Bomb Throwing Pacifist
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
I know it's been a while...
In any case, it was the general concensus here at BTP that while there was plenty of interesting stuff going on in the world, such as the civil war in Iraq, the Dubai ports deal and Mardi Gras bringing the botched Katrina response back into the picture, these were really too fascinating to comment on. Seriously. I mean, reading the headlines and watching the T.V. news these past few days as it chronicles the collapse of everything the Bush administration has worked towards is kind of like watching the Hindenburg going down in a huge ball of 2000-dgree celcius fire. Oh sure, you can add your commentary to the scene, but in 50 years you'll just sound like a moron repeating "oh the humanity" over and over again.
Mein Gott! Who took down ze "No Smoking Around Karl Rove" sign?
However, it has recently been brought to our attention that just because an event of earth-shattering historical significance is occuring does not mean that one should completely refrain from adding one's own historical contribution, if only via the distant medium of an anonymous, banal soundtrack. And while I was pondering just letting the zeppelin-disaster that is the GOP extinguish itself in its own beautiful blaze of white-hot glory without adding a word, some of the recruitment-dodgers over at Reagankinder have decided to add their own smoke to the mess in what can only be seen at the beginnings of "Operation Obfuscate '06" wherein the observers standing around the NYC aerodrome nervously shuffle their feat, look at the sky, and murmur "lovely evening isn't it?" to the sound of rapidly approaching ambulances and firetrucks.
More on WMD
As I commented yesterday, the recently translated Saddam tapes vindicate the administration's original case for war in the following sense: they demonstrate that, although Saddam did not possess massive stockpiles of illegal weapons, his development of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs rendered him an international outlaw, and his regime a potential enabler of terrorist operations...
Kinda fun to look at, isn't it? This is the sort of paragraph that must power the matter-antimatter recations in the engine room of the U.S.S. Voyager: a perfect combination of diametrically opposed truth and untruth so seamlessly blended together and that the fusion causes a fissure in the time-space conituum, providing the ship with a nearly limitless reservoir of crisis energy.
In layman's terms, the paragraph above can be interpreted as follows: 1) The tapes prove that Saddam did not have WMD 2) The tapes prove that Saddam developed WMD, ergo 3) The tapes validate the administration's original claims for war. Kinda neat, eh?
How's abput we try another one? *Ahem* 1) The car in front of you does not have wheels, 2) The brochure that came witht he car shows it has wheels, ergo 3) The car in front of you has wheels. Why, it's so brilliant, it may just cause all those moonbat academics over at MIT to reconsider the acceptable definition of what constitutes their so-called "reality."
As former chief weapons inspectors David Kay and Charles Duelfer, hardly neoconservative hawks, have both suggested, Saddam’s clandestine development of large-scale WMD programs, his ability to attain illegal weapons if he needed them, and his swindling of the UN Oil-for-Food program may have made him more of a danger than the Bush administration had even supposed.
There it is again! 1) Iraq had no WMD, and 2) Iraq had WMD, 3) Iraq was stealing, ergo 4) Saddam was even worse than the administration told you the first time around (bastards!)!!
I mean, the fact that Saddam had no WMD, no intention of aquiring WMD, no ability to aqcuire WMD, no real interest in aqcuiring WMD and was diametrically opposed to Al-Qaeda...BZZT!WHRR*Regankinder filter on*BZZT....can only mean that Saddam was whole-heartedly seeking WMD, had WMD and hid them so well we still can't find them after 3 years, and was probably responsible not only for 9/11, but also the U.S.S. Cole bombing, the OKC bombing, the Olympic Park bombing, the Khobar Towers boming, the Valentine's Day Massacre, the destruction of Alderaan, and the attempt to assassinate Our Dear Leader via booby-tapped pretzel. All your base are belong to us!! USSR pWN3d11!1!!!
