A Letter to my Senators

After reading this, I wrote the following letter to our two US Senators from Colorado, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet.

Hello Mark, I've not typically been the type to write his local politicians for anything. I tend to be a speak-with-my-vote kind of guy. But as one of the millions of solidly middle-class citizens bearing the brunt of our fragile economy every day, I feel beleaguered, even defeated, when I read this from the Washington Post Online: "At rescued banks, perks keep rolling." (entire article linked below). We threw $700 BILLION to Wall Street with little more than a note that said, "Happy birthday! Go buy yourself something just for you." And as my wife and I are struggling to decide whether or not we let the bank foreclose on a rental property that's been sucking us dry for the past six years, Kenneth Lewis, Jeffrey Peek, Ralph Babb and Alvaro de Molina are showing off what they spent on their shopping spree. What I need from you, and from Michael Bennet, and from every single person who claims to represent "the people of this great nation," as politicians are so fond of labeling us, is to feel the outrage and betrayal that we feel and get this figured out. Today. Because this country is boiling, man, and people are ready to lose it. You see it in the schools, in the malls, on the highways, in the workplaces... Rage. Not anger, not hurt. Rage. It's a frightening time. I'm originally from Michigan. Lived there for 27 years before moving to Colorado in '97. I was in Detroit last month for the first time in years. Have you seen Detroit lately? It looks like a movie set for Blade Runner II. That's today's America. That's what $700 BILLION to Wall Street gets us. So change it, Mark. Just... change it. You can, you know. Find out who's with you -- who are the real Americans up on Capitol Hill -- and grab them and start beating the crap out of any poser up there who doesn't think this is the most important issue facing our country today. We need you.

Of Milk and America.

Last night we finally got around to watching Milk. I'd had a copy of the movie since it was still in theaters (one of the perks of having a SAG card -- DVD screeners!), had even loaded it onto our Apple TV so that I could just push buttons to have it play rather than going through the hassle of standing up, taking the DVD out of the case, opening the DVD tray... good god, I'm exhausted just thinking about it. But, when the occasion would come that wifey and I could watch something we wanted vs. the Wiggles or the Wiggles, we'd inevitably choose something else. Milk is definitely one of those movies you gotta be in the right mood for. And finally, last night, we were.

I first really learned about Harvey Milk when I was a senior in high school. My high school football coach was also my government teacher. On the football field he was a predictably gruff old bastard, but in the classroom he was dynamic, open-minded and incredibly engaging. One day he showed us a documentary on Milk and Moscone. I remember the classroom being utterly silent for a few minutes after the film ended, until some moron who thought he was being funny said "fags." Coach moved faster than I thought humanly possible, grabbed the kid by the shirt collar and literally dragged him out of the classroom. That's always stuck with me. The documentary, and Coach's response to the same bigotry that contributed to Milk's assassination.

I was pissed when Mickey Rourke didn't win best actor last year. His turn in the Wrestler was so damn good. But now I get it. Sean Penn was just plain eerie as Milk. I found myself a few times remembering, that's Jeff Spicoli! So yeah, the Academy made the right choice. The movie as a whole was really, really good. Great supporting cast, great pacing. But without Penn in that role it's easily forgettable.

The movie brought back memories of the documentary. Of how emotionally draining I'd found it when I was 17. I was sad and angry back then, for the simple fact that I couldn't comprehend the kind of hatred and bigotry that could poison a person's soul.

Last night I was once again sad and angry. But this time it wasn't only because of the inhumanity of it. It was a sober reminder of the vast amount of citizens of this country who would piss all over our Declaration of Independence. And not just in the late 70s, but today. Last year -- 30 years after the California battle over Prop 6 -- was deja vu all over again with Prop 8, only this time the bigots won.

If you would not afford a fellow citizen of these United States the same exact freedoms and liberties that you would expect for yourself, simply on the basis of that person's skin color, religion or sexual orientation, you are not worthy of those freedoms that our forefathers gave you. And if you profess to be a Christian as you fight to restrict the rights of others, you are not worthy of the sacrifice your Christ made for you.

