Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Wrong is Wright
And the MSM are still at it, thumping the Rev. Wright tub when most of us see through the utter BS of trying to claim Obama's one-time pastor speaks for him and tells us what the scary black man thinks.
(0) comments
No dice, guys. We don't need the electronic lynch mob. Not here, not now not ever.
Labels: Barack Obama Reverend Wright Politics Mainstream media
(0) comments
Trip On, Good Doctor
Just a short note upon the passing of Albert Hofmann, who died today at the age of 102.
In case you don't know, Hofmann invented (or at least discovered) one of the more interesting substances to come out of the 20th Century -- LSD. He was also the first person to officially trip on it, although he didn't know that at the time. It was accidentally getting the stuff on his skin that led to its discovery in the first place.
It was completely legal in the US for the next 24 years, being banned at the height of its popularity. After a resurgence in the 90s, supplies of it all but vanished after the DEA raided a major laboratory in 2000. If you've had any in the last eight years, you probably haven't had the real thing.
It was a really interesting thing that Dr. Hofmann discovered, and nothing but puritan stupidity that all but removed it from use in research -- or recreation. It could have revolutionized things like criminal rehabilitation or removal of unwanted or illegal sexual paraphilias. (For example, it is theoretically possible to administer LSD to a pedophile and completely refocus their sexual drive onto something harmless, like an old shoe or a teddy bear.) Those who've never experienced it simply assume it clouds the user's awareness with hallucinations and misperceptions and the like, turning them into a drooling idiot. This is not the case. It expands the senses and heightens awareness, and the hallucinations are quite controllable; one seems to have the ability to turn them on and off like daydreams.
Remember -- language is nothing but a group hallucination, given its meaning only by the consent of those hallucinating to agree that certain sounds mean certain things. Meaning that, yes, hallucinations have their uses.
Kudos to Dr. Hofmann for giving us a way to explore that actively. Thumbs down to the stupid War on (Some) Drugs for letting fear overtake possibility.
(0) comments
In case you don't know, Hofmann invented (or at least discovered) one of the more interesting substances to come out of the 20th Century -- LSD. He was also the first person to officially trip on it, although he didn't know that at the time. It was accidentally getting the stuff on his skin that led to its discovery in the first place.
It was completely legal in the US for the next 24 years, being banned at the height of its popularity. After a resurgence in the 90s, supplies of it all but vanished after the DEA raided a major laboratory in 2000. If you've had any in the last eight years, you probably haven't had the real thing.
It was a really interesting thing that Dr. Hofmann discovered, and nothing but puritan stupidity that all but removed it from use in research -- or recreation. It could have revolutionized things like criminal rehabilitation or removal of unwanted or illegal sexual paraphilias. (For example, it is theoretically possible to administer LSD to a pedophile and completely refocus their sexual drive onto something harmless, like an old shoe or a teddy bear.) Those who've never experienced it simply assume it clouds the user's awareness with hallucinations and misperceptions and the like, turning them into a drooling idiot. This is not the case. It expands the senses and heightens awareness, and the hallucinations are quite controllable; one seems to have the ability to turn them on and off like daydreams.
Remember -- language is nothing but a group hallucination, given its meaning only by the consent of those hallucinating to agree that certain sounds mean certain things. Meaning that, yes, hallucinations have their uses.
Kudos to Dr. Hofmann for giving us a way to explore that actively. Thumbs down to the stupid War on (Some) Drugs for letting fear overtake possibility.
Labels: Dr. Albert Hofmann LSD
(0) comments
Monday, April 28, 2008
Just Let It Go, You Asshats
Memo to the media: we don't give a flying fuck about Rev. Wright. He is not Obama, Obama is not him, and you've dragged this non-story beyond all reasonableness. At the same time, where were you when W. was consulting with people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, whose any two utterances go much further off the insanity meter than and fifty speeches by Rev. Wright?
Oh, I know where you were. Fellating Hillary to get her nominated, so that you can play punching bag with the Clintons for another four years. Well, how else to explain your silence on her association with Jorge Cabrera, coke-dealing friend of Fidel Castro?
Well? Any answers on that question?
