This is a sad country indeed when a third of the Supreme Court votes to uphold such an asanine law.
Scalia: ``The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda,'' Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.
``The court has taken sides in the culture war,'' Scalia said, adding that he has ``nothing against homosexuals.''
Sure you don't. I think sides were taken when Texas and other states decided to pass laws criminalizing sodomy. Oh, and in the case of Texas, Olkahoma, Kansas, and (big sigh now) Missouri, just homosexual sodomy is a crime. Thomas also had something weasly to say, telling the court that it was probably not a good use of law enforcement resources. Well no shit it's not. I could have sworn though that law enforcement resources wasn't the issue here.
Well, those three lost today. So I can't complain too much.
Pop Quiz Hotshot: How many civilians have been killed in Iraq sin e the start of this most recent war?
I failed this one. If you had asked me two days ago, I would have said, "I dunno," and shamefully looked at my feet.
Part of the reason I would have failed can be chalked up to my own sloth, callousness, and ignorance. Hey I had important things to do like....watch the Yankee game? Sorry doesn't cut it. But, (he wrote, offering up his weak excuses) part of my ignorance can be attributed to the shameful dearth of reporting on civilian deaths. I'd be willing to bet that more than 95% or Americans couldn't give a rough estimate in answere to the question, for the same reasons that I couldn't. This Saturday, however, The Times had a number for me, conveniently placed in the easy to spot location of paragraph 21 on page 7. (good god....)
In London today, a British-American research group said that estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq since the war began were from 5,534 to 7,207.
That's civilian deaths only. That figure doesn't include the deaths of young Iraqis who were conscripted into the army, given a rifle left over from the second world war, and told "Here, now go fight some U.S. armored divisions and aerial fighters." No, those Iraqis deserved it right? So their deaths don't count. (Please please don't think I'm being serious here). Oh, and then there's all those U.S. casualties.
Let's try to assign some value to this catastophe. We'll call it the Tragedy Index, and it will include lost lives, the damage done to people who were maimed or otherwise seriously injured, lost homes, lost farms, etc. Say one death registers 1 point on the tragedy index and a serious injury is, what, close to 1 point? A farm wiped out...a little bit less than what a serious injury is worth? Now assign a value to the damage done when the Iraqi national archive was incinerated, the museum looted, the remnants of a 6,000 year old civilization destroyed, etc. Now maybe some points for the anguish U.S. soldiers have gone through seeing comrades killed, anguish U.S. soldiers have gone through because they've had to kill other people, anguish from being seperated from their families....it all deserves some value. Oh, and make sure to assign a number to the damge done to Iraqis' collective pysche. If you're still around but your sister was killed during an air raid and you're little brother's now got one arm, you sure as hell get assigned some points.
So add that all up. Now tell me if youre number on the TI is small enough to justify everythings that has happened in the past three months. The number I get is way too fucking big. Actually, it's incomprehensibly big, quite literally. How do we measure these things and how do we determine the difference between 100 deaths, 1000, deaths, 5000 deaths...etc? To us, it's all just "one big number," not because we're indifferent (though I might use that word to describe some people) but because the human mind is only capable of processing a certain amount of information. I know what 5 deaths looks like, or 10, or maybe 100, but a little beyond that and it's all simply "a lot."
I might suggest that Bush calculate his own index, but then again math was never the strong suit of this administration.
Some Democrats asserted today that attacking Mr. Bush on the weapons question could undercut one of the president's greatest strengths going into next year's election, his success as commander in chief. Should no weapons be found, they said, Democrats could challenge Mr. Bush's credibility on issues beyond the Iraqi conflict.
One presidential candidate, Senator Bob Graham of Florida, went so far as to compare Mr. Bush and his fellow Republicans to Richard M. Nixon. After Republicans announced they would hold closed-door hearings on the weapons issue, Mr. Graham accused the administration of "another shameful and dangerous display of secrecy," and suggested it had manipulated intelligence "to sell the decision to go to war."
On Capitol Hill, Democrats who were largely silent during the war have begun to challenge Mr. Bush. Some, like Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, have suggested that administration officials may have embellished intelligence reports during the buildup to war in Iraq.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, said in an interview that "serious questions have been raised that need to be answered."
