Rants
What Patton would have said…
by musashi on Sep.02, 2010, under General, Rants
Yesterday I received a chain-letter in my inbox. I’m not going to repost it here, but here’s a few links:
Link #1 (scroll down a bit)
Anyway, I get quite a lot of chain-letters like this so it goes without saying that I don’t respond to all of them. However, sometimes I feel compelled to do so, depending on the content and/or the issue being “discussed” (I use that term lightly). This particular letter struck a nerve with me; it’s full of the usual nationalistic/fascist psychobabble — it’s obvious that it was written specifically for a certain subsection of American society.
*sigh* …
Anyway, here’s my response:
Indeed, this is a disgrace. But I think that this point needs clarification. The disgrace isn’t with the Muslim Americans who wish to exercise their right to religious freedom by building a mosque or community center on privately owned property; the disgrace is that some Americans are trying to deny other Americans from exercising that right.
This e-mail claims that the group who wants to build the mosque is an extremist group. However, by any realistic measure, this couldn’t be further from the truth. The proponents of this claim say that the leader of the group has ties to a man who supports extremism and funds madrasas(sp?), but notice how they never actually name this person.
Alwaleed bin Talal. This is the man they’re talking about. Who is he? For starters, he’s a Saudi prince, but that’s not as interesting as this next fact:
He is also the part owner (2nd largest shareholder) of News Corp, which is the parent company of Fox News — the main media outlet that has been relentlessly stirring the pot on the issue of the “terror mosque”.
So, either Fox News is funding terrorism via Alwaleed bin Talal, which means that Fox News is funding the construction of this “terror mosque” while simultaneously opposing it; or Fox News isn’t funding terrorism *and* the members of the group building the mosque are actually peaceful American Muslims just trying to exercise their right to practice their religion — a right guaranteed by the Constitution — in the face of immense xenophobia and ignorance on behalf of everyone opposed to the building of the mosque.
But “what about this radical Imam?” you might be asking. Oh you mean Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf; the same guy who has been working with the U.S. State Department (since the Bush administration) to promote religious tolerance in the Arab world.
Read that again.
The Imam — the leader of the group building the “terror mosque”, worked with the U.S. State Department on at least two separate occasions in 2007 and is currently working with the State Department to promote religious tolerance amongst Muslims.
…Some “radical” he surely is.
By now a few things should be painfully obvious:
(1) The Muslim group building the mosque is not a collection of terrorists, extremists, America-haters, etc.
(2) Fox News is keeping this non-issue going because it’s good for ratings.
(3) Opponents of the mosque actually have no valid reason to oppose it, all of the “reasons” they have can be attributed to not knowing the details of the situation (mentioned previously), xenophobia (i.e., fear of people of other races/nationalities/religions), racism, politically or religiously-motivated hatred of Muslims, or just plain stupidity.
Again, I find it absolutely disgusting that any American would work to restrict the rights of another American, while claiming this to be his or her “patriotic duty”. There is no greater enemy to the United States than this fever of ultra-nationalism that gripped our nation around the throat… we truly are on the road to fascism. Let me put it this way: There is nothing “patriotic” or “American” about ignorantly laboring to limit the Constitutionally protected rights of fellow Americans just because their religion or even their politics disagree with yours.
I also think it’s worth repeating that on 9/11, it wasn’t just Christians who died when the twin towers fell. Within the walls of the WTC buildings, many people of different races, nationalities, and religions carried out their daily routines — Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Baha’is, etc., all died in the attack.
…and one more thing
The despicable acts committed at Abu Garib were atrocities, and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks so attempting to justify them by invoking 9/11 is either disingenuous or ignorant… or both. Also, two wrongs don’t make a right.
###
But maybe General Patton would have something to say about the current state of our nation…
I wonder if he would question the wisdom of fighting a virtually un-winnable war on two fronts — one of those war fronts being a product of deception, corruption, and outright lies on behalf of the Bush administration… I wonder if he’d question the integrity of the leaders who started war in Iraq and then let their corporate pals practically rape the treasury department in the form of charging the government and the taxpayers exorbitant bills for sub-par or completely nonexistent services…
I wonder if he would be proud that half a century after WWII, the citizens of his homeland have forgotten the lessons of the Weimar Republic and the Nazis, and instead are happily marching down the road to fascism themselves…
I wonder if he would be proud that our politicians have embraced fearmongering as a means of controlling the populace…
Somehow, I doubt it.