*Crickets*
But of course.
It's real simple here, folks. Your Mainstream Media are as prejudiced as any Plantation Owner of the 1850s, but they can't admit that in public so, instead, they try to tar Obama with the scant brush of a preacher whose church he once attended.
Hey -- my grandma was Catholic. Does that mean I agree with every word to drip out of Pope Ratzo's Nazi mouth? Hell no.
(0) comments
Oh, I know where you were. Fellating Hillary to get her nominated, so that you can play punching bag with the Clintons for another four years. Well, how else to explain your silence on her association with Jorge Cabrera, coke-dealing friend of Fidel Castro?
Well? Any answers on that question?
*Crickets*
But of course.
It's real simple here, folks. Your Mainstream Media are as prejudiced as any Plantation Owner of the 1850s, but they can't admit that in public so, instead, they try to tar Obama with the scant brush of a preacher whose church he once attended.
Hey -- my grandma was Catholic. Does that mean I agree with every word to drip out of Pope Ratzo's Nazi mouth? Hell no.
(0) comments
Thursday, April 24, 2008
A Black & White Case?
A part of me can't help that think Wesley Snipes would not have been sentenced to three years in prison if he were white. Willie Nelson, for example, was hit with a bill for unpaid taxes of $ 16.7 million, back in 1990. His punishment? The government seized his assets, many of which were bought up by fans and given back to him. Prison time, none.
But there's another part of me that thinks Snipes's sentence was a message from the government to people in the Tax Revolt movement, because their argument has been gaining notice. In several cases now, the defendants have asked the Government to simply show them the place in the Tax Code where it says all Americans have to pay tax on their income from wages. The Government has yet to comply, simply countering that such arguments are considered frivolous. There is even a judge on record, James C. Fox, who stated that he can find no proof the 16th Amendment was ever properly ratified. On top of that, while the Government has been given ample opportunity to simply point to the page of the Tax Code that requires us to pay, they have not -- and you'd think that the simplest way in the world to shut up the Tax Resisters would be to cite Chapter and Verse that plainly requires them to pay, end of story. (The 16th Amendment argument, in fact, would be immaterial in the light of an exact reference to law.)
It's become a game of the IRS saying "You have to pay because we say you do," and the tax resisters replying with "We'll pay if you show us the law." This is followed by "We don't have to show you the law, we've told you it's true."
Now, if I want to find, say, the part of Burbank Municipal Code that bans smoking within 20 feet of buildings, or California State Law that requires me to register my car, or the Federal Law that makes travelling to Cuba illegal, I can do it in about five minutes. That last one would be 22 USC 69, in case you're wondering. You'd think that the IRS would love nothing more than to hand a judge a copy of xx USC yy, then seek summary judgement.
But they don't, they haven't, and so an alternate take on the above is that Wesley Snipes isn't the wrong race, but was convicted at the wrong time. The DOJ started a push this April to actively go after tax resisters, which indicates that the movement may be a bigger problem than they'll admit. After all, if it amounted to .002% of taxpayers, all they'd have to do is seize assets, and of story. But if it's a noticeable percentage, even 1%, or (guesstimate), or one million people, it becomes a manpower issue -- and therefore the easiest way is to go after a visible target, and turn them into a martyr, in hopes of cowing everyone else.
But if the number of resisters were ten million, or twenty, or more, they'd have a major problem on their hands of just going after everyone, and so the offenders with the highest income would be targeted first. I wont advocate tax evasion, but you have to ask yourself this question: is a government that lied us into a war, drastically cut domestic spending (hello, Katrina) and has now tanked the economy deserving of our dollars? If an employee screwed up this badly, they'd have been fired long ago. Since our useless Congress won't do a damn thing to end the trainwreck we're slowly riding to has-been country status, then it's up to the People to do something about it, and dock the pay of the institutions that have betrayed us.
United, we stand. Divided, unfortunately for now, we are.
