Monday, May 29, 2006

That old dutch courage

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a partner with Theo Van Gogh in making films, and she now lives under house arrest in the Netherlands, due to constant death threats. She is also a member of the Dutch parliament, and is facing a proposed stripping of her citizenship on technical grounds. We all know the real reason why there is a proposed stripping of her citizenship - she is open and vociferous in her critique of Islamofacism. This woman of courage, someone who used to be Muslim but now is atheist, is trying to reform Islam from within, and the PC multicultural "bullshiteers" in the Netherlands want to shit her up. What I find ironic is that in fact it is the Islamofacists who are seeking the destruction of all that the Netherlands stands for, and Hirsi Ali that is defending the Netherlands. Yet she is the one who faces explusion. You can read Christopher Hitchens's excellent article on the subject right here. As usual, he is his full on witty self.

Does the consolidation of the media affect the free exercise of first amendment rights?

I say it does. I wrote a paper for law school on this very issue, and I figured I would share it with you kind folks. My thesis is as follows: Freedom of the press can only be enjoyed if the press exercises their First Amendment rights. As such, the consolidation of the media into a few big corporations is the gravest threat the American public faces to freedom of information. This consolidation has a seemingly innocuous effect on the American public; for every cost of consolidated media, there is also an alleged benefit. This paper, focusing on the television media, will show how the consolidation of the media has led to the constraining of first amendment rights. On the one hand, there are literally thousands of television channels offered through new media, such as digital cable. Hence, on the surface, it seems that the consolidation of the media has a benign effect on the American public. However, instead of more news being disseminated, the consolidated media produces less objective information to the public, and more “infotainment.” Furthermore, the consolidated media is more vulnerable to boycotts of its products and government regulations. This impacts upon the media’s independence and the variety of news that is shown to the American public. In response to new technologies and the increasing homogenization of the media, the Internet has been growing by leaps and bounds. Ultimately, the rise of the Internet and news sources with original fact fathering, such as,, and, will either eclipse the “mainstream media,” or it will be eaten up by moneyed sources, and be yet another outlet for the “mainstream media” to disseminate its content to the public. --------- If you would like to see the rest, it is found right here. I hope you enjoy!

Sunday, May 28, 2006

I am unable to deal with the faux religious people in the world!

I wrote this ages ago, but feel it is as appropos today as it was then. --- Lately I have been unable to deal with the shondas of the world. I feel I have to resort to the Yiddish word for "shame" to describe the fuckers who are messing with constitution. The word "shonda" expresses my continued horror at what the hate diapers are doing in Congress and across the world. Sometimes I just wonder if I am the only sane person out there. I just don't know how to articulate my utter disgust with the state of the world right now. I feel physically sick when I think of the continued intolerance all around, and most of it seems to center around religion. You want to know my reasons as to why religion=scary? Well here you have it all. (Just a note to say that I am referring to the so-called "Big Three" of monotheistic religions.) The top ten reasons why religion (of the Big Three monotheistic sort) is utter ridiculousness 1) Why the hell would God care about us? I mean, on a cosmic level, human beings are meaningless. We are animals that, in our modern form, have been around (in our modern form) for possibly 15,000 years or so - not a long time, given time is eternal and the universe is endless in size. Plus, given the vast numbers of planets and solar systems out there - there has to be intelligent life on some other planet. What makes humans so unique? We are barely a cosmic blink in the grand scheme of things. And even assuming that we are a "substantial blink," then if God is truly so almighty, why would God care about the humans? I would imagine that such an almighty being would view us as we view ants. Would you care if ants went to war with each other? I think not. That explains how God could allow things such as the Holocaust to happen - we are meaningless in God's eyes. 2) No one knows what the bible actually says. Sorry, but what with the various translations across so many languages and throughout time, we don't even know what the exact text of the bible even is. Humans are known to be fallible, and it was humans who transcribed the bible. And yet, people live their lives according to the exact text of the bible?? Are they retarded? (well, I think the answer to that one is an obvious YES) 3) The concept of heaven and hell was mostly lifted from Dante's Divine Comedy. The bible is not very specific as to what heaven and hell mean. How is it that religious propogandists have elucidated such a clear vision of the afterlife? Well, it was a writer's vision of the afterlife that spawned the original imagery of what heaven and hell consists of! No one has ever claimed Dante was a prophet or anything of the sort. He wrote a FICTIONAL novel that was admitted to be made up from his own imagination, and not the word of God, that has been taken literally. This goes back to the "people are sheep" problem that I have with religion - they are not told to question, but literally to just accept what people have told them. 4) The literal text of the bible is not followed, anyway! I mean, the United States clearly outlaws polygamy, which is accepted and even encouraged in the bible. It's obviously illegal to sacrifice your first born to God. The bible also seems to be okay with things such as slavery and animal sacrifice - all things we no longer follow. You cannot pick and choose what text you follow. If you claim to view the bible as the be the definitive text which says God's will, and literally follow everything it says, then don't be such a god-damned hypocrite about it! 5) Secular concerns have infected the church for thousands of years. You want to know why priests cannot marry? It's because priests used to be able to marry, and then they would have kids, and the kids would inherit the parrishes. The Catholic Church was losing land, and so they enacted a new edict that priests cannot marry. The edict has nothing to do with religion and all to do with their own selfish concerns to dominate Europe. 6) This new pope claims he is against moral relativism, but he is the foremost guy who is into moral relativism! I mean, war is okay but abortion is horrible? Where does he get these arbitrary precepts? Abortion to him is equivalent to the Holocaust. THAT is moral relativism. He won't allow holy communion for politicians that are pro-choice, but one that advocates the DEATH PENALTY is perfectly fine. This is all arbitrary and Jesus would be horrified that his name is being used in this way. He selectively quotes whatever religious text he wants to justify whatever he wants to justify and claims it's in the name of religion. Um, no. 7) Santa Clause itself is made up from the Coca Cola company. Does that not say it all? I mean, the tie between religion and consumerism seems pretty obvious. 8) Oh, let's not forget that religious intolerance has brought about more devastation to the world than pretty much anything else. And yet...this is the will of god? To subjugate people and bring intolerance? Why does any one person have a lock on god more than I do? What makes them so special? Why are people so willing to let their lives be dictated by the whims of others? And why is it it always seems that men are the ones making the rules? What makes them so great? As a woman, I take great offense. 9) Here's a good one. If human beings are so perfect, and we are in the image of god, then how in the hell is sex so horrible? All it is is fulfilling our godly intentions and biological urges. If we are meant to propogate the earth, shouldn't we be having as much sex as possible? Oh, and if humans are made to be perfect and in god's image, then why has religion been used, particularly lately, to show how evil gays are? I mean, gays are just acting in the way god intended! 10) THE LIES. I would love to have access to the secret Vatican files. Oh, how I would love that! You all have to read Dan Brown's The Davinci Code. In it, it speaks of "the divine feminine," and how Jesus was really married to Mary Magdalene, and lies were spread about her by woman-hating power-hungry people. Sorry, but it makes sense. This was a rabbi at a time when everyone married. If he were not married, then he likely was gay. I find it hardest to believe that he was celibate. I actually am as sure as sure can be that he had sex in his life. AND WHAT IS SO WRONG ABOUT THAT?!?! I mean, it's okay to sodomize little boys (and let's not even get into how THAT'S been covered up through the years) but it's not okay to engage in consensual sexual relations? It all is based on flat out lies about sexuality and the actual story of what went on. We'll probably never know the truth. Anyway, so that's pretty much the condensed version of why I find religion to be frightening, silly, ludicrous, and based on intellectual laziness. People don't know what happens after death, so they enacted this whole sham to kid themselves into believing there is an after-life. They just cannot conceive of their own mortality. There are still people who claim that Galileo was lying. These people are anti-science, and need fairy tales to justify their existence. Um, NO THANK YOU. I prefer science. And I am sick of being told that Democrats are somehow "voting against the will of God." No, God assuming it exists, does not care about whether Democrats or Republicans rule in America. But the Republicans instead are arguing against what I would argue is natural law. They are anti-evolution and anti-education and are pro-stupidity. Just look at this president. He typifies the ideals of these amoral (but pretending to be moral) assholes. I just wish these people, including the new pope, would admit they are basing their politics on power grabbing, and not on religion. The world would be a better place.