But in the end it doesn’t really matter because he’s not around to comment on current events, so any speculation about what he may or may not have said is completely pointless. Whomever wrote this e-mail, claiming to know what Patton would have said, has no way of knowing if he or she were right, so it might just be a good idea to ignore useless drivel like this rather than forward it on to others.
In closing, I’d like to issue a challenge:
If you claim to be a patriot, educate yourself about what the Constitution and other founding documents *really* say. Don’t just continue believing in a rosy interpretation of what you imagine them to mean just because it fits your biases, politics, prejudices, etc. Recognize that ALL citizens of this great nation deserve the same rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. There are no “privileged” classes based on race, gender, religion, political beliefs, or sexual orientation — under the laws of our secular government, we are all equals. And if you really, really think that you’re a patriot, read the following excerpt from William N. Grigg, and then take a hard look around you. Take a hard look at what this nation has become. Take a hard look at what YOU have become… and then do something about it.
Quote:
While the terms patriotism and nationalism can refer to the same thing — the love of one’s native country — in practice they have acquired very different meanings. Nationalism, in practice, describes not to the love of a country but rather the veneration of its central government.
As historian John J. Dwyer notes, nationalism is a degenerate impostor of patriotism. “The patriot says, `I love my country,’ works for its good, and defends it if necessary — against enemies within and without,” writes Dwyer. “He strives and prays not primarily that God will bless his country, but that his country will bless God. The nationalist, meanwhile, says, `My country is better than yours.’ `My country is the greatest there has ever been.’ `The greatest nation on God’s green earth.’ `They hate my country because it is so good.’”
Nationalism focuses on the State, rather than the community. It is unambiguously based on zero-sum assumptions about power, and nationalists define victory in terms of imposing their will on others.
Source:
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/03/patriotism-vs-nationalism.html
###
Sincerely,
Charles Hamilton
U.S. Army Iraq War Veteran (2003)
H.CON.RES.274: ‘Reaffirming “In God We Trust” as the official motto of the United States and supporting and encouraging the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions.’
by musashi on Jul.07, 2010, under General, Rants
I sent a letter to my congressman this morning regarding this resolution*; those of like mind are encouraged to do the same. Here’s what I said:
I’m writing to you because I’d like to know your stance on H.CON.RES.274; a house resolution titled:
‘Reaffirming “In God We Trust” as the official motto of the United States and supporting and encouraging the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions.’
But before we get to that, I’d like to point out that (as you are probably well aware) this resolution is highly unconstitutional. “In God We Trust” and “One Nation Under God” are remnants of McCarthyism — a dark period in our nation’s history where the lives of many innocent people were needlessly destroyed in a storm of nationalist fervor. Proponents of this resolution will argue that since these mottoes make no reference to any specific religion, they don’t exclude anyone. But this is poor logic at best. In order to believe that, you’d have to believe that everyone in the U.S. believes in a god of some sort, which is definitely not the case.
This resolution also has the effect of reaffirming the myth that the U.S. was founded upon “Christian” values/ideals and was intended by the founding fathers to be a “Christian” nation. History is full of evidence to the contrary — the “Treaty of Tripoli” for example, explicitly states that the U.S. is not ‘in any sense’ founded upon the Christian religion. However modern day revisionists are doing their best to push this myth down the collective throat of the public.
I’m sure that you’re aware of what is going on in Texas currently; Religious zealots have taken over the school board and are pushing for a curriculum that marginalizes the civil rights movement, evolution, Thomas Jefferson; attempts to whitewash the less-savory parts of American history (e.g., the near-extinction of native Americans, slavery, McCarthyism, etc.) And — this is the worst part — furthers the misguided idea known as “American Exceptionalism”. This is the idea that the U.S. is somehow special; that we are immune to the ills that plague other nations because we have been chosen by God to be an example for other nations to emulate. This idea is extremely self-serving and jingoistic. It breeds arrogance and an attitude that the U.S. is the only relevant nation in the world — we can do whatever we want, invade anyone we want, we are accountable to nobody. In effect, this idea has turned us into the world’s bully.
