Politics
« Older Entries | Newer Entries »Mike Prysner – A True War Hero
[ Comments Off ]Posted on December 23, 2009 by admin in Politics
Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009The only heroes of war are those who have fought one and abhor it as a result.
I couldn’t possibly express my feelings on war better than Mike Prysner, Iraq War veteran, and member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. So here’s a video edited to his presentation for an IVAW panel on Dehumanization of the Enemy. In his words: “Our real enemy is not the ones living in a distant land whose names or policies we don’t understand; The real enemy is a system that wages war when it’s profitable, the CEOs who lay us off our jobs when it’s profitable, the insurance companies who deny us health care when it’s profitable, the banks who take away our homes when it’s profitable. Our enemies are not five thousand miles away…they are right here in front of us…we were told we were fighting terrorists…the real terrorist was me, and the real terrorism was this occupation”.
Lieberman & Obama Tied For Best Politician Of 2009
[ 5 Comments ]Posted on December 16, 2009 by admin in Best Of 2009, Politics
Wednesday, December 16th, 2009Who would YOU nominate for Best Politician of 2009, and why?
With the end of the year and the decade upon us, it’s time for all those “best of” lists to start assaulting us. But have you ever noticed that there’s not much in the way of “Best Politician” lists? Well, we’re going to do our bit to remedy this. For a “Best Politician of 2009″ award, we have two nominations right off the bat. Joe Lieberman and Barack Obama. First, lets talk about Joe Lieberman. He’s been getting a lot of flak recently, but frankly, I don’t understand the fuss. Joe is what any logical-minded person would consider a consummate politician. If, by “consummate politician”, you mean a smug, lying, self-serving, turncoat bastard who will do anything including raping babies to maintain a position of influence. Joe’s interpretation of “bipartisan” is that you have to be in whichever party it takes to keep you in office, regardless of where that party’s values lie. The only thing I don’t understand about Senator Lieberman is why his parents didn’t name him Richard. Not to worry about this too much though, being named Joe didn’t stop him from earning his place in Dickipedia. And Barack Obama? As I’ve said before (in the interest of disclosure): I voted for the guy. For a while I maintained a fantasy that he’s genuinely a good man, but that as soon as he was sworn in, a gang of shadow government thugs dragged him into a dark room and waterboarded him while they told him about all the ways they would torture his loving family if he didn’t dance to the whims of the secret power elite of the military industrial complex. This delusion gasped its last breath recently, when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize while increasing troop levels to escalate two massive military conflicts abroad. Any decent normal human being would graciously decline a peace prize under such circumstances; only a politician would accept it. We understand he’s planning to invade Iran in the hopes of winning another. We’ll be pondering the “Best Politician of the Decade” list for a bit, but who would you nominate?
An End To The War On Drugs?
[ Comments Off ]Posted on December 9, 2009 by admin in Politics
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009The main casualties in the War On Drugs have been women and drug users, not the people who produce and sell them. Can this finally change?
 This soldier in the war on drugs doesn’t seem to be putting up much of a fight |
I’ve often said that I did my part as a soldier in the war on drugs, but they just kept coming, and I finally had to surrender and stop doing them. Which is part of why I was a little inspired to find out that the White House – although it will probably never end its war on terror – is allegedly ending its war on drugs. Yes, this is old news, but I think it kind of got buried what with that little global economic collapse and health plan business of the last few months. This NYT piece about A. Thomas McLellan, Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, seems to be getting a little traction the last couple of days though, and I find it inspiring that the current administration seems to be taking a radical new approach to the drug problem in America. You don’t have to be a genius (or a conspiracy theorist) to figure out that there are a lot of powerful people (including US intelligence services) who want the drug trade to thrive. So it makes sense that the current administration’s strategy is no more focused on stopping the drugs at the source than previous administrations, but is instead focused on dealing with the realities of the problems that drugs create once they’re here. It’s been widely acknowledged for some time that the biggest enemies of the war on drugs were American women (especially black women) and that filling jails with drug addicts is ultimately not a solution. This Drug Policy Alliance article for instance, points out that almost 80% of the US female prison population is serving time for drug-related offenses. If you’re interested in how the war on drugs has affected our culture and you haven’t seen PBS Frontlines’ Drug Wars, you should check it out, it’s fairly balanced in its approach. Maybe even too gentle, but who wants to end up like Gary Webb, right? Read the rest of this entry »
Welcome To Obamastan
[ 1 Comment ]Posted on December 3, 2009 by admin in Politics
Thursday, December 3rd, 2009It’s a shame, but whatever mess continues to evolve in Afghanistan will probably be remembered as Obama’s.
