The Uncomfortable Truth

A lot of propagandists on the right would have you believe that talking to someone is exactly the same as giving in to them. They are smart enough to know better, but they take advantage of their listeners’ ignorance. The problem is that their lies get repeated ad nauseum throughout the internet—increasing exponentially the stupidity factor.
Have you seen the stupidity out there lately?
In case you need some background, the short version:
Seventy-some-odd years ago, when Adolph Hitler was beginning his conquest of Europe, then British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, met with Hitler and caved in to his demands--in the interests of peace. Chamberlain “gave” the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia to Hitler.
We all know how that turned out.
From this, the lesson has been learned that one never gives in to dictators.
Presently, some would have us believe that simply talking to the people who have righteous disagreements with us amounts to the same thing that Chamberlain did.
Recently Jimmy Carter was pilloried by the media because he met with Hamas, the duly-elected representatives of the Palestinian people.
“Blessed are the peacemakers . . . . . who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” And, oh yeah, “Love your enemies.”
But, I digress.
There is no single definition of terrorist. We can call Hamas a terrorist organization, because they want to see the destruction of Israel. The US could be called terrorist because we would like to see a “regime change” here and there.
So?
We can call the president of Iran a terrorist, but does that make him one? Sheesh! The guy’s got lower poll ratings than our own president—if you can believe that—does anyone in Iran even listen to the fool?
I had to give Barack Obama points for saying he would talk to our enemies. He lost those points when he backtracked on that statement in an appeasement of his own to the corporate-controlled media.
Pussy.
SOMEbody needs to talk to these clowns.
Somebody needs to sit across from the table and tell Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that his rhetoric is scaring the women and children, and would he please refrain. Tell him that if he doesn’t, we have a smart-bomb with his name on it. You can get more with a kind word and a bomb than you can with a kind word.
What’s so hard about that?
What is so wrong with that? (Other than the fact it is in complete contradiction with that whole “love your enemies” idea.)
This is talk, not appeasement.
But we need to listen, too. Iran is bordered by two nuclear powers, with a third nation in civil war on another border. You think they might have some legitimate concerns here? Just who the Hell are we to decide if another nation can have the same weapons we have already made use of?
“But they’re a terrorist nation.”
Says who? American media? The same media that just regurgitates the government line? The same media that hasn't done a decent investigative report since Watergate? The same media that bows to the wishes of its handful of stockholders--who also own stock in "war-profitable" companies?
The truth is we know very little about Iran and we will never know if we don't sit down and talk to them.
Hamas? Their beef with us is that Israel is our ally. We make it clear to them that if they mess with US interests—and that does NOT mean our oil supply—we will take out their leadership. And we will keep taking it out until they act like civilized people. Their problems with the Israelis are NOT our problem. Let the Israelis handle it.
Pakistan? I’ve said it before: We give them a month to turn over Osama. After that, we will see to his destruction. (We might call them first and tell them to evacuate.)
That is the key, however. We have to back up our words.
Two decades ago, Iranian-backed Shias were kidnapping Americans of the streets of Beirut with apparent impunity. The story is they tried it just once with a Soviet citizen. The next day, a prominent Shia leader was kidnapped by the Soviets. The leader’s genitalia was then delivered to Shia headquarters. Within an hour the Soviet was released.
The story may or may not be true, but the Soviets did not have any of their citizens held prisoner for years as we did.
Teddy Roosevelt said it best, but you can’t “talk softly” if you don’t talk at all.

Posted by Quentin Colgan at 07:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

As we all know by now, the California State Supreme Court recently “legalized” gay marriage.
This topic is a gold mine of essays. Here's five short ones.

I imagine the so-called conservative types are having a collective conniption fit. (Picture me smiling!) Seriously though, conservatives are wont to conserve the principles our country was founded upon—and that does not include straight democracy. Never forget: the US is a republic.
Since the founding fathers would abhor the concept of people voting directly on the issues, how can a good conservative circulate petitions to overturn the ruling and still adhere to his principles? I suppose if I ever make the acquaintance of a principled conservative, I could ask.

A few years ago, the faux conservatives were circulating petitions because Vermont—maybe it was Massachusetts—legalized unions between gays. The real conservatives knew Article IV, Sec 1 of The Constitution, the “Full faith and credit” clause, would trump any initiative.
Not that it will make one bit of difference, but I imagine millions of dollars will be go to make media-types rich as the intolerant impotently try to stop the inevitable. Of course, this is why the media-types are hyping this issue.

