« May 2005 | Main | July 2005 »

June 21, 2005

On George Bush and the Meaning Of Life …

Our President has said using embryonic stem cells is wrong. It’s murder and its advocates are promoting the killing of little babies. Like millions of other religious fundamentalists intent on ramming their beliefs down everybody else’s’ throat, our President can’t tell the difference between little babies and lifeless protoplasm. To them, the potential of life is the same as the reality of life – a thought that should keep the Ortho Company up nights.

But these distinctions are easy to make. Take the abortion issue. For most people, it’s very black and white. If you believe as a matter of faith (or creationist-like pseudoscience, which is simply an attempt at the rationalization of faith) that life begins at zygote, then you’re probably of the opinion that abortion is murder. If you believe that life begins at birth (or some wavy-lined interim self-support stage, which is another poor rationalization of faith) then you probably agree that abortion is a choice a pregnant woman can make. Unlike most issues, there is very little middle ground here. Embryonic stem-cell research is the same type of issue.

So it comes as no surprise that our President-in-Thief is opposed to embryonic stem-cell research. But, surprise of all surprises, Bush is a hypocrite. He certainly isn’t the True Believer he makes himself out to be.

If he was the true zealot he proposes to be (admittedly, he uses different rhetoric than I do; indulging in one’s own rhetoric is the great pleasure of running a blog) he’d be completely opposed to such research: killing in the name of research is still killing. But Bush only prohibits the use of federal dollars for such research, outside of a handful of already existent contaminated strains of little use to the scientific community. Individual states such as Connecticut and California are permitted to use state funding to support such research without even the slightest verbal sanction from the White House.

So is private industry. Hold onto that thought.

So, if it involves federal approval, it’s evil. Without it, it’s okay. But the process doesn’t destroy human life only when federal dollars are being used – if at all. The process is the same no matter who does it or where it’s done. Sort of like saying “well, murder is evil, but we’ll let GlaxoSmithKline use human test subjects as long as federal dollars aren’t spent.” Actually, we’ve come pretty close to that. Just ask Miss Evers’ boys.

So who make out from Bush’s so-called faith-based policies? Well, the biggest profiteers are our President’s buddies, the medical industry – to be specific, the pharmaceutical houses. If the feds pay the tab, the pharmaceutical houses make very little profit. If they pay the tab, they get a patent and make all the money. There’s a big multi-billion dollar winner here, and it ain’t the bible-thumpers or the awaiting unborn.

Of course, the far-right has its rhetoric already worked out. It always does, and without it Jon Stewart would be out of a job. Bush will let the individual states and the corporations decide what is moral and what is not. Amusingly, this is the very opposite of Bush’s stand on medical marijuana.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Bush.

Posted by Mike Gold at 03:24 PM | Comments (40) | TrackBack

June 15, 2005

On Denying The Obvious

Last week Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, perhaps the only man alive who can bring attention to the gutless Democratic Party, said the Republicans were “pretty much a white Christian party.”

Well … duh. Of course the Republicans are the party of white Christians. Look at what they say and what they do; look at the overwhelming majority of their spokespeople. For the past couple years now various Republican Party leaders have been telling us that America is, after all, a Christian nation. And, since the Republicans won the White House and the Congress by a couple percentage points, in the winner-take-all way they define democracy everybody who disagrees with them are disenfranchised. Hell, if you read just the titles of their books, all Democrats are liberals and all liberals are traitors and/or suffering from a mental disorder.

Let’s set aside the fact that our founding fathers were largely a bunch of Masons and oversexed revolutionaries and that they probably knew what they were doing when they wrote the Bill of Rights. Let’s set aside the fact that a great, great many non-Catholic Christians do not consider Catholics Christians. Forget all that. The Republican Party position is that America is a Christian nation, and they define Christianity as pro-oil, anti-defense, pro- corporate corruption, anti-health, pro-religious bigotry, anti-poor, and pro-stupid white jock sucker – as long as they don’t have to give the stupid bastards anything but pipe dreams.

I take our nation’s leaders at their word.

So I’m really confused when the Republicans gleefully took mock umbrage at Dean. They immediately dragged out their handful of non-Christian, non-white toadies and said “See!!! We’ve got a couple of these here Quislings! What the hell is Dean talking about?” I’m reminded of the only black kid on the teevee show South Park. You know; the kid named "Token."

Damn, you’d think they’d relish his comment. “Yep! We’re white! We’re Christian! And we’re proud!” If they’re going to walk the walk, they should talk the talk.

However, I’m not confused in the least when our nation’s leading Democrats crawled through each others assholes to distance themselves from their Party Chairman. From the comments made by liberal blogger Deborah White to namby-pamby Senator Joe Biden to Republican sycophant Joe Lieberman, you’d think Dean said Christ was queer or something. Every time these dolts open their mouths, I’m reminded of the National Lampoon’s line “pull the triggers, niggers / we’re with you all the way / just across the Bay.”

The Democrats are unlikely to win many Congressional seats in 2006 because the Democrats do not deserve to win. First they must purge the party of two-faced wimps like Biden and fight that needs to be fought. Let’s call a spade a spade. It’s time to take to the streets and scream the truth. Americans do not like simpering cowards whose idea of bringing about change is to lie down and cry. Go for it, Howard. Keep kicking red ass!

Posted by Mike Gold at 04:40 PM | Comments (21) | TrackBack

June 01, 2005

On Murder

I received a comment from John that, since it references something that goes back a bit, some of you might have missed. I'd like to respond to John, of course, with a question.

John said:

Quote: "Till's relatives claim he merely said hello or some other mundane nicety to a white woman, while others say he was much more "fresh" with her than that. Regardless,...."

Seems you suffer from the same reasoning problem of which you accuse others. You attmept to down play certain facts and focus upon others.

The facts surounding what Till said or didn't say way heaviest in this case. It is unfotunate when anyone looses a life, but the facts that we cannot discern (although, one of his relatives who was an eyewitness stated that he was forward with the girl)would make the clear line of how one view's the consequences and the actions of the killers.

In the end, one must assume one of two views.
Either he was an incocent 14 year old, or he was a male youth with a bit too much moxy.

If it is the former, it is a trajedy.
If it is the latter, the case is simply the extreme consequences of a young male not heeding the age-old adage that one never covets another man's wife.

The reason why we don't disrespect woman in our society, is not because we think it is intrinsically not good, it is because we know that at some point a husband or other male will take offence. That does not mean that we simply fear getting yelled at or having a nose broken, it is that we ultimately fear being killed. For in the judgment of most men, a man is justified in killing for honor, especially in offensives against his wife, regardless of what society may or may not place in it's social contracts.

Tell me, John. Let's assume the latter. Given the dynamics of two people briefly crossing paths on a sidewalk, exactly what could 14 year old Mr. Till have said that would justify this:


Posted by Mike Gold at 04:48 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack