Here is a funny one from John Breneman. Don't you love the new Bush look?
Polls show the early leader in the race for president of Iraq is a little-known second cousin of President George W. Bush.
Ahmad W. Bush, described as a fervent born-again Shiite who favors tax cuts for oil industry warlords, holds a slim lead over Jihad Party nominee Mohammed al-Mohamma-Lama-Dingdong.
Other contenders include Occupation Party leader Akbar Q. Halliburton and Moral Values Party nominee Allah Bama-Slamma, who supports beheading for adultery and pre-marital sex.
A White House spokesman said that, despite widespread violence and complete disorganization, it is vitally important to stage an Iraq election on the scheduled date of Jan. 30 because "otherwise we'll look like incompetent morons again."
Reflections on Justice and judicial systems. Is the US system fundamentally flawed?
Here is an extract of one of the comments to which I'm in a sort replying. But just before I do, my reason for posting it as a new blog is 1) cuz it's a bit long for a comment, 2) cuz I'd like ppl to give me some insights into the US system, and also some thoughts about what they think is good and/or bad about it (and other judicial systems) - a new blog is more likely to attract a wider range of thoughts than an obscure reply to a reply to a reply in a comment :-)
Most of my rant is about what I perceive the US and French judicial systems to be, since the are the only 2 I have a little bit of understanding about. I'm no lawyer, and I'm sure to be quite inaccurate in many of my statements. Still, they are not completely ignorant, and at least have the merit of representing what an average European of the street thinks.
Lastly, please understand I'm not rubbishing the US. There are many components of the US society which I believe to be far superior than the way we do things in France, and we would do well learning from you guys (and we have done so, quite a bit - but nowhere near enough). However, on this particular subject, my impression is that our system is fundamentally better. But I'm open to anyone's more informed opinion who could point to me my failings in comprehending the pros and cons of either system.
Here goes:
"The idea about the courts being a foundation of our "system" that makes it unique I'll have to research it better so that I can explain it better. It is a genuine difference between European systems and ours, not so much in governing but in just our lives. I'm not so "up" on it that I can 'splain it all that well."
I would be interested in you giving me an inside perspective, for I do have indeed an outsider's perception of an inherent different judicial system to Europe's.
One thing that has struck me over the years of getting familiar with the American society is, for a European like me, the pretty ill-defined boundary between the law-enforment agencies (police, FBI, etc - I'll just call it "police" to simplify) the judicial system, and the law itself. In fact, you ppl call all three things by the same name: "the Law". One might be doing something "against the law", or your neighbor "calling the law" cuz you blasted your music too loud, and finally, you might find yourself in "a court of law". Even soap operas like "LA law", by their very name and contents clearly give the impression that justice, law and law enforcement are one and the same thing.
The problem with that is the police thinks (or probably even IS) itself empowered to a degree with interpreting and applying the law. In many of the small matters in every day life, the police sees its mission as both the judge and the excutioner. It's like the guys think they are all Zoros.
One small real life example to illustrate my point:
A very close friend of mine lived in a mobile home park in Florida. One day, as he walked from his trailer to the communal area where all the mailboxes are piled up to pick up his mail, and was followed by his cat (quite a strange cat, she followed him down the street just like a dog), he passed 2 teenagers who were sitting on the steps of the reception office, on the other side the drive. He took no notice until he heard the "woof woof" kind of *cat* calls clearly aimed at frightening the cat. Still, he clinched his teeth and walked on. But a few seconds later little gravel pebbles started flying and he himself got hit in the leg. So he crossed the drive, went right up to the 2 punks (both of whom were saying "it's not me, I didn't do anything"), and grabbed one by the collar of his shirt, pulling the boys face close to his, and hissed "don't you ever try that again, punk". Then let him go and walked back home.
Half an hour later, knocks on the door. 2 cops are there, asking him to step outside as they wish to talk to him. They had received a complaint by the teenager's parents and asked my friend to give his version of the story. Which he did, word for word the truth. Next thing he was handcuffed, taken into the cop's car, and the 3 car cortege took him, red and blue lights flashing as if they'd caught Al Capone, to the county jail. Not just the cop shop, the county jail! After being duly mugshot, fingerprinted and stripped, he was told he probably would be entitled to be bailed out the next day for $150 since it was not aggravated assault, and allowed one phone call which my friend used to call his wife and ask her to turn up the next day with the money. The night in jail was something, and the procedure bullshit he and his wife had to go through to get freed even more of an ordeal. End of the story.