Of course, the beyond lame ass counter charge from the Republican camp is that Democrats are "politicizing the war," ignoring that war is about as political an issue as any other out there. Closed door meetings huh? Wonder what those are about? Politics and political strategy certainly won't find their way into that discussion now will it?
Note to Democrats: Take a cue from Bob Graham and rachet up the attack level. Bear in mind that when nothing turns up, the Bush crew will change it's story, pull out some documents and photos from the mid 90s or earlier and say, "See, Iraq may have once thought that they could possibly produce weapons of indeterminent function that may or may not have threatened somebody. Just like we've been saying all along!" Call them on this revised script bullshit when it happens.
Bob Graham gets with the program
Frank Rich on the Jayson Blair thing:
Our scandal would not have seemed a candidate for such theatrics. Though it did carry a whiff of race, which is always a crowd pleaser, it was missing three elements that are central to the genre — celebrities, money and sex. Most of the world had never heard of Jayson Blair. And while his journalistic sins were grave, as were the internal newsroom failings that allowed him to thrive, it was hard to imagine that the story was fascinating enough to a mass audience to sustain five weeks of cliffhanger coverage.
Much of that coverage was accurate, fair and balanced (except, predictably, from the Murdoch empire). The Times was hardly an innocent victim; we made big mistakes, and not just those wrought by Mr. Blair. His transgressions exposed festering issues throughout the newsroom. But it was the sheer volume and relentlessness of the attention given our travails that was dizzying.
[Break]
The paper thought that by running a four-page-plus, blow-by-blow account of Mr. Blair's infractions and a preliminary internal investigation, it was delivering the last word (or last 14,000 words) on the story. But the medium is indeed the message, and the encyclopedic size of our account, almost large enough to be a section titled "A Newspaper Challenged," sent the message that The Times itself thought the Blair saga was larger than, say, the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Other news organizations cannot be faulted for echoing our disproportionate treatment of the story in their own assiduous and voluminous follow-up attempts to fill in any blanks.
Jayson Blair story: scandal? Of course. Scandal of the same magnitude as say, hyped intelligence on WMD, bullshit accounting methods used to calculate Bush's budget and tax cut, or the Justice Department's round 'em up policy of middle easterners, legal and illegal, post 9-11? Hell no the Blair story is not of the same magnitude. As Sam Jackson says in Pulp Fiction, "Ain't no fucking ballpark. Look, it ain't the same ballpark, it ain't the same league, it aint even the same fucking sport." So let's just chill the fuck out over this Blair story and pay a little bit more attention to the real scandals going on. You know, the ones that erode civil liberties, threaten the foundations of the American economy, and cause a lot of people to die because SOME GUY MIGHT HAVE HAD SOME WEAPONS AT SOME TIME BUT HEY, WE CAN'T FIND ANY FUCKING PROOF OF THAT SO I GUESS WE'LL JUST FORGET ABOUT IT AND ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WERE KILLED AND GO BACK TO WATCHING ROAD RULES. You know, minor things like that.
"Attached you will find the outlines of a proposal that includes ideas from CBS News, CBS Entertainment, MTV networks and Simon & Schuster publishers," Betsy West, a CBS News senior vice president, wrote to Private Lynch's military representatives. "From the distinguished reporting of CBS News to the youthful reach of MTV, we believe this is a unique combination of projects that will do justice to Jessica's inspiring story."
CBS Entertainment executives, the proposal said, "tell us this would be the highest priority for the CBS movie division, which specializes in inspirational stories of courage." Simon & Schuster, it said, "is extremely interested in discussing the possibilities for a book based on Jessica's journey from Palestine, West Virginia, to deep inside Iraq."
MTV Networks, the letter went on, was offering a news special, a chance for Private Lynch and her friends to be the co-hosts of an hourlong music video program on MTV2, and even a special edition of its hit program "Total Request Live" in her honor. "This special would include a concert performance in Palestine, West Va., by a current star act such as Ashanti, and perhaps Ja Rule," the proposal said.
