G.O.P: Racism, Insurrection, and Money-grubbing: S.S.D.D.

I believe conservatives are an important part of our nation’s political environment. Liberals need naysayers to hone their ideas upon; otherwise we would never iron out our arguments to a proper strength.  However, America has lacked a respectable conservative leader since George Bush, Sr. left office. And they are only dipping deeper and deeper into the crazy pit.

Take Alabama G.O.P. candidate Rick Barber. He recently released a commercial that blatantly advocates violent rebellion against the United States Government. Effectively, he’s a rabble-rouser and a traitor, but apparently insurrection is the new selling point for conservative voters. You know: the people who are convinced that the America they know is being “attacked” by "progressiveism," and they rant about the injustice of it in town halls and libraries that were built by tax money and progressive legislation.

In the video, Rick Barber claims that small business owners are taxed “without representation”. An obvious lie, as every small business owner in the country votes. But in the Republican dictionary, democratic voting does not equal “representation”. “Representation” just means: getting everything our own way.

Also, the government is “cramming health insurance down our throats.” Where have I heard that line before? Hmm. And the fact that everyone either already HAS health insurance, or the fact that it’s utterly idiotic to NOT have health insurance, and people who lack it, NEED it, does not play into reality for this man. It's like a child complaining about being given candy.

I wonder if he could convince voters that the government was cramming food down the throats of the working poor with the food stamp program.

But the G.O.P. strategy has always been convincing people to vote against their own interests, so I bet they could actually manage that.

Barber also makes the standard conservative reference to the glory of the Founding Fathers. This is idiotic in itself. The Founding Fathers were a bunch of rich, white slave owners who were tired to Britain stealing money from the American people. Why? Because THEY wanted to steal the money of the American people. Domestic tyranny is always preferable to the foreign variety.

Has everyone forgotten that the vast majority of Americans could not even vote until the mid-1800s? It was actually the law in many states that you had to own land to be able to vote, which meant most of America could do little in the voting booth besides jack off. The rich could vote, of course. They could also treat their tenants like farm animals, and when the people rebelled, they called in the army and shot them.

The sanctity of the Founding Fathers is a myth perpetuated by the American education system. These were not GOOD men. They were almost all slave owners, and the second the Bill of Independence was signed, they immediately started a compulsory draft, so all the poor people could fight the war for them.

An example from Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States:

“Four days after the reading [of the Declaration of Independence], the Boston Committee of Correspondence ordered the townsmen to show up on the Common for a military draft. The rich, it turned out, could avoid the draft by paying for substituted; the poor had to serve. This led to rioting, and shouting: ‘Tyranny is Tyranny let it come from whom it may.’” (75).

The Founding Fathers were not saints. They were kings different from the King of England only in title. And in the case of Jefferson, they raped their slave women with gusto. Yeah. That’s who I want to be like: Thomas Jefferson! I could buy a ton of slave women and have sex with all of them non-consensually, and still be held as a national hero for hundreds of years!

As the Dire Straits would say: “That’s the way ya’ do it! Them guys ain’t dumb!”

Which reminds me:

I was listening to a conservative radio program, and the host was quoting Samuel Jackson’s vicious rhetoric against Monarchy and monarchists, linking monarchy to the Obama administration.

Wow.

Is anyone aware that a monarchy is just a family that has been rich and powerful for a long time? America IS a monarchy, people. Look at the Bush family. Look at the Adams family. Look at the Kennedys, for God’s sake. They ARE royal families, and they run our country. Obama came up from the suburbs, he’s about as far from monarchy as you can get.

Do people even think about the sound-bytes they repeat like parrots?

Now let’s shift to Arizona: The Racist State.

G.O.P. Senator Russell Pearce, the author of the racist law, is now pushing for a law that would prevent the children of illegal immigrants from becoming U.S. citizens. I would recommend reading the 14th Amendment, as that idea is a direct and blatant violation of it. This is but the continuation of the standard G.O.P. political structure: Raise the Constitution on High as an inviolable Truth with your words, and then shit all over it with your actions.

But this isn’t a racial issue, oh no! Senator Pearce just doesn’t like Latino children because they are dirty like their parents.

Finally, in the wake of the fiscal crisis, the G.O.P. is back up batting for Big Banks and Big Business. Standard. I wonder how many millions just got dropped in a few campaign chests?

Probably enough for a good night at bondage-themed strip club, or for a good whore.

