I Am Pissed

As is all the rage in the news, a large portion of Americans are protesting over a "ground zero mosque (that is neither on ground zero, nor a mosque)" and ignorantly equating ALL muslims to the same extremist terrorists who attacked us on 9-11. At the same time, in Florida, some mustachioed idiot insists on banning a bunch of Korans with his fundamentalist extremist church. Across the world, Muslims in the middle east are protesting this event, burning American flags and blaming ALL Americans for the pastor's book burning idiocy.

Interesting. Interesting how both groups are ignorantly judging an entire group by the actions of the extremist few, how the protesters here in America are just as ignorant as those over in the Middle East. The tea baggers and Parks51 opponents would be shocked to read this I'm sure, learning that they're just as ignorant as the protesters in the Middle East.

You see, this entire thing is stupid. And it is pissing me off. Why are we so goddamn frightened of Islam that were going to violate our own freedoms? The people who died on 9-11, died for the freedoms that America holds dear and those freedoms include freedom of religion and freedom to do what you wish with your own property. I think rather than being insulted by a "ground zero mosque" they'd be more insulted by stripping freedom of religion from the Muslims over bigotry and fear.

Are we going to let Osama Bin Laden win?

The behavior here in the US is disgusting and abhorrent. The media and the right wing are fanning the flames of hatred for their own political and financial purposes and the teabaggers are silly enough to blindly go along with it, frothing at the mouth with the next rightwing talking point.

And then they have the gaul to freak out when they're called "bigots"

Gee, a quick google search and you see tea baggers carrying signs comparing Obama to monkeys, references to Kenya or his "Islamic birth," signs about how Islam is evil and murdered 3000 people on 9-11, calling the Parks51 project evil, claiming it supported by Hamas, and none of it is true.

This is as stupid as saying "All Christians hate gays because the Westboro Baptist Church protested at a soldier's funeral." Islam did not attack us on 9-11. We are not at war against Islam. The people who attacked us on 9-11 were Islamic, but attacked us for their own extremist religious viewpoint, not by a viewpoint shared by the majority of Islam. If Fred Phelps blew up a gay bar, would people be protesting against Christianity as a whole? If after the gay bar was destroyed, would people get pissed off if someone built a church next to the rubble?

Of course not, this is a god fearing Christian country according to these teabagger idiots, never mind the fact that this nation was founded on the idea of religious liberty for all.

Oh and in other news, do the teabaggers even know what "tea bagging" is? I'll give them a hint:

It has nothing to with tea

But if they want to be known as tea baggers, I'll keep calling them that.

J Kuhl Signing Off

So I Took a Gander at Conservapedia . . .

For anyone who doesn't know, Conservatives have claimed that Wikipedia has a well known liberal bias (Conservapedia) and in response, rather than making an objective and unbiased wiki, made Conservapedia.

This leads to the creation of the most ridiculous, and biased wiki on the net.

Just look at some of this:

On Liberals: "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing" (Conservapedia)

Because we all know that biblical standards lead to logical standards right? Heck no. Biblical standards lead to idiots like Fred Phelps spreading hate, or creationists spreading lies. Biblical standards do not lead to logic, but science and logic does. And what do they always claim goes against the bible? Science, with its liberal logic and liberal facts.

On Obama: "Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro, allegedly born in Honolulu August 4, 1961 . . ."

I chuckled at the word "allegedly." Allegedly, this entry was written by a frothing Birther tea party activist.

"As President, Obama approved offshore oil drilling including the Gulf of Mexico"

Sure, before the oil spill, the Conservatives were like "DRILL DRILL DRILL" and now that its over, they act like they never supported it and that Obama was an evil guy who hates the environment and allowed the BP spill to happen.

Whaaaat? O.o

"Obama depends completely on reading from teleprompters when he talks, even in an elementary school"

As did most other presidents, including the Most Holy Republican Messiah, Ronald Reagan.





Woops, the one below is George H. Bush, but that's alright.



And I'll throw in George Bush for giggles:



"However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an evolutionist. Barack Obama told the York Daily Record that "I believe in evolution..."."

I freaking hope so

On Evolution:"The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution."

What? Oh you mean all those transitional fossils we have? These facts must have a liberal bias.

"There seems to be a backlash against the strong-arm tactics that have been used in recent years to censor and intimidate scientists, teachers, and students who raise criticisms of Darwin.”"

As opposed to the Creationist lies that are used to try to wedge intelligent design into a biology class?

And one more thing about Evolution. On their page on Barack Obama, I guess they think he's a social darwinist since they have a little paragraph on that. And next to that paragraph, a picture of Charles Darwin, who never ever argued for social darwinism . . .