We've made remarkable progress in this country in the past 30 years with regard to government-supported bigotry. Harvey Milk had a lot to do with that progress as it pertains to homosexuals, and activists continue to fight the hatred and discrimination. But then there's Prop 8 and all the other efforts throughout the country to restrict our fellow citizens' rights. The progress we've made isn't nearly enough. We cannot allow the course of this country to continue to be dictated by the anti-American bigots who desire not freedom for all, but religious totalitarianism (though they don't know that because, come on, look at how long the word "totalitarianism" is). A reminder:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Wanted: Democrats With Balls

Okay, at the risk of getting the ire up of some of my more right-leaning friends, nothing would make me happier than to have those yella Democrats in Congress actually grow spines and bring articles of impeachment against Bush. And then Cheney.

It is mindboggling to me that we as a nation sat through the impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying to Congress about... wait for it... S-E-X... and this Congress won't impeach Bush and Cheney.

In the book Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, the Center for Constitutional Rights set out legal arguments for impeachment on four separate charges that could be brought against this administration with abundant evidence (note that the book was published before the whole Valerie Plame incident):

1. Warrantless surveillance.
2. Misleading Congress on the reasons for the Iraq war.
3. Violating laws against torture.
4. Subverting the Constitution’s separation of powers.

Who cares if the Senate wouldn't vote to convict? They didn't vote to convict Clinton, either, but that Congress had to "send a message." If ever a White House needed a message, it's this one. Not that I'd expect them to get the message, but at least American public would be sent the message that the Rule of Law is greater than this or any other administration.

I'll never forget Bush, after accepting the Republican nomination about seven years ago, saying that he would bring honor and integrity back to the White House.

Um, yeah, you failed, W. You seriously, pitifully failed.

You know, the thing that bugged me the most about Clinton was the guy's arrogance. He truly believed himself to be greater than the office he held, to be above reproach, and to be exempt from accountability.

Multiply each of those things by 1,000 and you've got Bush and Cheney. Nixon was a fucking choirboy compared to these two. And yet no one has the stones to give them the bitch-slapping they deserve.

Making the all those big-talking Democrats controlling the legislature up there no better than the Right they keep criticizing.

*Dumbfuck Mountain poster found through a Google search that led me here.

I'm Ambidextrous!

I did a this some time ago (or one much like it), and the results this time around are pretty similar. Explains a lot about me. Particularly why I'm not a fan of sweeping generalizations about the Left or the Right.

Your Political Profile:

Overall: 45% Conservative, 55% Liberal Social Issues: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal Personal Responsibility: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal Ethics: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal Defense and Crime: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

How Liberal Or Conservative Are You?

Getting Political

I don't typically delve into politics on my blog. I'll rant and rave about certain issues, but a quick click on my "Politics" label reveals that I've done 17 posts labeled "politics" since I started this blog in '04. And none, until my little 5-line post,Right to Life, abbreviated, was directed at G.W. Bush.

While that post only generated 21 comments (paltry!), it managed to spawn a number of posts and comments on other blogs all rooted in the fact that, to some, mine was a strawman argument.

Well, I've commented at those sites, but since it was my post that started the whole stinking thing (even though it was really Grapes 2.0 who started it), I'm going to bring it on home.

I stand by the point of my post: Bush saying he won't use taxpayer dollars for the destruction of human life is an outright lie. He is with Iraq. Case closed. That point cannot be argued.

Unless, of course, you begin a new argument debating whether abortion and war can be compared. Then you can argue.

But you're not arguing about what I said. You're on a tangent. One that has nothing to do with me, because I didn't compare abortion to war. In order to tie my post to an argument about abortion vs. war, you have to first begin a discussion about what Bush meant. He didn't mean what he said. He didn't say it right. He meant innocent lives. Oh, wait, that doesn't work either. He meant unborn innocent lives. Yeah, that's it. That's what he meant. Strawman!

Sorry, you lose this one. Classic debate structure: Did Bush say he will veto any measures that “allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life"? Yes, check. Has he, in fact, allowed taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life? Yes, check. Two truths equal true. Game over.

Now, let's say I did get into the tangental debate over whether abortion and war can be compared. Were I to do that, here's what I'd say (and did say, somewhat, over at Law Wench's):

I have about as much respect for pro-lifers who support war as I do for anti-war, tree-hugging pro-choicers. And of the former crowd, I'm particularly curious as to how those who base their pro-life stance in religion (as W does) can somehow justify the concept of collateral damange.