I have to admit that I’m a little peeved with the president right now. For the record, I voted for the guy, but now he’s gone and put me in the uncomfortable position of having to watch him actually follow through on a campaign promise. As rare as it is, a politician keeping a campaign promise should be cause for a celebration of some kind. But no. Of all the hundreds of promises Barack Obama made on the campaign trail, he had to follow through on this Afghanistan thing. I don’t think I’m alone when I say that what I was hoping for when I voted for the guy was that he meant it when he implied that he’d get the US out of Iraq, and that he was kind of fudging a little when he said he’d be a man of action in Afghanistan. In fact, I know I’m not alone. Even the usually liberal-friendly Der Spiegel suggested that Obama’s Afghanistan speech sounded like “a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric“. A stance I can’t argue with personally; Obama’s feeble justification that we’re still going after that rascally al Quaeda is patently absurd. Current intelligence suggests there are only around 100 of them in the entire country. That means we’re spending $300 Million per terrorist to deal with each of them. Which sounds a bit pricey to me. And frankly, sounds like bullshit. The president only used the phrase “status quo” twice in his speech, but he could’ve left it out altogether. In my opinion, his speech clarified that he has in many ways completely adopted the Bush era status quo, and is continuing the “War On Terror”. Very convenient for any world leader, because as Monty Python member Terry Jones pointed out back in 2002, It’s hard for abstract nouns to surrender. Aside from the current domestic economic situation, there are many reasons I vehemently oppose the direction Obama is taking regarding US military presence around the world. Amongst them is the fact that I have a nephew that like thousands of other soldiers is being pulled away from his family here at home after two voluntary tours because of the US military’s continued stop loss policies. An atrocious way to treat a young person that has already risked their lives for our country. It’s a shame that this will probably be remembered as Obama’s mess, but he has choices. I personally think he’s making bad ones, but what do you think?
Racist Michelle Obama Images & Why Google Shouldn’t Delete Them
[ Comments Off ]Posted on November 25, 2009 by admin in Politics
Wednesday, November 25th, 2009Apply a little Hope & Change attitude to help googlebomb away the racist images of the classiest, sauciest First Lady since Jackie O.
I’ve been a little amused by the recent minor hoopla about why Google will or won’t delete the racist image of Michelle Obama that comes up at the top of search results. To me it’s a no-brainer; if you believe in free speech and an open web, you don’t want Google removing images like this no matter how offensive they are. I mean, for cryin’ out loud, we’ve had to look at enough photoshopped images of Hillary Clinton half-nude brandishing a whip, and although there is probably some permanent psychological damage as a result, we’re still alive. What we really want to do here is apply a little of that hope and change attitude. Ironically, one of the reasons the image appears at the top of results is because the idiots writing about it keep linking to it! So since Michelle Obama is probably the classiest, sauciest First Lady since Jackie O, lets all pitch in and do our part. You’ll notice I didn’t link to the racist image myself, and have offered up a few saucy shots of Michelle for you to link to. they all have “michelle obama” and “racist” in the file names. Link to this article, link to the images, pass the images around, use her name a lot in links to classy pictures of her, whatever. Let’s Googlebomb the racism out of the first lady’s image search results! Read the rest of this entry »