The soft bigotry of low expectations!

I would consider myself a regular leftist. I voted for Kerry, though cast my ballot for Kucinich in the primaries, and I even volunteered with ACT and ACORN. I was dedicated to getting Bush out of office - and still don't like the guy, mind you. But after the Danish cartoon riots, my eyes were finally opened to the true ways of the world, and the horrible double standards applied to Israel and the West, versus the Muslim world. I saw the way that certain hard leftists would make every appology in the book for Iran and Islamic nations - often ignoring the way these anti-progressive nations treat women, gays, and religious minorities! My question to is...when did the left lose its soul? When did it stop standing for anything? If the left is supposed to stand for basic human rights and dignity, then why doesn't it take a stronger stance against the Muslim world? I say this as someone who did not believe the Iraq War was justified. But who in the left comes out strongly in support of Israel - a much needed ally in this crucial war on terror? Very few. Why has Israel become a dirty word? I often post on left wing sites, and when I do, I am branded an idiot, and uninformed sheep, a racist, or even a Mossad agent. Predictably, those who brand me as such are often the most uninformed of them all. Those who say such wildly inaccurate things often quote directly from the Protocols of Zion - so I find it quite comical that I should be branded a racist! Those who do not quote directly from the Protocols will often speak of Israel being an "apartheid state." This is a common term bandied around. I asked a friend of mine who has a website (and is a poster on this site - but shall remain nameless) what she thought the definition of the word "apartheid" meant. She said it meant "seperation of races." Firstly, Israelis and Palestinians are the same race. So that is facially offensive. Secondly, that is NOT the definition! defines it as such: An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites. Given the Arab Israelis within Israel have full rights of citizenship with Jewish Israelis, I fail to see how that is "apartheid." And as far as the Palestinians in the West Bank - given they are waging war on Israel and demand their own state - NOT inclusion - I fail to see how that is apartheid, either! The sheer level of ignorance concerning the Middle East is mind boggling. The bottom line is that Iran is the apartheid state, and leftists often ignore this key fact. Jews find it exceedingly difficult to practice their religion, they are forbidden from family reunifications, they cannot emigrate to Iran, and they cannot practice many kinds of business or have key government jobs - I CALL THAT THE ESSENCE OF APARTHEID! Yet - there is no mention of this in the media. It seems that one standard is applied to Israel and the West, and a very different (lower) standard is applied to Iran, Saudi Arabia, and most of the Muslim world. This is the VERY ESSENCE of latent racism. When you apply a different - higher - standard to nonMuslims that you never would apply to Muslims/ implies that somehow the Muslims/Arabs are not capable of reaching such a standard. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations! Such behavior, if anything, is bigotted AGAINST Arabs/Muslims. I do not give a free pass to anyone to treat women, gays, and religious minorities in a second class status. I expect more. Sadly, much of the left does not. And this moral quagmire needs to be addressed.