To me the two things absolutely are related. If enlisted U.S. military personnel and terrorists were truly the only ones getting killed, like they were stuck in a big paintball complex with real bullets, this would be a different argument (though still, I don't see an asterisk and disclaimer after Thou Shalt Not Kill). But innocent lives are being lost every single day because of the war. Innocent lives who, to paraphrase Wench, do not volunteer to be killed nor have they brought it on themselves to be killed. How are those innocent lives different from unborn lives? What differentiates them? Birth. That's it. That's the only difference. One group was (un)lucky enough to be born. Those lives are worth every single bit as much as yours, mine, Ws, or anyone else's on the planet, born or unborn. They're related.

God's Away on Business

When he gets home and sees what a mess we've made of the house, he's going to be really, really pissed.


*Post title borrowed from the estimable Tom Waits

Right to Life, abbreviated

Saw this at Grapes 2.0 and had to comment here.

From W to Congress, as reported in the New York Times:

He will veto any measures that “allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life.”

So, who's paying for Iraq?

I hate him.

Whiny Conservatives

A recent post over at Joe's compelled me to tune in Glen Beck the other day, something I hadn't done in quite a while.

Once upon a time I listened to Beck fairly frequently, because unlike other conservative talk radio personalities, he could be funny. As a matter of fact, the promo for his show is, "More comedy, less politics." Problem is, that's no longer the case. Over the past couple years he's pretty much lost every ounce of entertainment value and is now just like every other talk radio dude.

Anyway, something hit me about 10 minutes into listening: Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine. All he was doing was whining about the Democrats. It got me to thinking about other big-time right-wing talkers like Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and O'Reilly.

Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine.

What the hell? I though liberals were supposed to be the whiny ones? Whatever happened to the good old "Fuck You and the Donkey You Rode in On" conservatives like this guy? I may not agree with everything they say, but I still respect anyone who can frighten me. When I hear these talk-radio pansies I want to put the gloves on, get them in the ring and see how fast they throw in the towel, crouch in the corner and suck their thumbs.

Don't get me wrong, there are still whiny liberals out there. But they're supposed to whine -- it's what's expected of them, and we know they're whining because they just care so damn much.

But whiny conservatives?

Sack up or STFU.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

I'm such a comment whore. Let's see what this post can garner me.

I've heard the arguments against embryonic stem cell research, and I just don't get it. Unlike many issues, where I'm able to at least see some of the other side, I can't for the life of me see the anti side here. Not a bit.

It seems so simple to me.

Couples go in for IVF. Six viable embryos are created. One gets implanted. THE REST GET THROWN OUT.

Thrown out. Disposed of. Flushed down. Washed away.

They're never going to develop into human life. Never ever ever ever.

So...

Scientists have the ability to pull a strand of cells out of the embryo (yes, the one that was going to be THROWN OUT), feed the cells and allow them to multiply. Later -- here's the crazy cool part, communicated in a way that I can understand -- those embryonic stem cells (because they are undifferentiated cells) have the ability to form ANY adult cell. Any. They can be turned into human tissue of any kind. This is big news in the fight against diseases like, oh, say cancer.

Hmm. Throw them out, or use them to potentially find cures for disease.

Tell me again why this is an issue, and why our fucking president is going to veto another bill?

"Providing aid and comfort to the enemy."

If I hear one more wacko use this catchphrase I'm going to hurl.

People having the freedom to speak their minds, whether in agreement with or disagreement with the government, does not provide aid and comfort to the enemy. Telling people that if they don't agree with the government, they should keep their mouths shut? That provides aid and comfort to the enemy, because that's what they do.

But seriously, if you must cling to that flawed belief, at least try to come up with a new catchphrase.

Whether Al Gore's full of an undetermined amount of shit or not...

Who cares?

Here's a newsflash to all the "Global warming is a myth!" people:

Pollution is bad. Bad for you, bad for me, bad for everyone, bad for everything.

The crap that gets into the air -- crap that we put up there -- hangs out for us to breathe, contribuiting to all kinds of respiratory problems. It also comes back down again when it rains or snows, polluting the earth and the water. That affects what we drink and what we eat.

