Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Response to a supporter of torture.

One of the red-necks in my union's unofficial news group actually had an answer for my forwarding a story about how the higher ups in Iraq OK'd torture.

Commander approved interrogations violating Geneva Conventions

He wrote back "Terrorists violate Geneva Conventions 9/11."

I replied "I thought we were supposed to be better than them. Are you defending torture, [name]? I thought you were ignoring me. Punk." He didn't defend himself, but he didn't like being called a punk. So here's my reply:

That's the nicest thing I could think to call you. You know what the definition of Punk is? Someone who picks on people who don't deserve it. So, if you're advocating torturing Iraqis, who had nothing to do with 9-11, then I'm defining you, not calling you names.

Here's the letter I took time out of my day to write you, because I really worry about people like you and what you are doing to the country I love:

You suggested that torturing Iraqis, many of whom have since proven to be innocent, was justified because the terrorists attacked us.

I just wanted to make sure you know that 16 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi's, you know, like the 160 friends of George Bush who he helped scuttle out of the country on 9-12, without asking any questions. Not a single terrorist was Iraqi. In fact, no Iraqi had anything to do with 9-11. And after lying about it for the entire year up to the war, the Bush administration, especially Dick Cheney, have now taken to lying that they never lied. People have read back their quotes to prove them wrong, and they just sit there and smile.

Are you supporting those lies, [snip]? Where are the WMD, [snip]? Where are the connections to Al Qaeda?

That's funny. Even the Bush liars Administration has said they were wrong. So, you and a few thousand skin head Republicans are the only ones left who believe the bullshit that has gotten over 1500 Americans killed, thousands more mutilated, and over 100,000 dead Iraqis.

Now say we only tortured people with a direct connection to 9-11, which we didn't. We tortured all kinds of people. We're making enemies faster than we can kill them. But say, for the sake of argument, that we did. What would that get us? False confessions? How does that help us?

In WWII, my Grandpa, who was UDT, was stationed next to a Japanese prison on Guam. He had friends who were guards. They were nice to the prisoners. The prisoners were so shocked that they weren't tortured, as they'd been told they would be, that it shattered their entire brainwashed view of Americans, and they coughed up all kinds of GOOD information.

If you've been keeping up with the news AT ALL, you'd know that we got no good info from those we tortured. In fact, we got crap.

Now I know red-necks like you are more than happy to throw away your Christian beliefs about how you're supposed to behave to your enemies. But I suggest that if we'd really like to stop terrorists from attacking us, we:

  • Start setting examples of how CIVILIZED people live.
  • Stop wanting vengeance and start wanting solutions.
  • Start following the Geneva conventions for the sake or our soldiers who are captured in future wars.
  • Stop listening to the Rush Limbaugh fueled bullshit that comes out of the mouths of vicious thugs who actually want a world-wide religious war.

Oh, and about that instant Karma. I hope you get to suffer that which you wish upon innocents.

Now, have you read up on how soil is created in a forest ecosystem yet [an ongoing ribbing because he won't answer to what he said about any tree that falls in a forest that we don't use goes to waste]? Punk.

Scott Supak

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Exposing Hypocrisy

We have finally reached a turning point in how far the right will be allowed to go. Plenty of libertarian Republicans are going to jump ship on this one. Democrats who think we need to move to the center should take note. Most Americans, including progressives like me, are way to the right of George Bush on this one. We are libertarians on issues of government in out private decisions. We should take this very personal tragedy, now that the Religious Extremeists on the Right have politicized it (thanks in no small part to Terry Schiavo's parents), and we should beat them over the head with it every day.

And when Terri Schiavo finally dies, we should remind people, every day, how plenty of other things Bush and his Orwellian friends have done are just like what they're doing with Schiavo.