Now, this, to me, is unbelievable. It would sound unbelievable to any Fr citizen. But I can tell you this little story is a word for word exact account of the truth.
There is no way in Fr (and I suspect in other western european countries) the police would have the right to "decide" and "judge" whether you should be imprisonned over such an incident. Only a court of justice could make that decision and issue an arrest warrant. In fact, here, the police wouldn't even have been allowed to do anything about it, not even go interrogate my friend without a court order, let alone forcibly take him away from home and chuck him in jail and now have a criminal record for felony (I hate to think what would have happened if he hadn't had a wife to bring the 150$ the next day - he'd probably still be there rotting away). Furthermore, but that's another point, knowing the Fr judicial system, a court of justice would have never inflicted a jail sentence on my friend. At worst, he might have been asked to make apologies to the kid, in view of the circumstances.
Ok, I realize this is one tiny incident in the scheme of things. But this is the every day reality. There is something fundamentally screwed in my opinion in this lack of separation between justice, law, and law enforcement. It makes what is defined as a Police State.
By the way, this happened during Clinton, so it's got nothing to do with the fascist trend growing under Bush - it has been embedded that way for a long, long time.
Briefly coming back to the terminology: I wonder to what degree, this all-encompassing one term, "law", is not in itself becoming a reason to keep this unfortunate lack of separation of institutions well ingrained in the US society. You know, sometimes, the facts influence words, then in turn the words influence the facts. Semantics is a very powerful hidden factor in cultures.
By contrast, not meaning to say the Fr system is all good, we have 3 distinct words here, which, in anyone's ear ring like 3 totally different concepts: - "Loi" (= law, as in the laws passed by govs), - "justice" (the judicial system, the court of law, etc) and, - "police" (same word as in English).
Another fundamental difference I've observed between the US and Fr justice system is more specifically to do with the implementation of the "court of laws". Here again, the terminology seems to reflect the different philosophies. We call them "cour de justice" not "court of laws". That may seem like a pedantic point, but believe me, it's not. The fundamental purpose of our courts is not to apply the law but to render justice. Of course, the 2 are linked to a large extent, but they are still 2 different concepts. Sometimes the law is UNjust: all the law is is a set of rules that have been devised to try to make things just and fair. But human circumstances cannot be all covered in 2 books, even ones that are 2000 pages each.
Here, the very raison d'être of a court of justice is first to give justice. To try be fair, detached from any personal feelings, keep to the facts while also understanding the human circumstances, and above all, to seek out the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and to be able to make a fair and just judgement as a result. On top of that, as well, naturally, the court of justice has to abide by the laws of the land. But even then, there is a huge difference between our 2 systems, which I'll address in my 3rd section.
In the meantime, what does this mean in practice? It means that here, in any court case, any evidence that might contribute to shed some light on the "crime" is allowed. You cannot prevent anyone from bringing up anything they see fit. It would be a fundamental contradiction with the court's main purpose. Of course, if someone says something clearly completely irrelevant to the case, like "hey, I think tBlog is the slowest website on the planet", than the presiding judge can tell the person to shut up.
In contrast, in the States, it's a battle of wits of how to beat the truth by recoursing to built-in legal facilities that allow one of the parties to jump in an say "I object my honor... yadda yadda yadda..." and the judge is in fact obliged to discard some of the evidence presented, however relevant to seeking out the real truth, and even the jury is supposed to pretend they never heard anything. A US court case is like one giant legal bullshit battle of lawyers doing everything they can to prevent the truth from coming out, and so with the legal blessing of the law.
The truth, the whole thruth, nothing but the truth? My ass. US courts are nothing short of Kangaroo courts. They are not about justice, they are about playing with the loopholes of the law books. The example of Charles Parker awaiting to be murdered in a few days by the North Carolina government is a frightening pointer to the total failure of a judicial system to render justice.