I don't want to turn this post into another Evolution vs Deluded Fantasyland Beliefs Creationism post however, so I'll move on.

I just don't get why, if Wikipedia has such a liberal bias, they make a wiki with such a conservative bias? How about making a wiki with no bias?

What a bunch of garbage anyways

J Kuhl Signing Off

Oh Boy, Mrs. Palin Does It Again

According to talking head (because that's all she is now) Sarah Palin, the off shore drilling oil spill isn't BP's fault, but the fault of, get this, environmentalists. She argues that if the environmentalists had let us drill in ANWR, we wouldn't need to drill in the Gulf and thus this disaster would have never taken place.

Its just jaw dropping how . . . I hate to say this, but how stupid this is. If environmentalists had their way, we wouldn't even be drilling in the gulf. We'd be using alternative energies now (which we have the technology) and no longer dependent on foreign oil or offshore oil. Its stupid to blame environmentalists on a disaster caused by corporate greed and lax regulations.

I really hope that the Republicans run Sarah Palin in 2012, that'll be the comedic event of the century.

Further more, not only is it a stupid argument, but also a lie. Here are several clips where Palin advocates offshore drilling, and calls it safe.

Please, someone, make her go away. She's not only an embarrassment to republicans but to Americans in general. I mean, does she even realize that she's become such a laughing stock?

Drill baby drill.

J Kuhl Signing Off

Rhinoceroses Will Save the GOP.

Dick Cheney stated on Face the Nation that he'd rather have Rush Limbaugh, the corpulant, neocon extremist talk show host, than Colin Powell in the GOP. He did all but label Powell as a RINO, Republican-In-Name-Only. At the same time, FreeRepublic members attacked Governor Crist of Florida when he announced his bid for the U.S. Senate for being a RINO.

But honestly, what the party needs is the moderate GOP elements that they are driving out, not the extremist GOP nutjobs that they are pandering to. When a member of the GOP is moderate, he is labeled "RINO," which is a title of scorn. The current republican party is a party of obstructionism, sabotage, and outright ridiculousness. This is now a party where President Obama is scorned as 'elitist' for asking for spicy mustard at a hamburger joint. This is a party that refuses to give Minnesota its constitutionally guaranteed representative by being unable to claim defeat. This is a party that organized tea parties, protesting taxes for the rich, which none of the protesters had to pay.

The party of fiscally conservative, small government, grassroots conservatism, is dead. It is in the hands of the moderates who are voiceless and rapidly fleeing the GOP for independent parties, or worse, the Democratic Party (I say worse because we are headed for a one party system, which would be unhealthy for this nation.) If the GOP wants to survive, they need to turn around and began pandering to the moderates.

A more moderate GOP, which cares about fiscal conservatism, small government, and personal responsibility has a place in this nation. A GOP that will keep the liberals in check is important. A GOP that will complain about mustard on a burger is not. We need a second party, or ideas will not be challenged and Congress will run too smoothly and no one will be around to criticize what they do. Even if they do, they'll be powerless to stop them. This nation must have at least two parties. A moderate GOP will help ensure that the budget is more conservative, that the government doesn't involve itself too far in private affairs and ensure that we maintain a defense against foreign threats.

The current GOP does none of these things. George W Bush was the biggest spender until Obama, who's spending due to an emergency. Under Bush, a surplus left by Clinton was brought to a deficit. The GOP claimed to be a small government party, but they stick their noses in the lives of gays and tell them they can't get married. They wiretap and watch everyone with suspicion and gave the executive branch powers to hold prisoners. The GOP right now is extremist and does not deliver on its promises at all. This is why the moderates are fleeing.

If instead the party listened to the moderates and shut out the idiots like Limbaugh, then perhaps they would not be in this situation. They'd have a viable platform and the ability to filibuster. But they'd rather see them turn tail and run away. Dick would rather have the corpulent Limbaugh than the intelligent Powell.

In other news, the Republicans in congress are trying to pass a bill to declare this year the Year of the Bible. I have a real problem with this. This is a nation of three hundred million people where roughly 20% are not Christian or Jewish (the Jews being included as they can relate to the Old Testament). That's around sixty million people who are not Christian. The bill is nothing more than a resolution, however it is unfair and unconstitutional. This crosses the line between separation of Church and State. It shows favoritism of one religion over another, which I believe the Founding Fathers wanted us to avoid when they stipulated "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free practice thereof." Sure this does not literally establish an official religion, but it sends the message that the Christian religion is the one preferred in Congress, so in a way it does.