You don’t have to look too far to see that we’re on a dangerous path towards fascism. Today, a large portion of Americans have forgotten the difference between patriotism (e.g., dissent, honesty, civil discourse) and nationalism (e.g., blind adherence to an idealized version of our nation, demonization of unpopular speech and the people doing the speaking). These same Americans wear their ignorance as a badge of honor — they harbor contempt for people who disagree in the slightest sense, and they’re willing to do violence to further their “cause”. They have absolutely no regard for the rights of those whose beliefs conflict with their own; indeed, the spread of eliminationist rhetoric by conservative media outlets has had the effect of dehumanizing anyone who doesn’t see things their way. When politicians speak of “True Americans(tm)” as if some of us are lesser citizens, we should all be worried because we’ve heard this sort of rhetoric in the past and we know exactly what it leads to… in case this isn’t clear enough, I’m talking about Germany in the 1930′s.
I’m pleading with you as a concerned citizen and a veteran of the U.S. Army who served his country in Iraq — a veteran who knows all too well what the current climate of ignorance, fearmongering, lies, religious zealotry, and propaganda has done to his country… please, do not support this resolution, or even better, do everything within your power to kill it outright. We need not reaffirm this myth! Doing so is only adding more fuel to the fire. Those who worship at the altar of nationalistic religious fascism will only use it as a weapon against their fellow citizens.
Thank you.
Charles E. Hamilton III
I’ll post the response (I’ve e-mailed Rep. Van Hollen in the past; he usually responds) when I get it.
Thanks for reading!
*Correction; this is a resolution and not a bill. The original letter uses the term ‘bill’.
Glenn Beck doesn’t understand the Internet… (if he does, then he’s making a big deal about this simply so he can have something to yap about)
by musashi on Aug.02, 2009, under I.T., Rants
First, watch the following video:
http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002008/
Just a point of order before I get too far into this; throughout this post, I’ll use the terms “warning banner”, “warning message”, “logon banner”, “network banner” and “privacy statement” interchangeably… they all refer to just about the same thing and serve the same purpose.
Now if you are to take Beck at his word, this is scary shit right? Wrong. First of all, don’t take beck at his word [ever], he’ll give you brain herpes. Here’s the deal, that disclaimer that he’s taking such a big issue with? Yeah, it’s a pretty standard warning message actually. Take the U.S. Army’s website for example (warning, you’ll have to confirm a security certificate exception); one of the “scary issues” that Beck has with the warning on the cars.gov website is that it’s too broad (never mind the fact that it has to be… we’ll get to that in a second). If you read the security warning on the Army’s site, it too is broad and so is their terms of service. Moreover, all this bullshit about “America, do not try this at home.” is just silly fucking nonsense, meant only to scare people who do not know any better. This security message that Beck is all up in arms about is what is known as a “warning banner”. Warning banners are common on just about all corporate and government computers that are accessible from the Internet (…and have been common for a looooong time). Even some private computers, such as someone who runs a web, e-mail, ftp, etc. server from their home for personal use will have warning banners. In addition to those, it’s also common to see similar, broadly worded messages at the bottom of some e-mails (pursuant to the “e-mail” policy of some organizations). Their purpose is to cast a wide legal net so that in the event that someone abuses the system in question, legal action can be taken. The basic purpose of any warning banner should be to make the following point: If you attempt to circumvent the security measures employed by this system, succeed in doing so, and/or abuse this system in any way, legal action will be taken against you. Not to belabor the point, but here’s what the DOJ has to say about warning banners:
Network banners are electronic messages that provide notice of legal rights to users of computer networks. From a legal standpoint, banners have four primary functions. First, banners may be used to generate consent to real-time monitoring under Title III. Second, banners may be used to generate consent to the retrieval of stored files and records pursuant to ECPA. Third, in the case of government networks, banners may eliminate any Fourth Amendment “reasonable expectation of privacy” that government employees or other users might otherwise retain in their use of the government’s network under O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987). Fourth, in the case of a non-government network, banners may establish a system administrator’s “common authority” to consent to a law enforcement search pursuant to United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974).