My third point is a little more obscure. It's about once again a lack of distinction between 2 bodies: the courts of law/justice, and the law itself. My previous paragraphs already point to that problem, but I believe it goes a lot further. A very short example, posted here on tBlog just recently, and illustrating the problem: some guy in the US has been reluctantly sentenced to 25 years ("reluctantly" because the judge saw the inanity of it but was powerless over his own capacity to pass a more appropriate sentence) on the grounds of being a small time drug dealer selling little bags of dope while in the possession of a gun. Apparently, the judges in America are subject to laws themselves. They are not free and independant. This is terrifying in my view, as it means you have a judicial system that is in the hands of the politicians. This is built-in recipe for potential rampant autocracy and fascism. Someone pointed that such ridiculous laws should be updated, but my personal opinion is that is not sufficient: bad laws can be changed for the better, but worse ones can also be passed. The very fact the judicial system in the US is at the mercy of the law is the root of the problem.
I don't know how it is in the States, but in France the "law" is enshrined in 2 huge books, yearly updated, called "le code pénal" and "le code civil". I don't think anybody needs a translation. But here is the interesting bit:
The "code" (either penal or civil) is indeed the repositary of the laws of the land, and everytime the gov passes a new law, changes or voids an existing one, then this code is updated to reflect this. But as well as the laws passed by gov, there is, for any section in the "code" a provision for what is called "la loi du droit" (from memory) which means something like "the right of the court of justice". What does it mean exactly?
It means that any court case in France is taken into account into possibly *CHANGING* or *AMENDING* the laws as they are passed by the gov. Far from being the law that forces the judicial system to make predetermined judgement and sentences, a court sentence that defies the accepted norms, becomes law in itself and is ammended to the "gov generated" laws. And that is indeed to the point of being included in the 2 "code" books.
The judicial body in France is completely separated from the gov. Judges are not even public servants.
Conclusion: My impression is the US has an archaic judicial system that needs a complete overhaul. And by judicial system, I mean not only the judicial system itself, but the way law, justice and law enforcement are defined and implemented. I'm not saying the French one is perfect, but is certainly a better ground base. I'm sure there are some better ones still out there, but I'm not familiar enough with them to argue their merits.
Lastly, as mentioned at the beginning, I'm only too happy for ppl to enlighten my limited understanding of all the issues at stake, and point to the flaws of my own reasoning.
Found this fascinating article by Gilad Atzmon. Well, maybe you won't find it so exciting, but for me, as a musician myself and jazz lover, to read something like this written by one of the hottest sax players around is wonderful. ~~~~~~~~~~
When bebop was born, it was the voice of black America. Black Americans were calling for freedom, and jazz expressed it better than mere words. Charlie "Bird" Parker played Now's the Time, insisting the moment was right for social change. Charles Mingus composed Fable of Faubus (1959) in response to Orval Faubus's racism as governor of Arkansas. John Coltrane recorded Alabama after four black girls died in the Birmingham church bombing. When Martin Luther King started his campaign for civil rights, the American jazz community, white and black, stood right behind him. Not only was jazz aiming for freedom; the music itself was a real-time exercise in human liberation, as performers reinvented themselves night after night. It was hardly surprising that they became symbols of the black civil rights campaign. Coltrane, whose music was deeply rooted in African culture, became a hero of the civil rights movement in America and around the world.
It didn't take long for America's white elite to realise that jazz endangered their hegemony, and that jazz and America represented opposing ideologies. While the American ethos is traditionally presented as a celebration of civil freedom, jazz, as it appeared in the late 1950s, laid bare crucial flaws in the American dream. Not only did it expose the fundamental injustice within the capitalistic system; it also valued beauty far higher than money. This was foreign to the American way of thinking.
After the second world war, jazz became hugely popular in western Europe, and jazz giants such as Bird, Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis and Dexter Gordon were treated as major cultural figures. At home, those very legends had to enter jazz clubs via back entrances, because the front ones were for the white clients.