This is a multicultural nation, founded by secular humanists. This is not and never was suppose to be, a Christian nation. This is suppose to be a free nation where any religion is respected and practiced (within reason, obviously if your religion includes ritual sacrifice of young virgin females, there might be a bit of a problem) with no influence or bias from the U.S. government.

If this resolution passes, I will petition congress to declare next year, Year of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's only fair. To refuse would be discriminatory against my religion.

"Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power." -Bobby Henderson, founder of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

J Kuhl Signing Off

Chairman Obama to Open Gulags in US

Recently, a nutjob US Rep from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann, stated her fears that Barack Obama was going to open 're-education' camps.

I believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums.-Bachmann The Minnesota Independant


I find this funny. John Stewart, comedian commentator from Comedy Central brought up an interesting point on his April 07 2009 show, that while the Republicans are claiming Obama's a fascist, they sat back and supported George W Bush for wiretapping, torture, invasion of Iraq, indefinite detaining, Gitmo, the No-Fly list, the strengthening of the TSA, and so on. And people who spoke out against Bush were often labeled as traitors, unamerican, unpatriotic. The Dixie Chicks in 2003, for example, were boycotted en masse for saying they were ashamed to be from Texas, just a few days after the invasion of Iraq. It's odd how the Republicans can support the expansion of executive branch powers under Bush, but turn around when Obama allegedly does the same. I agree entirely with Stewart on this point.

It seems that Republicans are desperate to scare people away from supporting Obama, only they've become crazy. Fascism? Totalitarianism? Obama's the fascist? Funny how a quick google search finds The 14 Points of Fascism, a left wing website about George Bush. But fascism was 'patriotism and love for the US' under Republican rule.

I read an article the other day, blaming Obama for polarizing the US. I call bullsh*t to this. It is not Obama, but crap like Bachmann accusing Obama of fascism, that is causing the polarization. The obstructionist, saboteur acts of today's Republican party is the cause of the polarization. Look at what they do. Everything Obama does, he does wrong in there eyes. They'll never admit when he does something right, they'll twist everything he does as being wrong for the country. And they spread their vitriol against the President amongst those who'll listen, fans of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'reilly and people who buy Ann Coulter's books. As I've said earlier, most of their criticisms have been either fearmongering, like this fascism thing they've got going, and nitpicking non-issues. This is the cause of the polarization. The partisanship of the Republican party is doing far more to divide the nation than anything Obama's done.

As I said before, Obama isn't perfect, it is fine to disagree with him, hell I don't agree with him on a few subjects. But to accuse him of Sovietesque fascism? Do you people want to be re-elected? The party of right wing crazies continues to amaze me. Critique his policies, state your opinion on how well/terrible you think he's doing. But please, enough fearmongering. Enough spreading obstructionist bullshit. Each time you do something crazy like this, you polarize the nation further, and further drive more moderate republicans into independent parties.

We are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. -President Obama

J Kuhl Signing Off

Double Standards

At the G20, Barack Obama bowed to the King of the Saudis as a sign of respect. Of course, the republicans went berserk on every pundit show and every newspaper they could get on.

I think the above picture speaks for itself in terms of Republican double standards.

"When [Obama] uses the word “respect,” in the context of a waist-bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, for example, and talks about respectful language, which is code for those who adhere to Sharia that we will submit to Sharia." -Frank Gaffney, rightwing commentator.

J Kuhl Signing Off

Obama Gives Queen An iPod, Hysteria Ensues

When Obama visited the UK a few days ago, he gave the Queen a gift, an iPod with videos and photos and speeches of both the Queen and himself. A gift that has the right wing in an uproar at this moment, claiming that an iPod is cheap, that she already has one, that Obama wasn't thinking, that Obama's a narcissist for giving her an iPod with his speeches on it.

But get this:

The Queen of England wanted a new iPod. And she's happy with it.

Once again, we see the dying Republican party flipping out over nothing, playing the partisan, simply because they can't live with the fact that Obama won the election. They're playing this game of sabotage at every turn. And it is ridiculous.

I already said it, this focus on trivial matters will kill the republican party if they don't grow up.

But I doubt they will. The GOP isn't a party for the United States of America, the GOP is a party for the GOP. They look out for number one and that is all they do. Look at Coleman from Minnesota. He can't admit that he lost the senate race for fear that yet another Democrat will take a senate seat, holding his entire state hostage for the party.

They don't give a damn about us. They don't give a damn about Americans. They care about themselves and their stupid party. They are an obstructionist group of middle aged white men, willing to act like children who aren't getting their way. It is disgraceful.

Eight or more years of Democrats if they keep this up.