(0) comments
But there's another part of me that thinks Snipes's sentence was a message from the government to people in the Tax Revolt movement, because their argument has been gaining notice. In several cases now, the defendants have asked the Government to simply show them the place in the Tax Code where it says all Americans have to pay tax on their income from wages. The Government has yet to comply, simply countering that such arguments are considered frivolous. There is even a judge on record, James C. Fox, who stated that he can find no proof the 16th Amendment was ever properly ratified. On top of that, while the Government has been given ample opportunity to simply point to the page of the Tax Code that requires us to pay, they have not -- and you'd think that the simplest way in the world to shut up the Tax Resisters would be to cite Chapter and Verse that plainly requires them to pay, end of story. (The 16th Amendment argument, in fact, would be immaterial in the light of an exact reference to law.)
It's become a game of the IRS saying "You have to pay because we say you do," and the tax resisters replying with "We'll pay if you show us the law." This is followed by "We don't have to show you the law, we've told you it's true."
Now, if I want to find, say, the part of Burbank Municipal Code that bans smoking within 20 feet of buildings, or California State Law that requires me to register my car, or the Federal Law that makes travelling to Cuba illegal, I can do it in about five minutes. That last one would be 22 USC 69, in case you're wondering. You'd think that the IRS would love nothing more than to hand a judge a copy of xx USC yy, then seek summary judgement.
But they don't, they haven't, and so an alternate take on the above is that Wesley Snipes isn't the wrong race, but was convicted at the wrong time. The DOJ started a push this April to actively go after tax resisters, which indicates that the movement may be a bigger problem than they'll admit. After all, if it amounted to .002% of taxpayers, all they'd have to do is seize assets, and of story. But if it's a noticeable percentage, even 1%, or (guesstimate), or one million people, it becomes a manpower issue -- and therefore the easiest way is to go after a visible target, and turn them into a martyr, in hopes of cowing everyone else.
But if the number of resisters were ten million, or twenty, or more, they'd have a major problem on their hands of just going after everyone, and so the offenders with the highest income would be targeted first. I wont advocate tax evasion, but you have to ask yourself this question: is a government that lied us into a war, drastically cut domestic spending (hello, Katrina) and has now tanked the economy deserving of our dollars? If an employee screwed up this badly, they'd have been fired long ago. Since our useless Congress won't do a damn thing to end the trainwreck we're slowly riding to has-been country status, then it's up to the People to do something about it, and dock the pay of the institutions that have betrayed us.
United, we stand. Divided, unfortunately for now, we are.
(0) comments
Thursday, April 17, 2008
It Ain't for the Children...
Government and Religion really need to get out of the marriage game now. Both institutions seem to think that marriage is some sacrosanct thing that they each control. They, alone, will decide who can be wed to whom. They, alone, will provide the proof of that union.
In two recent, and contrasting, incidents, the blatant abuse of the definition of marriage by government is apparent. Both have become clouded by other issues. Marriage, at its most fundamental, is simply a contract between adults -- an agreement to share assets, look out for each other's welfare and, if applicable, raise children.
Now... remove the parenting bit from that agreement, and how does a marriage contract differ from any other contract in the world? On a daily basis, groups of people unite in various configurations for the purposes of bettering their children. They're called licensing agreements, or marketing deals, or countless other things -- but they are all designed so that Group A, who owns Thing A, can exploit Group B for the benefit of Thing A. Or so Group A and B can create Thing C, then act for the benefit of Thing C.
The first story, of course, is the over-hyped raid on a Polygamist Ranch in Texas, an adventure which is even now falling apart. Sparked off by an anonymous phone call from an under-aged girl who was allegedly forced to marry (and have sex with) an older man, it is now becoming apparent that the informant may have been a hoax -- and that the women in the complex were not at all unhappy with their arrangmenets.
Story the second involves foreign women who gasp! married American sailors strictly for purposes of getting US citizenship, while qualifying said sailors for certain benefits only granted to married people.
Well, you know what? In both cases, I think the defendants are right. Mostly. (If there's been child abuse in the case of the polygamists, then they do not earn my sympathy -- but the evidence of that has become shaky.)