So jazz became the cultural ambassador of the American civil rights movement--a fact that was highly embarrassing for the establishment, already presenting itself as the leader of the "free" and "democratic" world. Since America's main motivation at the time was to convince the world that Coca-Cola was the only way forward, jazz was clearly in the way. It was anti-American. It revealed the relentless and abusive face of hard capitalism.
For the white bourgeoisie, jazz became a problem that had to be addressed. Its political and philosophical message was about to be crushed. The best way to beat a resentful rival is to integrate it into your system--so Voice of America, the government's broadcaster, adopted jazz as its own and transmitted it to the world. Black Americans became simply Americans, and jazz ceased to be subversive. It wasn't long before black Americans were found qualified enough to die en masse in Vietnam.
Soon after their alleged "liberation", black Americans lost interest in their own revolutionary music. Jazz was no longer the black American call for freedom, but a white middle-class adventure. It was transformed from a vivid, authentic and socially motivated artform into an academic exercise. In the 1970s, more and more colleges launched jazz courses as if jazz were a form of knowledge, rather than spirit.
The new challenge in jazz was to play as fast as you could. By the late 1970s this challenge was achieved: jazz became a form of meaningless white noise. The melodic sensation had dried out. Swing was turned into endless polyrhythmic exercises. American jazz was about to be declared dead. Not many were kind or patient enough to listen to an endless algorithmic musical exercise.
Jazz became a vanishing marginal music, but then a miracle happened. Decision-makers in the ever-growing record industry defined a fresh challenge for jazz. Rather than play as fast as you could, they suggested, you should sell as much as you could.
We are now at the apex of this commercial phase. Occasionally, we hear that a new-born artist has signed a multi-million-dollar record deal. As long as jazz is in the hands of big business it will never produce acute social criticism. The music industry, like any other industry, is aimed at accumulating money and the best way to achieve this is to maintain the existing world order.
Sadly, jazz isn't a subversive art form any more. It isn't even gymnastically challenging--merely a marginal genre associated with easy listening background music a la Kenny G and Norah Jones. A few first- and second-generation veterans are still with us, playing as well as ever, and promising young talents are queueing to enter the shrinking scene. But neither group is socially engaged.
Jazz is still established enough to occupy the back quarter of the second floor of every multi-storey record shop. It fits nicely into the American-led globalised market philosophy. It provides us with an image of diversity, of an expanding music market rich with sounds and colours. In the shop they will tell you: "You name it, we have it." And they are right--you can now buy Coltrane's revolutionary album A Love Supreme for just £6.99 in almost every music shop. What a bargain, what a great Christmas present! I would argue that our devoted Big Brother has almost won. Jazz's spiritual and political message is almost defeated.
This is where I try to interfere. As a bop player, I refuse to view jazz as a technical adventure. It isn't about the speed with which I move my fingers or the complexity of my rhythmic figures. I insist that jazz is a form not of knowledge but of spirit. Jazz is a world view, an innovative form of resistance. For me, to play jazz is to fight the BBS (Bush, Blair and Sharon) world order, to aim towards liberation while knowing you may never get there, to fight the new American colonialism. To say what I believe in, to campaign for the liberation of my Palestinian and Iraqi brothers. To play jazz is to suggest an alternative reality, to reinvent myself, to be ready to do it till the bitter end.
~~~~~~~~~~
Gilad Atzmon was born in Israel and served in the Israeli military. He is the author of the new novel A Guide to the Perplexed . Atzmon is also one of the most accomplished jazz saxophonists in Europe. His new CD, Exile, was just named the year's best jazz CD by the BBC. He now lives in London and can be reached at: atz@onetel.net.uk
Noguru/Bushlover/Defensor/etc, somebody's dying to meet ya'll
I know you guys are in love with soldiers and battles, and are so itchy to fly to Iraq and make a few kills. But some greater power denies you the joys of such an ecstatic thrill.
Must be so frustrating for real men like you. I feel your pain.
I can't help you with making your dream come true, but I came across something that might compensate a little.
Iran has agreed to suspend its efforts to enrich uranium following talks with the E3 of France, Germany and the UK.
In a letter received by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Sunday, Iranian authorities committed themselves to a suspension of the activities that many see as a bid to produce nuclear weapons.