Why! The Heritage Foundation is full of dipshits!?

While seeking an answer for why anyone in their right mind would oppose the Convention on the Rights of the Child, I found a rather lengthy article on the Heritage Foundation website. You can see the full version here.

As a warning, it is really long. But that is to be expected as it takes a lot of work to make idiocy sound like wisdom. I'm going to run through the most important of their points, and show you why only dipshits could have thought of them. Here we go!

The essay, or whatever, starts with a quote. Amusingly, by Whittaker Chambers. Who is he? Oh, nobody, just a Soviet Spy who went Benedict Arnold for the U.S.A. Good start to your paper, Heritage. America hates traitors! Unless, of course, they betray someone else for us after we bribe them with lots of money! Let's listen to what the rat has to say!

"Whittaker Chambers once described the Cold War as the "critical conflict of…the two irreconcilable faiths of our time-Communism and Freedom."[1] Freedom prevailed in that grave clash of the 20th century, but it remains embattled in a new cold war of ideas."

Okay, they are setting up a rhetorical argument to make peace-time akin to war-time. Wait for it!

"As the United States defends its freedom at home and abroad, it can expect to be endlessly engaged in cold wars of ideas. America is a nation built on an idea: specifically, the principle "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with cer tain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." That idea had its enemies in 1776, and it continues to have them today.

"[W]ars of ideas are fought in terms of ideas and for the sake of ideas. It follows that ideas…must be in good fighting shape," wrote the late Adda Bozeman, an expert on the interrelation of culture and state­craft.[2] Today, a number of the ideas essential to the American order-including those about the impor­tance of family, religion, and civil society in relation to freedom-are not in prime "fighting shape." This leaves the United States vulnerable to opposing views advanced in the international arena, particularly at the United Nations."

Of course! Now that the Cold War is over, and the threat of nuclear annihilation not quite so imminent, it's important to remember that the U.S.A. is in constant warfare with anyone who disagrees with it.

Do you like Twilight? You did? I didn't! WE ARE AT WAR! 

Look, Heritage. People disagree all the time. Nations disagree all the time because nations are run by people. These disagreements are not wars. Wars are wars. Until someone shoots and someone dies, everyone is just talking (and perhaps putting hands in each other's pants to either stroke or squeeze).

Finally, how is an idea in "fighting shape"? What the fuck does that even mean? An idea gets "in-shape" by "fighting" against other ideas. It's called a discussion. You know: those things you must think you're having all the time, but since you never listen to the people talking back to you, it's more like a dictation followed by a nap.

But, for the sake of argument, I'll humor you. Let's take a look at these ole' "fighting ideas".

The first, and only, real concern of Heritage: Power.

"One defining characteristic of national sovereignty is the authority to protect and preserve both a public and a private sphere. A nation must defend its government and its people in their private lives. In the case of America, the self-stated purpose of sovereignty is to secure a society in which citizens are free to enjoy the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Preserving American civil society is an inherent purpose of U.S. national security."

This actually sounds solid. It makes sense. It has a good purpose. Or so you might think.

See, this is where they lure you in. This paragraph sounds reasonable, but they are just setting up their argument AGAINST international human rights legislation (you know, the stuff the entire rest of the world agreed on). See, to the Heritage Foundation, the POWER to make child soldiers is more important than the need to make sure child soldiers don't exist anywhere. In the back of their minds, they are thinking: "Well, what if we want to send American kids to war sometime? What if someone calls us on our evil? We can't have that! We better not sign this paper!"

Does this happen is real life? YES! In Somalia, the government AMERICA SUPPORTS is using NINE YEAR OLDS WITH AK47s to advance AMERICAN INTERESTS.

Child soldiers are bad, unless they are black and fighting for America, then GO FOR IT!

Let's see how this develops! I'm excited! Are you? :D

"From the U.S. constitutional perspective, such social issues fall within the sovereign domain of the United States. Further, many of them remain the province of state or local authorities or are outside the purview of public policy altogether as matters subject to individual private decisions. These social issues properly belong within the jurisdiction of the citizens of the United States, who should determine which level of government should formulate public policy or whether the matter should be left within the sphere of civil society, protected within-but not regulated by-the constitutional order of the United States.