Friday, February 17, 2006
Friday Fling Blogging
But in the spirit of Friday morning, I decided to go for the simpler, more straightforward (and let's face it, easier) approach in a little number I like to call "screw 'em. Let them write their own damn columns." While I certainly would like to be able to report that I lived up to my own high standards and was able to deliver the goods, let's face it, deep down you all knew it wasn't gonna happen. So instead, I give you this. Oh sure, it may FEEL like a 600-ton, chrome steel-plated chrono gladiator ripping off all your limbs and stomping on your head while hooting in simian delight, at least you'll be happy to know that it didn't fling any poo at you. And so, without further ado, I bring you the beautiful, talented Kaye Grogan in a little number she calls
And with that, we hit the ground running. Silly Kay, heads can't go to the shrink's office and lie down on couches...they don't have backs to lie on! The best they could hope for would be to just sort of sit there on the black leather sofa and stare up at the psychiatrist with pleading Bambi eyes, begging to be released from the sheer, unrelenting torment that is their disembodied existence. The might try to plead their case orally too, but without a larynx, the best they'd be able to do really would be to move their lips and gurgle in a grotesque parody of human speech.I think it is way past time some heads in Washington went to the shrink's office and laid down on the long black couch. To even consider allowing a company associated with the middle east to have access to six of our US seaports is beyond lunacy!
If this is the only way we can help the economy, then we're in worse trouble than initially thought. We would be better off to just keep eating our pinto beans, cornbread, and forget about Caviar. I never liked it anyway!
Congress should do more than just look at the hideous proposal. It's way past time our government put their "gonna protect us from the bad guys" beyond the usual worn out lip-sync we're all tired of hearing. They need to get serious about national security. We are not paying big salaries up there in Washington, for our lawmakers and do-nothing committees to be so far removed from sanity.
What's next? Access to our war arsenals? Why not just hand over our flag and be done with it?
I'm with Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. To hand over our ports for lease to Dubai Ports World is just asking for more trouble. How much common sense does it take for someone to realize the real danger of playing with fire? In this case, it's more like playing with time bombs, literally!
The lawmakers are already lamenting that we can't secure our own borders. So what are we supposed to do? The average person does not have underground bunkers built for them, that resemble the Hilton Hotel, reserved only for the Washington VIP class, to cower in, while the rest of Americans inhale deadly chemicals from nuclear weapons.
Let's take a close look at how the hard-working American people have been sold out. We were told how important to the economy the free and fair trade agreements would be. Now I'm not an accountant, but even a "zombie" can figure out that an astronomical $725.8 billion trade deficit can't help anybody's economy to grow. Next, we are told how guest workers also help the economy.
I am not against immigrants who come to America legally Â so don't get your tonsils crossed up spewing venom! And we must not leave out how many hotels, banks, textile, and furniture businesses are now foreign owned right here in the good ole' USA.
We want America back. . .and we want her back now! And that's just my opinion! No- change that!. . .I believe a lot of other people share this opinion too!
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
New(-er) Abu Ghraib Photos
Well, you know, while this isn't exactly an opportunity for rejoicing given the horrific nature of the crimes perpetuated against these people (remember, there are about 15,000 Iraqs in coalition captivity at any given time), it is at least cause for some bitter celebration that these saw the light of day at all, albeit in a foreign country. Unfortunately, that means they will most likely never see the light of day here in America. And to think, I was almost willing to sell the house over a bet that all Abu Ghraib evidence had already been destroyed.
More grisly photographs and videos have emerged that appear to show U.S. soldiers abusing prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
The Australian television network SBS program "Dateline," broadcast the pictures and videos Wednesday night. The images reportedly date from 2003 -- the same time that previously released photographs of prisoner abuse were taken.
URUKnet has the images (the only ones I've been able to find thus far, other than the isolated photo here or there accompanying the news story in the Western Media).
Monday, February 13, 2006
Only Reporting the Bad in Iraq
As I was listening to Air America during my lunch break, Ed Schulz interviewed a U.S. serviceman, Colonel Stephenson, who appeared in a commercial put out by an advocacy group called American Progress. (As a side note, the Colonel referred to being on Air America as "being behind enemy lines"-- progressives are the enemy now? Interesting. You can listen to the interview yourself at www.wegoted.com if you like, Ed Schulz certainly did not "grill" him; it was a relatively calm discussion the likes of which you never would have seen with a progressive Iraq War vet appearing on a right-wing talkshow.) The commercial features a series of veterans listing their service records in the Iraq conflict, and then leads into indictments of the U.S. media coverage of Iraq, claiming that it shows "only the bad news." It then gives out an exhortation to support the Iraq conflict by tying it to 9/11, claiming that this fight is against the same Al Qaida extremists who hit us at the Twin Towers.