Statements from western and Iranian officials apparently confirm that EU demands for suspension of enrichment activities have been met.
"We have agreed to suspend what the Europeans wanted us to suspend", Hassan Rowhani, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council said on Sunday, according to media reports.
If it holds, the deal will come as a major boost to the EU’s common foreign policy and a vindication of the policy of constructive engagement.
A similar deal struck last year unravelled shortly after its agreement.
Brinkmanship The move comes ahead of a major report on Iran’s nuclear activities from the IAEA.
The UN body is expected to issue a fresh report on Iranian nuclear activities later today that will form the basis of a discussion in 10 days time.
It was expected that if no deal was reached in the E3-Iran negotiations EU members of the board would cede to Washington’s demands to refer the matter to the UN Security Council, where Iran could face sanctions.
The report will now contain extracts of the letter sent to the IAEA by Tehran.
A second round of E3-Iran talks is now expected to look at easing trade between the EU and Iran as well as the EU helping Iran to develop its civilian nuclear programme.
It is hoped these talks will also lead to a full and permanent suspension. ~~~~~~~
To paraphrase tBlogger a100wwe, we can only hope this will end the US gov chant of "Death to Iran".
At the very least, it's a comforting thought that some of we, western nations, still do believe in the first step in resolving serious issues rests on dialogue, even if lengthy and frustrating, rather than resort to systematic imperialist brute force.
Funny how talking and arguing with ppl (as opposed to beat them on the head first) quite often gets somewhere. Not to mention the fact innocent lives are spared in the process (an apparently totally irrelevant factor in the Bush equation).
A suggestion to save ordinary American citizens lives
Like DianneMaire says, it's an excellent idea. It's essential you American citizens show the world you are not in agreement with your asshole gov. For your own interest mostly, for, while many foreigners like me don't fall in the trap, America has done such damage to such a deep degree to so many folks around the world, it's easy (even if not excusable) for the rest of the world to want to hate you all indiscriminately.
Personal gestures like this site will go a long way in preventing the world from dumbly lumbering all you guys in the same sorry slot. While one could rightly say "hey, all the world needs to to is go check tBlog and other forums, and they'll see we're not all morons", let's be realistic and remember that not one person in a million visits forums. On the other hand, striking, catchy, websites like that one, are things that can easily be promoted to the masses by countless aliens (gotta love that word, LOL) like me - nothing easier to do for each of us aliens than to launch the website at work and show it to colleagues, and they'll get the message even if they don't understand a word of English.
Hang tight, my friends. Try your best to come up with innovative and effective ideas like this website, and we aliens will try our best to spread them in our respective countries.
Remember: not only is the proverbial saying "a picture speaks a thousand words" true in many cases, but you're faced with the additional challenge that most ppl who are fed up with America and are starting to hate the US en masse don't understand English. No point in explaining to them in long intellectual discourses that you're not at fault. Use marketing strategies that will touch the entire world, down to the least educated person. The masses in any country no longer believe politicians talk nor even intellectuals discourses. To them it's just rhetoric bullshit. You need to touch the world at the individual level. Pictures of ordinary citizens accompanyied by a 2 liner comment is what will touch your average French, Japanese, Iraqi, Chinese, etc. Nothing will touch the despairing Palestinian/Iraqi/etc more than a self explanatory glimpse of the average American being in the same sorry despair.
If campaigns like this one succeed, even while Herr Führer Bush keeps on raping and sodomizing this planet and its inhabitants for the next 4 years, we might actually see the day when American tourists and expats are no longer systematically slaughtered at the nearest opportunity. And even though it doesn't solve your domestic problems, this surely is a worthwhile aim. I'm selfishly concerned since my wife is one of you ppl, and I want her to stay alive real bad.
Good luck, US friends. I'm behind you, as are millions of other aliens.
Buttiglione to embark on European religious ‘crusade’
~~~~~~~~~~~ 08.11.2004 - 09:52 CET | By Richard Carter
Rocco Buttiglione, the Italian who was forced to step down as a candidate for the European Commission after making controversial statements about homosexuality and the role of women, is about to embark on a Europe-wide campaign to promote Christian values in public life.