'U.S. government officials should protect American civil society and retain jurisdiction over domestic social issues by resisting policy encroachment into these areas by the United Nations and its many subsidiaries. As the elected, legislative branch of U.S. government with the primary responsibility for policymaking at the federal level, Congress should maintain increased awareness of the scope of U.N. policymaking and exercise greater over sight of U.S. involvement in U.N. policymaking bodies. Preserving constitutional authority over domestic policy should be a clear objective within overall U.S. foreign policy. Protecting civil society is critical to the freedom agenda."

Again, this sounds perfectly reasonable. Until you remember that the "policy encroachment" into "domestic social issues" is the various laws for human rights as agreed to by the U.N. Basically, Heritage Foundation is resisting the idea of U.N. involvement based on the idea that it could potentially conflict with the desires of the American people.

Now, this is a viable argument because history does back it up.

In the 1800s, the United States of America was the last Western Nation to uphold human slavery. We often faced and eventually bowed to international pressure to end the slave trade, but resisted efforts to end slavery itself (we could just breed them like cattle, said the conservatives of the time). The world was at odds with the general desire of the American people.

But, as seems to be forgotten by Heritage, this was FUCKING HUMAN SLAVERY. If there had been a U.N. around to stop the evil of that foul institution, by God, it had better done its fucking job.

Heritage lives by the naive` idea that America is some great well of goodness, from which the eternal waters of blissful freedom bubble to envelop the world.

FUCKING WRONG.

America is a land of ignorant, blind, selfish assholes who are so busy polishing the pedestals they placed themselves on, they forgot about the 80% of humanity they are crushing beneath them.

The U.S.A. needs to be curtailed by U.N. human rights laws because, in our neo-imperialism, we are one of the biggest violators. That is what Heritage is worried about: Our tire companies, our sweatshops, all of the tiny, little ways we make the world miserable so we can buy a dozen clothes hangers for a dollar. A dollar! So cheap!

Okay, let's move on. 

Naturally, you have to throw in the desires of the Founding Fathers somewhere. After all, where better to find the solutions to today's problems than hundreds of years in the past?

"The American Founders frequently asserted that virtue and religion are essential to maintaining a free society because they "secur[e] the moral conditions of freedom."[5] Man is capable of both justice and evil, they believed, and needs to be inspired to love his neighbors and restrained from harming them by a moral authority beyond government edict. Political solutions must take man's nature into account, moderating it through checks and balances for those in power and encouraging it toward profitable activity in the private sphere.

If affections like familial love and religious faith have the power to pacify the human passions that provoke conflict, family and religion can be counted among the allies of freedom. Furthermore, if the family can provide for the welfare of individuals, particularly children, more effectively than the state can, then marriage and parental authority should have the respect of the law. In a free society, law and policy should create an environment in which family, religious observance, and private associations will flourish. This means, in part, securing the private sphere in which these institutions can thrive free from both external threat and internal governmental encroachment."

I wonder what drinks the Founding Fathers had their black slaves bring them while they discussed the human capacity for justice and evil.... perhaps a good corn whiskey on the rocks, made from that plant the Native Americans gave us, and in thanks, we then committed mass genocide on their people and culture.

Anyway, this is just the same argument again. You'll find that in most conservative writing: the same shit, over and over again. It goes with the definition, I suppose. Did you know that the congressional speeches against immigration have remained unchanged since conservative Americans thought the Irish were the scum of the Earth? Now they just thinly veil their racism against Mexicans because it's passe`. Sigh. Gone are the days when you could rely on racial slurs to elect you all the way to Capital Hill.

And no, this isn't going off topic. I have a point here. It is this:

America has NEVER been a land where justice has ruled. Injustice is king, and remains so until the underdog party of the oppressed rises against the foot on its neck to stand tall; Only to then put its own foot on the neck of the group next in line.

Any argument based on the inherent justice of the American people is pure folly.

And. Of course. The external threat of encroachment the Heritage Foundation is worried about is human rights legislation. OH NOES! THEY WON'T LET US BEAT OUR WOMENZ!

Next in the Foundation's paper, the destruction of the U.N.'s reputation! Another common rhetorical strategy of the conservative to debunk a program it does not agree with: make all of its successes seem trivial, and flout all the ways it doesn't work perfectly, no matter how trivial.