If my name were Glenn Beck, I’d be throwing a tantrum upon reading eliminate any Fourth Amendment “reasonable expectation of privacy” … and I wouldn’t read the rest before running to the camera with a story about how the Communist-terrorist Obama administration wants to eliminate our Fourth Amendment rights (never mind the fact that the referenced DOJ website was in existence well before Obama took office)… but I digress.
Warning banners, such as the one Beck is holding up as an example of “scary shit that the Obama administration is doing” shouldn’t frighten anyone except for those who plan on doing exactly what the warning message tells them not to do. Warning banners are passive security measures; they need to be broad in order to apply to any/all possible cases of abuse. They don’t actually make the computer/network/website/etc. more secure (with the exception of causing would-be “crackers” to think twice before trying anything). Their real power comes from the fact that they can be used in court to show that the defendant had been warned in advance and knew full and well they were doing something that they shouldn’t have been doing.
In regard to this particular warning banner, I went to the cars.gov website to see what I could find out about it… it turns out, that the only way you’ll ever see the message that Beck is ranting about is if you are a car dealer participating in the CARS program. Given the potential for fraud on behalf of unscrupulous car dealers, I’d say that the strong wording of the warning banner/privacy message (whichever you choose to call it) is entirely appropriate. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens looking for information about the CARS program only consent to have their IP address tracked (which is something that all webservers do by default anyway).
This is just another example of fearmongering on behalf of a fanatic who cannot reconcile his world-view with reality.
### Update! Here’s some more information about this from Daily Kos, enjoy.
How Ironic
by musashi on Aug.01, 2009, under Rants
Along the same paradoxical lines as “saddlebacking”, comes this bit of news from Oklahoma:
These resolutions opposed Dawkins’ invitation to speak because of his “intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking,” and condemned the University of Oklahoma for engaging in “one-sided indoctrination” in service of the “unproven and unpopular” theory of evolution.
Intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking? How is this not the pot calling the kettle black? And since when is evolution “unproven and unpopular”? Maybe he’s just limiting the scope of this statement to Oklahoma… who knows. Last I checked, evolution was a scientific fact that only seems to be unpopular with people who are either uneducated or those whose minds are closed to logic and reason. On second thought; there’s an awful lot of people like that… maybe Rep. Thomsen has a point.
What I find to be so ironic about this (aside from what I’ve already said) is that the “religious” “right” is always yammering on about how they’re “protecting” America and our Constitutional values—even free speech (especially free speech). Any time someone files a complaint about, oh, I don’t know, things like a 2.6 ton granite monument to the 10 commandments being displayed in a government building; or other overtly religious symbols/displays on public (and thereby secular) property; they are always sure to decry it as an infringement on their right to free speech. But when the tables are turned, they’re always the first to try to suppress someone else’s right to free speech if it’s speech that they don’t approve of… do they not realize the hypocrisy in this? … It’s a rhetorical question, everyone already knows the answer.
So much for being “pro life”
by musashi on Jun.01, 2009, under Rants
I know I’m a day late on this one but as always I’d like to say a few things. First of all, my condolences to the family of Dr. George Tiller. He was shot on Sunday morning—in the lobby of his church, while serving as an usher. Police have arrested the suspect and have yet to release his name. The motive seems to be pretty clear though; Tiller ran an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas. His clinic has been the subject of attacks in the past; it was bombed in 1985 and Tiller himself was wounded in 1993 when a member of the anti-choice movement shot him in both arms. It is worth noting that Tiller’s clinic is one of only a few clinics in the nation that performed late-term abortions, or abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy.
This comes on the heels of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, a supporter of women’s rights, to the Supreme Court. I can’t help but wonder if all the right-wing hate talk surrounding the Sotomayor nomination that has been flooding the airwaves last week was the final straw that pushed Tiller’s assailant to commit such a brazen act. In a church lobby no less.