I'm real glad Lynch got out okay. But the attention around this Pentagon-hyped and staged story is absurd. CBS News should be ashamed to involve itself in this circus; the Lynch incident is not news, it's entertainment. But throwing all the blame on CBS News is unfair. All television news engages in this sort of thing to one degree or another, though there are important distinctions, but the reason that non-stories like Lynch, Laci Peterson, J-Lo and Ben, Martha Stewart, etc., increasing wind their way from entertainment into what's now labled "news" is that we, the American audience, have an appetite for sensationalism. And it's growing. In and of itself, the hype surrounding stories like the ones aforementioned might not be a bad thing. Yet taken in a larger context, the circus that surrounds these sideshows takes attention away from genuine, important news stories. For example, what's going on in Ndola, Congo, where the French government just sent in combat troops to try and restore order? If your reply is "Congo what now?" or something similar, I'm sorry, you need to be aware of this, if only that means, "yes, I understand there is a civil war going on there and a lot of people are getting killed." That would be fine. The quiz on Congolese towns, rivers, national festivals, geology, ornithology, etc., will come later....
(Also, note to neanderthal French haters-how many of you were aware of this troop deployment? Does this action, taken in conjunction with the stories of French troops deployed in two or three other combat zones in Africa, square with your ignorant slander of anyting Gallic?) There are too many important stories going on every hour of every day for news outlets to devote one minute to the intricacies of Winona Ryder's shoplifting trial, Monica Lewinsky's new show, and, yes, the "heroic rescue" of Jessica Lynch.
Bottom line. Don't watch the TV news. Ever. Pick up a newspaper or get online and read a decent publication. You'll make the nation just that much more smarter.
We're coming up on Gay Pride week. So while John Ashcroft dresses up in women's clothes and orders his staff to address him as "Mrs. Mangina," all the loonies have to come out of the closet. (get it? No? You see, the term "coming out of the closet" does not in fact refer to what....wait. You did get it then? Great.)
The airspace over Disney World has apparently been a no-fly zone for some time now. But somebody has come up with a good and completely necessary reason for lifting that ban.
[A] Christian organization that wants to send banner-towing planes over the theme park during this week's Gay Days festivities believes the no-fly zone equals no free speech.
The Virginia-based Family Policy Network seeks to preach during Gay Days "the truth that Christ can set them free from the sin of homosexuality," according to the organization's Web site.
The 13th annual Gay Days, which starts Thursday and lasts four days, is expected to draw more than 100,000 gay and lesbian tourists. While Disney doesn't sponsor Gay Days, which includes several events planned around the weekend under no single organizer, the Magic Kingdom theme park is the center of its activities.
Part of FPN's outreach program, said FPN president Joe Glover, would be planes pulling banners reading: "JESUS CHRIST: HOPE FOR HOMOSEXUALS.COM." The same banner was flown in 2001 without incident, FPN said.
What exactly does "without incident," mean? The plane wasn't shot down by an angry gay guy with a big rock and a relly strong throwing arm? I guess that insulting hundreds of people qualifies an event as going off "without incident."
Not to be outdone, the Attorney General has decided to use the influence of his office to ban a Gay Pride activity at DOJ. This is not at all an inappropriate abuse of power, so stop saying that.
The Justice Department has barred a group of employees from holding their annual gay pride event at the department's headquarters, the first time such an event has been blocked by any federal agency, gay rights leaders said today.
Justice Department officials told the group, called DOJ Pride, that it could not hold its annual event at the department because the White House had not formally recognized Gay Pride Month with a presidential proclamation, Marina Colby, a department policy analyst who is president of the group, said. The group represents several hundred gay and lesbian employees at the department.
Public Advocate, a nonprofit group that describes itself as pro-family, has continued lobbying the Justice Department and other federal agencies in recent months to abandon the gay pride events because it says the events are an inappropriate use of federal resources, said Jesse Binnall, a group spokesman.
Told of the decision to cancel this year's Justice Department event, Mr. Binnall said today, "We're absolutely thrilled that the Justice Department has made such a bold decision to stand up for American families instead of giving in to special interest groups."
Federal Resources? Let's be serious. This is not the issue at stake here, so please cut the bullshit.
On the other hand, Bully for John Ashcroft for standing up to those gays and protecting families, because THOSE TWO THINGS ARE TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY RELATED. If some gay people want to get together for an office party, the shock waves produced from the conga line that will inevitably form once the stereo starts playing Culture Club's "Do you really want to hurt me?" will certainly cause your marriage to fall apart, your kids to be placed in foster care, and your grandomther to go stark raving mad as she tries to repel naked while singing along from the roof of your house. Remember, it's not about quashing gays and their activities, it's about protecting your family. Nobody wants to see grandma naked and singing Boy George. Or do you, you anti-family barabarian?