Anyway... I have yet to see any sane argument against polygamy. Why the hell shouldn't marriage be between two men and a woman, or one man and fifty women, or a hundred women and three men or... whatever? If all parties involved are adults, and all consent, there's no harm, no foul. Likewise, if a couple wants to wed with a stated purpose of "getting her citizenship and getting me lower tax rates and cheaper medical insurance", what's the fucking problem?
The anti-Gay Marriage crowd are just the most visible portion of the crowd that want to destroy your rights. But, really -- what business is it of government's what any configuration of consenting adults decide to do with their lives? The answer is: it should not be government's business at all. And, as long as they'll allow, say, Company A to absorb Company B in order to make a profit and get some tax breaks off of Product C, they have no leg to stand on in arguing that there's a reason to prevent Man A from wedding Man B, Woman C, Woman D, and Man E for the purposes of improving the tax situation of A-C, and getting citizenship for D and E.
Marriage should be guaranteed as a right in the Constitution -- "Amendment 28: Marriage being a vital contract that confers countless benefits to its members, no configuration of consenting adults shall be denied registration as a married unit, except in cases of proven coercion."
See? It isn't a gay/straight issue at all. And in this era of two working parents, it's actually a "for the children" idea. That is, have five or six parents in the household, chances are that at least one of them will be available at any given time to take care of the kids.
(0) comments
In two recent, and contrasting, incidents, the blatant abuse of the definition of marriage by government is apparent. Both have become clouded by other issues. Marriage, at its most fundamental, is simply a contract between adults -- an agreement to share assets, look out for each other's welfare and, if applicable, raise children.
Now... remove the parenting bit from that agreement, and how does a marriage contract differ from any other contract in the world? On a daily basis, groups of people unite in various configurations for the purposes of bettering their children. They're called licensing agreements, or marketing deals, or countless other things -- but they are all designed so that Group A, who owns Thing A, can exploit Group B for the benefit of Thing A. Or so Group A and B can create Thing C, then act for the benefit of Thing C.
The first story, of course, is the over-hyped raid on a Polygamist Ranch in Texas, an adventure which is even now falling apart. Sparked off by an anonymous phone call from an under-aged girl who was allegedly forced to marry (and have sex with) an older man, it is now becoming apparent that the informant may have been a hoax -- and that the women in the complex were not at all unhappy with their arrangmenets.
Story the second involves foreign women who gasp! married American sailors strictly for purposes of getting US citizenship, while qualifying said sailors for certain benefits only granted to married people.
Well, you know what? In both cases, I think the defendants are right. Mostly. (If there's been child abuse in the case of the polygamists, then they do not earn my sympathy -- but the evidence of that has become shaky.)
Anyway... I have yet to see any sane argument against polygamy. Why the hell shouldn't marriage be between two men and a woman, or one man and fifty women, or a hundred women and three men or... whatever? If all parties involved are adults, and all consent, there's no harm, no foul. Likewise, if a couple wants to wed with a stated purpose of "getting her citizenship and getting me lower tax rates and cheaper medical insurance", what's the fucking problem?
The anti-Gay Marriage crowd are just the most visible portion of the crowd that want to destroy your rights. But, really -- what business is it of government's what any configuration of consenting adults decide to do with their lives? The answer is: it should not be government's business at all. And, as long as they'll allow, say, Company A to absorb Company B in order to make a profit and get some tax breaks off of Product C, they have no leg to stand on in arguing that there's a reason to prevent Man A from wedding Man B, Woman C, Woman D, and Man E for the purposes of improving the tax situation of A-C, and getting citizenship for D and E.
Marriage should be guaranteed as a right in the Constitution -- "Amendment 28: Marriage being a vital contract that confers countless benefits to its members, no configuration of consenting adults shall be denied registration as a married unit, except in cases of proven coercion."
See? It isn't a gay/straight issue at all. And in this era of two working parents, it's actually a "for the children" idea. That is, have five or six parents in the household, chances are that at least one of them will be available at any given time to take care of the kids.
(0) comments
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Why Do We Need This Douchebag?
And... the Pope is in America, and who cares? I can't understand the fawning this former Nazi, child abuse-enabling, hypocritical dickbag is inspiring. I can't figure out why Israel, which has hunted down people who picked up guard dog poop in concentration camps hasn't long since arrested and tried Cardinal "Benny the Rat" Ratzinger, a former member of the Hitler Youth.