According to the UK’s Guardian newspaper, Mr Buttiglione will lead what he called at the weekend a "battle for the freedom of Christians" against the "creeping totalitarianism" of those not in agreement with his beliefs.
Mr Buttiglione is a strong Catholic and a friend of the Pope, but has also received letters of support from Muslim and Jewish leaders. He removed himself as a candidate for European Commissioner to avert a political crisis and is now in the less high-profile role of Italy's Europe Minister.
The Minister launched the campaign – already dubbed the "theo-con" movement – at a rally entitled, "the trial of the Catholic witch" in Milan on Saturday (6 November), the Guardian reports. ~~~~~~~~~~~
Goodness. Just what we need. A christian fanatic butthole in the European Commision. LOL, this is just great!
Hey, can't some generous Republican offer him a greencard and a ranch in Texas? Please! We'll ship him there ASAP.
Dumb Dong - Bitch from hell RedTigress is having yet another PMS fit
Ya'll be thrilled to know that after 4 months of holy abstinence Queen RedTigress at last just reached an orgasm, this one due to no less than the end of the (quote) "greatest opstacles " (unquote) to Israel annihilating the entire Arab population of the Middle East.
Something intrigues me though: while Yasser was in a coma in that Paris hospital, wasn't there a horrific bloody suicide bombing in Israel? Er... could it mean that Yasser or not, this will go on with a vengeance?
LOL :-)
Republicans to change their mascot from ELEPHANT to CONDOM
The Republicans today announced that they are changing their mascot from an elephant to a condom because the condom more accurately reflects their political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually being screwed.
Courtesy of BlondeSense. Check her blog. It's a goldmine.
Does MORALS = SEX ABSTINENCE, or is there more to it? Somone please help me understand
I've been reading lots of blogs (from both sides) and their comments in the last couple of days.
It seems pretty clear that both sides agree the "MORAL" issue was a key factor in the elections. More importantly, over 1/2 the American population is so concerned by the lack of "MORALS" in the US, they decided Bush was the man to steer their country in the *right* direction.
So it got me wondering. What does "MORALS" exactly mean? How come so many Americans think their country's down the toilet regarding moral values and think Bush's the man to fix the problem, whereas the virtual entire rest of the world believes he's the most immoral person on the planet? There surely must be a confusion as to the definition of the word.
"MORALS". Right. Nothing wrong with having morals, I say to myself. In fact, I have incredibly stringent moral values, and, as is the case for all atheist humanists, I don't need a religious stick to beat my ass into doing the *right thing*.
This of course doesn't mean I never err. I can be selfish, I occasionally lie to my advantage, I have to work hard with my conscience not to pick up a stray 50 euro note floating in the gutter and shove it in my pocket. I tend to get hot headed about things, and will more easily than most get ferociously angry, even if it doesn't last.
But at least, when I err, it bothers my atheist conscience. I feel bad about it. And I say to myself: "this must change. *I* MUST improve".
Having been brought up as good little catholic boy, I have a fair idea of what christian moral values are. And if I remember right, they seem to correspond to the humanist's moral values to an uncanny degree. To cite but a few, they go something like:
- Have respect for human and other species lives. Theirs are just important as mine.
- Try not to be selfish. At least, question yourself when you get to the stage where you're really wealthy on the back of pitiful wages workers, and you know there are 10s of thousands of people dying of thirst and hunger every second on this planet.
- Have compassion for ppl who are having a hard time. Help if you're able to - makes you feel good, even if you lost something in the process.
- in practical terms, for the above statements, it means: wish for a society and government where everybody has a minimum level of life decency: everyone should have access to food, water, a roof over their head, health care, and education. Even if you're physically disabled to the point where you can't possibly contribute anything towards the society in return.
- respect the environment. Worship the beauty of this planet, be awed at its bio-diversity, and its slowly ever evolving destiny. In practical terms, don't fuck it up for your private selfish purpose. Fish and trees and lakes and ants are just as worthy as humans. Without them, there would be no humans. Which would probably be for the best for this planet, btw. Ok, I realize this one wasn't part of my catholic principles, but I understand it is what buddhists think, or close enough to it.