So when Al Gore's PowerPoint presentation on global warming wins an Oscar, the artist in me thinks, "You've got to be kidding me! Did you not see The U.S. vs. John Lennon? The horror!" But the human being in me, the one concerned with a trivial thing I like to call "health," thinks, "If this compels some people to rethink some of their behaviors regarding waste and environmental impact, where's the bad in that?"

Seriously, where's the bad in that? If you don't believe in Al Gore's theory of global warming, fine. Step back from that higher concept for a minute and bring it down to us here on the earth today. Tell me what harm would come from us putting fewer pollutants into the air, water and earth. At the very least, it will make for a healthier life, which benefits everyone, even capitalists. And maybe, just maybe, if there is something to this whole global warming thing, it might help reduce or even reverse that.

That just doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

Fair and balanced?

Remember when Dan Rather's career as a news anchor ended in a bit of disgrace because he ran a story -- a story that had negative implications for the President -- before he thoroughly checked all the facts?

Seems Fox News does the same thing!

Obama never attended a Madrassa.

Read the CNN story here.

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.

The party of the working class? Doesn't exist.

I was reading some interesting posts on Courtney's blog regarding class -- specifically, the Conservative Party's apparent disdain for the lower and working classes in Great Brittain -- and it got me to thinking about the class-based society we have here in the U.S.

The entire paternal side of my family is working class. My dad worked at a cement factory until the day he died. My uncles are retired UAW auto workers. My grandpa worked in a machine shop. They're real blue collar, and I'm a blue-collar guy who somehow managed to infiltrate the ranks of Corporate America.

Both parties here claim to be "the party of the working man and woman," which is complete and utter bullshit on both sides for a number of reasons. My question is, is it possible to truly have a party of the working class? I don't see how. When you look at Capital Hill, how many working-class folks do you see up there? No, not the landscapers. The elected officials.

I can count them on one elbow.

The working class don't have representation because, well, they're too busy working. So they have to rely on some magnanimous higher-class saviour to take on the charge of the little people.

No wonder the working class is a bit cynical and pessimistic.

Even in the rare event that "one of us" makes it into some sort of elected office, he or she isn't really one of us anymore. The compromises and arm twisting and backroom bullshit in which American politics are so deeply entrenched will squeeze the ideology right out of the most well-intentioned.

At least in Great Brittain the Conservative Party lets it be known in no uncertain terms how they feel about the working class. Here, the Repubmocrat Demolicans (term borrowed from my friend Bob Dubac) all stand in front of microphones and cameras and talk about the working class like they really care. "I promise I'll take the fight of the working man and woman all the way to the White House!" The promises, of course, fly the most fervently as we near elections.

I'm surprised we haven't heard someone resurrect Hoover's "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage."

The working class' biggest concerns are pretty simple: Pay my mortgage and feed my family. Everything else is secondary to those two things. Pick any emotional issue -- abortion, gay rights, education, the environment or the Iraq war, to name a few -- and while they may strike a strong emotional chord on one side of the issue or the other, they're still going to fall behind the basic human needs of food and shelter for the working class.

Think long and hard about this question: Do you want a party of the working class? A party that makes all those emotional concerns secondary to allowing the working man & woman to take home as much money as possible? I daresay that many of us wouldn't list food & shelter as our #1 concerns.

I know damn well those aren't the real concerns of elected politicians. So maybe they should take a page from GB's Conservative Party and stop the pretense. Let the working class of this country know that their concerns aren't overly high on our to-do list and focus on the real issues like who should or shouldn't be able to marry whom, or what language the local WalMart is printing on its signs.

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.

EnvironMental, Part Deux

Okay, guess I gotta react, regroup and rephrase here. I think many of you who commented on my last post didn't get the full gist of what I was trying to say. One could suppose that, since a number of you didn't get the gist, the gist may not have been spelled out clearly enough. I, however, prefer to blame all of you. That said, let me boil this down.

In no way was I trying to say I don't believe we should be doing what we can to protect the earth, be it for our health today or the health of her inhabitants in the future.