J Kuhl Signing Off

Free Speech Denied at Free Republic

There is a neo-con website called Free Republic where extremist right wingers hang out to discuss issues.

Of course these people, named 'Freepers,' are right wing to the point of irrationality, which is beside the case.

A few weeks ago, I went to Free Republic and created an account and posted an opposing viewpoint in one of their discussion boards. I was civil. I did not attack or flame anyone. And a few hours later, my posting priviliges were revoked.

Now I have to ask, why is Free Republic terrified of a debate? If they were sure of the issues upon which they stand, wouldn't they be able to defeat any argument they encounter? Stifling an argument, to me, means that their positions and their arguments are weak.

Further more, I find it ironic that a group that wants to create a conservative Republican America, deny free speech, when free speech is a basic tenant of human rights, protected in the US Constitution.

Then again, these are the idiots who believe that Obama is a Muslim and that George W Bush was the greatest president since Washington.

J Kuhl Signing Off

Oh God He Uses A Teleprompter

Is this what the Republicans are becoming? The sniveling party? Lately there has been criticism of President Obama because he uses a teleprompter.

I really, really don't get this.

Why are they upset with the president for using a tool that helps him give clear and concise speeches? The hell? I truly am astounded by this one.

Lets look at their posterboy, the guy they stuck us with the last eight years:

"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009

"And they have no disregard for human life." --George W. Bush, on the brutality of Afghan fighters, Washington, D.C., July 15, 2008

"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008

"I thank the diplomatic corps, who is here as well." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 12, 2008

Bushisms

Bush did a real good job without a prompter did he?

Need I go on? So while the useless Republican party continues to snivel, perhaps they should look at their own party and ask themselves, is this criticism even legitimate?

Give me a break people. You've criticize Obama for taking of his suit jacket, for confusing a french window for a door (although that was funny), for taking an hour or two off to watch a basketball game and drink a beer, for using a teleprompter and for mispronouncing Orion.

Are you going to grow up and learn to criticize his polices ever? You know, focus on IMPORTANT THINGS like the economy or foreign relations with N. Korea, Iran and Afghanistan? Or help us reunite with the nations Bush alienated? No? You're going to just sit down and nitpick the president?

Then I see the death of the entire Republican party.

You have concerns over his plans to bail out the economy, and I can understand that. This is good, this is healthy. But nitpicking seems to be your current focus.

This will kill you.

Please, you can support the president and disagree with him. But right now, all I see is mostly whining.

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." -George W. Bush, July 27, 2001

J Kuhl Signing Off

GOP Rep Submits Bill Requiring Birth Cert. for Presidency

House Representitive Bill Posey (R-FL) is considering a bill to require that presidential candidates present their birth certificates.

Bill Posey's Bill (Talking Point Memo)

I understand his intent, getting rid of this stupid distraction, but this shouldn't even be an issue. I'm not directing flames and brimstone at Posey, but at the nutjobs who are making an issue of this.

But I do need to say this:

"Opponents of President Bush used the 2000 election results and the court decisions to question the legitimacy of President Bush to serve as President," Posey said in a statement. "Opponents of President Obama are raising the birth certificate issue as a means of questioning his eligibility to serve as president. Neither of these situations are healthy for our Republic."

In 2000, we had a legitimate issue with the ballots in Florida. We had a true electoral dispute. This current dispute about BHO's birthplace is not a legitimate issue. He was born in Honolulu in 1961, after HI became a US state in 1959. The Certificate of Live Birth shows he was born in Honolulu. There is no controversy, just crazed conspiracy nuts who keep this stupidity going.

And I guarantee that if Barack Obama was white, or his middle name was something European, like 'Joe' or 'Robert,' none if this idiocy would happen.

And what of Senator McCain? He was NOT born in the US, but on a US military base in Panama. There were only a few cries to see proof of his citizenship. In fact, Obama and Hillary Clinton both cosponsored (AOL) a bill before the campaigns began, which allowed McCain to run for President.

This whole 'Obama's a Kenyan!' bullshit is not only pathetic, but it is racist, and ignorant. It is racist because I am sure this would not come up if he was white with an anglo-saxon name. And it is ignorant because it refuses to look at evidence.

The McCain controversy died the moment the McCain Citizenship Bill was passed. The moment the certification of live birth for Obama was produced what did all the nutjobs scream in unison?

"FORGERY!"

Republicans? Please, drop the frenetic act of trying to sabotage the president at every turn and trying to appease the nutjobs in your party. You're killing yourselves each time you endorse something like this.