- be tolerant. Just as bio-diversity is essential for this planet, bio-diversity within the human race is essential for its healthy future. If you're a jazz fan, and your jaw drops when you watch heavy metal bands that can't play their instruments and sing like a cat on heat, try to contain your laughter within yourself, or share it with friends, but don't go round booing the players in concert or rubbishing them in public. Oh shit, I didn't do too good here, did I, LOL? See... I told you I err :-). Anyway, seriously: be tolerant about beliefs of others, however nutty they may seem to you. Most of the improvements in human society over the centuries have come about from ppl who dare think something that challenges the establishment. Without them, we'd still be living like slaves under Roman domination. In particular, be tolerant to religions other than your own, or to the lack of having one - we all know religious intolerance has led to more deaths and suffering than all natural disasters combined over the centuries, and it's still the case right now. That's neither good for you (you might become one of the casualties) nor for the *other* sides - everybody loses.
- be tolerant, part 2. I separate this theme from last paragraph because, as you'll see in my next section, I believe it is THE key issue: be tolerant for other ppl's sexual behaviors. So long as what they do is between consenting adults, it's none of your business to interfere/outlaw ppl who indulge in oral sex, anal sex, orgies, same-sex sex, you name it. You're entitled to think it disgusting, just as they are entitled to think you're sexually retarded. Now, I can see that this one definitely does NOT go along with my ex-catholic teachings.
------- When I look at the above list of key moral values, it seems the only odd one out is the sex thing. Right? Or am I missing something?
So, what does it mean?
Does it mean that those 59 million Americans - those who are so preoccupied by the slackening of moral values in the US - should really be in entire agreement with a poor dumb ex-catholic atheist French dude like me? It should, shouldn't it? I mean, we both agree on all of the above points, right?
Oh, except for sex. Ah! Forgot about that very prickly thorn for a second, sorry. Sex?!? Ouch!! OMG!!!
Now, examining what the Bush regime achieved in terms of all these moral values, here is what I observe:
- respect for human lives. Geee... let's see: Whether it's not blinking an eye at declaring war on false grounds to a defenseless country and massacring over 100,000 civilians, or not bat an eye at the fact millions of his own country's citizens are living like third-world ppl while he and his peers are rich to the point of obscenity (and the dividing gap getting worse by the day), or lying non-stop without a single twitch of his cruel little spout like he was a professional con man, or dismissing all of this planet's 6 billion ppl's point of view as being irrelevant, he's really achieving moral values that should impress the most religious person beyond his wildest dreams.
- respect for the environment. LOL! This hardly needs expanding on, does it?
- compassion/care for other human beings. Unlike doomed to hell Clinton, he seems to feel quite content with the idea most Americans don't have access to basic human rights such as health care and education. Hey, this is a free country, right? If you want health care, you're entirely free to go find it yourself. Same for education. And jobs. And housing.
- tolerance. This is probably his forte. Let me just quote but a couple of his brilliantly tolerant principles: any country who harbors a terrorist is part of the axis of evil (of course, only HE has the divine right to decide exactly WHO is a terrorist or not, and naturally enough he owns the patent which defines who this axis of evil englobes); any person or group of who is the friend of my enemy is my enemy. Do I need to go on?
- sex. Oh shit. Can't have that in America. It leads to all sorts of horrible disgusting... *THINGS*!
--- So what's the conclusion? Unless I forgot to put my glasses on, it seems obvious the only factor where Bush's doctrine is different to mine is *sex*. It also means that, in every other key respect, while his moral values should be the same as mine, unlike me, he doesn't just err every now and then, he's blatantly shitting on them moral values all fuckin' day long, 365 days a year, and laughing all the way to heaven's bank in the process.
This is really frightening, for it means that, unless those 59 million Americans are blind deaf and dumb, or stoned out of their brain on crack, they are ready to willingly and knowingly shut their eyes on Bush's total lack of any moral value in order to save their souls from damnation at the specter of sex. And it seems religion is the vehicle that manages this amazing feat.
Oh well, not suprising you might say: Karl Marx once said "religion is the opium of the People", and I can see it still stands true today.