Nothing has exposed the extreme right of the Republican party like the Terri Schiavo case. They have butted in where they are not legally allowed to be. They have tried to force their religious views on someone they didn't give a damn about force feeding when she really needed it, 15 years ago, when her eating disorder killed her. Ironically, now it seems Terri's parents got into this fight when they weren't allowed any of the money awarded to take care of her. These hypocrites have smeared and slandered Micheal Schiavo every chance they could, blaming him for her eating disorder, accusing him of abusing her, saying he just wanted the money, and other lies, in order to win an argument they couldn't win by telling the truth.

This case has exposed a typical right wing tactic of lying when the facts don't match their argument. George Bush lied about his tax cuts, WMD, terrorism, and way too many other things, while wimpy Democrats hemmed and hawed. Now we have an actual court case full of documents which directly contradicts the bullshit right on the facts of the case. We can use their lies about the Schiavo case to illustrate how they lie any time they find actual fact inconvenient, like in today's story that the Bushies covered up evidence in order to make the EPA ruling on mercury more business friendly (as if it were good for businesses to poison the fetuses that Bush wants to protect in his culture of life).

Why are people on my side of this argument trying to be so nice? Would Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly be nice to us if the tables were turned? Of course not. If we want working class social libertarians to vote for us (and I maintain that this will get us a substantial amount of Republican converts in the west and south) we have to be tough. If people hear Rush Limbaugh and vote Republican, then we need to speak in a language they understand. We need to be as harsh, nasty, vile, and vitriolic as Rush is. But we will have the added advantage of not having to lie.

George Bush, Buttinsky-in-Chief, did something that he wouldn't do right before 9-11. When the anti-terrorism people in his administration were running around with their hair on fire, sending memos warning that Al Qaeda was about to do something big, he stayed on vacation. Actually taking part in a high level meeting on terrorism wasn't important enough for Bush then, but signing an intrusive piece of legislation that ignores years of adjucation, specialists, and decisions of fair minded people who have looked at every aspect of this case, as they are supposed to by law, GW Bush flew back from his Texas vacation to sign yet another piece of big brother legislation. Ironically, the law he signed was the exact opposite of one he signed as Governor of Texas in 1999. His hypocisy has never been so obvious.

Instead of trying bowing down to the enourmous swing state power of the religious right, Democrats should be creating new swing states (Arizona, Colorado, Montana) by standing up to this sanctimonious fascism.

Now, as the "Reverend" James Dobson (focus on your own damn family) calls for legislation that would force EVRYONE to be kept alive, even if you have a living will demanding the opposite, the right is finally going pull some Republicans too far. We need to be there when they snap back to their senses. We can continue the Clintonian effort of smaller, smarter government, something the Neo-Con Bush Republicans have lost in their frenzy of pandering to an ever smaller block of fundamentalist voters.

This isn't about God, or a culture of life (from Bush, who executed how many retarded, born-again, under-age, and possibly innocent people in Texas?). It's about fascist control of our everyday lives, for the sake of HMO and drug company profits. The James Dobsons of this debate are just unfortunate cases of extremeists using the electoral college politics of swing states to force their minority views on the rest of us, who want no part of it. The George Bush's of this debate are up to something much more sinister.

Friday, March 18, 2005

Questions for Christians

When Terry Schiavo was starving herself into this persistant vegatative state, none of these pro-life protesters gave a damn. I wonder if they see the irony of force-feeding her now? Since the religious right seems to be caught in a deep pile of ironic shit on this, and many other issues, my wife Robin wanted me to start a blog where she could ask Christians to explain themselves. Seems to us that they have taken "ethical" postitions that create or prolong suffering.

Hence the name of our new blog: Questions for Christians. Comments are open to anyone, at least until we start getting those adorable Christian death threats...