Oh, one last thing:

Birth Announcemences in HI, 1961

If this is a conspiracy, Mama Obama planned ahead.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." — Albert Einstein

J Kuhl Signing Off

Monkey Cartoon, Gay Rights and Chairman Steele

No correlation between the cartoon and gay rights of course, the title is simply to indicate that I'm going to say something about the two issues.

First, the cartoon.
As you are probably well aware, the cartoon on the left, sparked an enormous controversy several years ago after being published in Europe. Since Muslims believe that any depiction of Mohammed was blasphemous, they protested. The more fundamentalist of them went crazy and started a wave of violent protesting, which I find rather ironic, as that violence was what the cartoon was about. But the West rallied and claimed that they had a right to publish this cartoon as we value this little thing called Freedom of Speech.

A few weeks ago, the New York Post posted a cartoon of two police officers shooting a chimp, saying, "They'll have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill." Someone found this to be racist and started to protest against it. The cartoon however was suppose to be mocking the Congress, who the cartoonist saw as being "a team of trained monkeys." (TimesOnline). It wasn't meant to be racist at all, it was merely misinterpreted as being racist. The chimpanzee in question was actually a chimp who was shot by police after mauling its owner, also in recent news.

My question is this. If we supported publishing offensive material a few years ago, that offended the muslims blatantly, then why is there so much anger over a cartoon that was not intended to offend, but caused it by mistake? I'm not advocating hate speech, I just see a double standard. Why was it considered Free Speech when it was directed at the Muslims, but considered Hate Speech when directed at blacks? Especially in this case, where the Mohammed cartoon was definately tactless (although it made a good point) and this cartoon was misinterpreted. Either they both are hate speech, or they both have protection under the right to free speech.

Is it because we Americans as a majority are afraid of the scary Muslims but ashamed of our racist past? We're afraid of being judgmental towards black people because of our past, but not afraid of being judgmental towards muslims because the radicals in their groups advocate death to the US. This is a double standard. Blacks, muslims, jews, chinese, etc, etc, should all be regarded under the same level of tact and sensitivity as anyone else. Either we allow ourselves to produce offensive, yet poignant, cartoons, or we restrain ourselves with tact and sensitivity. We can't be showing more to one group and less to another.

****************

In other news, several republican state congressmen in states such as Utah and Colorado have made statements stating that gays are the biggest threat to the US and that homosexuality is worse than murder (ABC and Think Progress respectively). Meanwhile, Tennessee is working on a bill allowing only married couples to adopt children (UPI.) Unsurprisingly, gays can't get married, making this a subtle "anti-gay" law, and unsurprisingly led by Republicans.

I know the Bible says, in Leviticus, gays are an abomination. But the problem is, this is the Bible. Not everyone follows it. Not everyone believes in it and since this is a nation with no official religion, the Bible is not a legal authority. You can't legislate on the basis that it's in the Bible. And under the same logic, you can't legislate on the basis that some god said it was wrong.

So the question remains, on who's authority is homosexuality wrong? I for one don't see it. If two loving, same sex adults want to get some in the privacy of their own homes, who am I to judge them? Who am I to tell them to stop? It doesn't affect me, it doesn't hurt me. They're happy and I'm unaffected. As to not letting them adopt, that's asinine. Marriage is not some magical state that makes a couple suddenly become stable and loving. There are many marriages that fall apart and many single couples that are stable and loving, but unmarried for whatever reasons (perhaps because they're gay?).

If you can't find a reason why something is wrong, a reason that does NOT include religion, you can't legislate it.

**************

In other new again, (I have a third topic), a message to Michael Steele:

GROW A BACKBONE.

GOP Chairman Steele commented a few days ago that radio host Limbaugh was not the leader and the voice of the Republican Party. He said that the pundit often got ugly and was simply an entertainer. I was happy for a moment, thinking that the GOP might actually be disowning the nutjobs that make their party look like idiots (Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity).

Then he rescinded his comment.

Then he apologized to Rush (Politico).

Apparently the loudmouth Limbaugh is the voice and the leadership of the GOP. Which is sad. He's a rightwing nutjob who compared the presidency to the Superbowl, in an asinine analogy where he defended his stance hoping that Obama fails. Rush believes the whole thing is a game and that what is important is that his side "wins" no matter the cost.

But I guess Chairman Steele isn't the leader of the GOP. Limbaugh is.

This is for you Steele:



And the Republicans wonder why they're becoming irrelevant . . .

"I accept the verdict, but I deny the sentence. I have a destiny." -Richard, Chief Warlock of the Brothers of Darkness, Lord of the Thirteen Hells, Master of the Bones, Emperor of the Black, Lord of the Undead . . . and the mayor of a little town up the coast. (Looking for Group)

J Kuhl Signing Off