"Headlines about cease-fires and negotiations to avert war often obscure the ongoing functional work of the United Nations. Far from being merely a forum in which the nations of the world can assemble in moments of crisis, the U.N. and its agencies in fact debate, oversee, and budget for projects and issues well beyond military and humanitarian emergencies. Although not originally promoted as an entity that would become involved in actively seeking to shape member states' domes tic policies, the U.N. has become increasingly intrusive in these arenas.

"But while functional interaction among nations has increased through the U.N. and related organizations, it has not ushered in an era of peace. The internationalization of the administrative state has merely opened a new front for political conflict among nations. States lacking military power have a new means of confronting traditionally stronger nations on the world stage. Expanded international policymaking has thus heightened, not transcended, power politics."

Yes! Ignore all those headlines about the U.N. preventing war! It's only doing exactly what it was designed to do!  You know: world peace, kthx? Don't you see? The U.N. is a bureaucracy! GASP! They hold meetings about budgets and about what they are going to do and how! GASP! Everyone knows the TRUE way of doing something: get an idea in your head, say FUCK YOU to anyone who disagrees, and do what you want anyway.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the U.N. hasn't ushered in an era of peace (despite the first sentence of the first paragraph, but the reader is expected to be an idiot and forget that concession). Don't you see? People in the U.N. argue all the time! They never agree on anything! They are WAGING WARS OF WORDS.

Do you begin to see the terrible circulation of the conservative mind? 

If ideas fight, then discussions are wars, and so whenever the nations gather at the U.N. to have a discussion, it's a WORLD WAR!!! 

Not just, you know, diplomats seeking peaceful solutions to international differences.

Moving on...

What would a conservative think tank be without the corruptive dogma of Christian thought?

"The Universal Declaration recognizes "the inherent dignity and…the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family."[29] Unlike the United States' Declaration of Independence, how ever, it never identifies a source of or rationale for humanity's inherent dignity or man's inalienable rights. The failure to address these fundamental philosophical questions has hampered the efficacy of human rights law and has not prevented egre gious violations of basic human rights. More than 50 years after the creation of the U.N., ongoing wide-scale abuse and genocide, most notably in places like Sudan, demonstrate the inadequacy of U.N. functional bodies in promoting and protecting basic human rights."

I believe the "source" that the Heritage Foundation is trying to avoid naming here is God. Just a hunch.

So apparently, according to the Heritage Foundation, only laws mired in the desires of the Christian God can truly promote human rights. That is why Sudan is messed up. Because the U.N. laws are not "Christian".  Not because of age-old ethnic and religious tensions aggravated by wide-scale poverty and corruption. It's so obvious!

And let us not forget the fact that Christians are pinnacles of moral authority throughout history! After all, Christianity has only massacred billions of people, practically wiped clean both North and South America of native human civilization, and committed such atrocity in the Middle East that no amount of modern Islamic Terrorists could ever shed as much blood. So yes, only the Christian God could ever know goodness.

You know what else is common in conservative thought? Ethnocentrism. It's practically a defining tenant: My shit is soooo good, it should never change!

Finally, I hold this final argument to be self-defeating. If you read the following and expect the Heritage Foundation to give a reason as to why it believes women should not have the right to abortions, no one should have contraceptives, and why it thinks homosexuals and trans-genders do not deserve legal protection, you will be disappointed. They just take it for granted. Don't you see? God HATES those people, so why protect their human rights?

"Reproductive and Sexual "Rights." "Reproductive health" has become one of the most contentious social issue battlefronts at the United Nations, and abortion has been at the center of the ongoing debate. The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, the product of the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, defines reproductive health as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes."[37] The Platform for Action-the document that details the strategic objectives and actions that governments committed to undertake to achieve the Beijing Declaration's stated goals- goes on to assert that people ought to be "able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and…the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so."[38]The U.N. Population Fund explicitly "calls for women's empowerment in all spheres of life, particularly regarding their reproductive and sexual health and rights."[39]

International advocacy groups have gone a step further. According to Human Rights Watch, for example:

[W]omen's decisions about abortion are not just about their bodies in the abstract, but rather about their human rights relating to personhood, dignity, and privacy more broadly. Continuing barriers to such decisions…interfere with women's enjoyment of their rights.[40]

Human Rights Watch has argued that "international human rights legal instruments and interpretations of those instruments by authoritative U.N. expert bodies compel the conclusion that access to safe and legal abortion services is integral to the ful fillment of women's human rights generally."[41] The NGO's claim is based on the conclusions and recommendations that U.N. treaty-monitoring bodies have issued to member states.