This is not a new complaint, by any stretch of the imagination. Since the very beginning, the loyal partisans on the right who kneejerk to any criticism of the Bush Administration's policies and regurgitate talking points from Fox News have claimed that the only reason Iraq appears to be a failure and public support is falling away from it is because of a biased media which has disproportionately shown the "bad."
If you're still with me, take a step back to 2002. Saddam Hussein is reconstituting his nuclear programs and has arsenals of chemical and bacteriological weapons in weapons belts around Baghdad. In fact, it is possible that he could hit targets in the U.S. and United Kingdom in as little as 45 minutes. We have no choice, we can't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud. Right?
These are all bunk, as we know now. And you don't need to know anything else about Iraq, current events, or politics to say this war was a mistake. The "evidence" that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear program was based on already discarded decade-old CIA data indicating he might have attempted to purchase uranium from Africa. Nevertheless, this "proof" was inserted during the lead-up to the war by Judith Miller in the New York Times (a supposedly far-leftist publication). The intelligence community knew this was old and outdated information, and the first person to step up and say so was Joe Wilson. His wife, a CIA agent in active undercover status working in a program to find and stop nuclear proliferation and the trade of weapons of mass destruction, suddenly had her identity leaked to the press. This did more than simply ruin her career, it served as a salutory warning to the entire intelligence community: if you call us on the fact that we've used this false information to create support for an invasion of Iraq, there will be repercussions. If those repercussions destroy your career, blow your cover, endanger your life or get you killed, be forewarned that we are completely prepared to do it if you open your mouth against our public relations campaign to get into Iraq.
Nuclear weapons and chemical or other weapons of mass destruction were, of course, never found in Iraq. This was the sole justification upon which the entire war effort was sold to the fearful American public- selling it under any of the excuses used now, such as "the world is better off without Saddam", or "freedom is on the march", or "The Iraqis should have free elections" would have fallen, flat and flaccid, if they had been presented to an American public freshly aware in 2002 that the people who hit them had been Saudi Arabians, in a terrorist organization led by a Saudi named Bin Laden, using training camps in Afghanistan. The fact that these justifications have been offered up as lazy excuses for rabid supporters of the war to continue saying that it was correct and justified from the beginning, when they were never used prior to the invasion, underlines the weakness of our entire purpose in Iraq. Since there were no weapons of mass destruction, we are left only with justifications which never would have flown with public opinion if presented honestly in 2002. And why should they have? What would the full scale invasion of a third party country for the purpose of forcefully installing a democracy, at tremendous deficit cost to the American people, to the great weakening and thin-stretching of the American military (emphasized by the lack of National Guard numbers to respond to the Katrina disaster) have to do with stopping or fighting some terrorists in mountain camps in the rough terrain of Afghanistan? How did such a policy of attacking Iraq make us stronger vis-a-vis terrorism abroad, largely sourced from Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan? The answer, unfortunately, is that it didn't.
Let me tell you a story. I go into a car dealership for the express purpose of getting a vehicle with four-wheel drive. The dealer provides me with a vehicle sporting four wheel drive, and I begin to fill out the appropriate forms and give my credit card over to process my purchase. Partway into this process, I am told that the vehicle I am buying does not, in fact, have four-wheel drive. Now bear in mind again, I came here for the express purpose of buying a vehicle with four-wheel drive; any other type of vehicle is of no use to me. So, naturally, I tell the clerk helping me with the paperwork that I have no interest in purchasing this car since it does not have four-wheel drive. He excuses himself to go get the dealer, who comes back in totally confused that I no longer want to go through with the deal. "You don't want the car anymore? I don't understand, you filled out the paperwork and gave it your signature," he says. I tell him that I thought it had four-wheel drive, that he told me it did, and that I only wanted to buy a car that had it. He leaves the room. A manager of the company comes into the room and says, "Sir, I think there's been a miscommunication. Clearly, since you no longer want to purchase this two-wheel drive car, there has been a failure for the dealer and clerk to adequately communicate to you the good features of this car."
"I don't CARE about the good features! I was told this was a car with four-wheel drive, it isn't, I have no use for it."
