Thursday, March 31, 2005
|
TERRY, TERRY, TERRY...
...I'm so fucking sick of you.
Wait, that's not fair. It's not you, the actual person, that I'm sick of. Had I known you, I'm sure we'd have gotten along famously. I've know a few poor women with conditions such as yours, and we've all gotten along. No, no, no...I don't mean your brain damage, I mean your self loathing. Afterall, it was your poor self image that lead you to the heart attack that lead you to brain damage that lead you to be the poster child for the conservative christian zealots.
On a personal level, yours was a tragic story. My deepest sympathize to your friends and family. But your life was not your own. The media attention surrounding you lead you to become a political icon, a St. Anthony of Padua to the poor, oppressed christians in this wicked land.
You have become a symbol. Your tragedy has elevated far, far beyond you. You have attracted the attention of the world. Your life has been cherished by Popes, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Governors, and Congressmen. Your cause has become a lie.
Your legacy may be as the thin end of the wedge that brings changes to this country; changes that will set social justice back for generations. In your name, the President has declared,
"In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life"
That's quite the standard, "serious questions and substantial doubts". In light of The Chicago Tribune's June 12, 2000 article, Bush has been very comfortable ordering the execution of bad people when "serious questions and substantial doubts" exist.
If Terry Schaivo was ugly, or black, or a man - would Bush would still hold such an opinion?
Hypocrisy, thy name is Shrub.
...I'm so fucking sick of you.
Wait, that's not fair. It's not you, the actual person, that I'm sick of. Had I known you, I'm sure we'd have gotten along famously. I've know a few poor women with conditions such as yours, and we've all gotten along. No, no, no...I don't mean your brain damage, I mean your self loathing. Afterall, it was your poor self image that lead you to the heart attack that lead you to brain damage that lead you to be the poster child for the conservative christian zealots.
On a personal level, yours was a tragic story. My deepest sympathize to your friends and family. But your life was not your own. The media attention surrounding you lead you to become a political icon, a St. Anthony of Padua to the poor, oppressed christians in this wicked land.
You have become a symbol. Your tragedy has elevated far, far beyond you. You have attracted the attention of the world. Your life has been cherished by Popes, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Governors, and Congressmen. Your cause has become a lie.
Your legacy may be as the thin end of the wedge that brings changes to this country; changes that will set social justice back for generations. In your name, the President has declared,
"In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life"
That's quite the standard, "serious questions and substantial doubts". In light of The Chicago Tribune's June 12, 2000 article, Bush has been very comfortable ordering the execution of bad people when "serious questions and substantial doubts" exist.
If Terry Schaivo was ugly, or black, or a man - would Bush would still hold such an opinion?
Hypocrisy, thy name is Shrub.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
|
CORRUPT? WHO US?!?
Here is a very good article by the Center for Public Integrity. I just love this article. I've mentioned many of these themes before - corruption, secrecy, and the toxic mix of money and political power in America. As my title says, "who us?!?"
Read on....
...the answer becomes a clear, unequivocal "YES!!!!"
Here is a very good article by the Center for Public Integrity. I just love this article. I've mentioned many of these themes before - corruption, secrecy, and the toxic mix of money and political power in America. As my title says, "who us?!?"
Read on....
...the answer becomes a clear, unequivocal "YES!!!!"
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
|
DEATH PENTALY HIGH JINKS
I don't understand why people see, as a bad thing, yesterday's Supreme Court decision to ban the use of the death penalty for minors. For instance, Diane Clements, the President of Justice For All, was quoted as saying:
"The Supreme Court has opened the door for more innocent people to suffer by 16 and 17 year olds. I can't wait for the Supreme Court to have judges more concerned with American values, American statutes and American law than what the Europeans think."
This type of thinking is under pinned by the "eye for an eye" mentality that many victims of crime take. In attempting to justify such blood lust, certain people have tried to formualte a more detatched justification. Take the quote from John McAdams, a Marquette University Political Science professor:
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
This willingness to kill by proxy assume we can correctly disern the guilty from the innocent. Any one who believes we can correctly idenfity the guilty had best remember Illinois' example.
I don't understand why people see, as a bad thing, yesterday's Supreme Court decision to ban the use of the death penalty for minors. For instance, Diane Clements, the President of Justice For All, was quoted as saying:
"The Supreme Court has opened the door for more innocent people to suffer by 16 and 17 year olds. I can't wait for the Supreme Court to have judges more concerned with American values, American statutes and American law than what the Europeans think."
This type of thinking is under pinned by the "eye for an eye" mentality that many victims of crime take. In attempting to justify such blood lust, certain people have tried to formualte a more detatched justification. Take the quote from John McAdams, a Marquette University Political Science professor:
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
This willingness to kill by proxy assume we can correctly disern the guilty from the innocent. Any one who believes we can correctly idenfity the guilty had best remember Illinois' example.