This regulatory practice is prevalent. As of early 2005, U.N. treaty bodies had issued recommendations in at least 122 instances urging 93 countries to modify their abortion laws.[42] Like many other countries, the United States has sought repeatedly to keep these sensitive matters within its sphere of sovereignty.[43]

The movement to create sexual rights has included an effort to define sexual orientation as a human right. To this end, the Human Rights Committee has been critical of many member states, including the U.S., for their laws respecting sexual orientation. For example, in recent concluding observations about the U.S., the Human Rights Committee "notes with concern the failure to out law employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in many [U.S.] states."[44] A 2004 press release from Amnesty International is partic ularly illuminating:

Sexual rights are human rights…. There is a long legacy of advocacy on sexuality and human rights within the U.N. arena that will continue until all people are free to exercise all their human rights without discrimination of any kind.[45]" 

That is the end of the section. No joke. The argument just ends right there. It's as if the very fact that another organization is CRITICIZING the U.S.A. for BREAKING INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW is reason enough to not get involved in human rights legislation.


Sorry, world. The United State of America will only promote Liberty, Freedom, and Justice to the people who's human rights we are not currently violating. Cheers!


And finally, why is the Heritage Foundation against the Convention on the Rights of the Child?

 "The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child includes numerous provisions that would distance children from their parents' oversight, infringing on parental rights and authority in their child's edu cation and upbringing. For example:

The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.[48]"

Good lord. The U.N. wants to make sure that children have FREE WILL. UNACCEPTABLE!!!! 

The Pointless Office of Erasing Pointless Laws

Republican Senator Sam Brownback has an idea for a new government office for the state of Kansas: The Office of the Repealer.

So.. basically, you will have a new government worker who's job is to get rid of pointless laws. The article offers examples of Missouri passing legislation to remove regulations on things like steamboats and other such archaic forms of technology.

Who gives a flying fuck?

Since these laws are pointless, they are generally not enforced. As a direct result, they are equally pointless to repeal.

You just wasted thousands of dollars and hundreds of man-hours to repeal laws that did no harm other than take up a few inches on a dusty book somewhere.

Basically, it's Republicans getting blue-balls over not making government smaller in a big way, so they have to waste their time on this shit in a weird form of legislative masturbation.

But this whacking-off can destroy useful skin when laws that have a solid purpose are repealed simply because American culture as outdated them.

For example: Michigan wasted time repealing laws against prizefighting and dueling. Which is odd, since that would make both prizefighting and dueling legal in Michigan now. I believe there was a reason they become illegal... what was it again? Oh yeah, people fucking died in prizefights and duels. Good work on opening the door for that to happen again.

The BEST quote from the article comes from Brownback himself:

"Case in point, in Mr. Brownback’s telling: the rejoicing of residents in Saline County, Kan., when a strict fireworks ban was lifted there. Mr. Brownback recalled the mood: “It was kind of like, ‘I got a little piece of liberty back!’ ”


Let's see: why on earth would the American people be denied the liberty of shooting off fireworks whenever they wanted? 


Oh wait.. now I remember...


Because fucking dipshits fire roman candles into houses and forests and set them on fucking fire.


Yes! While you enjoy the rediscovered liberty of drinking Pabst and dancing around a live box of Saturn Missiles, your countrymen will rediscover the liberty of their houses burning down around them while they sleep and half their state's wilderness turning to cinders.

Running a Tight, Leaky, Ship

A weird sort of mini-controversy seems to be brewing surrounding the founder of the website, wikileaks.com.  Apparently the founder, Julian Assange, got his mitts on some sensitive material.

(Julian Assange. Julius Rosenberg. Weird, no?)

The guy who released the pentagon papers is claiming Mr. Assange is under threat of assassination. Which is an odd sort of claim, in a way. I mean: I have little doubt that the government would go cinematic-style and send a Jason Bourne after information related to nukes, agents, and military movements; as all of those would put a larger number of American lives at risk. But come on, Daniel Ellsberg! You're still alive aren't you? But then again, all of your information was only useful in retrospect. If Assange's little data bundle is current, you might have a point, at that.

This all comes on the heels of a NYTimes article describing Obama as a ruthless persecutor of government leaks.

But let's pull up our pants and cover up our whitie-tighties of naiveté:

SCENARIO: A government official leaks information to a blogger. That blogger gets read by an enemy of the U.S.A. (they all have computers, by the way). And some Americans somewhere die as a result.

