Friday, June 06, 2003
I received this in an email today and it is so awesome I just had to share:
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy.
posted by Kimber
at 9:27 AM ::
~#~
Thursday, June 05, 2003
Today, I am going to put in a couple of quotes from a flyer by the Physicians for Social Responsibility.
"This administration was blurring the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons so the latter could be more readily used by U.S. forces before the September 11th terrorist attacks on our nation. President Bush had already broken America's promise to abide by the Anit-Ballistic Missle Treaty and ordered the development of new tactical nuclear weapons before most Americans had heard of al Qaeda or contemplated the prospect of all-out war against a newly declared "axis of evil."
The tragic events of September 11th accelerated the process significantly and emboldened defence industry lobbyists who quickly began encouraging politicians to "go nuclear" in the gloal war against terrorism."
I am firmly convinced that GW has a shrine up in his office to 9/11. It was the best day of his life. It made his presidency and gave him every justification he needed to get away with murder. Literally.
"President Bush and his Defence Department have defined three scenarios that would allegedly justify U.S. use of nuclear weapons:
- Destroying deeply buried targets capable of withstanding an attack with non-nuclear weapons;
- In retaliation for an attack on America with weapons of mass destruction; and most troubling of all...
- In the event of "surprising military developments."
Taken together, these scenarios give the Bush Administration carte blanche to launch preemptive nuclear strikes anywhere in the world at any time.
This alarmingly aggressive nuclear policy brings nuclear war out of the theoretical realm into reality. And if it is executed, there is no doubt that other nations or terrorist groups with access to nuclear weapons would follow our country's terrible precedent."
For some reason GW seems to think that he can bully the rest of the world into being a WASP paradise with him as the Grand Dragon and no one is going to give back as good as they get. He and Condolezza Rice are two of the most clueless individuals I have ever seen in that level of political office. Obviously someone needs to drag the Carl Sagan Match in a Room Full of Gasoline metaphor out of mothballs again. I THOUGHT we had all learned this lesson already. It feels like we have taken a step back in our intellectual develpment as a country.
"The military industrial complex stands to make billions more dollars as Congress rubber-stamps Bush Administration requests to build an unworkable "Star Wars" missle defence system, new bunker-busting "mini-nukes," land-based intercontinental ballistic missles, and more nuclear warheads for U.S. submarines and bomber forces.
Apparently having more than 5,900 nuclear warheadds in the U.S. arsenal - more than enough to destroy the world hundreds of times over - isn't enough for President Bush. And his trigger finger is getting itchier with each passing day."
Think about this from his point of view. He must be completely sociopathic. Before he was elected I said he was a high functioning moron and I think I gave him too much credit. This is the only way that what he is proposing makes sense. There is no other result of his current program than a dead world. Why are we being forced to make these arguments again? It has been common sense for 20 years now.
"As the drums of war beat ever louder, reckless advocates of U.S. nuclear first strikes are claiming it is somehow "unpatriotic" to question our country's aggressive nuclear posture."
"If a nuclear weapon is detonated anywhere in the world,
we will all be downwind -- if not from the immediate radioactive fallout, then from the poisonous political fallout created by our country taking this final, fatal step toward oblivion."
It's deja vu all over again. How large a sledgehammer do we need to use to pound this information through the thick skulls of the conservatives?!?!?!?!?!?
posted by Kimber
at 11:33 AM ::
~#~
Wednesday, June 04, 2003
Can someone--anyone--explain to me why it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals? And please, if you're going to give me that whole "Because god said so" crap, save it. I don't know about your god but my gods don't think it's ok to discriminate against anyone or anything so just keep that to yourself.
I just read a posting by a self professed "Libertarian" explaining why the only way a person can be homosexual is by choice. He completely dismissed the genetic theory out of hand, even though there has been mounds of research proving the physiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals of the same gender.