The point I was trying to make was that if you want the largest number of people to care about it, put it in terms of how it will affect them, right now.

I can't speak for citizens of other countries, but here in America we are an instant-gratification society. What decisions can I make that will benefit me right now? We buy with money we don't have, and we don't save the money we do have. We have an "I'll deal with that later" mentality. Global warming? By the time it's really a threat, scientists will have figured out a way to stop it.

But today, right now, the air your kids are breathing is giving them asthma. Right now. The water they're drinking is polluting their bodies. Right now.

That's immediate. And perhaps that will motivate people in a way "the future" will not.

I'm not saying this is some magic wand that we wave and voila, no one will want to pollute anymore! And I'm not talking about whether or not people should care about what we're doing to the earth.

I'm just talking about a different means of motivating people to care about what we're doing the earth. Same flipping goal, just a different way of getting there.

That is all.

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.

EnvironMental

A recent post over at Mark's, which was related to a recent post over at Archer's, got me thinking about global warming and other issues related to the environment.

With the amount of scientists who state that global warming is a reality, I tend to believe that global warming is a reality. Yeah, I know lots of big businesses and rabid righties have found scientists who say global warming's all a bunch of left-wing bullshit, but the smoking industry also had doctors who claimed smoking isn't bad for you.

The problem, however, is that global warming is future tense. It's talked about in terms of "saving the planet for future generations." Yes, there are people who try to tie current weather patterns and systems to global warming, but it's not like we're suddenly skipping winter and sweating to death in February. Well, those of us who live in places that actually have four seasons. For the most part, we go about our lives dealing with the annoying unpredictability of the weather. Just as we have for a long, long freaking time.

So as much as it might be a reality that our polluting actions -- as individuals, as businesses and as governments -- are indeed having an adverse affect on our atmosphere, it's not tangible enough for us to really care. And yet, that's been the major focus of environmentalists -- try to get us as a society to stop polluting in order to slow global warming.

It seems to me that the much more effective tactic would be to try to get us as a society to stop polluting in order to keep us from getting cancer right the hell now. That's what they used to do, before global warming catapulted to the top of the landfill. They used to talk about pollution as it affected us today. The immediate and irrefutable impact of pollution on our health, the health of our children, the health of our parents, and the health of everyone on the planet.

When you breathe polluted air, it's going to be bad for you. When you drink polluted water, it's going to be bad for you. When you eat polluted food, it's going to be bad for you.

That's the reason for us to care. That's the reason for us to protect our air, water and land. Because it's hurting us right now.

I absolutely care about future generations. But my concept of future generation is firmly rooted in the three children I see and touch and love every day. It's with my nieces and nephews, and my cousins' kids. That future generation is alive, right now.

And I'd really like for all of us to not be breathing, drinking and eating shit.

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.

Thoughts on this election day.

I believe, to the core of my being, in the concept of freedom. Freedom to follow your dreams. Freedom to pursue happiness. Freedom to speak, freedom to worship, freedom to not worship. Freedom to love, freedome to hate, freedom to put a swimming pool in your back yard, freedom to paint your daughter's bedroom hot hot pink. Freedom to tow a camper to a family reunion in Hubbard Lake, Michigan, and then sit around the campfire drinking Bud Light out of a can. I doubt I'd get much of an argument on those.

But see, I believe in freedom for everyone, regardless of gender, age, race, physical ability, religion or sexual orientation. And way too many people in this country don't.

I'm sick of liberals who are supposedly carrying the torch of tolerance and equal rights, yet run screaming from the sight of a crucifix. True story: A woman in my office (love the new job, btw, thank you very much!) brought in a pretty sizable crucifix and had it hanging on her wall in her office. People complained, she was told to remove it. Walk by any office or cube here and you'll see oodles of self-expression on people's walls and desks, including gay pride stickers, "George Bush is an Idiot" messages, and pieces of art that feature some sort of evisceration. On hallowing, someone dressed up as a "cocktail" -- it was a blow-up costume of a penis with a tail. Right... the cross is offensive.