"But, sir, I really have to tell you, I saw your car when you came into the lot. The paint job on it is really bad, the paint job on this new car is much better. Honestly sir, you're much better off without that old car. Besides, we've already charged your credit card, and the sale is final. Really you should be happy, the streets are much safer and better off with you in this new shiny car instead of that old piece of crap you drove in here with."
"It doesn't have four-wheel drive. I don't want it," I say.
"My salesperson wasn't wrong, wow! We're having a big breakdown here in getting the facts about how great this car is over the line to you. Look, this model has a brand-new anti-skidding chemical coat so you are much less likely to hydroplane in snow or wet weather. That keeps the roads safer, don't you agree?" the manager asks.
"Look that sounds really great and all, but the car still doesn't have what I wanted. I'm not interested."
"But it keeps the roads safer. What kind of driver are you? You don't care about the safety of the roads! You don't support safe driving!"
Get it? This is EXACTLY what people are trying to sell you when they tell you that the public, or YOU, don't support the war just because they're not being "told the good news." The good news doesn't matter! The American people, by and large, didn't and would never have authorized this war for the ridiculously hypocritical reasons given to us by the industriocrats who currently run both our government and the war effort. They think you are incredibly stupid. They think you have amnesia. This war was about defending ourselves from a supposedly imminent attack with weapons of mass destruction, which the evidence mounting today heavily suggests the Bush Administration knew was NEVER a real threat. Oh, they've got plausible deniability (translation: the planned creation of a situation where they could wiggle and say they didn't technically lie to you, but it's still dishonesty), I don't deny them that. They took 1,000,000 bits of information and discarded the 999,950 pieces that didn't fit the policy they wanted to set. So, technically, they did "make the decision based on intelligence." But that's really making a fool out of you as an American and a person if you think they took those 50 unreliable pieces to set policy around and were being sincere and honest with you. Either they were dishonest, or they were incompetent.
When you take away all the legitimate self-defense reasons for invading Iraq, what do you have? You have us throwing up some schools, parks, and water pipes (which the insurgents blow up a few days later anyhow) at enormous taxpayer expense to a few cherrypicked no-bid contractors, who just happen to be business partners or close associates of the Bush Administration and the individuals running it. And, worse than the financial cost, you have American soldiers being blown up; coming home limbless or in body bags in what only an idiot would fail to compare to Vietnam. What "good news" can you possibly give us to balance this out? Look, I'd love it if the government came to my neighborhood and started building some parks. If every single day four guys fell off the scaffolding and died, and the construction seemed to go on and on for years, never being completed, and with four more guys falling off the scaffolding every single day of it, I wouldn't see very much good in it... no matter how you tried to spin it.
Another point: why should Americans be cheering in the streets about free elections in Iraq, the very slow and often zero-progress restoration of running water, electricity, and other basic services in Iraq which have been shut off since the invasion (and are still nowhere near pre-war levels of operation), the construction of schools and the institution of American taxpayer-paid healthcare and education programs in Iraq? Mind you... I'm not saying these aren't all good things. But should you be happy that these things are being provided at such astronomical cost that, in the near future, the inadequate education and healthcare budgets for those in need here in the U.S. will by necessity have to be cut? There is, of course, an intelligent design to this- the ultimate complete dismantling of the so-called "socialist" programs of the New Deal through bankruptcy and deficit, accelerated by tax cuts for those who can most afford to pay taxes, under the eyes of sympathetic Senators and Supreme Court Justices who believe, ideologically, that a kick-ass strong king who can cut through all the argumentative bureaucratic nonsense (known as Democratic process) is far more important and patriotic than upholding the principles of the Constitution and the rights and well-being of individual Americans. To then, after crippling these programs (such as social security and public education), to privatize all of them. But this is all a topic for another day. The point is: none of this has a thing to do with fighting terrorism. The terrorism present in Iraq as we speak is overwhelmingly either a) created in response to an unwanted occupation by the U.S. military, and b) imported from other countries such as SAUDI ARABIA and IRAN because we have given radical groups an enormous propaganda tool in the form of occupying a Muslim country for imperialistic purposes. It's a win-win for terrorists: no matter how long we "fight them over there", they die as martyrs to the cause of helping to free a fellow Muslim country from invaders who have no legitimate reason to be there besides some limp and hypocritical after-the-fact excuses.
