometimes, entire countries, entire people make wrong choices. Ahmadinejad was a wrong choice. But it was their bed to make. I suggest it's time for them to lay in it.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Boycott Disney’s Movies!
Once again, Disney has crossed the line of good taste and morality with their provocative name for the old story about a bloodhound puppy and a fox kit. In a clear attempt at linguistic sabotage of our children they have concocted a name that is almost impossible not to transform into some unholy utterance. “The Fox and the Hound”? What kind of sick individual would come up with that? I fear for the innocence of my 3-year old daughter who’s been most politely requesting to see “The Fucking Hound” over and over.
Where’s Dr. Dobson when you need him?
Where’s Dr. Dobson when you need him?
Thursday, October 13, 2005
It’s the Principle
Why God vs. Man? Why even the question? The image of a snooty, joint puffing, gay, socialist intellectual from Brooklyn (wait, that’s from Annie Hall!) has been mocked by both sides. Thinking in general, has not been considered a virtue here for a while. Getting back… God vs. Man… what in the hell does it have to do with… and insert the issue you’re particularly keen on discussing. Abortion or gay rights? - Easy. Centralized healthcare? Not so much (effective laying of the hands would come in useful though).
- Let’s look at what everyone seems to agree upon, lack of a cohesive, powerful message on the Dems side, that we as a people, could rally behind. In a nutshell, responses include, “Bullshit!..” followed by the list of reasonable stands on important issues, reframing of the issues, “Down with the establishment!” and “Let’s form a party of the reasonable middle.” Calls to “return to our core values!” etc. All these only call attention to the symptoms. Applying rouge to a gangrenous leg is not going to address the “it doesn’t look so good” problem.
Say what you will, but faith, God, and the Bible have at least one great thing going for them: they provide structural cohesion that is centering, unifying, and self-supporting. That alone enables the Right to speak with one voice (more or less). Rallying around a principle is infinitely more effective than rallying around its implications. Focusing on implications automatically fractures the view. It’s only natural that we all have different ‘hot buttons’ and see some issues differently. The principle. If we can define, find, articulate, whatever, that principle, we at least have a chance to be united, be driven, and be passionate. It’s easier to overlook some of the differences if theres’s a common core, a shared vision, in light of which, the differences matter less. Issues?.. They matter. The ideas for their proper resolutions however, will never give us the intellectual and moral integrity necessary to take on the Divine Ordinance crew.
- Let’s look at what everyone seems to agree upon, lack of a cohesive, powerful message on the Dems side, that we as a people, could rally behind. In a nutshell, responses include, “Bullshit!..” followed by the list of reasonable stands on important issues, reframing of the issues, “Down with the establishment!” and “Let’s form a party of the reasonable middle.” Calls to “return to our core values!” etc. All these only call attention to the symptoms. Applying rouge to a gangrenous leg is not going to address the “it doesn’t look so good” problem.
Say what you will, but faith, God, and the Bible have at least one great thing going for them: they provide structural cohesion that is centering, unifying, and self-supporting. That alone enables the Right to speak with one voice (more or less). Rallying around a principle is infinitely more effective than rallying around its implications. Focusing on implications automatically fractures the view. It’s only natural that we all have different ‘hot buttons’ and see some issues differently. The principle. If we can define, find, articulate, whatever, that principle, we at least have a chance to be united, be driven, and be passionate. It’s easier to overlook some of the differences if theres’s a common core, a shared vision, in light of which, the differences matter less. Issues?.. They matter. The ideas for their proper resolutions however, will never give us the intellectual and moral integrity necessary to take on the Divine Ordinance crew.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)