What would the newspaper headlines be?

"OBAMA'S LOOSE LIPS SINK OUR SHIPS", and someone somewhere would make a racial joke out of it. Because Americans are classy.

Anyway, since this has not happened, and in fact the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. have seemed rather Johny-On-The-Spot since the asshole with the S.U.V....

The opinion seems to be that the government is being TOO tight-lipped.

People. This is military shit. It will always be secret. Get used to it.


"In war, truth is the first casualty."

You all live in America. You intimately understand the behavior of your countrymen(/women) when they get in large groups. Look at the Tea Party.

"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"


A leader can only lead if his followers aren't flipping shit over everything. Not to mention, I would deduce from my limited understanding of grand strategy that a military cannot operate effectively under the enemy's microscope.

How many times do you think being spotted by the UAV in Modern Warfare 2 has gotten you killed?

If the military is pulling out the stops to get this stuff back, you can bet we better be hoping they get it back, and this Assange doesn't get it posted.

We don't need any more weeping mothers in America.

But will the government actually kill Assange, on the off-hand chance that all of this isn't just fluff (though, he did get that Reuters video). But so what? What did that show other then civilians getting hit by friendly fire? Do you think that only happens when you see a YouTube video of it? It happens. It sucks. But us SEEING it doesn't do jack. Our nation wasn't doing anything evil, it was just a tragic mistake that everyone regrets; the man who pulled the joystick trigger in the helicopter the most of all, I wager.

But is this information worth killing a man over? I don't know. Thankfully, that's a decision I don't have to make. Though I would figure that if you can assassinate a powerless man like Assange, you can probably kidnap him nearly as easily and slap him in Cuba illegally. (Oh wait! Assange is white, so he would get a trial instantly.)

Since this is the Amateur Statesmen, I feel a need to make a hypothetical decision as if I had the button:

If it were readily apparent that this leaked information would result in the deaths of American servicemen/women, and no method of peaceful resolution would work with Assange, and a quick re-scramble of military assets would not remove the danger...

I think... I would have to say the word that would end another man's life.

May God have mercy on my soul.

The Gaza Flotilla

The storm of controversy over the "faulty" party in the Gaza Flotilla is but media fluff. Frankly, the live footage provided by Israel is indisputable.

Here are Islamic extremists arming themselves for the confrontation.

And here is Israel's video footage of their soldiers landing from the helicopters, being snatched by a mob, and being beaten nearly to death by various weapons.

But why would humanitarians attack soldiers? Because on the few ships that were attacked, they weren't humanitarians. If you watched the video above, you might recall one woman saying that they had two happy goals: 1. To die martyrs. OR. 2. Deliver goods.

How she planned to deliver humanitarian aid after her death is beyond my understanding, but it certainly is a strange organization of priorities. Makes one almost think that delivering humanitarian aid wasn't even the point.

These people went expecting a confrontation against the Israeli blockade. But instead of taking the Gandhi route and letting themselves be arrested, making Israel look the bad guy, they were going with the pure intention of getting themselves killed to stir up the entire region. It's like some form of Trojan Horse Terrorism.

Now, I do not disagree that Israel goes nuts way too often. But the Islamic world has a rather annoying habit of forgetting all the rocket attacks, suicide bombs, and the like that constantly kill Israeli citizens. Not to mention that Islamic governments have a habit of publicly announcing they want to destroy the small Jewish nation and kill everyone who lives there. Most notably, Hamas, the government of the Palestinians, which denies the people of Israel the right to exist on earth, and is devoted to its violent destruction. And this is the government that the Palestinians VOTED for. Well, you made your bed Palestine, and as usual, you hate laying in it.

Who wouldn't jump the gun in such malicious local environment? The Israelis have felt the stress of being under siege for about 70 years now. OF COURSE they are trigger-happy. Every generation of Jews in Israel have grown up in an environment of fear and random acts of violence.  This seems to result in generations that are filled with people who are more willing to act first, with violence, because that's how things happen in the Middle-East.

Of course, the Israelis lose every peace they gain by continuing to be dicks.
And the Palestinians lose every bit of Israeli goodwill by constantly supporting senseless attacks.

Both sides are dipshits. Plain and simple.

Anyway....

