Home
|
« Liberal Outrage: June 2007 | Main | Liberal Outrage: August 2007 » Liberal OutrageDems showing spine? Harry Reid wrote a letter to the Washington Post: The editorial was an inaccurate commentary on the nature of the Senate debate, the reality in Iraq and the president's stubborn adherence to failed policies. Your editorial wrongly asserted that "a large majority of senators from both parties favor a shift in the U.S. mission." While a majority of the Senate voted again last week for a plan that would keep U.S. forces in Iraq for counterterrorism and troop protection and launch a diplomatic effort to help stabilize the region, Democrats were joined by only a handful of courageous Republicans -- far from a majority of Republicans and not enough to break the Republican leadership's filibuster. And if the president truly supports changing course, as your editorial implied, he needs to do much more than tell us "it's a position I'd like to see us in" -- he must drop his irresponsible veto threats and tell Republican leaders to stop blocking votes on proposals to carry out this change. Finally, it was disingenuous to assert that Democrats are using Iraq to stir voters' passions; the American people are sufficiently disappointed on their own. Three-quarters of Americans recognize that the war is going badly, three out of five support further funding only if it includes a timetable for transitioning the mission, and nearly all expect their president to work with Congress to do something to change course. More like this please. I sent him an encouraging email. By fnord12 | July 27, 2007, 12:46 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link I've long claimed that PETA must secretly work for the meat industry. Their radical, attention getting campaigns often seem designed to widen the rift between animal rights activists and the average person - burning effigies of Colonel Sanders, handing out Unhappy Meals full of torn up and bloodied stuffed animals, writing letters to Timothy McVeigh to convert to veganism before his execution - rather than increasing awareness of the inhumane conditions farm animals are subjected to. No reasonable person would expect to do this kind of stuff and expect anyone to be in the least interested in anything they might have to say afterwards, regardless of the truth of the message. It's either this or they're just not very good strategists and also a bunch of freaks. However, at long last, some shred of sense has surfaced from other groups. But in recent years they have adopted more subtle tactics, like holding stock in major food corporations, organizing nimble political campaigns and lobbying lawmakers. "Activist pressure starts it because heat softens steel," she said. Tank goff. By min | July 25, 2007, 1:18 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link GE is going to offer a credit card where instead of the 1% cash back rebate, you earmark that money for use towards greenhouse gas reducing projects. It's called the GE Money Earth Rewards Platinum MasterCard. Others worry about more direct conflicts of interest. At the new card's Web site, myearthrewards.com, consumers can calculate their carbon footprint and read tips for reducing it, like buying compact fluorescent light bulbs and energy-efficient appliances, items that GE sells. GE is also a big player in carbon offset projects, both directly as an investor and indirectly as a maker of wind turbines and other alternative energy devices. Kevin Walsh, managing director for renewable energy at GE Energy Financial Services, said GE was supporting only projects that were certified by third parties to be effective and that would not have happened without carbon offsets. The GE joint venture will buy offsets from projects that capture methane from landfills and coal mines, adding reforestation and alternative energy projects later. While i agree with the environmentalists who are skeptical of GE's motives and methods, i also think that when companies do stuff like this, we should encourage them so that they continue to do so. If something's profitable, they will do it. That's what a corporation's all about. Making profit. Also, when a big company does something like this successfully, it can lead to others following suit. That's the whole point of targeting a company like Coca-Cola. Yeah, it's more than likely that every other soda company is doing the same awful things Coke is doing, but if you push Coke to make the change, it will influence how the smaller brands choose to operate. I've got the cash back gas card from Discover right now. It's always a good idea when you get the company to give you money. But now i'll have to seriously consider making a switch. By min | July 25, 2007, 10:25 AM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (2)| Link Bush alters rules for interrogations. Best line: Bush then goes on to offer exactly no details behind the change (i.e., is waterboarding allowed?). This is not news, people. There is nothing of substance here. This is propaganda. Stop reporting on it. By fnord12 | July 20, 2007, 2:51 PM | Liberal Outrage
& Star Wars | Link To make the point, Love grabbed a tape dispenser and snapped off two fresh pieces. He slapped them to his filing cabinet and the floor; they trapped dirt, lint, a small metal bolt. "Now when it comes time for them to get married, the marriage pulls apart so easily," he said, trying to unite the grimy strips. "Why? Because they gave the stickiness away." By min | July 19, 2007, 1:01 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (2)| Link