Thursday, March 17, 2005

A look at some Wolfowitz comments on Iraq

Here's the deputy defense secretary, who didn't know how many troops had died in his war, on the non-existent weapons of mass destruction:
They've worked at hiding things very, very deliberately. There's no question in my mind that there was something there. There are just too many pieces of evidence, and we'll get to the bottom of it.--May 31, 2003.
Here's the neo-con junta member who uses spit as hair gel on reasons for his war:
The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but ... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. ... The third one by itself ... is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.--Pentagon transcript of interview with Vanity Fair magazine, May 2003
Here's the PNAC worm who signed on to a report that the US needed a new Pearl Harbor to get us into the middle east, on the occupation of Iraq:
The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish.--March 4, 2003.
And here's the tool of Robber Barons who's going to be in charge of the world bank on how you pay to fix what he broke:
There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.--March 27, 2003.
Happy Days are here again. Buy Halliburton stock.

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

The Nation | Column | The Bankruptcy Bill: A Tutorial in Greed | Robert Scheer

"'I can't listen to Christian lawyers,' said the senator, 'because I would be imposing the Bible on a diverse population.'"
This essay on the indentured servitude to credit card companies bill may damn well be the best thing Rober Scheer has ever written. He's really been on a roll lately. But this quote from Senator Gassly had me LMFO.

I call Rethuglicans hypocrites all the time, but to hear a rabid Christian right wing freak, who consistantly votes anti-choice and anti-civil rights on biblical grounds, say he doesn't want to impose the Bible on a diverse population is the biggest pile of steaming pig shit since, well, since Grassly and his robber baron cronies allowed factory farms to keep piling up.

No More Mr. Nice Blog has a great list of Grassly actions and quotes that are directly contradictory to his conveniently new-found fair mindedness.

One last note: Credit Card Company Profits have risen 163% over the past five years (Harvard University). Gee, Chuck, good thing you bailed these guys out. The whole financial system might have collapsed at that rate...

Sunday, March 13, 2005

Supak Politics at the Daily Kos

I finally started a KOS diary where I will focus on pure politics, i.e. what it will take for the left to win elections. I've been thinking about the subject of my first KOS post since that angry, dark night late last year when I realized the dark forces of Ohio politics had won a very dirty fight in which our side kept one hand tied behind our back. I hope you enjoy and comment.

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Anti-war posters

We have a great collection of anti-war and peace posters including peace rally posters and peace sign posters. They are part of our oddball posters collection, which include new posters and vintage posters in all kinds of categories, like travel posters, band and musician posters, movie posters, Art Deco and Art Nouveau posters, and poster frames or poster mounting for all of them. Of course, the anti-war and peace posters will appeal to those looking for anti-Bush posters, as will many of the musician posters, like John Lennon posters.

Monday, March 07, 2005

SAVE US NOW environmental mental environmental blog

My wife Robin is getting the hang of blogging. When she really gets pissed, she posts something. And nothing pisses her off like the religious right trying to tell people what's best for them and their loved ones. Like me, she gets irate at people who say they are pro-life, who want to perpetuate the pain and agony of those suffering. From arresting cancer patients for smoking pot, to challenging Oregon's assisted suicide law (for people dying horrible painful deaths to go peacefully and still have insurance companies pay out), to Jeb Bush force feeding Terry Schiavo.
She had a mental disease with physical consequences, and that’s what killed her. The time to treat her malnutrition, to force-feed her, was before she destroyed herself. Anorexia, like alcoholism, is insidious; it doesn’t happen overnight. This illness develops when a person, usually female, feels they have no control over their life. That, combined with low self-esteem and the positive reinforcement that comes with being thin and looking “good,” can be fatal. The guilt the family feels must be overwhelming, but protracting her death is a selfish salve for not having been able to help her when she really needed it.

Saturday, March 05, 2005

Many people suggest we turn the other cheek to right wing bullshit from the likes of Limbaugh. You know what that suggestion, and the people who have suggested it has gotten us? Republicans controlling the whole government. If it works for them, I suggest we start calling chicken shit liars exactly what they are every chance we get.

I suggest we tie a slip-knot around the balls of any right wing pundit upon whom we can find any balls, drag them behind a hummer limo at 75 MPH (if we can afford the gas) for a couple of miles, and then cut them loose right in front of the White House gates. Maybe that will stop the "liberals are wimps" BS that spews from their mouths.