Kind of funny. Reminds me of the puritan past of European countries, England and Spain in particular. Not so strangely, sex prohibition leads to sexual frustration, and in turn to sexual dysfunction and disorders - rape, pedophilia, etc.
Are Americans so sex starved they are jumping on the anti-sex wagon to make them feel better? Hey, "since I can't get it anyway, if I abstain from sex down here (and so must everyone else - naturally!), I'll be rewarded 10 times over when I get to heaven". Some connection with the 52 Muslim virgins, maybe?
Bin Laden claims victory in U.S. presidential race
Pakistan-based pundit Osama bin Laden calls Ohio in favor of President Bush during election night coverage on Al Jazeera
Osama bin Laden claimed victory in the U.S. presidential race today, telling supporters that his recent video appearance successfully swayed the election to his candidate, incumbent President George W. Bush.
Bin Laden said his unwavering message of pervasive fear closely paralleled that of President Bush. Offering post-election analysis from his anchor desk at Al Jazeera, bin Laden said Democratic challenger John Kerry wisely used Social Security woes and the threat of a military draft to scare people, but cost himself the election by straying from a fear-based campaign with outdated concepts like "hope" and "common sense."
Bin Laden also extended an olive branch to President Bush, saying, "I'd like to thank Mr. Bush for focusing on Iraq during those frightening days after 9/11 when I thought I actually might be captured, and for his help in our terrorist recruitment efforts."
The lanky death-monger, who said he had been up all night watching the returns, noted that his team of Muslim extremist election strategists correctly predicted that Bush would capture the battleground states of Ohio and Florida by convincing voters they needed him to win the battleground country of Iraq.
Plunging the nation into an unnecessary war was a brilliant strategy, according to bin Laden, because of America's long tradition of not changing commanders during wartime, even if the commander is a blundering incompetent who got the job because of his name rather than his talents or accomplishments.
The bearded terror kingpin said he understands why Americans would feel safer led by a man who is so confident that, when confronted with the pre-9/11 warning: "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.," he simply went ahead with his Texas vacation plans.
Bin Laden also praised Bush's ability to turn his own shameful military career into an asset by using Swift Boat propaganda guns to maim his war hero opponent. He also credited Bush with making sure no law-abiding terrorist sympathizer is denied access to an assault weapon.
Bin Laden, who has repeatedly denied rumors of a homosexual relationship with Saddam Hussein, said Bush also benefited from his stance gay people should be constitutionally blocked from participating in what he has called "the most fundamental institution of civilization" -- marriage.
Bin Laden closed his remarks by thanking America for its strong support of him during Afghanistan's war against the Soviets in the 1980s.
Blogs that suck:NoGuru's blog
(fascist, racist and proud of it. Hatred and dumb rhetoric are his fav. pastimes). "Just my opinion, but I'll stick to it, just like a fly to shit" Reducto's blog
(written with the vision and logic of a deep-fried zucchini. Highly recommended for a good laugh)
BushLover's blog
(take a Noguru fruitcake, add more fascist sauce, sprinkle with threatening & bullying spices, and you've got a perfect BushLover dessert). Rsheinfield's blog
(pro-israel fanatic - anything the Israel gov says or does is gospel, including mass murder)
RedTigress's blog
(same as above + delightfully racist and fascist. An embarrassment to the Tiger species)
SithSense's blog
(same as above, + he just LOVES dead bodies and massacres)
Jim Doney's blog
(kinda like Reducto's blog. Just change "zucchini" to "potato")
ajhankin's blog
(same as above)
Defensor's blog
(another fascist bore)
LynnKramer's blog
(curious case of religious zealotry having reached advanced paranoiac delusional condition. Also a delightful source of racist blogs (her fav targets are the French, closely followed by Germans - but any European target will do just fine)
jrogg's blog
(not quite as dumb as Reducto, but ok for a bit of fun every now & then. There's hope for him)
Stepdad's blog
(yet another [sigh!] fascist nutcase)
Deshanews's blog
(same as above)
Camel dropping's blog
(A shameful insult to the otherwise very cute and cudly species of camels and dromedaries.
But, as CamelFace himself proudly announces, his thinking mode is achieved by farting through his own brain)