.
Click above and buy some stuff. That's all I have to say about this anachronistic waste of flesh. Well, no. I have a lot more to say. But it would just piss off the Catholics even more.
Side note: Yeah, been there, done that. My mom was Catholic, mainly because her mother was insanely Catholic, but Mom was only Catholic enough to baptize me "just in case", then not shove her religion down my throat. Thanks, Mom! Although I'm kind of disappointed that I was never molested by a priest. That might have paid for my college education.
And, incidentally, the whole story about St. Peter being made the first Pope by Jesus is complete and utter bullshit. The idea of the papacy wasn't even invented until Constantine highjacked the early Christian church, stuffed it full of paganism, and called it a state religion.
Kind of a lot like what modern Muslim Imams have done, actually. Stick that in your Crusade and smoke it, pope lovers.
(0) comments
.Click above and buy some stuff. That's all I have to say about this anachronistic waste of flesh. Well, no. I have a lot more to say. But it would just piss off the Catholics even more.
Side note: Yeah, been there, done that. My mom was Catholic, mainly because her mother was insanely Catholic, but Mom was only Catholic enough to baptize me "just in case", then not shove her religion down my throat. Thanks, Mom! Although I'm kind of disappointed that I was never molested by a priest. That might have paid for my college education.
And, incidentally, the whole story about St. Peter being made the first Pope by Jesus is complete and utter bullshit. The idea of the papacy wasn't even invented until Constantine highjacked the early Christian church, stuffed it full of paganism, and called it a state religion.
Kind of a lot like what modern Muslim Imams have done, actually. Stick that in your Crusade and smoke it, pope lovers.
(0) comments
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Republicants vs. Taxocrats
For as many stupid ideas as Republicans regularly crank out, I have to offer up a major biatch-slap to the left-wing idiots who put out just as stupid ideas. To wit, state Democratic assemblyman Jim Beall should be booted out of office now just for suggesting the concept of a heinous Beer Tax.
In fact, all elected officials should be forever stripped of the power to levy any new tax, or even suggest the idea. The only way any tax increase should occur is if We, the People, approve it by a super majority of 66%. And, on top of that, any legislator who suggested a new tax that does not pass should immediately be removed from office the morning after their legislation is rejected by the voters.
Jim Beall should have been buried up to his neck in sand long ago, and left to the mercy of the elements. What a total dickwit he is.
(0) comments
In fact, all elected officials should be forever stripped of the power to levy any new tax, or even suggest the idea. The only way any tax increase should occur is if We, the People, approve it by a super majority of 66%. And, on top of that, any legislator who suggested a new tax that does not pass should immediately be removed from office the morning after their legislation is rejected by the voters.
Jim Beall should have been buried up to his neck in sand long ago, and left to the mercy of the elements. What a total dickwit he is.
(0) comments
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Right Protest, Wrong Country... Idiots
I have to admit that I am very amused by the travails of the Olympic Torch as it tries to make its way from Greece to China, only to be thwarted at every turn by those protesting China's fascistic abuse of Tibet, a country that should be left alone. There's absolutely no question in my mind that the protesters are right, and China should be shamed into getting the hell out of Tibet. I secretly cackle with glee in thinking that the 2008 Olympics may turn into the same PR nightmare for China that the 1980 Olympics did for Moscow. Yes, it's hard to focus the world on yourself when all your dirty laundry is hanging out in public.
However... the folk here in the US who are trying to douse the torch are taking the easy way out. Sure. Lets criticize those old men in gray suits across the Pacific who cannot attempt any retribution at all upon us, other then flooding our markets with baby toys laden with lead and BPAs. Lets gleefully thumb our noses at the country with the funny alphabet that just can't quite get itself out of being a second world nation, despite its population.
And... lets concentrate our wrath on them, while ignoring all the far more heinous crimes of several other countries that are much more nearer and dearer to our hearts.
China oppresses Tibet? Sure. That's bad. What about what the US has done to Iraq, and wants to do to Iran? What about what Israel is doing to Palestine, and will continue to do so with the money and blessings of the US? What about what your own government has done to You, the People, and to the Constitution over the last seven years?