Several days ago, I offered some harsh words about the lack of sustained protest to these developments on the part of those who say they are deeply opposed to the current administration. The truth appears to be still worse. In looking over some of the major liberal and progressive blogs last evening and this morning, I see that several of them have not even mentioned the Senate resolution from several days ago. Are these bloggers truly so unintelligent that they fail to see the significance of this action? I don't think so. So what explains this silence? Is it simply that they refuse to criticize the Democrats on a matter of such grave significance? Is their tribal loyalty the value of greatest importance to them? Perhaps people think that nothing they do at this point can alter what seems close to inevitable. It may be that even large-scale, continuing public protest would change nothing -- but we don't know that. Since it hasn't been tried, it is impossible to predict what the effects might be. And permit me to offer a recent example, an instance where activism on the part of a large number of "ordinary" Americans did in fact change an outcome of some significance. I listened to a number of conservative talk radio shows during both recent periods when the immigration bill came up for consideration: Limbaugh, Hannity, Al Rantel here in Los Angeles, Mark Levin, and several others. On both occasions, all of the shows talked about the immigration bill all the time. They discussed what they viewed as its inevitable awful results, why it was "unAmerican," how it would destroy our country, and included the other standard rightwing talking points on this subject. I also listen to a number of liberal talk shows. Over the last few years, I have never heard anything similar on the liberal shows. Never. Not about the Military Commissions Act, not about the Roberts, Alito or Gonzales nominations, not about ending the immoral and criminal occupation of Iraq -- and not about preventing an attack on Iran. He may be on the dramatic side, and he's probably discounting the difference in power between the right and left's propaganda machines (and who is behind them) a lot more than he ought to, but i think he's more right than wrong. By fnord12 | July 17, 2007, 1:45 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link It's good that the new Pope is all about openess and acceptance of others. The document said Orthodox churches were indeed "churches" because they have apostolic succession and enjoyed "many elements of sanctification and of truth." But it said they do not recognize the primacy of the pope, a defect, or a "wound" that harmed them, it said. He's also reinstated Latin masses which certainly makes it all much more ceremonial, but much less comprehensible. Although, i don't know how many people actually are awake during mass anyway. From 1962-1965, the Roman Catholic Church held a Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) commonly held to be a big step towards building bridges between the Christian religions. Ratzinger was present at the time as a theological consultant. Why in a council full of religious heads you need a theological consultant is beyond me, but there it is. Now the Pope is saying that people have been completely misinterpreting what Vatican II was really saying. That's completely possible. Most of the speeches were in Latin, ferchrissakes. Who the hell knows what they decided. This is what happens when you don't have a summary of the bulletpoints at the end of every meeting. Everybody starts interpreting the results in their own way. This has totally peeved off....well, every Christian who isn't Catholic, basically. He's saying they're not real churches and can't really offer anyone salvation. Besides all the religious stuff they're doing "wrong," they don't recognize the power of the Pope. It's lines like that that make me wonder if he and Cheney are related. I'm sure as far as Catholic law goes, he's completely right. But they're not Catholic. So bugger off. On the other hand (as pointed out by fnord12), there's all this hoopla by the Protestants over the Pope taking a step backwards from Christian unity, but are they equally outspoken against Pat Robertson and the 700 Club which contantly talks about Catholicism not being a true Christian religion? By min | July 13, 2007, 8:10 AM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (9)| Link Carl Levin has proposed legislation that will remove some or most of the troops from Iraq by April 30th, 2008, leaving plenty of the troops still in Iraq to get shot at in a hopeless situation. By absolute standards, this is wimpy legislation, but it's the strongest we've seen so far so i guess i should be glad to see it. But look at Bush's response: "I fully understand that this is a difficult war. It's hard on the American people but I will once again explain the consequences of failure," he said. Two points (and i know none of this is new; just bear with me and let me rant):
By fnord12 | July 10, 2007, 1:40 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Cindy Sheehan is threatening to run against Nancy Pelosi. This is what we need. More challenges from the left. I think she'd have a very good chance. Update: Don't expect Daily "we support people who call themselves Democrats no matter their views or effectiveness" Kos to support Sheehan if she runs. By fnord12 | July 10, 2007, 11:57 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link These all were entirely preventable. They happen when century-old sewage pipes and mains spring leaks and erode. The ground above them collapses. It used to be that when a new national problem became impossible to ignore, the federal government galvanized resources to fix it. But there isn't even a nationwide tally of how many sinkholes there are. The Environmental Protection Agency has projected that half the water pipes in the nation will be in either poor, very poor, or "life elapsed" status within 13 years. The EPA has sprung to the rescue this way - by telling municipalities to spend more money, like it's not a national problem at all. Like Howard Dean said in 2004: that means they'll have to raise taxes. But conservatives keep telling us: Taxes are evil. You know what's more evil? Last summer, in a suburb near Dallas, a 2-year-old boy, Elian