Probably not.

My apologies to Hunter S. Thompson.

Friday, March 04, 2005

How I Treat Ditto Heads

Here's a recent reply to a misogynist, Harley-riding, vengeful God fearing, anti-union voting union brother of mine who's mind has been polluted with Lies He Likes to Believe.
You've been listening to Rush again. First of all, there is a lot less forest in the WORLD than there was 200 years ago. As for the US, if you'd bother to actually study the situation, instead of believing Limpass, you'd know that what we've done for the last 200 years is cut down hardwoods and plant super pines. These super pines are hybrid, and now genetically engineered, freaks that don't compare to the hardwoods for habitat, oxygen creation, undergrowth control, etc. These monstrosities are the creation of Timber companies and to suggest that it's better to have more of them than we did Oaks is just dumb.

The state tree of Arkansas, one of the Timber Industries favorite places, is the Pine tree. If you left Arkansas alone for a hundred years, it would revert to its natural state, an Oak-Hickory forest without a pine tree anywhere.

Oil was fine when there were only a billion people on the planet. But when you have fires burning in cars without pollution control all over the world, a billion people in China alone, then you've got a problem. Now you can say God gave us the oil to burn, we should burn it all you want, but that doesn't make it a smart thing to say.

You go on listening to Rush. It's easier than thinking.
But what really gets me going is their bullshit attempts at saying God put us on this planet to use up the resources.
John Stuart Mill was a philosopher who had a thing called the harm principle. If you're not hurting me, I have no right to tell you what you can and can't do. The foundation of libertarianism. When you start drilling everywhere you can and dumping the waste water down the streams, when you keep shipping oil around in single hulled tankers named the Condoleeza, when you change laws (passed by Republicans) that keep the air and water clean, then you are fucking with me and mine and I will seriously fuck back.

Now, when you start saying there's some plan, like you don't have free will, that everything that happens is determined by some God, then I think you're seriously whacked. Without free will, what's the point? If you're not free to destroy the environment, then you're saying God has decided to determine that we will destroy Her creation and that we are not then responsible for what we do.

If you do have choice, and your God is one of love, not war, then how can you and GW Bush have the same God?
Sometimes I wonder why I waste my time with these idiots. It's an awful lot of work to change the mind of one or two voters who may read this and think, gee, good point. Maybe these right wing zealots who get 90% of the drug company contributions, and almost 100% of the plundering and polluting industries contributions, aren't really looking out for the little guy.

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Las Vegas SUN: Nevada Democrats decry Gibbons' remarks:

Seems Nevada Nazi Party Chairman and republican Congressman Jim Gibbon's wants to kill liberals.
"'too damn bad we didn't buy them a ticket' to become human shields in Iraq."
Apparently, he had a little tirade about tree-hugging (as opposed to tree-cutting) liberals (like all liberals are hippies). That's fine with me. Democrats are making a fuss, as they should, but I really love it when right wingers go off like this. Shows what hatefull fucks they are. And the more they do it, the more hateful I become toward them. Howard Dean is right. Republicans are evil. Just look at this guy, suggesting that anyone who disagrees with his Bush idolization and rotten little corporate empire expansion in Iraq should have been shipped out and blown up. Will Bush say this guy went to far? Of course not? Did they fire General Boykin? They need the hate. They love the hate. They get ignorant red-necks to vote for them because of the hate.

So, let's do some hating. Let's show Republicans what idiotic wimps they are when it comes to creative insults.

Jim Gibbons should be taken to Iraq and strapped to the undercarriage of an unarmored Humvee being driven by National Guard soldiers through IED alleys. Anyone who agrees with Jim Gibbons should be strapped down as Human Humvee Armor. Let's see how much they support the troops. Anyone who voted for Jim Gibbons can shell out the cash these National Guard troops need to keep their families out of bankruptcy, and to pay their, and their families', medical bills.