What about re-directing the energy focused on a meaningless stick on fire being trotted about in support of an anachronistic sports orgy, and instead focusing it on the real important things -- deposing our imperial government, all of it, from the President through Congress and the Supreme Court -- wiping the slate clean, turning out the useless vermin in power (and trying them for their many, many war crimes), re-establishing the Constitution as the only law of the land, and restoring America to what it used to be, to what it might be again if only we can flush fascism from the halls of power.
I'm not big on biblical shit, but a certain quote comes to mind here -- paraphrased, why complain about the mote in your neighbor's eye when you can't see the tree trunk in your own?
In other words... yeah. China oppresses Tibet, bad. If you're a real American, who cares, as long as we have the Jackals at our Gates? Dump the local monsters first, then police the planet. It's the only way to make it work, the only way to survive.
After all... this Administration has a history of kissing China's ass. Why not? There's big money in the Asian market. (Remember how fast W. caved over the crashed spy plane issue pre-9/11? Of course you don't. But he spread 'em faster than a two dollar whore when he shouldn't have, basically inviting China to steal all our high tech secrets.) You think BushCo. will give a damn and listen to you complaining about Tibet? Hell no. The only reason W. won't go to Beijing for the opening is because it's a long trip and involves having to deal with Asian people. Plus, it's summer; he'd rather take a month off to chop wood.
But... you think the powers that be will pay attention when you remind them that there's a Second Amendment and Why?
Hell yes. Stop chasing that meaningless torch of the Olympics, and instead chase after the eternal Torch of Liberty. Here and now.
(0) comments
However... the folk here in the US who are trying to douse the torch are taking the easy way out. Sure. Lets criticize those old men in gray suits across the Pacific who cannot attempt any retribution at all upon us, other then flooding our markets with baby toys laden with lead and BPAs. Lets gleefully thumb our noses at the country with the funny alphabet that just can't quite get itself out of being a second world nation, despite its population.
And... lets concentrate our wrath on them, while ignoring all the far more heinous crimes of several other countries that are much more nearer and dearer to our hearts.
China oppresses Tibet? Sure. That's bad. What about what the US has done to Iraq, and wants to do to Iran? What about what Israel is doing to Palestine, and will continue to do so with the money and blessings of the US? What about what your own government has done to You, the People, and to the Constitution over the last seven years?
What about re-directing the energy focused on a meaningless stick on fire being trotted about in support of an anachronistic sports orgy, and instead focusing it on the real important things -- deposing our imperial government, all of it, from the President through Congress and the Supreme Court -- wiping the slate clean, turning out the useless vermin in power (and trying them for their many, many war crimes), re-establishing the Constitution as the only law of the land, and restoring America to what it used to be, to what it might be again if only we can flush fascism from the halls of power.
I'm not big on biblical shit, but a certain quote comes to mind here -- paraphrased, why complain about the mote in your neighbor's eye when you can't see the tree trunk in your own?
In other words... yeah. China oppresses Tibet, bad. If you're a real American, who cares, as long as we have the Jackals at our Gates? Dump the local monsters first, then police the planet. It's the only way to make it work, the only way to survive.
After all... this Administration has a history of kissing China's ass. Why not? There's big money in the Asian market. (Remember how fast W. caved over the crashed spy plane issue pre-9/11? Of course you don't. But he spread 'em faster than a two dollar whore when he shouldn't have, basically inviting China to steal all our high tech secrets.) You think BushCo. will give a damn and listen to you complaining about Tibet? Hell no. The only reason W. won't go to Beijing for the opening is because it's a long trip and involves having to deal with Asian people. Plus, it's summer; he'd rather take a month off to chop wood.
But... you think the powers that be will pay attention when you remind them that there's a Second Amendment and Why?
Hell yes. Stop chasing that meaningless torch of the Olympics, and instead chase after the eternal Torch of Liberty. Here and now.
(0) comments
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Get Your Paws off My Guns, You Damn Dirty Ape!
