Wooooow.
FEMA staged a fake press conference.
Really!
Apparently, they called a press conference 15 minutes before it was going to happen, so no reporters were able to show (shocker!) and then they had FEMA employees ask questions to FEMA's deputy administrator who just said what a lovely job they were doing in CA, of course without saying "by the way, these aren't reporters".
Here's my favorite part:
I hope readers understand we're working very hard to establish
credibility and integrity, and I would hope this does not undermine it.
Excuse me but, HAHAHAHA. Yea, don't worry, I'm sure this will not undermine your credibility, don't worry. I'm sure no one will mind that you totally lied to them (again).
I mean, Bush decieves the public every day but he does it in front of real reporters.
aka. why it is important to have ethics as leader of one of the most prominent countries in the world.
Mugabe accused Bush of "rank hypocrisy" in response Bush calling Mugabe a violator of human rights.
And everything that this egotistical dictator says about Bush rings true, especially without question the comments about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. In another article, Mugabe is quoted as saying "[Bush] has much to atone for and very little to lecture us on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
So first of all... Mugabe, a "democratically" elected leader of a nation has been accused of "assault on his people," and his response is not "no, we do not torture people" but rather "George Bush does it too and while that does not make it right, it at least makes it wrong for him to accuse me of such things."
Next... uh, yea, actually good point. Wow. Damnit, I didn't want to say that Mugabe said something right, but darn I think I just did.
As far as I know, the Bush Camp has not responded. What would they possibly say?
This is why (if it weren't already obvious) that it's just not ok for us to torture people and avoid international conventions just because we can get away with it. A dictator in Africa who has been accused of starving his population through mismangement just proclaimed that the US has no moral standing, and he's kinda right. That makes the US ineffective as a world leader in trying to solve conflict and human rights violations. The United States of America, self proclaimed bringer of freedom and democracy and we have no moral standing. Great.
I think on some levels I really am somewhat scared and disappointed that in eight short years we have lost so much credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world and for good reason.
A soldier died in Iraq who cited one of his reasons for signing up as Christopher Hitchen's pro-war writings a few years ago.
Hitchens then contacts the family and learns about their son.
An amazing read.
Orwell thought that the Spanish Civil War was a just war, but he also came to understand that it was a dirty war, where a decent cause was hijacked by goons and thugs, and where betrayal and squalor negated the courage and sacrifice of those who fought on principle. As one who used to advocate strongly for the liberation of Iraq (perhaps more strongly than I knew), I have grown coarsened and sickened by the degeneration of the struggle: by the sordid news of corruption and brutality (Mark Daily told his father how dismayed he was by the failure of leadership at Abu Ghraib) and by the paltry politicians in Washington and Baghdad who squabble for precedence while lifeblood is spent and spilled by young people whose boots they are not fit to clean. It upsets and angers me more than I can safely say, when I reread Mark's letters and poems and see that—as of course he would—he was magically able to find the noble element in all this, and take more comfort and inspiration from a few plain sentences uttered by a Kurdish man than from all the vapid speeches ever given.
The House will vote on a bill calling the the massacre of Armenians "genocide".
This is one of the times when it seems like our laws and our words don't have meaning.
The only argument I have heard publicly is that it will upset Turkey, therefore "endangering our national security interests."
Other than from Turkey (duh), I have not heard anyone in Congress or the White House say that we should not call it genocide because it wasn't genocide. The argument against the bill has nothing to do with the bill itself, but rather angering Turkey over something they not only refuse to admit, but actively deny.
So because Turkey wants to deny genocide, we should deny genocide, too. But Ahmadinejad is a bad person because he denys the Holocaust.
Best part of the WaPo article:
As a presidential candidate in 2000, George W. Bush pledged to ensure that "our nation properly recognizes" what he called "a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension."
So the President has called it "genocidal" but refuses to call it genocide and urges the House not to call it genocide either.
All good reasons to vote against this bill.
(It also says that GHWB and Pres Clinton avoided using the word, as well, but that Barack and Hillary support the legislation. I guess she's running off speakin' her own mind again!)
Interesting Slate piece titled "Getting Comfy with Genocide: is the word losing its power to shock us into action?" talking about Darfur.
If you haven't heard it before, I think the case for calling the Aremenian situation "genocide" lies in a quote that Hilter said before embarking on the Final Solution.
After all, who remembers the Armenians?"
Please call your Congressman if you can. It takes two minutes.
A quick note that was pointed out by someone in a class last year but I think is a mincing of words occuring quite often and liberally.The word 'fundamentalism' refers to the philosophy of following a religion (or other ideology) to the letter, based directly on The Book (whatever that Book is), strictly adhering to whatever it tells you because you believe it to be the word of the Divine (where the Divine is God, Allah or Ayn Rand)... coming from fundamentalsThe word 'radicalism' or 'extremeism' refers to ideologies that go beyond the general beliefs held and professed by everyone else in a given simliar group, and/or seizing on particular aspects while ignoring the whole of the philosophy (evidence, the Ayn Rand Institute) ... going extreme or radical(yes, these are my off-the-top-of-my-head definitions and by no means constitute an exact definition but are required for the rest of the post)Islamic fundamentalist are those who adhere stictly to the Koran, Islamic extremist / radicals believe in jihad.Once you break the words down and pay attention to what they mean, while bin Laden may be both fundamentalist and extremist, it becomes pretty insulting to someone who peacefully abstains from alcohol and pre-marital sex and keeps Halal to wage war on the 'fundamentalists'.
First, in following with "Mitt Romney is an Idiot" which perhaps should be rephrased "Mitt Romney: Not so good with that series of tubes"
Over on Slate The Has Been took up Mitt's challenge to his followers that users could create an ad from clips on the website and text and stuff saying what Romney's "really about" and the winning ad as determined by viewers voting and page view (mistake) would be broadcast in wherever however many times. The Has Been made a fabulously funny video that stole the election and now Romney's looking dumb and not counting votes. Awesome! Way!
So Mitt Romney : 0 for 2 in understanding the power and purposes of the internet. I give the guy cheers for trying to let his fans create a video (cuz, hey, it happens on youtube anyway, may as well have them do it for you and give you the rights) but you pay people to be on your campaign for a reason. Let them pick the ad. Really.
If youre looking for more Romney related funny: Slate's Five Brothers
Two:
According to WaPo: "Bill Clinton Endorses Wife's Torture Position"
First of all, that sounds awkward. We couldn't have written that to sound a) not like she likes torture and b) not like its a sex position?
Apparently:
Tim Russert asked candidates if they supported such an exemption to a ban on torture. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she opposed an exemption. Russert then pointed out her husband had supported one. "I'll talk to him later," she said.
Oh good, right, I forgot, Hilary must run her ideas past her husband to get approval and only if he agrees does she get to speak her mind. Good call. Also, wives and husbands must agree on all policy matters. Also, we asked all the wives of all the other candidates the same question an dthen asked the candidates if they agree with their spouses. Oh, wait. No, we didn't do that.
Lastly, telecommunications in South Africa, while they exist, are slower than this blogger is used to, and in combination with other distractions of being abroad, I have been nurishing a tendancy to read something, get frustrated... and then not blog it.
I apoligize. Expect a mini revival. Really should pick up in November though.
Also, a re-categorization of blog topics, too. It'll be fun all around.