BUT, let's give that guy the benefit of the doubt. Let's say that for some bizarre, otherworldly reason, someone would choose to be homosexual even though it is, in fact, perfectly acceptable and in most cases legal to deny them housing, employment, marriage, children, survivor's benefits, co-insurance benefits, membership in churches and gods know what else.
I repeat my question.
WhyTwo concenting adults in Texas were arrested for having sex indoors in one of their houses (I don't know the details). This was called in based on a tip from a neighbor. Why wasn't the neighbor arrested for being a Peeping Tom or sued for Invasion of Privacy? How did the fact that those two adults were having sex affect anyone's lives but theirs and their circle of friends and family (and the latter two only as far as the couple allow it to). If this neighbor would have just minded his own damn business everyone would have gone on with life and the world would have been a much happier place. Now if they had been having sex in his living room, I could understand him calling the police.
But my point is that how people live their lives, unless they are doing it in your living room, doesn't have anything to do with you. So why do people think they have the right to not only judge this behavior but persecute people based on it? If two gay men went out tomorrow, got married, adopted 5 kids and set up house next door to me, the only way I could see this impacting my life in the least is if their kids broke my window or if they had a Chevy up on blocks in the front yard or if they had the police over every day for loud parties. Other than that, it's none of my business and as long as they are good neighbors, more power to them. In fact, it would be great cause I could hire one of the kids to mow my lawn for me or baby sit my kids. :oD
There are people who are absolutely fanatical that the entire fabric of reality will be rended assunder if homosexuals were given the same rights as the rest of the world. And again, I ask
Why? There is a woman up here named Carolyn Crosby who will mobilize the entire fanatical anti-gay coalition whenever an equal rights referendum comes up. Tens of thousands and probably more dollars will be spent, hours and hours of campaigning will be done in order to make sure their fellow citizens are kept unequal and repressed.
WHY?!?!?! How does the allowance of these rights adversely affect her life? Is her god not going to let her into heaven if she doesn't do everything in her power to persecute these people? That is the only thing I can think of because two people she has never met and will never know getting married and having the right not to get fired based on their sexual orientation wouldn't even come to her attention unless she went looking for the information. And then shame on her. She should mind her own damn business.
My parents were heterosexuals. My brother and I would have been better off raised by wolves. But yet a couple in Florida who have been raising a terminally ill girl for most of her young life, loved her and supported her through all of her treatments and illnesses, providing the only home and family this child ever knew are now being asked to give her up because it turns out she is going to get better and they are gay.
WHY?!?!?The idiot congressman from Pennsylvania who compared homosexual relations to incest?!?!?!?!?!?!? Is this the kind of rationele going around these days?
Teachers being denied jobs because they might give kids the idea that a homosexual lifestyle is ok?!?!?!?!?!?!?! I don't know about the rest of y'all but in that case I don't want any christian teachers working at my kids school because they may give my kids the idea that a christian lifestyle is ok!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't want my children taught to discriminate and hate people. And I don't want any KKK members teaching at the school either. Or NRA members. Those are two lifestyles that are definitely
NOT OK in our household. Or conservatives. or...
Well you get the idea. So any
NON RELIGIOUS input would be greatly appreciated.
posted by Kimber
at 11:34 AM ::
~#~
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
By the Brightest Blessings of the Goddess!!!!! May the offices of the OpEd department of the New York Times be flowing with milk and honey and 100 naked dancing girls!!!!! Read this quick, before the FCC regs kick in and someone squashes it!!!!!!!
Standard Operating Procedures"The mystery of Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction has become a lot less mysterious. Recent reports in major British newspapers and three major American news magazines, based on leaks from angry intelligence officials, back up the sources who told my colleague Nicholas Kristof that the Bush administration "grossly manipulated intelligence" about W.M.D.'s. "
Click the link to read more. This is a great day. I will even admit to being amazed!! Someone has finally noticed the elephant in the living room!!! Someone is finally saying out loud that the Emperor is NAKED!!!!!!
I walk off, vindicated and self satisfied, to wait for the next atrocity.
posted by Kimber
at 9:57 AM ::
~#~