Majano, disappeared. A bloodhound traced his scent to a sinkhole in a public park caused by a broken sewage pipeline. The American Society of Civil Engineers tells us the situation hasn't been healthy for some decades; their first "Report Card for America's Infrastructure" gave wastewater pipes a "C." That was 1988. Now that George Bush's tax cuts have been added to Reagan's, their latest grade is "D-minus." You would think a great nation would be able to afford, you know, to keep children from drowning in crap. It would cost, the civil engineers tell us, about $390 billion. These are the basics, people. When your government can't handle the basics, you are a third world country. By fnord12 | July 10, 2007, 11:52 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link The band, named ChthoniC, will travel to at least 80 cities in four countries by the end of the year, supported in part by the Taiwan government, which is providing pro-U.N. literature and a slogan-painted truck. The band will visit Canada, Germany, Britain and the United States. All i have to say is "Not enough DIO". By min | July 5, 2007, 1:16 PM | Liberal Outrage & Music | Link Clearly, it's just "cleanliness" we're concerned with here. You understand. Since Katrina, the population of immigrant Hispanic laborers has increased significantly in New Orleans. As a result of that, lunch trucks run by Mexican and Central Americans have also appeared in numbers. As you might expect, this is not exactly a welcome turn of events to some. "We've been trying to handle blighted housing, FEMA trailers, abandoned housing," said Louis Congemi, whose zoning ordinance takes effect this weekend and is expected to clear the parish of taco trucks. "This is just one more thing we're trying to get under control to make sure we bring our parish back to normalcy." Congemi added: "You have to be concerned about the cleanliness of these vehicles." Ahhhh.....normalcy and cleanliness. How wonderful. We just need a quote from him about "those people" to make it complete. They were banned for being "eyesores" and "health hazards". There's no picture of the trucks in the article or of how much space they take or anything, so i can't speak to them being eyesores. However, as far as being health hazards, Louisiana state records show licenses for about 40 taco trucks in Jefferson and Orleans parishes. They are inspected annually, like all street vendors. And also "It's better than Taco Bell. I can tell you that," said Michael Gould, 53, who lined up at Fuentes' truck during a recent lunch hour. Ok, if you've got a Taco Bell or a McDonalds open in the area, you cannot seriously be making the "health hazard" claim for banning the trucks. That dog won't hunt. Anybody who has ever worked in any type of food service industry can attest to how disgusting the kitchen of any restaurant is and they're inspected regularly, too. So, if these trucks are up-to-date on their inspections and licensing, i don't see how they should be categorized as health hazards over any other restaurant. The mayor had previously made a bit of a snafu when he commented that businesses were concerned about making sure they weren't overrun by Mexican workers and had to back-track on that during his re-election campaign. So, trying to steer clear of controversy, Nagin's spokesperson had this to say: "I'm more than sure it is welcome in the city," said David Robinson-Morris, a spokesman for Mayor Ray Nagin. "It is providing a service, and it is a part of our sales tax revenue." As one lunch truck owner is quoted as saying, "I'm looking for an opportunity. That's why I left my country, and that's what led me here...That's what they call the American Dream, isn't it?". That is what they call it. However, i'm not sure if they meant that to include everyone. By min | July 3, 2007, 1:28 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (4)| Link I have no idea who this guy is. I got the link from gmac. Apparently, he was an influential proponent of gay rights. He was the founder and editor of Young Gay America magazine, received the National Role Model Award (where the hell is my award, dammit!), and was often quoted in the media. Well, no more! He got better. Now he's straight, and he wants to get the word out that you, too, can be saved from your sin. Soon, I began to understand things I'd never known could possibly be real, such as the fact that I was leading a movement of sin and corruption -- which is not to sound as though my discovery was based on dogma, because decidedly it was not. I came to the conclusions on my own. It became clear to me, as I really thought about it -- and really prayed about it -- that homosexuality prevents us from finding our true self within. We cannot see the truth when we're blinded by homosexuality. I believe that all people, intrinsically, know the truth. I believe that is why Christianity scares people so much. I think that what scares us about Christianity is that some guy calling himself "God" keeps coming around whispering in my ear and telling me shit. I don't know about you, but i consider that stalking. How come when people hear voices and say it was God, it's ok? I mean, really, if someone told me that they heard a voice speaking to them in their head, i'd tell them to get help. I'm uncertain just based on his article what it was that made him go from a gay rights activist to "if it ain't about making babies, it's just plain wrong". Every sperm is sacred, afterall. Can we go back to making Logic and Reasoning required curriculum? If crazy people want to present an argument, i'm all for it. I just wish it would at least make sense and follow a logical progression. Is that really so much to ask? Who wants to lay odds on hearing a story sometime in the future about him being arrested at a rest stop? By min | July 3, 2007, 11:38 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link « Liberal Outrage: June 2007 | Main | Liberal Outrage: August 2007 » |