I'm sick of conservatives who are such pussies that they come up with the most asinine rationale for why gay folks shouldn't be able to marry (or simply be allowed to have civil unions) rather than just being honest and saying, "I don't like gays. Gays aren't equal to heterosexuals, therefore they shouldn't have the same rights." Yes, some of them do admit that, but it's easier for them because all they had to do was dust off a familiar old argument and simply substitute "gays" for "blacks" and "heterosexuals" for "whites."

I'm sick of the selective use of parts of the bible to support one's own prejudices while blatantly ignoring other parts of the bible that either refute one's own prejudices or expose one's own sins. You want to use the bible to rationalize your hatred of homosexuals? Fine. Let's own slaves, let's sacrifice, let's trade wives, let's execute someone who works on the Sabbath (is that Saturday or Sunday?). You lose every ounce of credibility when you cherrypick verses, because I can cherrypick others. You want to talk of abominations? I'll talk of faith, hope, love; the greatest of these is love. We can do this all day.

I'm sick of people who will wrap themselves around a tree to keep someone from cutting it down, and then fight for a woman's right to abort a baby because it just isn't a good time for her to be a mother.

I'm sick of rabid right-to-lifers who will stop at nothing to eliminate all abortion, regardless of circumstance.

I'm sick of every political ad ever ever ever ever.

I will be so glad when today is over.

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.

Thoughts on gay marriage.

Let them.

No matter what argument is put forth as to why two people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to marry, it all boils down to one simple fact: If you're against it, it's because you don't think "those people" should be allowed to live that way.

It has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage. If you are married, and two gay people marry, it has no affect on your marriage whatsoever.

Your life will not be affected.

And don't give me that, "I'll have to explain to my children why Tom and Tony are married blah blah blah" bullshit. Welcome to being a parent. You can just add that to explaining to your children why some people murder other people and why some people are born disabled and why some people can carry a tune and why some people can curl their tongue (I can't, you fuckers) and why some people lose their hair and why some people have dark skin and why some people get scabies.

You can still have the exact same life you have now.

Quit being a prick.

Let them.

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.

Freedom from speech?

According to an article in the Rocky Mountain News, this past June VP Dick Cheney was in Beaver Creek, Colorado (next to Vail), doing the photo op thing when Steve Howards, who was walking by with his seven-year-old son, told Cheney that his policies in Iraq were crap (I paraphrase, as I do). Ten minutes later, Howards, still walking with his boy, was placed in cuffs by a Secret Serviceman and taken to the Eagle County Jail for harassment. The Eagle County District Attorney's Office dropped all charges against Howards in July.

Howards has just filed a lawsuit against the Secret Service agent alleging that the arrest was "in retaliation for having exercised his First Amendment right of free speech, and that his arrest violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful seizure."

First of all, this just further illustrates to me what chickenshits politicians have become. They do everything they can to isolate themselves from any sort of tough questions or criticisms. I long for a politician who says, "Disagree with me. Let's talk about it." But no, their fear of looking bad causes them to only surround themselves with yes men and women, which just adds to the perception that they're all phony lying faketards. Perception = reality.

Second of all, I'm curious about the "protection against unlawful seizure." Is that just referencing them seizing him, or did they seize something that he had on him? Did he have a dime bag of schweed in his pocket? Also, I'd love to know the exact words he used, because in the article it says "...or words to that effect." Did he really say, "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible, and your mother sucks cock in hell," I wonder?

Finally, I wonder how quickly this case will be thrown out.

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.

I am an ignoramus when it comes to Islam.

(post title changed because "I am an Islamic ignoramus" insinuated that I am of the Islamic faith, and an ignoramus, and that ain't what I meant)

I don't know jack shit about the Muslim faith. I've not taken the time to study it at all. I haven't read the Koran (the English translation, let alone the Arabic text). So the only knowledge I have of it comes from what I hear and read from other people, be they news outlets, op-ed pieces or blogs (there are a lot of people out there who do think they're experts on Islam, I've noticed...).

So coming from my place of ignorance, when see all the killing and terrorist activity that's occurring in the name of Islam, it makes me fearful of that faith. Not so much fearful for myself -- I'm not so arrogant as to think my little world in Denver is going to be targeted -- but fearful for humankind.