Tell me something, would you be oozing with gratitude if China conquered the U.S. and put up some parks and connected some pipes, and constructed a school or two while handing out contracts to its biggest corporations to exclusively manage, sell and distribute our most valuable natural resources?
Hopefully the time for the American people to wake up is coming: the day when American people are going to say "We won't tolerate being lied to", "we won't tolerate getting our kids killed overseas for no legitimate self-defense purpose", and most of all, "we won't tolerate being told we're stupid."
Bring Out Your Dead!
The Imps of the Impoverished!!!
A Paul Jacob Adventure
A gripping tale of money, power, greed, and fat bastards.
Hoo boy. Better get out the dramamine kiddies, because I know this one is going to be rougher than a nun's burlap corset and string thong.
Ah, the good old days! When the word "poverty" really meant something!
In the Middle Ages, thousands of city dwellers might starve to death during a drought. "The poor" were people who walked around without clothing. To be destitute meant eating tree bark to survive.
On the other hand, he doesn't mention the fact that every few years a couple frozen homeless guys are scraped off the benches of Lafayette Park, but hey, that could have happened anywhere. Besides, they didn't starve to death, so that doesn't count.
Today, obesity is a bigger problem for the poor than is hunger.
It was recently found that in the area of Washington state surrounding Microsoft's HQ, 40 percent of the workers don't earn a living wage. So, in an area that was hailed a few years back as the central focus of the future, a huge chunk of the populace lives like paupers?
Who'd have thunk it? You see, Mr. Jacob thinks that this simply cannot be true, because it's seemingly contradictory. In an area once hailed as "the central focus of the future" (whatever that is), 40% of an employer's employees were making under a livng wage. Inconceivable!
On a side note, Mr. Jacob may have in fact stumbled on a little nugget of wisdom all by himself without even realizing it (although since it contradicts his simple, pre-determined worldview, it's doubtful it will sink in though): perhaps Microsoft really is the "centeral focus of the future" and that its low wages are no fluke. I mean, it's not like real wages have been falling since the Clinton years (and have been in decline since the 1970's) or anything.
Everybody wants a higher wage, of course. That's why many people actually go to college, vo-tech, or find some other way to increase their skills. That's also why most people, over time, move up from scullery maid or fast-food cook: to get more money. The sub-sub-living wage is merely a stage on the journey of life, for many; a permanent condition, for a few.
One would guess that those not earning a living wage would be easy to spot — they're the dead people. But the living wage is not about living, but about living in comfort. The TV sets and DVD players and cell phones are a given in modern life, and for many below this new poverty line, so is a car and its insurance.
The living wage is the new-and-improved "poverty line," the theoretical wage that would allow a worker to live in middle-class comfort, paying the bills and accepting no special subsidies.
The minimum wage, on the other hand, is a legal barrier to trade in labor. It's not theoretical at all. It's the law. It prevents employers from hiring at wage rates below the minimum set. Though we like to think of it as "raising wages," it is, in point of actual fact, a prohibition to hire at some rates. As such it decreases employment.
Friday, February 10, 2006
UNDER NEW (CO-)MANAGEMENT
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
The Red/Green Show: Condom Edition
Priest Blogger #2
Hooray for you, father! After this week's msot recent incident, I must say that I am so proud. Now those two young bucks will have to have sex without protection. That will sure teach those young sluts a lesson they will never forget: once you have unprotected sex, it's all downhill from there. Once they're forced to get an abortion or drop out of school to raise a child or two, they will certainly have learned that those fifteen minutes of pleasure were just not worth it and that the lifetime of shame they incurred for their one transgression will take all eternity to wipe away.
Although, I do think I saw a potential weakness in your plan, father. Are you absolutely SURE that your anti-condom crusade against safe sex would be effective by itself? I mean, you didn't keep your eyes on them at all times, right? What if, in a brief moment of brilliant, inspired, testosterone-induced clarity, they bypassed the potential embarassment of the priest in the pharmacy and headed down to the kitchen supply section? Saran wrap is easy to aquire, cheap, and lasts a lot longer. After all, try as we might to cook the numbers, balance the books, and waste taxpayer money, we still can't get those elitist "peer-reviewed" journals to say what we all know in our hearts to be true: that keeping kids uneducated and prophlactics-free are the only ways to keep them from reproducing.