It may surprise my readers who think of me as a flaming liberal that I am saddened by Charlton Heston's death, but I'm more of a left libertarian, meaning that I am a big fan of the Second Amendment, since it comes along with those other nine parts of the Bill of Rights. Yes, like it or not anti-gun people, citizens of the US are given the right to bear arms.
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now, you can try to explain the Amendment away as allowing only a militia all you want -- militia being all able-bodied white men between 18 and 50, but in this case it is not a qualification for ownership. Ownership belongs to the People, meaning every citizen of the US, man, woman or child, no matter their race. The reason for this? So that the people would be armed and ready should it become necessary to overthrow the government, plain and simple.
But Heston was far from a conservative wingnut. In fact, I think he was more like an old-school true conservative, against government intervention in any aspect of life. And he certainly lived this in his anti-racist activities in the 60s and 70s. Heston put his money where his mouth was, and often insisted that black actors be cast in roles that would normally have gone to white actors. Watch his films from the era, like Soylent Green, The Omega Man, or Earthquake, for example, to see this in action. He also talked the talk and walked the walk, a frequent regular at Civil Rights events.
On top of all that, I've always enjoyed Heston on screen. He was one of the last of the old school Hollywood Heroes, having started his career just before the anti-hero era of the 60s, and he will be missed.
,
(0) comments
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now, you can try to explain the Amendment away as allowing only a militia all you want -- militia being all able-bodied white men between 18 and 50, but in this case it is not a qualification for ownership. Ownership belongs to the People, meaning every citizen of the US, man, woman or child, no matter their race. The reason for this? So that the people would be armed and ready should it become necessary to overthrow the government, plain and simple.
But Heston was far from a conservative wingnut. In fact, I think he was more like an old-school true conservative, against government intervention in any aspect of life. And he certainly lived this in his anti-racist activities in the 60s and 70s. Heston put his money where his mouth was, and often insisted that black actors be cast in roles that would normally have gone to white actors. Watch his films from the era, like Soylent Green, The Omega Man, or Earthquake, for example, to see this in action. He also talked the talk and walked the walk, a frequent regular at Civil Rights events.
On top of all that, I've always enjoyed Heston on screen. He was one of the last of the old school Hollywood Heroes, having started his career just before the anti-hero era of the 60s, and he will be missed.
,
(0) comments
Hillary - Quit
I loved Bill Clinton as president, and my estimation of him only grew in contrast to his successor. However, his wife's campaign for president has diminished him in my eyes, mainly when he plays the indignant and offended spouse, telling someone off when they dare to question. Sure, that's probably how President Clinton has played politics his entire life in the back rooms, but it's not attractive in public. And it just highlights problem number one with Senator Clinton's campaign. She is running for president for herself, for the sake of holding the highest office in the land.
As of next January, we will have spent eight years under a petty tyrant who practiced exactly that -- the office of the presidency as power, and nothing else. Like her husband's successor, Hillary seems to have forgotten the major lesson every presidential candidate must learn. You are running for the office not to rule the American People, but to serve them. The election process is not a vote for Prom Queen. It is a drawn-out job interview.
I can't help but think that Barack Obama, alone among the three remaining candidates, is running for the right reason. He is not running for Obama. He is running for America. He gets it. He is the only one of them that I would trust to understand that, with great power, comes great responsibility. From Clinton and McCain, I can't help but get the vibe that they'd just be the same as Bush -- declaring "I'm the decider" at every opportunity.
Another reason Hillary should step aside and let Obama have the nomination -- his last name is neither Clinton nor Bush. We have had one or the other in the Presidential or Vice Presidential seat for nearly 28 years now. Or, to put it another way, if you are under 50 years old, you have never voted in a presidential election without a Bush or a Clinton on the ballot, and have never seen an election in which a Bush or a Clinton did not win. Quite simply, no matter what her qualifications, America is not a monarchy with royal families passing the baton. We are a democracy, and 28 years of rule by two families is enough. Those who would point out, with good reason, that America has been ruled by five families for a hundred and forty years, note that those families can't be voted out of office, since they hold none... but they can be booted out by elected officials who are not connected to them.