I hear people make the distinction between Islam and Radical Islam, and I wonder, how am I supposed to know the difference? I know it after the fact -- when a Muslim murders someone in the name of God, it's easy for me to identify him as Radical Islam. But what if I'd rather not wait for the murder to occur? How can I know? Is there a special moustache wax the radical ones use? Do they carry a Radical Islam badge? No?

Shit.

Then I'm still fearful. Understand, I'm living my daily life pretty much the same as I would if there wasn't all this killing in the name of God going on. I'm going to work, playing with my kids, mowing my lawn, writing in my blog, laughing with my wife, and coveting the latest Video iPod.

But when I look at my kids, I think, I'll do anything to protect you. I'll punch, I'll stab, I'll shoot, and God knows I'll fucking offend, to protect you.

Pope Benedict had the audacity to say, "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul," and direct it toward those Islamic extremists who use Jihad to justify suicide bombings and other attacks, and those same Islamic extremists reacted... violently. Why?

Because they were offended.

Again, from my place of ignorance, I'm not getting it. Well, I get the extremists' reactions, because they obviously disagree with the Pope. They believe that violence is the only way of dealing with people who oppose their views, so they react in kind. What I'm not getting is the criticism of the Pope from people who are not Islamic extremists. What exactly did he do wrong? I'm no Catholic, and I certainly have my issues with the Catholic church, but calling for Islamic extremists to stop killing people seems to me be, well, a good idea. No, make that a great idea.

See, that's how ignorant I am. I think not murdering and not terrorizing is better than murdering and terrorizing. I know, I'm an idealist. A bleeding heart, I guess.

So I would welcome anyone who can enlighten me as to A) What the Pope said or did that was so wrong and why, B) Why I shouldn't be fearful of what Islamic extremists are doing throughout the world, and C) Why I should give a rip about offending said Islamic extremists.

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.

Boring and Predictable

Am I the only one who's feeling more and more like the republican vs. democrat thing is the equivalent of the Ford vs. Chevy thing? Every time I see Calvin pissing on a Ford or Chevy symbol on the back window of a truck (always a truck, innit?), I think, don't you have better things to do with your time than to flex your superiority complex muscle toward people who bought a different brand of truck? Obviously, the answer is no. "Ford vs. Chevy is the longest war in the history of wars, son, and I'll be goddamned if I'm gonna let people think I'm rootin' for the other side!"

I've been hopping around from blog to blog recently, and other than some rare exceptions, every political blog is solely preoccupied with pointing out the stupidity of the other party. "Stephen Colbert said this, so that shows why all liberals are traitors!" "Rush Limbaugh said this, so that shows why all conservatives are fascists!"

Get. A. Fucking. Life.

What's even worse, they're not just wasting blog space ranting about what politicians and media folk are saying and doing, they're spending their time on the "other party's" blogs, reading what the "wrong ones" are saying, and then blogging about that!

Seriously. Get. A. Fucking. Life.

Some of the sites are posing as "satire" or "comedy," and while a precious few are actually witty, most of them are nothing more than predictable pandering to "their party." Which is only funny to those in your party. Which is easy comedy, my friend, and isn't worth piss. It's like comics who swear all the time, or go to dick, pussy, fucking and shit jokes: it's cop-out bullshit comedy, and it might get you some laughs from the lowest common denominator, but if that's where you're aiming, that's all you'll ever get.

If you want to be political, more power to you. But TELL ME SOMETHING! The vast majority of my blogopals do not have political blogs, per se. But when they blog about something political, they TELL ME SOMETHING! They enlighten me in some way, whether they're telling me something about the political system or the world that I didn't know or understand, or they're just telling me about a personal belief of theirs, I feel like it wasn't time wasted.

So why can't people with actual political blogs get that? Telling me what stupid stuff the other party is doing doesn't push the needle forward one millimeter*. It's just blogsterbation**. And the really ironic thing to me is that, for the most part, the only people commenting on these blogs are either rah rah people from your own party, or "you're full of shit" people from the other party who have a blog JUST LIKE YOURS! No interesting discourse whatsoever.

Please. Seriously. Get. A. Fucking. Life.

*Metric measurement included to make my European friends feel at home.
**Blogsterbation is another Blog Sniglet*** I invented.
***Sniglets were invented by Rich Hall****.
****Rich Hall is not Rich Little.

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.