In closing, keep up the good work, and God bless you in your quest to keep condoms out of the hands of society's youngest criminal element: horny teenagers. Yours I remain, &c.
Marc with a C
Poppin a Boehn...
House majority leader's landlord is a lobbyist
Boehner rents from representative of firms that had issues before him
Alex Wong / AP file
Updated: 1:30 p.m. ET Feb. 8, 2006
WASHINGTON - House Majority Leader John Boehner rents a basement apartment from a lobbyist whose clients had an interest in legislation overseen or sponsored by Boehner, according to lobbying records.
Holy twice-baked corruption lasagna, Batman! You mean to tell me that after he narrowly defeated Tom Delay's second in command in the race for the House leadership position, running on a "clean up the G.O.P" platform, that Representative Boehner actually rents an appartmant from a lobbyist whose clients had interests in key bits of GOP legislation? Oh the horror! Oh the humanity! Who could ever have seen it coming? (Well, of course you and I could, but try telling that to the crosseyed genetic rejects in places like Randolph, Utah (pop. 480) ). Well, we know exactly what good ol' Tom Delay would do to an underperformer like that, don't we?
“It is conceivable that John Milne may have lobbied Boehner on a few occasions over the years, but we are not aware of any specific instances of it, and we are certain no lobbying has taken place during the time in which John Boehner has been renting the property,” Seymour said.
"While it is conceivable that Representative Boehner might have accepted bribes in an influence scandal related to the fact that his landlord had clients who had a vested interest in knowing which way he would vote on certain key bits of legislation, we are confident that we can plausibly deny all knowledge of such transactions, if in fact they ever did happen," White house press secretary Scott McClelland said early Thursday morning.
Lobbying records show that he represented Buca di Beppo and Parasole Restaurant Holdings Inc. — both restaurant companies — to lobby on the minimum wage, an issue handled by the Education and the Workforce Committee chaired by Boehner. The restaurant industry has opposed increases in the minimum wage, which has not risen since 1997.
Ok to be honest, I think this is the part that pisses me off the most. Not only is the restauraunt industry one of the lowest-paying industries in the field ($2.13 minimum wage, if I remember correctly from my days slinging pasta), but they are actually fighting any attempts to raise it? I mean, no offense, but if I knew that my bosses were actively lobbying and spending God knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars to people like Boehner to make sure legislation to increase my wages never made it to a vote, you can bet your ass they'd be finding more than just hairs in their food. But oh well. We all know what good ol' Tom Delay would say to something one of the little people like me might dare articulate...
"Don't be wise, bubble eyes, or I'll knock you down to peanut size, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk."
Thursday, February 02, 2006
We interrupt your broadcast...
No honor among vote scammers!
This is actually kinda funny. Rich Lowry just filed this little squib at the Corner. "More ballots cast [on the House leadership vote] than there are members. Re-voting now...."
-- House Republicans on Thursday elected U.S. Rep. John Boehner of Ohio as majority leader. He upset Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri in a 122-109 vote on the second ballot. Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona dropped out of the running after the first ballot.
Strike me hard, if 'tis your pleasure
Yes kids, today instead of your ordinary brand of jaw-droppingly, soul-searingly, eyeball-explodingly bad right wing drip, we will go into the deep dark caverns of Adbay Atholicay OgsBlay, in search of the most fercious, the most untammed, the most wingut-o-liscious writing ever conceived since Pope Innocent III's "fuck you, I'm in charge" reform bill of 1207. As this post will contain examples of poor reasoning, religious fundamentalism, and papolatry so horrifyingly out of tune with the modern world that it would make the Amish look like tech-saavy NASA engineers, this post is not recommended for women who are pregnant or nursing, people with high blood pressure, children under age 12, and Commonweal subscribers.
First on the list of vitims targets objects of study is this link, the often imitate but never duplicated CURT JESTER!! Let's see what his last few posts hold is store for us, eh?
February 02, 2006 Catholic GPs set to quit over RU-486 MORE than 200 Catholic doctors, all members of the Guild of St Luke, are set to resign from the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners over RU-486.
Golly gee, mom. That sounds serious. I wonder why on earth conservative Catholic scientists would ever dream of leaving a reputable professional organization dedicated to their field. Could it be because of...BAD SCIENCE? After all, it can't have anything to do with their political and religious leanings, right? The Church would always support empirical truth over papally-prescribed dogma, right? The Science itself must be flawed, right? Sadly, no. Sadly, SADLY, no.
Guild president, Dr Terrence Kent, a Brisbane GP, said the group which is meeting on Sunday "will be recommending that members resign from both the AMA and the RACGP due to lack of consultation with members of these two groups on their decisions to support removing authority for approving RU-486 from the Health Minister and giving it to the TGA."
The fiends! How dare the AMA and RACGP fail to consult with some people over some other people's desire to take the authority to approve some drug from some people and to give it to other people without first consulting the AMA and RACGP who fail to consult...the....nevermind.
"Not only does RU-486 always result in the death of an innocent human being, complications including maternal death make it totally unacceptable," Dr. Kent said. "The horrific experience that doctors would inflict on young women by giving them this pill to take would be most traumatic to the patients we are supposed to be caring for. They would take the pill then wait several days for the process to be completed with concomitant pain, bleeding and passage of a dead embryo. Surely this would be psychologically damaging and a totally undesirable experience."Yeah! If a woman has decided to terminate her pregnancy, it's only fair that she be denied the option of taking a pill to induce abortion instead of having the fetus surgically removed under general anaesthesia. It's the only way the little slut will ever learn! Ok, next up we have the very strange, and very amusing blog Ad Altare Dei. I'm not exactly sure what it means, but it sounds sexy. Which is kinda fitting if you think about it because that more or less seems to be the underlying theme of most of this blog's posts.
I fear that I am the only stiffly stifferson who thinks that the Catholic Blog Awards are detrimental, since each blog has its own personality and set of readers.
Um...ok. Considering the recent and not-so-recent scandals that have racked the Catholic church since, well, forever, I think I'd be a little more restrained in describing my Swiss Guardman in quite those terms. Altar boy jokes aside, you'd think that the author's "staff of correction" would enjoy a little more covert code name that Stiffly Stifferson. I was thinking of something grander, like "the mitre of might" or the "crozier of consequence."
In the latest broadcast of The Latin Lover, the pope's latinist, Fr. Reginald Foster, groans about his experience translating the pope's encyclical into Latin. It was not an easy task, according to Fr. Foster, to try to fit all the terrible jargon used in modern languages into Latin, the lingua ecclesiae. "The Romans just didn't think that way!"
You're darn tooting. Why, I can only imagine how hard it must have been for the Latin Lover to try to cram all that terrible jargon up the pope's lingua ecclesiae. I do, however, take exception to the fact that he says the Romans didn't think that way. But of course they did! Otherwise, how else do you explain all this? Oh well kids, I think that's enough right-wing Catholic blogging for tonight. I'm out of beer and all this socordia is making my calva hurt.
But in closing, I have just one ponderous question to ask. Why is it that the new pope looks so damn creepy? I mean, it's bad enough that some of the more hard-line catholics go around acting like he's freakin' God Himself, but then you have to deal with the fact that he just looks so freaking...evil. I mean, it's like Strom Thurmond, after his much-publicized deal with the devil to extend his life in exchange for his soul, found a way to control his spirt and decided to use Radsinger as his new host body. Either that or he just got toasted by Sith Force lightening after a battle to the death with Mace Windu.
PS: The title of the post comes from a rather interesting little discovery I made while surfing the net and researching Hugenot information for my SCA persona. Apparently, while we are all familiar with the Huguenot Cross as their primary symbol, they were also fond of using the anvil, to represent the ability of the Bible to resist any attempt to hammer and beat it into submission. It appears often in period Huguenot boardsides and pamphlets, which I reproduce below. While the literal, word-for word translation of the caption is somewhat clunkier, I have devised my own translation which I feel captures both the original meaning and lyrical, catchy rhyme of the cartoon: "Strike me hard if 'tis your pleasure, and bring fresh hammers, at your leisure."
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
So, Jesus was a capitalist, apparently.