Reason number three, there are enough Democrats who liked McCain originally and who hate Hillary that she's likely to hand the presidency back to the Republicans.
Reason four, this country has been around 232 years. It's about damn time we put a black man in charge. Okay, so he's a mixed-race "nice" black man that the fearful bourgeois can get behind, kind of the Tiger Woods of politics. Baby steps, people. Baby steps. He also happens to be a brilliant and inspirational orator, an inspiring figure regardless of race, which is exactly what we need right now. And, not to play the "race" card, but I can't help but think that President Obama could go a long way, merely as a figurehead, in healing racial relations in this country. Hillary is shrill. McCain is pompous. Obama is... well, see above.
Reason five, Hillary is a frigging baby boomer and McCain is an old fart. Obama is 46. It's about time that we bring fresh, young blood into the highest office. Both JFK and Teddy Roosevelt are regarded as pretty amazing presidents, and Obama is in their age group. The oldest presidents ever elected? William Henry Harrison and Ronald Reagan -- the shortest term and the worst president until W., respectively. Do we really want to take that risk again, and make McCain the oldest president ever elected? And do we want to elect Hillary, a member of the whiniest generation? No. My money is on the Gen X kid.
I'm sure there are a lot more reasons, but those should suffice. Senator Clinton, if you truly love America, you will drop out of this race now, and throw your support entirely behind Senator Obama.
(0) comments
As of next January, we will have spent eight years under a petty tyrant who practiced exactly that -- the office of the presidency as power, and nothing else. Like her husband's successor, Hillary seems to have forgotten the major lesson every presidential candidate must learn. You are running for the office not to rule the American People, but to serve them. The election process is not a vote for Prom Queen. It is a drawn-out job interview.
I can't help but think that Barack Obama, alone among the three remaining candidates, is running for the right reason. He is not running for Obama. He is running for America. He gets it. He is the only one of them that I would trust to understand that, with great power, comes great responsibility. From Clinton and McCain, I can't help but get the vibe that they'd just be the same as Bush -- declaring "I'm the decider" at every opportunity.
Another reason Hillary should step aside and let Obama have the nomination -- his last name is neither Clinton nor Bush. We have had one or the other in the Presidential or Vice Presidential seat for nearly 28 years now. Or, to put it another way, if you are under 50 years old, you have never voted in a presidential election without a Bush or a Clinton on the ballot, and have never seen an election in which a Bush or a Clinton did not win. Quite simply, no matter what her qualifications, America is not a monarchy with royal families passing the baton. We are a democracy, and 28 years of rule by two families is enough. Those who would point out, with good reason, that America has been ruled by five families for a hundred and forty years, note that those families can't be voted out of office, since they hold none... but they can be booted out by elected officials who are not connected to them.
Reason number three, there are enough Democrats who liked McCain originally and who hate Hillary that she's likely to hand the presidency back to the Republicans.
Reason four, this country has been around 232 years. It's about damn time we put a black man in charge. Okay, so he's a mixed-race "nice" black man that the fearful bourgeois can get behind, kind of the Tiger Woods of politics. Baby steps, people. Baby steps. He also happens to be a brilliant and inspirational orator, an inspiring figure regardless of race, which is exactly what we need right now. And, not to play the "race" card, but I can't help but think that President Obama could go a long way, merely as a figurehead, in healing racial relations in this country. Hillary is shrill. McCain is pompous. Obama is... well, see above.
Reason five, Hillary is a frigging baby boomer and McCain is an old fart. Obama is 46. It's about time that we bring fresh, young blood into the highest office. Both JFK and Teddy Roosevelt are regarded as pretty amazing presidents, and Obama is in their age group. The oldest presidents ever elected? William Henry Harrison and Ronald Reagan -- the shortest term and the worst president until W., respectively. Do we really want to take that risk again, and make McCain the oldest president ever elected? And do we want to elect Hillary, a member of the whiniest generation? No. My money is on the Gen X kid.
I'm sure there are a lot more reasons, but those should suffice. Senator Clinton, if you truly love America, you will drop out of this race now, and throw your support entirely behind Senator Obama.
(0) comments