Sadly, this isn’t an isolated incident. As I’ve said before, Tiller was attacked at least twice in the past, but he’s just one statistic:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
http://msnbc.com/modules/clinics/
There’s a couple of pages of statistics detailing violence against abortion clinics and their employees. I think that it’s safe to say that these attacks originate from the fringes of the conservative, so-called “pro-life” movement—I don’t think that the majority of conservatives condone violence (at least not overtly) against abortion clinics or their employees, but comments like these (from twitter) sure make me wonder:
http://carnalnation.com/content/7628/3/tweets-hate-crazy-right-twitters-about-murder-dr-tiller
Ignorant cowards.
It doesn’t take much thought to see the irony here: a member of the so-called “pro-life” (read: anti-choice) movement murdering an abortionist. Make no mistake, this IS a case of religiously motivated violence… this IS religious extremism.
I want to make it clear that I’m completely opposed to late-term abortions except in rare instances where the life of the mother is at stake. Other than that, I’m pro-choice, but not because I *like* abortions or because I’m evil or immoral, or whatever else the anti-choice movement would say about me. Having a child is a huge commitment, and it’s a decision that should not be taken lightly. This is also a decision that males should just stay the fuck out of (for the most part). Our contribution to baby-making is fairly simple; we’re not the ones whose bodies go through massive, sometimes life-threatening changes in order to bring a child to term. Ironically, it’s usually the male in the relationship who can’t commit and pushes the female to get an abortion… and if she refuses? But I digress…
Legal abortions are a necessary alternative to illegal, often fatal, “back alley” abortions. I’ve brought up this point with anti-choicers, and their response is usually arrogant and condescending: “Well she shouldn’t have been having sex outside of marriage anyway” or something along that line. This seems to serve a dual purpose; it opens the door a little for some good old-fashioned proselytizing while reinforcing the idea that only “bad” people have abortions. I’ve long suspected that anti-choicers see pregnancy as both a blessing and a punishment—a blessing between married couples, and punishment for non-married couples. Many religious people whom I’ve spoken to on this subject, even view birth control methods (the pill, condoms, etc.) with the same contempt that many others reserve only for abortion. It just seems to me that the anti-choice movement is obsessed with controlling every aspect of everyone else’s sexual and reproductive decisions. And when they aren’t spewing forth religious rhetoric to justify their stance, they claim to be defending the unborn—a position that they clearly haven’t thought out too well because it begs the question, “Does every egg or sperm cell count as potential child?” I ask this question in response to the question “When does life begin?”
For any anti-choicers who have gotten this far into this post, brace yourselves because we might be in agreement on something: I believe that life begins either before conception or the moment of. I believe this, because as I write, millions and millions of cells in my body are going about their daily lives, carrying out critical, life supporting tasks, while being completely unaware that I exist… yet they are alive nonetheless. Expanding on this point, some might wonder how I could be pro-choice. I’d say that I’m pro-choice by default; I’m pro-choice because the alternatives are much worse. If a woman doesn’t want to carry a child to term then she shouldn’t have to (regardless of her reasons), and there should be a safe, legal way to handle this. Then at what point should we say that abortion is no longer an option? I think that once the fetus has measurable brainwave activity (around 25 weeks into the pregnancy) the mother should have made up her mind (in my opinion she’s had enough time by this point) and abortion should not be an option… hence, my opposition to late-term abortions. We could be here all day talking about options that do not include abortion, but they all miss the point: history has shown us that if a woman does not wish to carry a child to term, she will find a way to end the pregnancy; usually at great risk to herself. As for the religious justification for being anti-choice? Mind your own damn business. Not everyone believes as you do; the United States is a secular nation, not a nation that panders to any particular religious point of view (although sometimes I wonder)… get over it.
-
Howdy. Welcome to Nefaria.com!
Thanks for dropping by! Feel free to join the discussion by leaving comments, and stay updated by subscribing to the RSS feed. If you've come here for something specific (Autoresponse, Photography, Beer Recipes, etc.) then you'll probably find it under the "Project Index" page.
NolanChart.com- Judging The George Donnelly Case 3, September 2010
- Open Ended
- Ubuntu 10.10 beta arrives with new netbook UI 3, September 2010