I was listening to some fellow from the Atlanta Constitution on the radio last week and he was talking about “equality.” Of course, it’s always about the equality. He and the host were mixing it up and during the discussion, the topic of health insurance came up. The topic only surfaced; how the insurance industry started the whole discussion of gay marriage was not mentioned.
Gay marriage is all about the money. Believe me, our representatives care about the rights of gays about as much as they care about the rights of the rest of us—damned little.
To get divorced, you have to get married. To get a divorce, you need a lawyer. It goes without saying that the supremes are lawyers—as well as most of California’s legislators.
Call your insurance company. Tell them you have AIDS or that you are HIV positive. Ask them what your premiums will be.
That’s right. You can’t get insurance. The insurance companies aren’t in the business of losing money. They won’t insure for diseases that carry astronomical costs.
But if your partner works for the government or certain companies, because of laws already on the books, you may be able to get health insurance. Of course, it’s expensive. But who cares? The cost is spread out; in the case of local governments, the cost is passed on to you and I. Of course, not every city or county in California covers domestic partners. Many companies do not. Making gay marriage the law will make sure that the insurance companies can profit off of more Californians. People with terminal diseases who aren’t married to someone with mandated coverage will just have to settle for being less “equal.”

I think a legitimate argument can be made for “What’s next?” By that I mean, if gay marriage is legal, is there a possibility that polygamy or interspecies marriages would come next? Interspecies marriages may be a bit of a stretch, and of course this is a “slippery slope” argument—and therefore fallacious. Yet, if the question is between “consenting adults” who is to say how many consenting adults should be in the marriage? After polygamy, then what?
A contributor to my local paper answered that question for me just this morning. Admittedly, I had not given any thought to the subject of an incestuous marriage--that's really weird--but why not? IF the adults are consenting.

Personally, I don’t give a damn. I think the government should not be involved in anybody’s personal relationships. There is no reason they can’t live with whomever they want. Why should there be?
If the so-called conservatives wanted to “protect” marriage, they’d pass laws to make divorce harder—or maybe provide counseling to anybody who even thinks about getting married in the first place!
Speaking of all those so-called “Christian Conservatives.” Why can’t they get over the fact that God made us all different? I mean, they claim to put their faith Him, then second-guess what He does! I don’t get it.

Posted by Quentin Colgan at 06:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As we all know, five years ago today, President Bush spent a boatload of taxpayer dollars to stage his “Mission Accomplished” gig on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln. At the time many people believed this war was over. I did. As cynical as I am, I believed him. Perhaps I only wanted to believe him. On the other hand, he’s got the sincere act down pretty good. (When you can fake sincerity, you can fake anything.) I realized soon enough that it was just another lie in what has turned out to be a bottomless pit of prevarication.
According to the Associated Press, Bush tried several ways to modify this whopper, including a flat-out denial that The White House had anything at all to do with the banner flown right over his head.
Finally, after five years, I saw a story today on the Drudge Report entitled “White House admits fault on 'Mission Accomplished' banner.”
Alas, the headline was misleading—as is usual for the Drudge Report. The story didn’t say the president admitted to any error that day. It seems that the president’s spin meisters have finally settled on the canard that he was referring to the aircraft carrier’s mission in the war.
Oh.
THAT’S what he meant!
Who knew?
I guess this means the war is back on. Which is good in a way.
I mean, it’s ludicrous to think we’ve lost 3,900 soldiers waging peace!
How will it look in the history books that we killed close to a million innocent people after the war had been won?
Who knows? Maybe the Iraqis, realizing the mission is not accomplished yet, will give up their silly demands that we stop killing them and get the Hell out of there. Maybe all those Godless peace mongers will give up their pleas too.
It’s also good that the president realizes what all intelligent Americans have known for some time. (I have had doubts that he ever would.) That means he is now smarter than a dittohead—somewhat like being taller than an midget, but it is an accomplishment of sorts.
Hmmm, another banner, maybe?
Seriously, though.
Last month, Bush said, "While this war is difficult, it is not endless."
I wonder if we’ll have to wait five years to find out what he meant by that?

Posted by Quentin Colgan at 06:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)