I know what you're thinking. Just what the hell kind of gaggle-fuck type of story is this? Upon first finding the article I had to reread it twice to make sure that I got it right. The first few times my eyes skimmed over it, I read "Christian CEOs bond for love of profit" instead of love and profit. Because after all, we all know that nothing was more pleasing to Jesus during his time on earth than starting his own small business and cranking out the TPS reports, right? In the words of some of our good friends, Carramba, no!
Christian CEOs bond for love and profit
God's network: How Christian business owners help each other get rich and go to heaven.
By Ellyn Spragins, FORTUNE Small Business editor at large
February 1, 2006: 7:02 AM EST
NEW YORK (FORTUNE Small Business) - Many entrepreneurs start companies to get rich. Some want to be famous. Others just can't work for anyone else. Bart Azzarelli, 57, launched his Florida pipeline-construction company because, he says, God told him to.
"I decided that if God was instilling in my heart to start a business, then it would be God's business," he says.
And just what kind of business would it be, d'ya think? Maybe an enterprise devoted to selling Bibles? Maybe a tourist agency to help pilgrims visit the Middle East? No. Apparently, the big plan God had in mind for Bart was that the best way he could minister to his flock was to start a FUCKING OIL PIPELINE . But no, you see. Having God at the helm of your multi-million dollar industry really isn't all it's cracked up to be, you see. Bart eplains.
Two years later, ready to close down the Charlotte operation, Azzarelli prayed hard for direction. Driving his Cadillac SUV past the University of South Florida campus one day, he lost patience.
"I started yelling, 'God, I haven't heard from you in months! What do you want me to do with this company in North Carolina?' I hadn't gone a block and a half, and this impression that came over me was so great: Give it away."
Brilliant! This whole "God" fellow is truely a man after my own heart. After carefully selecting someone in the business community to be his tool in establishing what might be a very large and very profitable company, God lets him know the dealio, only to leave the poor born-again CEO holding the bag when the investment goes sour, like any good pyramid scheme. Naturally, the CEO is just a little distraught over the fact that his investments are going the way of Soddom and Ghamorrah and bitches to God about it. And God, proving once again that He is indeed the father of all (including capitalist business saavy) gives him the most cunning, Enron-like answer he can craftily supply: pass the bag on to someone else.
C12 members say being a steward of a company is their most important duty, even if it means laying off workers during a downturn. Azzarelli had to lay off half of his 35 employees in 1993 -- one of the hardest decisions he's ever made.
Still, he says, "it would not have honored God to keep them on and lose money and then lose the company."
Which brings up another central tenet of Jesus' teachings: Fuck the poor. And for that matter, the meek as well. Seriously, I can't believe the moxy of this guy. He starts several huge companies whose business have nothing to do directly to religion and claims that they're "god's companies" because God told him to establish them. And then, after spending years "ministering" to his employees by encouraging them to become born again, donate money to a charity pot and work loyally for the company, he decides the best way to "honor God" when the companies run into financial difficulties is to cut them loose, rather than risk losing the company and dishonoring God.
Hey genius...here's a novel idea for you. YOU DO NOT OWN ANYTHING. Everything on this earth belongs to God, so wether or not you choose to "glorify God" by painting his name and the side of your plant and encouraging people to convert to your particular brand of fundamentalism. Do you think God really cares more about your fucking investment which "glorifies" Him going under than he does about those 35 people who were out of a job because you decided to cut and run and use God's will as the excuse? In short, get this straight: God does not NEED your company, probably does not WANT your company, never TOLD you to found a company, and certainly doesn't give a rat's ass if your profits are up or down when compared to the well-being of your employees, no matter their born-again status.
Crap like this makes me sick. For the rest of you out there who are thinking this whole "God as the universe's ultimate CEO" is a little strained as well, you may want to read your Bible and see what it (especially the new testament) says regarding wealth. For your convenience, I reproduce these quotes below.
Luke 12:15 And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.
Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Mat 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
Luke 12:33 "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."
1 Tim 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself
1 Tim 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
Mark 10:21 "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."
John 6:27 "Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you."
Matt 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves.
Mark 12:43-44 And he called unto him his disciples, and said unto them, verily I say unto you, This poor widow cast in more than all they that are casting into the treasury: for they all did cast in of their superfluity; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.