Among those killed in the boat raid was a born American, a certain Furkan Dogan, age 19. I am reminded of a certain Jake W. Suter, an 18 year old American marine from Los Angeles that died on Tuesday in Afghanistan. Two children dead, sent to battle by the foolish words of their elders. So it goes.

Furkan Dogan's brother gives light to what might have been the cause of his sibling's death in this article: "We didn’t expect him to come back like this,” Mr. Dogan’s brother was quoted as saying. “However, we were not sorry to hear that he fell like a martyr.”

He is actually proud of the pointless death of his brother!

Why would he be like that?

Probably because all the adults both children respected growing up have been telling them that killing people and getting killed are glorious things. I mean, how are you not supposed to become a terrorist if your childhood looks in anyway something like this:

Either two things happened to end Furkan Dogan's life: 1. Siked up by propaganda, he attacked the Israeli soldiers like everyone else and got shot. OR. 2. He saw how senseless the violence was and backed away, only to be accidentally shot by a stray bullet aimed at some other attacker. So it goes.

EDIT: On the basis that Dogan was shot 5 times, the former of the possibilities is the more likely.

Either way, it's a senseless death, and it's a young man robbed of over 6 decades of laughter and love this his family. And his family is proud to see him go! Senseless. Senseless. Senseless.

If you want to find the true culprits of Middle Eastern violence, look for all the old fucks who can't forget the past, and instead of letting it go for the chance of a new future, they resurrect all that hate and passion that killed their friends and family so it can have a chance at slaughtering their sons and daughters.

Whether a religious leader in a mosque, or a fat-assed politician in an Israeli government building, both are equally to blame.

Arizona Immigration Continues

The general outrage against the new Arizona Immigration law has begun to cool. As it cools, it is forming rock-hard determination and activism. Cities across the nation, like Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles County are boycotting Arizona business connections, costing Arizona corporations millions in potential revenue. It seems the nation is betting that: like all racist white people, the pro-law Arizonians love money more than they hate Latinos.

And it seems Arizona is feeling the hurt. But keeping the hate.

Not a day later, Arizona announced it would begin editing Ethnic Studies courses in Arizona schools.

The reason being: "State schools chief Tom Horne, a Republican running for attorney general, says the district’s ethnic studies program promotes “ethnic chauvinism” and racial resentment toward whites."

Yes! For too long white people have been racially discriminated against by ethnic minorities! TOO LONG! Has white America felt the guilt of its illegal war against Mexico. TOO LONG! Have white people had the whole slavery thing held over their heads. TOO LONG! Have the well-to-do had to hear the plight of the poor while forcing a look of sincere concern onto their faces. It's time for whites to take a stand and shout: HEY! I STILL WANT TO BE A RACIST FUCK! PRAISE WHITE JESUS!

A minor related note: some people now don't want to go to college in Arizona. Though I think avoiding Arizona schools is probably a good idea in general.

Also in response to the obvious racial undertones of the new law,
many Latino entertainers are avoiding the state entirely. Even Rage Against the Machine is leading a charge against the law.

And for good reason. According to the Latino entertainers article, even before this new controversy began, Arizona police would habitually harass any public event or gathering that attracted Latinos. These "crime suppression sweeps", as the sheriff seems to call them, apparently don't happen after events full of white people. Like Tim McGraw concerts.

So... predictably, the anti-law protests march on the feet of thousands of Latino Americans, while the pro-law protests sit idle on thousands of old, white asses in auditoriums.

The question being debated: is the law which targets people who look Latino racist? AND. Will police be racist while they enforce the law?

Here's another question: Was the 3/5ths Compromise racist?

According to Gov. Jan Brewer, the police will not engage in racial profiling because they said an oath to become police officers, and they know that racial profiling is illegal. A statement so naive, it's adorable. And idiotic.

This quote seems rather pertinent: "While it's certainly untrue that most conservatives are stupid... it is certainly true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

Gov. Jan Brewer can look out her window and see the two sides of the protest. One side is white. The other is brown. And yet she still can't seem to grasp it as a racial issue.

Even the President of Mexico has been livid over the law. Which in itself isn't that interesting, but then Texas Senator John Cornyn (R) was quoted as saying the funniest thing ever. He said it was “inappropriate for President Calderón to lecture Americans on our own state and federal laws."

Naturally, Americans have the right to criticize the entire world and get involved everywhere, but that dirty Mexican president better not be talking shit about us!