Standing up for American Families....that quote alone gets that guy on my list of People I Need To Punch in the Throat. We'll see who will be able to keep Standing Up after our encounter.
Angry homophobes want to fly obnoxious banners
Ashcroft stands up to those homos and their quest to break apart your family
Especially this one by Tom Tomorrow. I really like the line given to the timid Democratic nominee responding to Republican attacks, "Golly- I sure don't know how these rumors get started- but I really don't spend my evenings burning American flags while memorizing passages from Das Kapital. Honest!"
I've just found a new activity to fill my lonesome suburban nights.
87 days of no weapons and counting.
[Iraqi Brigadier General Alaa] Saeed, perhaps the most senior weapons scientist to speak to a reporter since the war, says he would gladly accept a $200,000 reward U.S. officials here have quietly offered to anyone who can lead them to the poison gases, germ weapons and other illegal weapons that President Bush repeatedly insisted were secretly deployed in prewar Iraq. But Saeed said he cannot take them to what he insists no longer exists...
Saeed insists that the combined blitz of allied bombing and intense U.N. inspections in the 1990s effectively destroyed Hussein's chemical, biological and nuclear programs. U.N. sanctions, he said, stopped Baghdad from importing the raw materials, equipment and spare parts needed to secretly reconstitute the illegal programs, even after U.N. inspectors left the country in 1998...
U.N. inspectors who worked with Saeed for a decade confirmed his identity and role. They cautioned that the story he tells today is consistent with what he told the U.N. after 1995: that all chemical bulk agents and munitions, as well as many key records and reports, were destroyed by 1994...
Saeed arguably knows more than any other Iraqi about Hussein's former chemical weapons programs.
I'm dying for a rebuttal on this one here guys. Please, rebut me. Make me look like a jackass and show me that we weren't gulled into killing thousands of people so some half-wit could get re-elected. I'd consider it a favor.
Iraqi Weapons Expert Insists Search is Futile
No, not the Mailer book. This guy:
JEDDAH, 5 June 2003 — Saudi Arabia’s leading executioner Muhammad Saad Al-Beshi will behead up to seven people in a day.
“It doesn’t matter to me: Two, four, 10 — As long as I’m doing God’s will, it doesn’t matter how many people I execute,” he told Okaz newspaper in an interview.
He started at a prison in Taif, where his job was to handcuff and blindfold the prisoners before their execution. “Because of this background, I developed a desire to be an executioner,” he says.
He applied for the job and was accepted.
Man and I thought my resume sucked. But wait a second, this guy is skilled in several methods of amputation.
His first job came in 1998 in Jeddah. “The criminal was tied and blindfolded. With one stroke of the sword I severed his head. It rolled meters away.” Of course he was nervous, then, he says, as many people were watching, but now stage fright is a thing of the past.
(break)
He has executed numerous women without hesitation, he explains. “Despite the fact that I hate violence against women, when it comes to God’s will, I have to carry it out.”
Yeah man. Can't argue with God's will now can you? What's God's will in regards to amputations?
An executioner’s life, of course, is not all killing. Sometimes it can be amputation of hands and legs. “I use a special sharp knife, not a sword,” he explains. “When I cut off a hand I cut it from the joint. If it is a leg the authorities specify where it is to be taken off, so I follow that.”
Ah, of course. I'm glad this man's life "is not all killing," and that he gets to engage in other activities sometimes.....like cutting people's fucking hands off.
United States capital punishment looks almost civilized by comparison. Of course, the same type of religious zealots fuel both systems. Oh, but we do have a leader who mocks women who are condemned to death (Carla Tucker, whom Bush reportedly imitated during a private conversation, pretending to whimper, "Please don't kill me.") That should be the new slogan for Compassionate Conservatism. "Better than getting your head, feet, and hands cut off." I think that would test well with focus groups.
Kingdom's Leading Executioner Says, 'I Lead a Normal Life' (Actual Fucking Title from Arab News, an English language Saudi Arabian daily.
